The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete

A >> Abraham Lincoln >> The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete


Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would as
willingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that
opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way of
building up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down.

Here then is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such an one as could
not have well existed heretofore.

Another reason which once was, but which, to the same extent, is now no
more, has done much in maintaining our institutions thus far. I mean the
powerful influence which the interesting scenes of the Revolution had
upon the passions of the people as distinguished from their judgment. By
this influence, the jealousy, envy, and avarice incident to our nature,
and so common to a state of peace, prosperity, and conscious strength,
were for the time in a great measure smothered and rendered inactive,
while the deep-rooted principles of hate, and the powerful motive of
revenge, instead of being turned against each other, were directed
exclusively against the British nation. And thus, from the force of
circumstances, the basest principles of our nature were either made to
lie dormant, or to become the active agents in the advancement of the
noblest of causes--that of establishing and maintaining civil and
religious liberty.

But this state of feeling must fade, is fading, has faded, with the
circumstances that produced it.

I do not mean to say that the scenes of the Revolution are now or ever
will be entirely forgotten, but that, like everything else, they must
fade upon the memory of the world, and grow more and more dim by the
lapse of time. In history, we hope, they will be read of, and recounted,
so long as the Bible shall be read; but even granting that they will,
their influence cannot be what it heretofore has been. Even then they
cannot be so universally known nor so vividly felt as they were by the
generation just gone to rest. At the close of that struggle, nearly
every adult male had been a participator in some of its scenes. The
consequence was that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father,
a son, or a brother, a living history was to be found in every family--a
history bearing the indubitable testimonies of its own authenticity, in
the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received, in the midst of the
very scenes related--a history, too, that could be read and understood
alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned.
But those histories are gone. They can be read no more forever. They
were a fortress of strength; but what invading foeman could never do the
silent artillery of time has done--the leveling of its walls. They are
gone. They were a forest of giant oaks; but the all-restless hurricane
has swept over them, and left only here and there a lonely trunk,
despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage, unshading and unshaded,
to murmur in a few more gentle breezes, and to combat with its mutilated
limbs a few more ruder storms, then to sink and be no more.

They were pillars of the temple of liberty; and now that they have
crumbled away that temple must fall unless we, their descendants, supply
their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober
reason. Passion has helped us, but can do so no more. It will in future
be our enemy. Reason cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason--must
furnish all the materials for our future support and defense. Let those
materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in
particular, a reverence for the Constitution and laws; and that we
improved to the last, that we remained free to the last, that we revered
his name to the last, that during his long sleep we permitted no hostile
foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place, shall be that which to
learn the last trump shall awaken our Washington.

Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its
basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution,
"the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."




PROTEST IN THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE ON THE
SUBJECT OF SLAVERY.

March 3, 1837.

The following protest was presented to the House, which was read and
ordered to be spread in the journals, to wit:

"Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed both
branches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersigned
hereby protest against the passage of the same.

"They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on both
injustice and bad policy, but that the promulgation of abolition
doctrines tends rather to increase than abate its evils.

"They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power under
the Constitution to interfere with the institution of slavery in the
different States.

"They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under
the Constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, but
that the power ought not to be exercised, unless at the request of the
people of the District.

"The difference between these opinions and those contained in the said
resolutions is their reason for entering this protest.

"DAN STONE,

"A. LINCOLN,

"Representatives from the County of Sangamon."




TO MISS MARY OWENS.

SPRINGFIELD, May 7, 1837.
MISS MARY S. OWENS.

FRIEND MARY:--I have commenced two letters to send you before this, both
of which displeased me before I got half done, and so I tore them up.
The first I thought was not serious enough, and the second was on the
other extreme. I shall send this, turn out as it may.

This thing of living in Springfield is rather a dull business, after all;
at least it is so to me. I am quite as lonesome here as I ever was
anywhere in my life. I have been spoken to by but one woman since I have
been here, and should not have been by her if she could have avoided it.
I 've never been to church yet, and probably shall not be soon. I stay
away because I am conscious I should not know how to behave myself.

I am often thinking of what we said about your coming to live at
Springfield. I am afraid you would not be satisfied. There is a great
deal of flourishing about in carriages here, which it would be your doom
to see without sharing it. You would have to be poor, without the means
of hiding your poverty. Do you believe you could bear that patiently?
Whatever woman may cast her lot with mine, should any ever do so, it is
my intention to do all in my power to make her happy and contented; and
there is nothing I can imagine that would make me more unhappy than to
fail in the effort. I know I should be much happier with you than the
way I am, provided I saw no signs of discontent in you. What you have
said to me may have been in the way of jest, or I may have misunderstood
you. If so, then let it be forgotten; if otherwise, I much wish you
would think seriously before you decide. What I have said I will most
positively abide by, provided you wish it. My opinion is that you had
better not do it. You have not been accustomed to hardship, and it may
be more severe than you now imagine. I know you are capable of thinking
correctly on any subject, and if you deliberate maturely upon this
subject before you decide, then I am willing to abide your decision.

You must write me a good long letter after you get this. You have
nothing else to do, and though it might not seem interesting to you after
you had written it, it would be a good deal of company to me in this
"busy wilderness." Tell your sister I don't want to hear any more about
selling out and moving. That gives me the "hypo" whenever I think of it.

Yours, etc.,
LINCOLN.




TO JOHN BENNETT.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Aug. 5, 1837.
JOHN BENNETT, ESQ.

DEAR SIR:-Mr. Edwards tells me you wish to know whether the act to which
your own incorporation provision was attached passed into a law. It did.
You can organize under the general incorporation law as soon as you
choose.

I also tacked a provision onto a fellow's bill to authorize the
relocation of the road from Salem down to your town, but I am not certain
whether or not the bill passed, neither do I suppose I can ascertain
before the law will be published, if it is a law. Bowling Greene,
Bennette Abe? and yourself are appointed to make the change. No news. No
excitement except a little about the election of Monday next.

I suppose, of course, our friend Dr. Heney stands no chance in your
diggings.

Your friend and humble servant,
A. LINCOLN.




TO MARY OWENS.

SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 16, 1837

FRIEND MARY: You will no doubt think it rather strange that I should
write you a letter on the same day on which we parted, and I can only
account for it by supposing that seeing you lately makes me think of you
more than usual; while at our late meeting we had but few expressions of
thoughts. You must know that I cannot see you, or think of you, with
entire indifference; and yet it may be that you are mistaken in regard to
what my real feelings toward you are.

If I knew you were not, I should not have troubled you with this letter.
Perhaps any other man would know enough without information; but I
consider it my peculiar right to plead ignorance, and your bounden duty
to allow the plea.

I want in all cases to do right; and most particularly so in all cases
with women.

I want, at this particular time, more than any thing else to do right
with you; and if I knew it would be doing right, as I rather suspect it
would, to let you alone I would do it. And, for the purpose of making
the matter as plain as possible, I now say that you can drop the subject,
dismiss your thoughts (if you ever had any) from me for ever and leave
this letter unanswered without calling forth one accusing murmur from me.
And I will even go further and say that, if it will add anything to your
comfort or peace of mind to do so, it is my sincere wish that you should.
Do not understand by this that I wish to cut your acquaintance. I mean
no such thing. What I do wish is that our further acquaintance shall
depend upon yourself. If such further acquaintance would contribute
nothing to your happiness, I am sure it would not to mine. If you feel
yourself in any degree bound to me, I am now willing to release you,
provided you wish it; while on the other hand I am willing and even
anxious to bind you faster if I can be convinced that it will, in any
considerable degree, add to your happiness. This, indeed, is the whole
question with me. Nothing would make me more miserable than to believe
you miserable, nothing more happy than to know you were so.

In what I have now said, I think I cannot be misunderstood; and to make
myself understood is the only object of this letter.

If it suits you best not to answer this, farewell. A long life and a
merry one attend you. But, if you conclude to write back, speak as
plainly as I do. There can neither be harm nor danger in saying to me
anything you think, just in the manner you think it. My respects to your
sister.

Your friend,
LINCOLN.




LEGAL SUIT OF WIDOW v.s. Gen. ADAMS

TO THE PEOPLE.

"SANGAMON JOURNAL," SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Aug. 19, 1837.

In accordance with our determination, as expressed last week, we present
to the reader the articles which were published in hand-bill form, in
reference to the case of the heirs of Joseph Anderson vs. James Adams.
These articles can now be read uninfluenced by personal or party feeling,
and with the sole motive of learning the truth. When that is done, the
reader can pass his own judgment on the matters at issue.

We only regret in this case, that the publications were not made some
weeks before the election. Such a course might have prevented the
expressions of regret, which have often been heard since, from different
individuals, on account of the disposition they made of their votes.

To the Public:

It is well known to most of you, that there is existing at this time
considerable excitement in regard to Gen. Adams's titles to certain
tracts of land, and the manner in which he acquired them. As I
understand, the Gen. charges that the whole has been gotten up by a knot
of lawyers to injure his election; and as I am one of the knot to which
he refers, and as I happen to be in possession of facts connected with
the matter, I will, in as brief a manner as possible, make a statement of
them, together with the means by which I arrived at the knowledge of
them.

Sometime in May or June last, a widow woman, by the name of Anderson, and
her son, who resides in Fulton county, came to Springfield, for the
purpose as they said of selling a ten acre lot of ground lying near town,
which they claimed as the property of the deceased husband and father.

When they reached town they found the land was claimed by Gen. Adams.
John T. Stuart and myself were employed to look into the matter, and if
it was thought we could do so with any prospect of success, to commence a
suit for the land. I went immediately to the recorder's office to
examine Adams's title, and found that the land had been entered by one
Dixon, deeded by Dixon to Thomas, by Thomas to one Miller, and by Miller
to Gen. Adams. The oldest of these three deeds was about ten or eleven
years old, and the latest more than five, all recorded at the same time,
and that within less than one year. This I thought a suspicious
circumstance, and I was thereby induced to examine the deeds very
closely, with a view to the discovery of some defect by which to overturn
the title, being almost convinced then it was founded in fraud. I
discovered that in the deed from Thomas to Miller, although Miller's name
stood in a sort of marginal note on the record book, it was nowhere in
the deed itself. I told the fact to Talbott, the recorder, and proposed
to him that he should go to Gen. Adams's and get the original deed, and
compare it with the record, and thereby ascertain whether the defect was
in the original or there was merely an error in the recording. As
Talbott afterwards told me, he went to the General's, but not finding him
at home, got the deed from his son, which, when compared with the record,
proved what we had discovered was merely an error of the recorder. After
Mr. Talbott corrected the record, be brought the original to our office,
as I then thought and think yet, to show us that it was right. When he
came into the room he handed the deed to me, remarking that the fault was
all his own. On opening it, another paper fell out of it, which on
examination proved to be an assignment of a judgment in the Circuit Court
of Sangamon County from Joseph Anderson, the late husband of the widow
above named, to James Adams, the judgment being in favor of said Anderson
against one Joseph Miller. Knowing that this judgment had some
connection with the land affair, I immediately took a copy of it, which
is word for word, letter for letter and cross for cross as follows:

Joseph Anderson, vs. Joseph Miller.

Judgment in Sangamon Circuit Court against Joseph Miller obtained on a
note originally 25 dolls and interest thereon accrued. I assign all my
right, title and interest to James Adams which is in consideration of a
debt I owe said Adams.

his JOSEPH x ANDERSON. mark.

As the copy shows, it bore date May 10, 1827; although the judgment
assigned by it was not obtained until the October afterwards, as may be
seen by any one on the records of the Circuit Court. Two other strange
circumstances attended it which cannot be represented by a copy. One of
them was, that the date "1827" had first been made "1837" and, without
the figure "3," being fully obliterated, the figure "2" had afterwards
been made on top of it; the other was that, although the date was ten
years old, the writing on it, from the freshness of its appearance, was
thought by many, and I believe by all who saw it, not to be more than a
week old. The paper on which it was written had a very old appearance;
and there were some old figures on the back of it which made the
freshness of the writing on the face of it much more striking than I
suppose it otherwise might have been. The reader's curiosity is no doubt
excited to know what connection this assignment had with the land in
question. The story is this: Dixon sold and deeded the land to Thomas;
Thomas sold it to Anderson; but before he gave a deed, Anderson sold it
to Miller, and took Miller's note for the purchase money. When this note
became due, Anderson sued Miller on it, and Miller procured an injunction
from the Court of Chancery to stay the collection of the money until he
should get a deed for the land. Gen. Adams was employed as an attorney
by Anderson in this chancery suit, and at the October term, 1827, the
injunction was dissolved, and a judgment given in favor of Anderson
against Miller; and it was provided that Thomas was to execute a deed for
the land in favor of Miller and deliver it to Gen. Adams, to be held up
by him till Miller paid the judgment, and then to deliver it to him.
Miller left the county without paying the judgment. Anderson moved to
Fulton county, where he has since died When the widow came to
Springfield last May or June, as before mentioned, and found the land
deeded to Gen. Adams by Miller, she was naturally led to inquire why the
money due upon the judgment had not been sent to them, inasmuch as he,
Gen. Adams, had no authority to deliver Thomas's deed to Miller until the
money was paid. Then it was the General told her, or perhaps her son,
who came with her, that Anderson, in his lifetime, had assigned the
judgment to him, Gen. Adams. I am now told that the General is
exhibiting an assignment of the same judgment bearing date "1828" and in
other respects differing from the one described; and that he is asserting
that no such assignment as the one copied by me ever existed; or if there
did, it was forged between Talbott and the lawyers, and slipped into his
papers for the purpose of injuring him. Now, I can only say that I know
precisely such a one did exist, and that Ben. Talbott, Wm. Butler, C.R.
Matheny, John T. Stuart, Judge Logan, Robert Irwin, P. C. Canedy and
S. M. Tinsley, all saw and examined it, and that at least one half of
them will swear that IT WAS IN GENERAL ADAMS'S HANDWRITING!! And
further, I know that Talbott will swear that he got it out of the
General's possession, and returned it into his possession again. The
assignment which the General is now exhibiting purports to have been by
Anderson in writing. The one I copied was signed with a cross.

I am told that Gen. Neale says that he will swear that he heard Gen.
Adams tell young Anderson that the assignment made by his father was
signed with a cross.

The above are 'facts,' as stated. I leave them without comment. I have
given the names of persons who have knowledge of these facts, in order
that any one who chooses may call on them and ascertain how far they will
corroborate my statements. I have only made these statements because I
am known by many to be one of the individuals against whom the charge of
forging the assignment and slipping it into the General's papers has been
made, and because our silence might be construed into a confession of its
truth. I shall not subscribe my name; but I hereby authorize the editor
of the Journal to give it up to any one that may call for it.




LINCOLN AND TALBOTT IN REPLY TO GEN. ADAMS.

"SANGAMON JOURNAL," SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Oct. 28, 1837.

In the Republican of this morning a publication of Gen. Adams's appears,
in which my name is used quite unreservedly. For this I thank the
General. I thank him because it gives me an opportunity, without
appearing obtrusive, of explaining a part of a former publication of
mine, which appears to me to have been misunderstood by many.

In the former publication alluded to, I stated, in substance, that Mr.
Talbott got a deed from a son of Gen. Adams's for the purpose of
correcting a mistake that had occurred on the record of the said deed in
the recorder's office; that he corrected the record, and brought the deed
and handed it to me, and that on opening the deed, another paper, being
the assignment of a judgment, fell out of it. This statement Gen. Adams
and the editor of the Republican have seized upon as a most palpable
evidence of fabrication and falsehood. They set themselves gravely about
proving that the assignment could not have been in the deed when Talbott
got it from young Adams, as he, Talbott, would have seen it when he
opened the deed to correct the record. Now, the truth is, Talbott did see
the assignment when he opened the deed, or at least he told me he did on
the same day; and I only omitted to say so, in my former publication,
because it was a matter of such palpable and necessary inference. I had
stated that Talbott had corrected the record by the deed; and of course
he must have opened it; and, just as the General and his friends argue,
must have seen the assignment. I omitted to state the fact of Talbott's
seeing the assignment, because its existence was so necessarily connected
with other facts which I did state, that I thought the greatest dunce
could not but understand it. Did I say Talbott had not seen it? Did I
say anything that was inconsistent with his having seen it before? Most
certainly I did neither; and if I did not, what becomes of the argument?
These logical gentlemen can sustain their argument only by assuming that
I did say negatively everything that I did not say affirmatively; and
upon the same assumption, we may expect to find the General, if a little
harder pressed for argument, saying that I said Talbott came to our
office with his head downward, not that I actually said so, but because I
omitted to say he came feet downward.

In his publication to-day, the General produces the affidavit of Reuben
Radford, in which it is said that Talbott told Radford that he did not
find the assignment in the deed, in the recording of which the error was
committed, but that he found it wrapped in another paper in the
recorder's office, upon which statement the Genl. comments as follows,
to wit: "If it be true as stated by Talbott to Radford, that he found the
assignment wrapped up in another paper at his office, that contradicts
the statement of Lincoln that it fell out of the deed."

Is common sense to be abused with such sophistry? Did I say what Talbott
found it in? If Talbott did find it in another paper at his office, is
that any reason why he could not have folded it in a deed and brought it
to my office? Can any one be so far duped as to be made believe that
what may have happened at Talbot's office at one time is inconsistent
with what happened at my office at another time?

Now Talbott's statement of the case as he makes it to me is this, that he
got a bunch of deeds from young Adams, and that he knows he found the
assignment in the bunch, but he is not certain which particular deed it
was in, nor is he certain whether it was folded in the same deed out of
which it was taken, or another one, when it was brought to my office. Is
this a mysterious story? Is there anything suspicious about it?

"But it is useless to dwell longer on this point. Any man who is not
wilfully blind can see at a flash, that there is no discrepancy, and
Lincoln has shown that they are not only inconsistent with truth, but
each other"--I can only say, that I have shown that he has done no such
thing; and if the reader is disposed to require any other evidence than
the General's assertion, he will be of my opinion.

Excepting the General's most flimsy attempt at mystification, in regard
to a discrepance between Talbott and myself, he has not denied a single
statement that I made in my hand-bill. Every material statement that I
made has been sworn to by men who, in former times, were thought as
respectable as General Adams. I stated that an assignment of a judgment,
a copy of which I gave, had existed--Benj. Talbott, C. R. Matheny, Wm.
Butler, and Judge Logan swore to its existence. I stated that it was
said to be in Gen. Adams's handwriting--the same men swore it was in his
handwriting. I stated that Talbott would swear that he got it out of
Gen. Adams's possession--Talbott came forward and did swear it.

Bidding adieu to the former publication, I now propose to examine the
General's last gigantic production. I now propose to point out some
discrepancies in the General's address; and such, too, as he shall not be
able to escape from. Speaking of the famous assignment, the General
says: "This last charge, which was their last resort, their dying effort
to render my character infamous among my fellow citizens, was
manufactured at a certain lawyer's office in the town, printed at the
office of the Sangamon Journal, and found its way into the world some
time between two days just before the last election." Now turn to Mr.
Keys' affidavit, in which you will find the following, viz.: "I certify
that some time in May or the early part of June, 1837, I saw at
Williams's corner a paper purporting to be an assignment from Joseph
Anderson to James Adams, which assignment was signed by a mark to
Anderson's name," etc. Now mark, if Keys saw the assignment on the last
of May or first of June, Gen. Adams tells a falsehood when he says it was
manufactured just before the election, which was on the 7th of August;
and if it was manufactured just before the election, Keys tells a
falsehood when he says he saw it on the last of May or first of June.
Either Keys or the General is irretrievably in for it; and in the
General's very condescending language, I say "Let them settle it between
them."