The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete

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





ON TAYLOR'S NOMINATION

TO E. B. WASHBURNE.

WASHINGTON, April 30,1848.
DEAR WASHBURNE:

I have this moment received your very short note asking me if old Taylor
is to be used up, and who will be the nominee. My hope of Taylor's
nomination is as high--a little higher than it was when you left. Still,
the case is by no means out of doubt. Mr. Clay's letter has not advanced
his interests any here. Several who were against Taylor, but not for
anybody particularly, before, are since taking ground, some for Scott and
some for McLean. Who will be nominated neither I nor any one else can
tell. Now, let me pray to you in turn. My prayer is that you let nothing
discourage or baffle you, but that, in spite of every difficulty, you
send us a good Taylor delegate from your circuit. Make Baker, who is now
with you, I suppose, help about it. He is a good hand to raise a breeze.

General Ashley, in the Senate from Arkansas, died yesterday. Nothing else
new beyond what you see in the papers.

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN




DEFENSE OF MEXICAN WAR POSITION

TO REV. J. M. PECK

WASHINGTON, May 21, 1848.
DEAR SIR:

....Not in view of all the facts. There are facts which you have kept out
of view. It is a fact that the United States army in marching to the Rio
Grande marched into a peaceful Mexican settlement, and frightened the
inhabitants away from their homes and their growing crops. It is a fact
that Fort Brown, opposite Matamoras, was built by that army within a
Mexican cotton-field, on which at the time the army reached it a young
cotton crop was growing, and which crop was wholly destroyed and the
field itself greatly and permanently injured by ditches, embankments, and
the like. It is a fact that when the Mexicans captured Captain Thornton
and his command, they found and captured them within another Mexican
field.

Now I wish to bring these facts to your notice, and to ascertain what is
the result of your reflections upon them. If you deny that they are
facts, I think I can furnish proofs which shall convince you that you are
mistaken. If you admit that they are facts, then I shall be obliged for a
reference to any law of language, law of States, law of nations, law of
morals, law of religions, any law, human or divine, in which an authority
can be found for saying those facts constitute "no aggression."

Possibly you consider those acts too small for notice. Would you venture
to so consider them had they been committed by any nation on earth
against the humblest of our people? I know you would not. Then I ask, is
the precept "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so
to them" obsolete? of no force? of no application?

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.




ON ZACHARY TAYLOR NOMINATION

TO ARCHIBALD WILLIAMS.

WASHINGTON, June 12, 1848.

DEAR WILLIAMS:--On my return from Philadelphia, where I had been
attending the nomination of "Old Rough," (Zachary Taylor) I found your
letter in a mass of others which had accumulated in my absence. By many,
and often, it had been said they would not abide the nomination of
Taylor; but since the deed has been done, they are fast falling in, and
in my opinion we shall have a most overwhelming, glorious triumph. One
unmistakable sign is that all the odds and ends are with us--Barnburners,
Native Americans, Tyler men, disappointed office-seeking Locofocos, and
the Lord knows what. This is important, if in nothing else, in showing
which way the wind blows. Some of the sanguine men have set down all the
States as certain for Taylor but Illinois, and it as doubtful. Cannot
something be done even in Illinois? Taylor's nomination takes the Locos
on the blind side. It turns the war thunder against them. The war is now
to them the gallows of Haman, which they built for us, and on which they
are doomed to be hanged themselves.

Excuse this short letter. I have so many to write that I cannot devote
much time to any one.

Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.




SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

JUNE 20, 1848.

In Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, on the Civil and
Diplomatic Appropriation Bill:

Mr. CHAIRMAN:--I wish at all times in no way to practise any fraud upon
the House or the committee, and I also desire to do nothing which may be
very disagreeable to any of the members. I therefore state in advance
that my object in taking the floor is to make a speech on the general
subject of internal improvements; and if I am out of order in doing so, I
give the chair an opportunity of so deciding, and I will take my seat.

The Chair: I will not undertake to anticipate what the gentleman may say
on the subject of internal improvements. He will, therefore, proceed in
his remarks, and if any question of order shall be made, the chair will
then decide it.

Mr. Lincoln: At an early day of this session the President sent us what
may properly be called an internal improvement veto message. The late
Democratic convention, which sat at Baltimore, and which nominated
General Cass for the Presidency, adopted a set of resolutions, now called
the Democratic platform, among which is one in these words:

"That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government the
power to commence and carry on a general system of internal
improvements."

General Cass, in his letter accepting the nomination, holds this
language:

"I have carefully read the resolutions of the Democratic national
convention, laying down the platform of our political faith, and I adhere
to them as firmly as I approve them cordially."

These things, taken together, show that the question of internal
improvements is now more distinctly made--has become more intense--than
at any former period. The veto message and the Baltimore resolution I
understand to be, in substance, the same thing; the latter being the more
general statement, of which the former is the amplification the bill of
particulars. While I know there are many Democrats, on this floor and
elsewhere, who disapprove that message, I understand that all who voted
for General Cass will thereafter be counted as having approved it, as
having indorsed all its doctrines.

I suppose all, or nearly all, the Democrats will vote for him. Many of
them will do so not because they like his position on this question, but
because they prefer him, being wrong on this, to another whom they
consider farther wrong on other questions. In this way the internal
improvement Democrats are to be, by a sort of forced consent, carried
over and arrayed against themselves on this measure of policy. General
Cass, once elected, will not trouble himself to make a constitutional
argument, or perhaps any argument at all, when he shall veto a river or
harbor bill; he will consider it a sufficient answer to all Democratic
murmurs to point to Mr. Polk's message, and to the Democratic platform.
This being the case, the question of improvements is verging to a final
crisis; and the friends of this policy must now battle, and battle
manfully, or surrender all. In this view, humble as I am, I wish to
review, and contest as well as I may, the general positions of this veto
message. When I say general positions, I mean to exclude from
consideration so much as relates to the present embarrassed state of the
treasury in consequence of the Mexican War.

Those general positions are: that internal improvements ought not to be
made by the General Government--First. Because they would overwhelm the
treasury Second. Because, while their burdens would be general, their
benefits would be local and partial, involving an obnoxious inequality;
and Third. Because they would be unconstitutional. Fourth. Because the
States may do enough by the levy and collection of tonnage duties; or if
not--Fifth. That the Constitution may be amended. "Do nothing at all,
lest you do something wrong," is the sum of these positions is the sum of
this message. And this, with the exception of what is said about
constitutionality, applying as forcibly to what is said about making
improvements by State authority as by the national authority; so that we
must abandon the improvements of the country altogether, by any and every
authority, or we must resist and repudiate the doctrines of this message.
Let us attempt the latter.

The first position is, that a system of internal improvements would
overwhelm the treasury. That in such a system there is a tendency to
undue expansion, is not to be denied. Such tendency is founded in the
nature of the subject. A member of Congress will prefer voting for a bill
which contains an appropriation for his district, to voting for one which
does not; and when a bill shall be expanded till every district shall be
provided for, that it will be too greatly expanded is obvious. But is
this any more true in Congress than in a State Legislature? If a member
of Congress must have an appropriation for his district, so a member of a
Legislature must have one for his county. And if one will overwhelm the
national treasury, so the other will overwhelm the State treasury. Go
where we will, the difficulty is the same. Allow it to drive us from the
halls of Congress, and it will, just as easily, drive us from the State
Legislatures. Let us, then, grapple with it, and test its strength. Let
us, judging of the future by the past, ascertain whether there may not
be, in the discretion of Congress, a sufficient power to limit and
restrain this expansive tendency within reasonable and proper bounds. The
President himself values the evidence of the past. He tells us that at a
certain point of our history more than two hundred millions of dollars
had been applied for to make improvements; and this he does to prove that
the treasury would be overwhelmed by such a system. Why did he not tell
us how much was granted? Would not that have been better evidence? Let us
turn to it, and see what it proves. In the message the President tells us
that "during the four succeeding years embraced by the administration of
President Adams, the power not only to appropriate money, but to apply
it, under the direction and authority of the General Government, as well
to the construction of roads as to the improvement of harbors and rivers,
was fully asserted and exercised." This, then, was the period of greatest
enormity. These, if any, must have been the days of the two hundred
millions. And how much do you suppose was really expended for
improvements during that four years? Two hundred millions? One hundred?
Fifty? Ten? Five? No, sir; less than two millions. As shown by authentic
documents, the expenditures on improvements during 1825, 1826, 1827, and
1828 amounted to one million eight hundred and seventy-nine thousand six
hundred and twenty-seven dollars and one cent. These four years were the
period of Mr. Adams's administration, nearly and substantially. This fact
shows that when the power to make improvements "was fully asserted and
exercised," the Congress did keep within reasonable limits; and what has
been done, it seems to me, can be done again.

Now for the second portion of the message--namely, that the burdens of
improvements would be general, while their benefits would be local and
partial, involving an obnoxious inequality. That there is some degree of
truth in this position, I shall not deny. No commercial object of
government patronage can be so exclusively general as to not be of some
peculiar local advantage. The navy, as I understand it, was established,
and is maintained at a great annual expense, partly to be ready for war
when war shall come, and partly also, and perhaps chiefly, for the
protection of our commerce on the high seas. This latter object is, for
all I can see, in principle the same as internal improvements. The
driving a pirate from the track of commerce on the broad ocean, and the
removing of a snag from its more narrow path in the Mississippi River,
cannot, I think, be distinguished in principle. Each is done to save life
and property, and for nothing else.

The navy, then, is the most general in its benefits of all this class of
objects; and yet even the navy is of some peculiar advantage to
Charleston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, beyond what it
is to the interior towns of Illinois. The next most general object I can
think of would be improvements on the Mississippi River and its
tributaries. They touch thirteen of our States-Pennsylvania, Virginia,
Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri,
Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Now I suppose it will not
be denied that these thirteen States are a little more interested in
improvements on that great river than are the remaining seventeen. These
instances of the navy and the Mississippi River show clearly that there
is something of local advantage in the most general objects. But the
converse is also true. Nothing is so local as to not be of some general
benefit. Take, for instance, the Illinois and Michigan Canal. Considered
apart from its effects, it is perfectly local. Every inch of it is within
the State of Illinois. That canal was first opened for business last
April. In a very few days we were all gratified to learn, among other
things, that sugar had been carried from New Orleans through this canal
to Buffalo in New York. This sugar took this route, doubtless, because it
was cheaper than the old route. Supposing benefit of the reduction in the
cost of carriage to be shared between seller and the buyer, result is
that the New Orleans merchant sold his sugar a little dearer, and the
people of Buffalo sweetened their coffee a little cheaper, than
before,--a benefit resulting from the canal, not to Illinois, where the
canal is, but to Louisiana and New York, where it is not. In other
transactions Illinois will, of course, have her share, and perhaps the
larger share too, of the benefits of the canal; but this instance of the
sugar clearly shows that the benefits of an improvement are by no means
confined to the particular locality of the improvement itself. The just
conclusion from all this is that if the nation refuse to make
improvements of the more general kind because their benefits may be
somewhat local, a State may for the same reason refuse to make an
improvement of a local kind because its benefits may be somewhat general.
A State may well say to the nation, "If you will do nothing for me, I
will do nothing for you." Thus it is seen that if this argument of
"inequality" is sufficient anywhere, it is sufficient everywhere, and
puts an end to improvements altogether. I hope and believe that if both
the nation and the States would, in good faith, in their respective
spheres do what they could in the way of improvements, what of inequality
might be produced in one place might be compensated in another, and the
sum of the whole might not be very unequal.

But suppose, after all, there should be some degree of inequality.
Inequality is certainly never to be embraced for its own sake; but is
every good thing to be discarded which may be inseparably connected with
some degree of it? If so, we must discard all government. This Capitol is
built at the public expense, for the public benefit; but does any one
doubt that it is of some peculiar local advantage to the property-holders
and business people of Washington? Shall we remove it for this reason?
And if so, where shall we set it down, and be free from the difficulty?
To make sure of our object, shall we locate it nowhere, and have Congress
hereafter to hold its sessions, as the loafer lodged, "in spots about"? I
make no allusion to the present President when I say there are few
stronger cases in this world of "burden to the many and benefit to the
few," of "inequality," than the Presidency itself is by some thought to
be. An honest laborer digs coal at about seventy cents a day, while the
President digs abstractions at about seventy dollars a day. The coal is
clearly worth more than the abstractions, and yet what a monstrous
inequality in the prices! Does the President, for this reason, propose to
abolish the Presidency? He does not, and he ought not. The true rule, in
determining to embrace or reject anything, is not whether it have any
evil in it, but whether it have more of evil than of good. There are few
things wholly evil or wholly good. Almost everything, especially of
government policy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our
best judgment of the preponderance between them is continually demanded.
On this principle the President, his friends, and the world generally act
on most subjects. Why not apply it, then, upon this question? Why, as to
improvements, magnify the evil, and stoutly refuse to see any good in
them?

Mr. Chairman, on the third position of the message the constitutional
question--I have not much to say. Being the man I am, and speaking, where
I do, I feel that in any attempt at an original constitutional argument I
should not be and ought not to be listened to patiently. The ablest and
the best of men have gone over the whole ground long ago. I shall attempt
but little more than a brief notice of what some of them have said. In
relation to Mr. Jefferson's views, I read from Mr. Polk's veto message:

"President Jefferson, in his message to Congress in 1806, recommended an
amendment of the Constitution, with a view to apply an anticipated
surplus in the treasury 'to the great purposes of the public education,
roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it
may be thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of the
federal powers'; and he adds: 'I suppose an amendment to the
Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary, because the objects
now recommended are not among those enumerated in the Constitution, and
to which it permits the public moneys to be applied.' In 1825, he
repeated in his published letters the opinion that no such power has been
conferred upon Congress."

I introduce this not to controvert just now the constitutional opinion,
but to show that, on the question of expediency, Mr. Jefferson's opinion
was against the present President; that this opinion of Mr. Jefferson, in
one branch at least, is in the hands of Mr. Polk like McFingal's
gun--"bears wide and kicks the owner over."

But to the constitutional question. In 1826 Chancellor Kent first
published his Commentaries on American law. He devoted a portion of one
of the lectures to the question of the authority of Congress to
appropriate public moneys for internal improvements. He mentions that the
subject had never been brought under judicial consideration, and proceeds
to give a brief summary of the discussion it had undergone between the
legislative and executive branches of the government. He shows that the
legislative branch had usually been for, and the executive against, the
power, till the period of Mr. J.Q. Adams's administration, at which point
he considers the executive influence as withdrawn from opposition, and
added to the support of the power. In 1844 the chancellor published a new
edition of his Commentaries, in which he adds some notes of what had
transpired on the question since 1826. I have not time to read the
original text on the notes; but the whole may be found on page 267, and
the two or three following pages, of the first volume of the edition of
1844. As to what Chancellor Kent seems to consider the sum of the whole,
I read from one of the notes:

"Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the United
States, Vol. II., pp. 429-440, and again pp. 519-538, has stated at large
the arguments for and against the proposition that Congress have a
constitutional authority to lay taxes and to apply the power to regulate
commerce as a means directly to encourage and protect domestic
manufactures; and without giving any opinion of his own on the contested
doctrine, he has left the reader to draw his own conclusions. I should
think, however, from the arguments as stated, that every mind which has
taken no part in the discussion, and felt no prejudice or territorial
bias on either side of the question, would deem the arguments in favor of
the Congressional power vastly superior."

It will be seen that in this extract the power to make improvements is
not directly mentioned; but by examining the context, both of Kent and
Story, it will be seen that the power mentioned in the extract and the
power to make improvements are regarded as identical. It is not to be
denied that many great and good men have been against the power; but it
is insisted that quite as many, as great and as good, have been for it;
and it is shown that, on a full survey of the whole, Chancellor Kent was
of opinion that the arguments of the latter were vastly superior. This is
but the opinion of a man; but who was that man? He was one of the ablest
and most learned lawyers of his age, or of any age. It is no
disparagement to Mr. Polk, nor indeed to any one who devotes much time to
politics, to be placed far behind Chancellor Kent as a lawyer. His
attitude was most favorable to correct conclusions. He wrote coolly, and
in retirement. He was struggling to rear a durable monument of fame; and
he well knew that truth and thoroughly sound reasoning were the only sure
foundations. Can the party opinion of a party President on a law
question, as this purely is, be at all compared or set in opposition to
that of such a man, in such an attitude, as Chancellor Kent? This
constitutional question will probably never be better settled than it is,
until it shall pass under judicial consideration; but I do think no man
who is clear on the questions of expediency need feel his conscience much
pricked upon this.

Mr. Chairman, the President seems to think that enough may be done, in
the way of improvements, by means of tonnage duties under State
authority, with the consent of the General Government. Now I suppose this
matter of tonnage duties is well enough in its own sphere. I suppose it
may be efficient, and perhaps sufficient, to make slight improvements and
repairs in harbors already in use and not much out of repair. But if I
have any correct general idea of it, it must be wholly inefficient for
any general beneficent purposes of improvement. I know very little, or
rather nothing at all, of the practical matter of levying and collecting
tonnage duties; but I suppose one of its principles must be to lay a duty
for the improvement of any particular harbor upon the tonnage coming into
that harbor; to do otherwise--to collect money in one harbor, to be
expended on improvements in another--would be an extremely aggravated
form of that inequality which the President so much deprecates. If I be
right in this, how could we make any entirely new improvement by means of
tonnage duties? How make a road, a canal, or clear a greatly obstructed
river? The idea that we could involves the same absurdity as the Irish
bull about the new boots. "I shall niver git 'em on," says Patrick, "till
I wear 'em a day or two, and stretch 'em a little." We shall never make a
canal by tonnage duties until it shall already have been made awhile, so
the tonnage can get into it.

After all, the President concludes that possibly there may be some great
objects of improvement which cannot be effected by tonnage duties, and
which it therefore may be expedient for the General Government to take in
hand. Accordingly he suggests, in case any such be discovered, the
propriety of amending the Constitution. Amend it for what? If, like Mr.
Jefferson, the President thought improvements expedient, but not
constitutional, it would be natural enough for him to recommend such an
amendment. But hear what he says in this very message:

"In view of these portentous consequences, I cannot but think that this
course of legislation should be arrested, even were there nothing to
forbid it in the fundamental laws of our Union."

For what, then, would he have the Constitution amended? With him it is a
proposition to remove one impediment merely to be met by others which, in
his opinion, cannot be removed, to enable Congress to do what, in his
opinion, they ought not to do if they could.

Here Mr. Meade of Virginia inquired if Mr. Lincoln understood the
President to be opposed, on grounds of expediency, to any and every
improvement.

Mr. Lincoln answered: In the very part of his message of which I am
speaking, I understand him as giving some vague expression in favor of
some possible objects of improvement; but in doing so I understand him to
be directly on the teeth of his own arguments in other parts of it.
Neither the President nor any one can possibly specify an improvement
which shall not be clearly liable to one or another of the objections he
has urged on the score of expediency. I have shown, and might show again,
that no work--no object--can be so general as to dispense its benefits
with precise equality; and this inequality is chief among the "portentous
consequences" for which he declares that improvements should be arrested.
No, sir. When the President intimates that something in the way of
improvements may properly be done by the General Government, he is
shrinking from the conclusions to which his own arguments would force
him. He feels that the improvements of this broad and goodly land are a
mighty interest; and he is unwilling to confess to the people, or perhaps
to himself, that he has built an argument which, when pressed to its
conclusions, entirely annihilates this interest.