The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete

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


But there is as much doubt of Cass on improvements as there is of Taylor
on the proviso. I have no doubt myself of General Cass on this question;
but I know the Democrats differ among themselves as to his position. My
internal-improvement colleague [Mr. Wentworth] stated on this floor the
other day that he was satisfied Cass was for improvements, because he had
voted for all the bills that he [Mr. Wentworth] had. So far so good. But
Mr. Polk vetoed some of these very bills. The Baltimore convention passed
a set of resolutions, among other things, approving these vetoes, and
General Cass declares, in his letter accepting the nomination, that he
has carefully read these resolutions, and that he adheres to them as
firmly as he approves them cordially. In other words, General Cass voted
for the bills, and thinks the President did right to veto them; and his
friends here are amiable enough to consider him as being on one side or
the other, just as one or the other may correspond with their own
respective inclinations. My colleague admits that the platform declares
against the constitutionality of a general system of improvements, and
that General Cass indorses the platform; but he still thinks General Cass
is in favor of some sort of improvements. Well, what are they? As he is
against general objects, those he is for must be particular and local.
Now this is taking the subject precisely by the wrong end. Particularity
expending the money of the whole people for an object which will benefit
only a portion of them--is the greatest real objection to improvements,
and has been so held by General Jackson, Mr. Polk, and all others, I
believe, till now. But now, behold, the objects most general--nearest
free from this objection--are to be rejected, while those most liable to
it are to be embraced. To return: I cannot help believing that General
Cass, when he wrote his letter of acceptance, well understood he was to
be claimed by the advocates of both sides of this question, and that he
then closed the door against all further expressions of opinion purposely
to retain the benefits of that double position. His subsequent
equivocation at Cleveland, to my mind, proves such to have been the case.

One word more, and I shall have done with this branch of the subject. You
Democrats, and your candidate, in the main are in favor of laying down in
advance a platform--a set of party positions--as a unit, and then of
forcing the people, by every sort of appliance, to ratify them, however
unpalatable some of them may be. We and our candidate are in favor of
making Presidential elections and the legislation of the country distinct
matters; so that the people can elect whom they please, and afterward
legislate just as they please, without any hindrance, save only so much
as may guard against infractions of the Constitution, undue haste, and
want of consideration. The difference between us is clear as noonday.
That we are right we cannot doubt. We hold the true Republican position.
In leaving the people's business in their hands, we cannot be wrong. We
are willing, and even anxious, to go to the people on this issue.

But I suppose I cannot reasonably hope to convince you that we have any
principles. The most I can expect is to assure you that we think we have
and are quite contented with them. The other day one of the gentlemen
from Georgia [Mr. Iverson], an eloquent man, and a man of learning, so
far as I can judge, not being learned myself, came down upon us
astonishingly. He spoke in what the 'Baltimore American' calls the
"scathing and withering style." At the end of his second severe flash I
was struck blind, and found myself feeling with my fingers for an
assurance of my continued existence. A little of the bone was left, and I
gradually revived. He eulogized Mr. Clay in high and beautiful terms, and
then declared that we had deserted all our principles, and had turned
Henry Clay out, like an old horse, to root. This is terribly severe. It
cannot be answered by argument--at least I cannot so answer it. I merely
wish to ask the gentleman if the Whigs are the only party he can think of
who sometimes turn old horses out to root. Is not a certain Martin Van
Buren an old horse which your own party have turned out to root? and is
he not rooting a little to your discomfort about now? But in not
nominating Mr. Clay we deserted our principles, you say. Ah! In what?
Tell us, ye men of principle, what principle we violated. We say you did
violate principle in discarding Van Buren, and we can tell you how. You
violated the primary, the cardinal, the one great living principle of all
democratic representative government--the principle that the
representative is bound to carry out the known will of his constituents.
A large majority of the Baltimore convention of 1844 were, by their
constituents, instructed to procure Van Buren 's nomination if they
could. In violation--in utter glaring contempt of this, you rejected him;
rejected him, as the gentleman from New York [Mr. Birdsall] the other day
expressly admitted, for availability--that same "general availability"
which you charge upon us, and daily chew over here, as something
exceedingly odious and unprincipled. But the gentleman from Georgia [Mr.
Iverson] gave us a second speech yesterday, all well considered and put
down in writing, in which Van Buren was scathed and withered a "few" for
his present position and movements. I cannot remember the gentleman's
precise language; but I do remember he put Van Buren down, down, till he
got him where he was finally to "stink" and "rot."

Mr. Speaker, it is no business or inclination of mine to defend Martin
Van Buren in the war of extermination now waging between him and his old
admirers. I say, "Devil take the hindmost"--and the foremost. But there
is no mistaking the origin of the breach; and if the curse of "stinking"
and "rotting" is to fall on the first and greatest violators of principle
in the matter, I disinterestedly suggest that the gentleman from Georgia
and his present co-workers are bound to take it upon themselves. But the
gentleman from Georgia further says we have deserted all our principles,
and taken shelter under General Taylor's military coat-tail, and he seems
to think this is exceedingly degrading. Well, as his faith is, so be it
unto him. But can he remember no other military coat-tail under which a
certain other party have been sheltering for near a quarter of a century?
Has he no acquaintance with the ample military coat tail of General
Jackson? Does he not know that his own party have run the five last
Presidential races under that coat-tail, and that they are now running
the sixth under the same cover? Yes, sir, that coat-tail was used not
only for General Jackson himself, but has been clung to, with the grip of
death, by every Democratic candidate since. You have never ventured, and
dare not now venture, from under it. Your campaign papers have constantly
been "Old Hickories," with rude likenesses of the old general upon them;
hickory poles and hickory brooms your never-ending emblems; Mr. Polk
himself was "Young Hickory," or something so; and even now your campaign
paper here is proclaiming that Cass and Butler are of the true "Hickory
stripe." Now, sir, you dare not give it up. Like a horde of hungry ticks
you have stuck to the tail of the Hermitage Lion to the end of his life;
and you are still sticking to it, and drawing a loathsome sustenance from
it, after he is dead. A fellow once advertised that he had made a
discovery by which he could make a new man out of an old one, and have
enough of the stuff left to make a little yellow dog. Just such a
discovery has General Jackson's popularity been to you. You not only
twice made President of him out of it, but you have had enough of the
stuff left to make Presidents of several comparatively small men since;
and it is your chief reliance now to make still another.

Mr. Speaker, old horses and military coat-tails, or tails of any sort,
are not figures of speech such as I would be the first to introduce into
discussions here; but as the gentleman from Georgia has thought fit to
introduce them, he and you are welcome to all you have made, or can make
by them. If you have any more old horses, trot them out; any more tails,
just cock them and come at us. I repeat, I would not introduce this mode
of discussion here; but I wish gentlemen on the other side to understand
that the use of degrading figures is a game at which they may not find
themselves able to take all the winnings.

["We give it up!"]

Aye, you give it up, and well you may; but for a very different reason
from that which you would have us understand. The point--the power to
hurt--of all figures consists in the truthfulness of their application;
and, understanding this, you may well give it up. They are weapons which
hit you, but miss us.

But in my hurry I was very near closing this subject of military tails
before I was done with it. There is one entire article of the sort I have
not discussed yet,--I mean the military tail you Democrats are now
engaged in dovetailing into the great Michigander [Cass]. Yes, sir; all
his biographies (and they are legion) have him in hand, tying him to a
military tail, like so many mischievous boys tying a dog to a bladder of
beans. True, the material they have is very limited, but they drive at it
might and main. He invaded Canada without resistance, and he outvaded it
without pursuit. As he did both under orders, I suppose there was to him
neither credit nor discredit in them; but they constitute a large part of
the tail. He was not at Hull's surrender, but he was close by; he was
volunteer aid to General Harrison on the day of the battle of the Thames;
and as you said in 1840 Harrison was picking huckleberries two miles off
while the battle was fought, I suppose it is a just conclusion with you
to say Cass was aiding Harrison to pick huckleberries. This is about all,
except the mooted question of the broken sword. Some authors say he broke
it, some say he threw it away, and some others, who ought to know, say
nothing about it. Perhaps it would be a fair historical compromise to
say, if he did not break it, he did not do anything else with it.

By the way, Mr. Speaker, did you know I am a military hero? Yes, sir; in
the days of the Black Hawk war I fought, bled, and came away. Speaking of
General Cass's career reminds me of my own. I was not at Stiliman's
defeat, but I was about as near it as Cass was to Hull's surrender; and,
like him, I saw the place very soon afterward. It is quite certain I did
not break my sword, for I had none to break; but I bent a musket pretty
badly on one occasion. If Cass broke his sword, the idea is he broke it
in desperation; I bent the musket by accident. If General Cass went in
advance of me in picking huckleberries, I guess I surpassed him in
charges upon the wild onions. If he saw any live, fighting Indians, it
was more than I did; but I had a good many bloody struggles with the
mosquitoes, and although I never fainted from the loss of blood, I can
truly say I was often very hungry. Mr. Speaker, if I should ever conclude
to doff whatever our Democratic friends may suppose there is of
black-cockade federalism about me, and therefore they shall take me up as
their candidate for the Presidency, I protest they shall not make fun of
me, as they have of General Cass, by attempting to write me into a
military hero.

While I have General Cass in hand, I wish to say a word about his
political principles. As a specimen, I take the record of his progress in
the Wilmot Proviso. In the Washington Union of March 2, 1847, there is a
report of a speech of General Cass, made the day before in the Senate, on
the Wilmot Proviso, during the delivery of which Mr. Miller of New Jersey
is reported to have interrupted him as follows, to wit:

"Mr. Miller expressed his great surprise at the change in the sentiments
of the Senator from Michigan, who had been regarded as the great champion
of freedom in the Northwest, of which he was a distinguished ornament.
Last year the Senator from Michigan was understood to be decidedly in
favor of the Wilmot Proviso; and as no reason had been stated for the
change, he [Mr. Miller] could not refrain from the expression of his
extreme surprise."

To this General Cass is reported to have replied as follows, to wit:

"Mr. Cass said that the course of the Senator from New Jersey was most
extraordinary. Last year he [Mr. Cass] should have voted for the
proposition, had it come up. But circumstances had altogether changed.
The honorable Senator then read several passages from the remarks, as
given above, which he had committed to writing, in order to refute such a
charge as that of the Senator from New Jersey."

In the "remarks above reduced to writing" is one numbered four, as
follows, to wit:

"Fourth. Legislation now would be wholly inoperative, because no
territory hereafter to be acquired can be governed without an act of
Congress providing for its government; and such an act, on its passage,
would open the whole subject, and leave the Congress called on to pass it
free to exercise its own discretion, entirely uncontrolled by any
declaration found on the statute-book."

In Niles's Register, vol. lxxiii., p. 293, there is a letter of General
Cass to ______Nicholson, of Nashville, Tennessee, dated December 24,
1847, from which the following are correct extracts:

"The Wilmot Proviso has been before the country some time. It has been
repeatedly discussed in Congress and by the public press. I am strongly
impressed with the opinion that a great change has been going on in the
public mind upon this subject,--in my own as well as others',--and that
doubts are resolving themselves into convictions that the principle it
involves should be kept out of the national legislature, and left to the
people of the confederacy in their respective local governments....
Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction by
Congress over this matter; and I am in favor of leaving the people of any
territory which may be hereafter acquired the right to regulate it
themselves, under the general principles of the Constitution.
Because--'First. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of the
requisite power to Congress; and I am not disposed to extend a doubtful
precedent beyond its necessity,--the establishment of territorial
governments when needed,--leaving to the inhabitants all the right
compatible with the relations they bear to the confederation."

These extracts show that in 1846 General Cass was for the proviso at
once; that in March, 1847, he was still for it, but not just then; and
that in December, 1847, he was against it altogether. This is a true
index to the whole man. When the question was raised in 1846, he was in a
blustering hurry to take ground for it. He sought to be in advance, and
to avoid the uninteresting position of a mere follower; but soon he began
to see glimpses of the great Democratic ox-goad waving in his face, and
to hear indistinctly a voice saying, "Back! Back, sir! Back a little!" He
shakes his head, and bats his eyes, and blunders back to his position of
March, 1847; but still the goad waves, and the voice grows more distinct
and sharper still, "Back, sir! Back, I say! Further back!"--and back he
goes to the position of December, 1847, at which the goad is still, and
the voice soothingly says, "So! Stand at that!"

Have no fears, gentlemen, of your candidate. He exactly suits you, and we
congratulate you upon it. However much you may be distressed about our
candidate, you have all cause to be contented and happy with your own. If
elected, he may not maintain all or even any of his positions previously
taken; but he will be sure to do whatever the party exigency for the time
being may require; and that is precisely what you want. He and Van Buren
are the same "manner of men"; and, like Van Buren, he will never desert
you till you first desert him.

Mr. Speaker, I adopt the suggestion of a friend, that General Cass is a
general of splendidly successful charges--charges, to be sure, not upon
the public enemy, but upon the public treasury. He was Governor of
Michigan territory, and ex-officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs, from
the 9th of October, 1813, till the 31st of July, 1831--a period of
seventeen years, nine months, and twenty-two days. During this period he
received from the United States treasury, for personal services and
personal expenses, the aggregate sum of ninety-six thousand and twenty
eight dollars, being an average of fourteen dollars and seventy-nine
cents per day for every day of the time. This large sum was reached by
assuming that he was doing service at several different places, and in
several different capacities in the same place, all at the same time. By
a correct analysis of his accounts during that period, the following
propositions may be deduced:

First. He was paid in three different capacities during the whole of the
time: that is to say--(1) As governor a salary at the rate per year of
$2000. (2) As estimated for office rent, clerk hire, fuel, etc., in
superintendence of Indian affairs in Michigan, at the rate per year of
$1500. (3) As compensation and expenses for various miscellaneous items
of Indian service out of Michigan, an average per year of $625.

Second. During part of the time--that is, from the 9th of October, 1813,
to the 29th of May, 1822 he was paid in four different capacities; that
is to say, the three as above, and, in addition thereto, the commutation
of ten rations per day, amounting per year to $730.

Third. During another part of the time--that is, from the beginning of
1822 to the 31st of July, '83 he was also paid in four different
capacities; that is to say, the first three, as above (the rations being
dropped after the 29th of May, 1822), and, in addition thereto, for
superintending Indian Agencies at Piqua, Ohio; Fort Wayne, Indiana; and
Chicago, Illinois, at the rate per year of $1500. It should be observed
here that the last item, commencing at the beginning of 1822, and the
item of rations, ending on the 29th of May, 1822, lap on each other
during so much of the time as lies between those two dates.

Fourth. Still another part of the time--that is, from the 31st of
October, 1821, to the 29th of May, 1822--he was paid in six different
capacities; that is to say, the three first, as above; the item of
rations, as above; and, in addition thereto, another item of ten rations
per day while at Washington settling his accounts, being at the rate per
year of $730; and also an allowance for expenses traveling to and from
Washington, and while there, of $1022, being at the rate per year of
$1793.

Fifth. And yet during the little portion of the time which lies between
the 1st of January, 1822, and the 29th of May, 1822, he was paid in seven
different capacities; that is to say, the six last mentioned, and also,
at the rate of $1500 per year, for the Piqua, Fort Wayne, and Chicago
service, as mentioned above.

These accounts have already been discussed some here; but when we are
amongst them, as when we are in the Patent Office, we must peep about a
good deal before we can see all the curiosities. I shall not be tedious
with them. As to the large item of $1500 per year--amounting in the
aggregate to $26,715 for office rent, clerk hire, fuel, etc., I barely
wish to remark that, so far as I can discover in the public documents,
there is no evidence, by word or inference, either from any disinterested
witness or of General Cass himself, that he ever rented or kept a
separate office, ever hired or kept a clerk, or even used any extra
amount of fuel, etc., in consequence of his Indian services. Indeed,
General Cass's entire silence in regard to these items, in his two long
letters urging his claims upon the government, is, to my mind, almost
conclusive that no such claims had any real existence.

But I have introduced General Cass's accounts here chiefly to show the
wonderful physical capacities of the man. They show that he not only did
the labor of several men at the same time, but that he often did it at
several places, many hundreds of miles apart, at the same time. And at
eating, too, his capacities are shown to be quite as wonderful. From
October, 1821, to May, 1822, he eat ten rations a day in Michigan, ten
rations a day here in Washington, and near five dollars' worth a day on
the road between the two places! And then there is an important discovery
in his example--the art of being paid for what one eats, instead of
having to pay for it. Hereafter if any nice young man should owe a bill
which he cannot pay in any other way, he can just board it out. Mr.
Speaker, we have all heard of the animal standing in doubt between two
stacks of hay and starving to death. The like of that would never happen
to General Cass. Place the stacks a thousand miles apart, he would stand
stock-still midway between them, and eat them both at once, and the green
grass along the line would be apt to suffer some, too, at the same time.
By all means make him President, gentlemen. He will feed you
bounteously--if--if there is any left after he shall have helped himself.

But, as General Taylor is, par excellence, the hero of the Mexican War,
and as you Democrats say we Whigs have always opposed the war, you think
it must be very awkward and embarrassing for us to go for General Taylor.
The declaration that we have always opposed the war is true or false,
according as one may understand the term "oppose the war." If to say "the
war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President"
by opposing the war, then the Whigs have very generally opposed it.
Whenever they have spoken at all, they have said this; and they have said
it on what has appeared good reason to them. The marching an army into
the midst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants
away, leaving their growing crops and other property to destruction, to
you may appear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but
it does not appear so to us. So to call such an act, to us appears no
other than a naked, impudent absurdity, and we speak of it accordingly.
But if, when the war had begun, and had become the cause of the country,
the giving of our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support
of the war, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war. With
few individual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all
the necessary supplies. And, more than this, you have had the services,
the blood, and the lives of our political brethren in every trial and on
every field. The beardless boy and the mature man, the humble and the
distinguished--you have had them. Through suffering and death, by disease
and in battle they have endured and fought and fell with you. Clay and
Webster each gave a son, never to be returned. From the State of my own
residence, besides other worthy but less known Whig names, we sent
Marshall, Morrison, Baker, and Hardin; they all fought, and one fell, and
in the fall of that one we lost our best Whig man. Nor were the Whigs few
in number, or laggard in the day of danger. In that fearful, bloody,
breathless struggle at Buena Vista, where each man's hard task was to
beat back five foes or die himself, of the five high officers who
perished, four were Whigs.

In speaking of this, I mean no odious comparison between the lion-hearted
Whigs and the Democrats who fought there. On other occasions, and among
the lower officers and privates on that occasion, I doubt not the
proportion was different. I wish to do justice to all. I think of all
those brave men as Americans, in whose proud fame, as an American, I too
have a share. Many of them, Whigs and Democrats are my constituents and
personal friends; and I thank them,--more than thank them,--one and all,
for the high imperishable honor they have conferred on our common State.

But the distinction between the cause of the President in beginning the
war, and the cause of the country after it was begun, is a distinction
which you cannot perceive. To you the President and the country seem to
be all one. You are interested to see no distinction between them; and I
venture to suggest that probably your interest blinds you a little. We
see the distinction, as we think, clearly enough; and our friends who
have fought in the war have no difficulty in seeing it also. What those
who have fallen would say, were they alive and here, of course we can
never know; but with those who have returned there is no difficulty.
Colonel Haskell and Major Gaines, members here, both fought in the war,
and both of them underwent extraordinary perils and hardships; still
they, like all other Whigs here, vote, on the record, that the war was
unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President. And even
General Taylor himself, the noblest Roman of them all, has declared that
as a citizen, and particularly as a soldier, it is sufficient for him to
know that his country is at war with a foreign nation, to do all in his
power to bring it to a speedy and honorable termination by the most
vigorous and energetic operations, without inquiry about its justice, or
anything else connected with it.