The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete

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


I had argued that the application of the principle of self-government, as
contended for, would require the revival of the African slave trade; that
no argument could be made in favor of a man's right to take slaves to
Nebraska which could not be equally well made in favor of his right to
bring them from the coast of Africa. The Judge replied that the
Constitution requires the suppression of the foreign slave trade, but
does not require the prohibition of slavery in the Territories. That is a
mistake in point of fact. The Constitution does not require the action of
Congress in either case, and it does authorize it in both. And so there
is still no difference between the cases.

In regard to what I have said of the advantage the slave States have over
the free in the matter of representation, the Judge replied that we in
the free States count five free negroes as five white people, while in
the slave States they count five slaves as three whites only; and that
the advantage, at last, was on the side of the free States.

Now, in the slave States they count free negroes just as we do; and it so
happens that, besides their slaves, they have as many free negroes as we
have, and thirty thousand over. Thus, their free negroes more than
balance ours; and their advantage over us, in consequence of their
slaves, still remains as I stated it.

In reply to my argument that the compromise measures of 1850 were a
system of equivalents, and that the provisions of no one of them could
fairly be carried to other subjects without its corresponding equivalent
being carried with it, the Judge denied outright that these measures had
any connection with or dependence upon each other. This is mere
desperation. If they had no connection, why are they always spoken of in
connection? Why has he so spoken of them a thousand times? Why has he
constantly called them a series of measures? Why does everybody call them
a compromise? Why was California kept out of the Union six or seven
months, if it was not because of its connection with the other measures?
Webster's leading definition of the verb "to compromise" is "to adjust
and settle a difference, by mutual agreement, with concessions of claims
by the parties." This conveys precisely the popular understanding of the
word "compromise."

We knew, before the Judge told us, that these measures passed separately,
and in distinct bills, and that no two of them were passed by the votes
of precisely the same members. But we also know, and so does he know,
that no one of them could have passed both branches of Congress but for
the understanding that the others were to pass also. Upon this
understanding, each got votes which it could have got in no other way. It
is this fact which gives to the measures their true character; and it is
the universal knowledge of this fact that has given them the name of
"compromises," so expressive of that true character.

I had asked: "If, in carrying the Utah and New Mexico laws to Nebraska,
you could clear away other objection, how could you leave Nebraska
'perfectly free' to introduce slavery before she forms a constitution,
during her territorial government, while the Utah and New Mexico laws
only authorize it when they form constitutions and are admitted into the
Union?" To this Judge Douglas answered that the Utah and New Mexico laws
also authorized it before; and to prove this he read from one of their
laws, as follows: "That the legislative power of said Territory shall
extend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with the
Constitution of the United States and the provisions of this act."

Now it is perceived from the reading of this that there is nothing
express upon the subject, but that the authority is sought to be implied
merely for the general provision of "all rightful subjects of
legislation." In reply to this I insist, as a legal rule of construction,
as well as the plain, popular view of the matter, that the express
provision for Utah and New Mexico coming in with slavery, if they choose,
when they shall form constitutions, is an exclusion of all implied
authority on the same subject; that Congress having the subject
distinctly in their minds when they made the express provision, they
therein expressed their whole meaning on that subject.

The Judge rather insinuated that I had found it convenient to forget the
Washington territorial law passed in 1853. This was a division of Oregon,
organizing the northern part as the Territory of Washington. He asserted
that by this act the Ordinance of '87, theretofore existing in Oregon,
was repealed; that nearly all the members of Congress voted for it,
beginning in the House of Representatives with Charles Allen of
Massachusetts, and ending with Richard Yates of Illinois; and that he
could not understand how those who now opposed the Nebraska Bill so voted
there, unless it was because it was then too soon after both the great
political parties had ratified the compromises of 1850, and the
ratification therefore was too fresh to be then repudiated.

Now I had seen the Washington act before, and I have carefully examined
it since; and I aver that there is no repeal of the Ordinance of '87, or
of any prohibition of slavery, in it. In express terms, there is
absolutely nothing in the whole law upon the subject--in fact, nothing to
lead a reader to think of the subject. To my judgment it is equally free
from everything from which repeal can be legally implied; but, however
this may be, are men now to be entrapped by a legal implication,
extracted from covert language, introduced perhaps for the very purpose
of entrapping them? I sincerely wish every man could read this law quite
through, carefully watching every sentence and every line for a repeal of
the Ordinance of '87, or anything equivalent to it.

Another point on the Washington act: If it was intended to be modeled
after the Utah and New Mexico acts, as Judge Douglas insists, why was it
not inserted in it, as in them, that Washington was to come in with or
without slavery as she may choose at the adoption of her constitution? It
has no such provision in it; and I defy the ingenuity of man to give a
reason for the omission, other than that it was not intended to follow
the Utah and New Mexico laws in regard to the question of slavery.

The Washington act not only differs vitally from the Utah and New Mexico
acts, but the Nebraska act differs vitally from both. By the latter act
the people are left "perfectly free" to regulate their own domestic
concerns, etc.; but in all the former, all their laws are to be submitted
to Congress, and if disapproved are to be null. The Washington act goes
even further; it absolutely prohibits the territorial Legislature, by
very strong and guarded language, from establishing banks or borrowing
money on the faith of the Territory. Is this the sacred right of
self-government we hear vaunted so much? No, sir; the Nebraska Bill finds
no model in the acts of '50 or the Washington act. It finds no model in
any law from Adam till to-day. As Phillips says of Napoleon, the Nebraska
act is grand, gloomy and peculiar, wrapped in the solitude of its own
originality, without a model and without a shadow upon the earth.

In the course of his reply Senator Douglas remarked in substance that he
had always considered this government was made for the white people and
not for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too. But in
this remark of the Judge there is a significance which I think is the key
to the great mistake (if there is any such mistake) which he has made in
this Nebraska measure. It shows that the Judge has no very vivid
impression that the negro is human, and consequently has no idea that
there can be any moral question in legislating about him. In his view the
question of whether a new country shall be slave or free is a matter of
as utter indifference as it is whether his neighbor shall plant his farm
with tobacco or stock it with horned cattle. Now, whether this view is
right or wrong, it is very certain that the great mass of mankind take a
totally different view. They consider slavery a great moral wrong, and
their feeling against it is not evanescent, but eternal. It lies at the
very foundation of their sense of justice, and it cannot be trifled with.
It is a great and durable element of popular action, and I think no
statesman can safely disregard it.

Our Senator also objects that those who oppose him in this matter do not
entirely agree with one another. He reminds me that in my firm adherence
to the constitutional rights of the slave States I differ widely from
others who are cooperating with me in opposing the Nebraska Bill, and he
says it is not quite fair to oppose him in this variety of ways. He
should remember that he took us by surprise--astounded us by this
measure. We were thunderstruck and stunned, and we reeled and fell in
utter confusion. But we rose, each fighting, grasping whatever he could
first reach--a scythe, a pitchfork, a chopping-ax, or a butcher's
cleaver. We struck in the direction of the sound, and we were rapidly
closing in upon him. He must not think to divert us from our purpose by
showing us that our drill, our dress, and our weapons are not entirely
perfect and uniform. When the storm shall be past he shall find us still
Americans, no less devoted to the continued union and prosperity of the
country than heretofore.

Finally, the Judge invokes against me the memory of Clay and Webster,
They were great men, and men of great deeds. But where have I assailed
them? For what is it that their lifelong enemy shall now make profit by
assuming to defend them against me, their lifelong friend? I go against
the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; did they ever go for it? They went
for the Compromise of 1850; did I ever go against them? They were greatly
devoted to the Union; to the small measure of my ability was I ever less
so? Clay and Webster were dead before this question arose; by what
authority shall our Senator say they would espouse his side of it if
alive? Mr. Clay was the leading spirit in making the Missouri Compromise;
is it very credible that if now alive he would take the lead in the
breaking of it? The truth is that some support from Whigs is now a
necessity with the Judge, and for this it is that the names of Clay and
Webster are invoked. His old friends have deserted him in such numbers as
to leave too few to live by. He came to his own, and his own received him
not; and lo! he turns unto the Gentiles.

A word now as to the Judge's desperate assumption that the compromises of
1850 had no connection with one another; that Illinois came into the
Union as a slave State, and some other similar ones. This is no other
than a bold denial of the history of the country. If we do not know that
the compromises of 1850 were dependent on each other; if we do not know
that Illinois came into the Union as a free State,--we do not know
anything. If we do not know these things, we do not know that we ever had
a Revolutionary War or such a chief as Washington. To deny these things
is to deny our national axioms,--or dogmas, at least,--and it puts an end
to all argument. If a man will stand up and assert, and repeat and
reassert, that two and two do not make four, I know nothing in the power
of argument that can stop him. I think I can answer the Judge so long as
he sticks to the premises; but when he flies from them, I cannot work any
argument into the consistency of a mental gag and actually close his
mouth with it. In such a case I can only commend him to the seventy
thousand answers just in from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana.




REQUEST FOR SENATE SUPPORT

TO CHARLES HOYT

CLINTON, De WITT Co., Nov. 10, 1854

DEAR SIR:--You used to express a good deal of partiality for me, and if
you are still so, now is the time. Some friends here are really for me
for the U.S. Senate, and I should be very grateful if you could make a
mark for me among your members. Please write me at all events, giving me
the names, post-offices, and "political position" of members round about
you. Direct to Springfield.

Let this be confidential.

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.




TO T. J. HENDERSON.

SPRINGFIELD,

November 27, 1854
T. J. HENDERSON, ESQ.

MY DEAR SIR:--It has come round that a whig may, by possibility, be
elected to the United States Senate, and I want the chance of being the
man. You are a member of the Legislature, and have a vote to give. Think
it over, and see whether you can do better than to go for me.

Write me, at all events; and let this be confidential.

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.




TO J. GILLESPIE.

SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 1, 1854.

DEAR SIR:--I have really got it into my head to try to be United States
Senator, and, if I could have your support, my chances would be
reasonably good. But I know, and acknowledge, that you have as just
claims to the place as I have; and therefore I cannot ask you to yield to
me, if you are thinking of becoming a candidate, yourself. If, however,
you are not, then I should like to be remembered affectionately by you;
and also to have you make a mark for me with the Anti-Nebraska members
down your way.

If you know, and have no objection to tell, let me know whether Trumbull
intends to make a push. If he does, I suppose the two men in St. Clair,
and one, or both, in Madison, will be for him. We have the Legislature,
clearly enough, on joint ballot, but the Senate is very close, and Cullom
told me to-day that the Nebraska men will stave off the election, if they
can. Even if we get into joint vote, we shall have difficulty to unite
our forces. Please write me, and let this be confidential.

Your friend, as ever,
A. LINCOLN.




POLITICAL REFERENCES

TO JUSTICE MCLEAN.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., December 6, 1854.

SIR:--I understand it is in contemplation to displace the present clerk
and appoint a new one for the Circuit and District Courts of Illinois. I
am very friendly to the present incumbent, and, both for his own sake and
that of his family, I wish him to be retained so long as it is possible
for the court to do so.

In the contingency of his removal, however, I have recommended William
Butler as his successor, and I do not wish what I write now to be taken
as any abatement of that recommendation.

William J. Black is also an applicant for the appointment, and I write
this at the solicitation of his friends to say that he is every way
worthy of the office, and that I doubt not the conferring it upon him
will give great satisfaction.

Your ob't servant,
A. LINCOLN.




TO T. J. HENDERSON.

SPRINGFIELD, December 15. 1854
HON. T. J. HENDERSON.

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 11th was received last night, and for which I
thank you. Of course I prefer myself to all others; yet it is neither in
my heart nor my conscience to say I am any better man than Mr. Williams.
We shall have a terrible struggle with our adversaries. They are
desperate and bent on desperate deeds. I accidentally learned of one of
the leaders here writing to a member south of here, in about the
following language:

We are beaten. They have a clean majority of at least nine, on joint
ballot. They outnumber us, but we must outmanage them. Douglas must be
sustained. We must elect the Speaker; and we must elect a Nebraska United
States Senator, or "elect none at all." Similar letters, no doubt, are
written to every Nebraska member. Be considering how we can best meet,
and foil, and beat them. I send you, by mail, a copy of my Peoria speech.
You may have seen it before, or you may not think it worth seeing now.

Do not speak of the Nebraska letter mentioned above; I do not wish it to
become public, that I received such information.

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.




1855
LOSS OF PRIMARY FOR SENATOR
TO E. B. WASHBURNE.

SPRINGFIELD, February 9, 1855
MY DEAR SIR:

I began with 44 votes, Shields 41, and Trumbull 5,--yet Trumbull was
elected. In fact 47 different members voted for me,--getting three new
ones on the second ballot, and losing four old ones. How came my 47 to
yield to Trumbull's 5? It was Governor Matteson's work. He has been
secretly a candidate ever since (before, even) the fall election.

All the members round about the canal were Anti-Nebraska, but were
nevertheless nearly all Democrats and old personal friends of his. His
plan was to privately impress them with the belief that he was as good
Anti-Nebraska as any one else--at least could be secured to be so by
instructions, which could be easily passed.

The Nebraska men, of course, were not for Matteson; but when they found
they could elect no avowed Nebraska man, they tardily determined to let
him get whomever of our men he could, by whatever means he could, and ask
him no questions.

The Nebraska men were very confident of the election of Matteson, though
denying that he was a candidate, and we very much believing also that
they would elect him. But they wanted first to make a show of good faith
to Shields by voting for him a few times, and our secret Matteson men
also wanted to make a show of good faith by voting with us a few times.
So we led off. On the seventh ballot, I think, the signal was given to
the Nebraska men to turn to Matteson, which they acted on to a man, with
one exception. . . Next ballot the remaining Nebraska man and one
pretended Anti went over to him, giving him 46. The next still another,
giving him 47, wanting only three of an election. In the meantime our
friends, with a view of detaining our expected bolters, had been turning
from me to Trumbull till he had risen to 35 and I had been reduced to 15.
These would never desert me except by my direction; but I became
satisfied that if we could prevent Matteson's election one or two ballots
more, we could not possibly do so a single ballot after my friends should
begin to return to me from Trumbull. So I determined to strike at once,
and accordingly advised my remaining friends to go for him, which they
did and elected him on the tenth ballot.

Such is the way the thing was done. I think you would have done the same
under the circumstances.

I could have headed off every combination and been elected, had it not
been for Matteson's double game--and his defeat now gives me more
pleasure than my own gives me pain. On the whole, it is perhaps as well
for our general cause that Trumbull is elected. The Nebraska men confess
that they hate it worse than anything that could have happened. It is a
great consolation to see them worse whipped than I am.

Yours forever,
A. LINCOLN.




RETURN TO LAW PROFESSION

TO SANFORD, PORTER, AND STRIKER, NEW YORK.
SPRINGFIELD, MARCH 10, 1855

GENTLEMEN:--Yours of the 5th is received, as also was that of 15th Dec,
last, inclosing bond of Clift to Pray. When I received the bond I was
dabbling in politics, and of course neglecting business. Having since
been beaten out I have gone to work again.

As I do not practice in Rushville, I to-day open a correspondence with
Henry E. Dummer, Esq., of Beardstown, Ill., with the view of getting the
job into his hands. He is a good man if he will undertake it.

Write me whether I shall do this or return the bond to you.

Yours respectfully,
A. LINCOLN.




TO O. H. BROWNING.

SPRINGFIELD, March 23, 1855.
HON. O. H. BROWNING.

MY DEAR SIR:--Your letter to Judge Logan has been shown to us by him;
and, with his consent, we answer it. When it became probable that there
would be a vacancy on the Supreme Bench, public opinion, on this side of
the river, seemed to be universally directed to Logan as the proper man
to fill it. I mean public opinion on our side in politics, with very
small manifestation in any different direction by the other side. The
result is, that he has been a good deal pressed to allow his name to be
used, and he has consented to it, provided it can be done with perfect
cordiality and good feeling on the part of all our own friends. We, the
undersigned, are very anxious for it; and the more so now that he has
been urged, until his mind is turned upon the matter. We, therefore are
very glad of your letter, with the information it brings us, mixed only
with a regret that we can not elect Logan and Walker both. We shall be
glad, if you will hoist Logan's name, in your Quincy papers.

Very truly your friends,

A. LINCOLN, B. S. EWARDS, JOHN T. STUART.




TO H. C. WHITNEY.

SPRINGFIELD, June 7, 1855.
H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ.

MY DEAR SIR:--Your note containing election news is received; and for
which I thank you. It is all of no use, however. Logan is worse beaten
than any other man ever was since elections were invented--beaten more
than twelve hundred in this county. It is conceded on all hands that the
Prohibitory law is also beaten.

Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.




RESPONSE TO A PRO-SLAVERY FRIEND

TO JOSHUA. F. SPEED.

SPRINGFIELD, August 24, 1855

DEAR SPEED:--You know what a poor correspondent I am. Ever since I
received your very agreeable letter of the 22d of May, I have been
intending to write you an answer to it. You suggest that in political
action, now, you and I would differ. I suppose we would; not quite as
much, however, as you may think. You know I dislike slavery, and you
fully admit the abstract wrong of it. So far there is no cause of
difference. But you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the
slave, especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves
interested, you would see the Union dissolved. I am not aware that any
one is bidding you yield that right; very certainly I am not. I leave
that matter entirely to yourself. I also acknowledge your rights and my
obligations under the Constitution in regard to your slaves. I confess I
hate to see the poor creatures hunted down and caught and carried back to
their stripes and unrequited toil; but I bite my lips and keep quiet. In
1841 you and I had together a tedious low-water trip on a steamboat from
Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from
Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were on board ten or a dozen
slaves shackled together with irons. That sight was a continued torment
to me, and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio or any
other slave border. It is not fair for you to assume that I have no
interest in a thing which has, and continually exercises, the power of
making me miserable. You ought rather to appreciate how much the great
body of the Northern people do crucify their feelings, in order to
maintain their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union. I do oppose the
extension of slavery because my judgment and feeling so prompt me, and I
am under no obligations to the contrary. If for this you and I must
differ, differ we must. You say, if you were President, you would send an
army and hang the leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas
elections; still, if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave State she must
be admitted or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes herself
a slave State unfairly, that is, by the very means for which you say you
would hang men? Must she still be admitted, or the Union dissolved? That
will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a practical one.
In your assumption that there may be a fair decision of the slavery
question in Kansas, I plainly see you and I would differ about the
Nebraska law. I look upon that enactment not as a law, but as a violence
from the beginning. It was conceived in violence, is maintained in
violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in
violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise, under the
circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was passed in violence
because it could not have passed at all but for the votes of many members
in violence of the known will of their constituents. It is maintained in
violence, because the elections since clearly demand its repeal; and the
demand is openly disregarded.

You say men ought to be hung for the way they are executing the law; I
say the way it is being executed is quite as good as any of its
antecedents. It is being executed in the precise way which was intended
from the first, else why does no Nebraska man express astonishment or
condemnation? Poor Reeder is the only public man who has been silly
enough to believe that anything like fairness was ever intended, and he
has been bravely undeceived.

That Kansas will form a slave constitution, and with it will ask to be
admitted into the Union, I take to be already a settled question, and so
settled by the very means you so pointedly condemn. By every principle of
law ever held by any court North or South, every negro taken to Kansas is
free; yet, in utter disregard of this,--in the spirit of violence
merely,--that beautiful Legislature gravely passes a law to hang any man
who shall venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is the
subject and real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang upon
the gallows of their own building, I shall not be among the mourners for
their fate. In my humble sphere, I shall advocate the restoration of the
Missouri Compromise so long as Kansas remains a Territory, and when, by
all these foul means, it seeks to come into the Union as a slave State, I
shall oppose it. I am very loath in any case to withhold my assent to the
enjoyment of property acquired or located in good faith; but I do not
admit that good faith in taking a negro to Kansas to be held in slavery
is a probability with any man. Any man who has sense enough to be the
controller of his own property has too much sense to misunderstand the
outrageous character of the whole Nebraska business. But I digress. In my
opposition to the admission of Kansas I shall have some company, but we
may be beaten. If we are, I shall not on that account attempt to dissolve
the Union. I think it probable, however, we shall be beaten. Standing as
a unit among yourselves, You can, directly and indirectly, bribe enough
of our men to carry the day, as you could on the open proposition to
establish a monarchy. Get hold of some man in the North whose position
and ability is such that he can make the support of your measure,
whatever it may be, a Democratic party necessity, and the thing is done.
Apropos of this, let me tell you an anecdote. Douglas introduced the
Nebraska Bill in January. In February afterward there was a called
session of the Illinois Legislature. Of the one hundred members composing
the two branches of that body, about seventy were Democrats. These latter
held a caucus in which the Nebraska Bill was talked of, if not formally
discussed. It was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were
in favor of the measure. In a day or two Douglas's orders came on to have
resolutions passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large
majorities!!!! The truth of this is vouched for by a bolting Democratic
member. The masses, too, Democratic as well as Whig, were even nearer
unanimous against it; but, as soon as the party necessity of supporting
it became apparent, the way the Democrats began to see the wisdom and
justice of it was perfectly astonishing.