The Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Complete

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


"Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live,
understood this question just as well, and even better than we do now."

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so
adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting-point for
a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by
Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: What was the understanding
those fathers had of the question mentioned?

What is the frame of Government under which we live?

The answer must be--the Constitution of the United States. That
Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787 (and under which
the present Government first went into operation), and twelve
subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in
1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the
"thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our
fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost
exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they
fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that
time.

Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all,
need not now be repeated.

I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being our "fathers who
framed the Government under which we live."

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers
understood "just as well, and even better than we do now"?

It is this: Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as
to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the
negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue, and this issue--this
question is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood
"better than we."

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, acted upon
this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it--how they
expressed that better understanding.

In 1784, three years before the Constitution--the United States then
owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other--the Congress of the
Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that
Territory; and four of the "thirty nine" who afterward framed the
Constitution were in that Congress and voted on that question. Of these,
Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the
prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing
local from Federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. The
other of the four--James McHenry voted against the prohibition, showing
that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the convention was in
session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the
only Territory owned by the United States, the same question of
prohibiting slavery in the Territory again came before the Congress of
the Confederation; and two more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed
the Constitution were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They
were William Blount and William Few; and they both voted for the
prohibition thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing
local from Federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. This
time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known
as the Ordinance of '87.

The question of Federal control of slavery in the Territories seems not
to have been directly before the convention which framed the original
Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine," or any
of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that
precise question.

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act
was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of
slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported
by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the
House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its
stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches
without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In
this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed
the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm.
S. Johnnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William
Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Claimer,
Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James
Madison.

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from
Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade
Congress to prohibit slavery in the Federal territory; else both their
fidelity to correct principles and their oath to support the Constitution
would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.

Again: George Washington, another of the "thirty nine," was then
President of the United States, and, as such, approved and signed the
bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in
his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor
anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in Federal territory.

No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North
Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the
State of Tennessee; and, a few years later, Georgia ceded that which now
constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of
cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal
Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides
this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these
circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not
absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with
it--take control of it--even there, to a certain extent. In 1798,
Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi: In the act of
organization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory
from any place without the United States, by fine and giving freedom to
slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas
and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the
original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read, and Abraham
Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for it. Certainly they would have
placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding,
any line dividing local from Federal authority, or anything in the
Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to
slavery in Federal territory.

In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our
former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but
this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804,
Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now
constitutes the State of Lousiana. New Orleans, lying within that part,
was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable
towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly
intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act,
prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it take control of it--in a
more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi.
The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was:

First. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign
parts.

Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported
into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.

Third. That no slave should be carried into it except by the owner, and
for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine
upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.

This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which
passed it there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin
and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable
they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without
recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated
either the line properly dividing local from Federal authority, or any
provision of the Constitution.

In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken,
by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases
of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"--Rufus King and Charles
Pinckney were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for
slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as
steadily voted against slavery prohibition, and against all compromises.
By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing
local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was
violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory; while Mr.
Pinckney, by his vote, showed that in his understanding there was some
sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of
any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in
1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in
1819-20--there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting, John
Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, each
twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the
"thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which, by
the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving
sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who
framed the Government under which we live," who have, upon their official
responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question
which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better
than we do now"; and twenty-one of them--a clear majority of the whole
"thirty-nine"--so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross
political impropriety and wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any
proper division between local and Federal authority, or anything in the
Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories.
Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so
actions under such responsibilities speak still louder.

Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of
slavery in the Federal Territories, in the instances in which they acted
upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They
may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from
Federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution,
stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted
against the prohibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds
of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can
conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional
measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote
against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he
deems it inexpedient. It therefore would be unsafe to set down even the
two who voted against the prohibition as having done so because, in their
understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in Federal territory.

The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered,
have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of
Federal control on slavery in the Federal Territories. But there is much
reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not
have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it
been manifested at all.

For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted
whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however
distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original
Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever
understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty tine" even
on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look
into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign
slave trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would
appear to us that on the direct question of Federal control of slavery in
Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would
probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were
several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times--as Dr.
Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris while there was not
one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of
South Carolina.

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the
original Constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of the
whole--certainly understood that no proper division of local from Federal
authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories; whilst all the
rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the
understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and
the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."

But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question
manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the
original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have
already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live"
consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and
adopted since. Those who now insist that Federal control of slavery in
Federal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions
which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix
upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original
instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves
upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived
of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law"; while Senator
Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth
amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people."

Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first
Congress which sat under the Constitution--the identical Congress which
passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in
the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they
were the identical same individual men who, at the same session, and at
the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in
progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act
prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The
Constitutional amendments were introduced before and passed after the act
enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the
act to enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also
pending.

The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the
framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were
pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of "the Government under
which we live," which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government
to control slavery in the Federal Territories.

Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the
two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to
maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other?
And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with
the other affirmation from the same mouth, that those who did the two
things alleged to be inconsistent understood whether they really were
inconsistent better than we--better than he who affirms that they are
inconsistent?

It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original
Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed
the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who
may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which
we live." And, so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them
ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper
division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
the Federal Territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that
any living man in the world ever did, prior to the beginning of the
present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the
last half of the present century), declare that, in his understanding,
any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
the Federal Territories. To those who now so declare, I give not only
"our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but with
them all other living men within the century in which it was framed,
among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of
a single man agreeing with them.

Now and here let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not
mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers
did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience to
reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is that, if we would
supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do
so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their
great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most
surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the
question better than we.

If any man at this day sincerely believes that proper division of local
from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories,
he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful
evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead
others who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it,
into the false belief that "our fathers who framed the Government under
which we live" were of the same opinion thus substituting falsehood and
deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day
sincerely believes "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we
live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have
led them to understand that a proper division of local from Federal
authority, or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is
right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the
responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their
principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not
shirk that responsibility by asserting that they "understood the question
just as well, and even better than we do now."

But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the
Government under which we live, understood this question just as well,
and even better than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they
acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask--all Republicans desire--in
relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again
marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected
only because of, and so far as, its actual presence among us makes that
toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those
fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. For
this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe,
they will be content.

And now, if they would listen--as I suppose they will not--I would
address a few words to the Southern people.

I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just
people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and
justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak
of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the
best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or
murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your
contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional
condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended
to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable
prerequisite license, so to speak among you, to be admitted or permitted
to speak at all: Now; can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause, and to
consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring
forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough
to hear us deny or justify.

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden
of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that
our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes in your
section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If
it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to
get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You
cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it?
If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be
sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You
will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof,
does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section
is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that
fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that
we repel you by, some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by
any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you
to where you ought to have started to a discussion of the right or wrong
of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your
section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our
principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and
denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our
principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us as
if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept
the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our
fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly
right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official
oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without
a moment's consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional
parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight
years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the
United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the
prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied
the policy of the Government upon that subject up to, and at, the very
moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he
wrote La Fayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure,
expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time
have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon
this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or
in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast
the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon
you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we
commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right
application of it.

But you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while we are
revolutionary, destructive, or something, of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against a new and
untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point
in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live"; while you with one accord reject, and
scout, and spit upon that old policy and insist upon substituting
something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that
substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but
you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the
fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a
Congressional slave code for the Territories; some for Congress
forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some
for maintaining slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some
for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another,
no third man should object," fantastically called "popular sovereignty";
but never a man among you in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in
Federal Territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed
the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans
can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our
Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism
for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based
on the most clear and stable foundations.