Address of Abraham Lincoln given at the Cooper Institute
New York City, February 27, 1860
MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW-YORK: – The facts
with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there
anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any
novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and
observations following that presentation.
In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in
“The New-York Times,” Senator Douglas said:
“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, ever 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
M'Henry – 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 of 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 an 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. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert
Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William
Paterson, George Clymer, 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 principle, 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 Louisiana. 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 votes,
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 responsibility, 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 of 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-nine”
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; while 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
preeminently 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 whole 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 a 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 North-western 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 the 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.
Again, you say we have made the slavery question more
prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent,
but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old
policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and
thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that
question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What
has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace
of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves.
We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was
no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his
Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter,
you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for
not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are
inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion
after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that
persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious
slander.
Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or
encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair; but still insist that our doctrines and
declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We know we
hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held to and made
by “our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.” You never
dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important
State elections were near at hand, and you were in evident glee with the belief
that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get an advantage of us in those
elections. The elections came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled.
Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a
slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor.
Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest
against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your
slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common
with “our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live,” declare our
belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare even this.
For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican
party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for your
misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests among
yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black
Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black
Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were
before the Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton
insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least, three times as many
lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very
elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was “got up by Black
Republicanism.” In the present state of things in the United States, I do not
think a general, or even a very extensive slave insurrection, is possible. The
indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of
rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The
explosive materials are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can
be supplied, the indispensable connecting trains.
Much is said by Southern people about the affection of
slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A
plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty
individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master or
mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolution in Hayti
was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances.
The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connected with slaves,
was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were admitted to the secret;
and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that
friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from
the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local
revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the natural
results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I think, can
happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much hopes for
such an event, will be alike disappointed.
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, “
It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation,
and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will
wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white
laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must
shudder at the prospect held up.”
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power
of emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to
the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal
Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension
of the institution – the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never
occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery.
John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave
insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves,
in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the
slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That
affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts, related in
history, at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods over
the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to
liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little else than his own
execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at
Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to
cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other,
does not disprove the sameness of the two things.
And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of
John Brown, Helper's Book, and the like, break up the Republican organization?
Human action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be
changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation,
which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that
judgment and feeling – that sentiment – by breaking up the political
organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter and disperse an
army which has been formed into order in the face of your heaviest fire; but if
you could, how much would you gain by forcing the sentiment which created it
out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel? What
would that other channel probably be? Would the number of John Browns be
lessened or enlarged by the operation?
But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a
denial of your Constitutional rights.
That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be
palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of
numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the
Constitution. But we are proposing no such thing.
When you make these declarations, you have a specific and
well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to take
slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no
such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is
literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a
right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will
destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the
Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You
will rule or ruin in all events.
This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say
the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your
favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and
decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The
Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves
into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. When I say
the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court,
by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in
the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters
disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon
a mistaken statement of fact – the statement in the opinion that “the right of
property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.”
An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right
of property in a slave is not “distinctly and expressly affirmed” in it. Bear
in mind, the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is
impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it
is “distinctly and expressly” affirmed there – “distinctly,” that is, not
mingled with anything else – “expressly,” that is, in words meaning just that,
without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such
right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others
to show that neither the word “slave” nor “slavery” is to be found in the
Constitution, nor the word “property” even, in any connection with language
alluding to the things slave, or slavery, and that wherever in that instrument
the slave is alluded to, he is called a “person;” – and wherever his master's legal
right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as “service or labor
which may be due,” – as a debt payable in service or labor. Also, it
would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding
to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to
exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.
To show all this, is easy and certain.
When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to
their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the
mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?
And then it is to be remembered that “our fathers, who
framed the Government under which we live” – the men who made the Constitution
– decided this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago – decided it
without division among themselves, when making the decision; without division
among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any
evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves
justified to break up this Government, unless such a court decision as yours
is, shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political
action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican President! In that
supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the
great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman
holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, “Stand and deliver, or
I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!”
To be sure, what the robber demanded of me – my money – was
my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my
vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the
threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be
distinguished in principle.
A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable
that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one
with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much
provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the
southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their
demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly
can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of
their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally
surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints
against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections
are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have nothing to
do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know, because
we know we never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet
this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.
The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We
must not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do
let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so
trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with
no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our
purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike
unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of
us in any attempt to disturb them.
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing,
what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and
join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly – done in acts
as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated – we must place ourselves
avowedly with them. Senator Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted and
enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in
politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return
their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State
constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition
to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed
from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in
this way. Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone, do nothing to
us, and say what you please about slavery.” But we do let them alone – have
never disturbed them – so that, after all, it is what we say, which
dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease
saying.
I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms, demanded
the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions
declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis, than do all other
sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced,
the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to
resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the
whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do,
they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they
do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, cannot cease to
demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social
blessing.
Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our
conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws,
and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and
swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality – its
universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension –
its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery
right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong.
Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact
upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they
are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but,
thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with
their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political
responsibilities, can we do this?
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it
alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its
actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it,
allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in
these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our
duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those
sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored
– contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the
wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a
dead man – such as a policy of “don't care” on a question about which all true
men do care – such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to
Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the
righteous to repentance – such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to
unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false
accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the
Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES
MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE
UNDERSTAND IT.
SOURCES: Roy P. Basler, editor,
Collected Works of
Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3, p.
522-50, which sites
The Address of the Hon. Abraham Lincoln, in [V] indication of
the Policy of the Framers of the Constitution and the Principles of the
Republican Party, Delivered at Cooper Institute, February 27th, 1860,
Issued by the Young Men's Republican Union, (659 Broadway, New-York,) with
Notes by Charles C. Nott & Cephas Brainerd, Members of the Board of
Control. New-York: George F. Nesbitt & Co., Printers and Stationers, 1860,
as its source as the original manuscript of the speech is not extant.
