Chapter VI: Part 6

NEW YORK, August 18, 1909.

DEAR MAJOR PUTNAM:

I am very glad to learn that there is good prospect that the real
Lincoln Cooper Institute address, with the evidence in regard to it,
will now be available for the public.... I am glad also that with
the address you are proposing to print the letters received by Judge
Nott from Mr. Lincoln. One or two of these have, unfortunately, not
been preserved. I recall in one an observation made by Lincoln to
the effect that he "was not much of a literary man."

I did not see much of Mr. Lincoln when he was in New York, as my
most active responsibility in regard to the meeting was in getting
up an audience.... I remember in handing some weeks earlier to John
Sherman, who, like Lincoln, had never before spoken in New York,
five ten-dollar gold pieces, that he said he "had not expected his
expenses to be paid." At a lunch that was given to Sherman a long
time afterward, I referred to that meeting. Sherman cocked his eye
at me and said: "Yes, I remember it very well; I never was so scar't
in all my life." ...

The observations of Judge Nott in regard to the meeting are about
as just as anything that has ever been put into print, and as I
concur fully in the accuracy of these recollections, I do not
undertake to give my own impressions at any length. I was expecting
to hear some specimen of Western stump-speaking as it was then
understood. You will, of course, observe that the speech contains
nothing of the kind. I do remember, however, that Lincoln spoke of
the condition of feeling between the North and the South.... He
refers to the treatment which Northern men received in the South,
and he remarked, parenthetically, that he had never known of a man
who had been able "to whip his wife into loving him," an observation
that produced laughter.

In making up the notes, we ransacked, as you may be sure, all the
material available in the libraries in New York, and I also had
interviews as to one special point with Mr. Bancroft, with Mr.
Hildreth, and with Dr. William Goodell, who was in those times a
famous anti-slavery man.

Your father[3] and William Curtis Noyes were possibly more
completely in sympathy than any other two men in New York, with the
efforts of these younger men; they impressed me as standing in that
respect on the same plane. The next man to them was Charles Wyllis
Elliott, the author of a _History of New England_. We never went to
your father for advice or assistance when he failed to help us, and
he was always so kindly and gentle in what he did and said that
every one of us youngsters acquired for him a very great affection.
He always had time to see us and was always on hand when he was
wanted, and if we desired to have anything, we got it if he had it.
Neither your father, nor Mr. Noyes, nor for that matter Mr. Elliott,
ever suggested that we were "young" or "fresh" or anything of that
sort. The enthusiasm which young fellows have was always recognised
by these men as an exceedingly valuable asset in the cause....
Pardon all this from a "veteran," and believe me,

Sincerely yours,

CEPHAS BRAINERD.

INTRODUCTION

BY CHARLES C. NOTT

The Cooper Institute address is one of the most important addresses ever delivered in the life of this nation, for at an eventful time it changed the course of history. When Mr. Lincoln rose to speak on the evening of February 27, 1860, he had held no administrative office; he had endeavoured to be appointed Commissioner of Patents, and had failed; he had sought to be elected United States Senator, and had been defeated; he had been a member of Congress, yet it was not even remembered; he was a lawyer in humble circumstances, persuasive of juries, but had not reached the front rank of the Illinois Bar. The record which Mr. Lincoln himself placed in the Congressional Directory in 1847 might still be taken as the record of his public and official life: "Born February 12th, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. Education defective. Profession a lawyer. Have been a captain of volunteers in the Black Hawk War. Postmaster in a very small office. Four times a member of the Illinois Legislature and a member of the lower house of Congress." Was this the record of a man who should be made the head of a nation in troubled times? In the estimation of thoughtful Americans east of the Alleghanies all that they knew of Mr. Lincoln justified them in regarding him as only "a Western stump orator"--successful, distinguished, but nothing higher than that--a Western stump orator, who had dared to brave one of the strongest men in the Western States, and who had done so with wonderful ability and moral success. When Mr. Lincoln closed his address he had risen to the rank of statesman, and had stamped himself a statesman peculiarly fitted for the exigency of the hour.

Mr. William Cullen Bryant presided at the meeting; and a number of the first and ablest citizens of New York were present, among them Horace Greeley. Mr. Greeley was pronounced in his appreciation of the address; it was the ablest, the greatest, the wisest speech that had yet been made; it would reassure the conservative Northerner; it was just what was wanted to conciliate the excited Southerner; it was conclusive in its argument, and would assure the overthrow of Douglas. Mr. Horace White has recently written: "I chanced to open the other day his Cooper Institute speech. This is one of the few printed speeches that I did not hear him deliver in person. As I read the concluding pages of that speech, the conflict of opinion that preceded the conflict of arms then sweeping upon the country like an approaching solar eclipse seemed prefigured like a chapter of the Book of Fate. Here again he was the Old Testament prophet, before whom Horace Greeley bowed his head, saying that he had never listened to a greater speech, although he had heard several of Webster's best." Later, Mr. Greeley became the leader of the Republican forces opposed to the nomination of Mr. Seward and was instrumental in concentrating those forces upon Mr. Lincoln. Furthermore, the great New York press on the following morning carried the address to the country, and before Mr. Lincoln left New York he was telegraphed from Connecticut to come and aid in the campaign of the approaching spring election. He went, and when the fateful moment came in the Convention, Connecticut was one of the Eastern States which first broke away from the Seward column and went over to Mr. Lincoln. When Connecticut did this, the die was cast.

It is difficult for younger generations of Americans to believe that three months before Mr. Lincoln was nominated for the Presidency he was neither appreciated nor known in New York. That fact can be better established by a single incident than by the opinions and assurances of a dozen men.

After the address had been delivered, Mr. Lincoln was taken by two members of the Young Men's Central Republican Union--Mr. Hiram Barney, afterward Collector of the Port of New York, and Mr. Nott, one of the subsequent editors of the address--to their club, The Athenæum, where a very simple supper was ordered, and five or six Republican members of the club who chanced to be in the building were invited in. The supper was informal--as informal as anything could be; the conversation was easy and familiar; the prospects of the Republican party in the coming struggle were talked over, and so little was it supposed by the gentlemen who had not heard the address that Mr. Lincoln could possibly be the candidate that one of them, Mr. Charles W. Elliott, asked, artlessly: "Mr. Lincoln, what candidate do you really think would be most likely to carry Illinois?" Mr. Lincoln answered by illustration: "Illinois is a peculiar State, in three parts. In northern Illinois, Mr. Seward would have a larger majority than I could get. In middle Illinois, I think I could call out a larger vote than Mr. Seward. In southern Illinois, it would make no difference who was the candidate." This answer was taken to be merely illustrative by everybody except, perhaps, Mr. Barney and Mr. Nott, each of whom, it subsequently appeared, had particularly noted Mr. Lincoln's reply.

The little party broke up. Mr. Lincoln had been cordially received, but certainly had not been flattered. The others shook him by the hand and, as they put on their overcoats, said: "Mr. Nott is going down town and he will show you the way to the Astor House." Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Nott started on foot, but the latter observing that Mr. Lincoln was apparently Walking with some difficulty said, "Are you lame, Mr. Lincoln?" He replied that he had on new boots and they hurt him. The two gentlemen then boarded a street car. When they reached the place where Mr. Nott would leave the car on his way home, he shook Mr. Lincoln by the hand and, bidding him good-bye, told him that this car would carry him to the side door of the Astor House. Mr. Lincoln went on alone, the only occupant of the car. The next time he came to New York, he rode down Broadway to the Astor House standing erect in an open barouche drawn by four white horses. He bowed to the patriotic thousands in the street, on the sidewalks, in the windows, on the house-tops, and they cheered him as the lawfully elected President of the United States and bade him go on and, with God's help, save the Union.

His companion in the street car has often wondered since then what Mr. Lincoln thought about during the remainder of his ride that night to the Astor House. The Cooper Institute had, owing to a snowstorm, not been full, and its intelligent, respectable, non-partisan audience had not rung out enthusiastic applause like a concourse of Western auditors magnetised by their own enthusiasm. Had the address--the most carefully prepared, the most elaborately investigated and demonstrated and verified of all the work of his life--been a failure? But in the matter of quality and ability, if not of quantity and enthusiasm, he had never addressed such an audience; and some of the ablest men in the Northern States had expressed their opinion of the address in terms which left no doubt of the highest appreciation. Did Mr. Lincoln regard the address which he had just delivered to a small and critical audience as a success? Did he have the faintest glimmer of the brilliant effect which was to follow? Did he feel the loneliness of the situation--the want of his loyal Illinois adherents? Did his sinking heart infer that he was but a speck of humanity to which the great city would never again give a thought? He was a plain man, an ungainly man; unadorned, apparently uncultivated, showing the awkwardness of self-conscious rusticity. His dress that night before a New York audience was the most unbecoming that a fiend's ingenuity could have devised for a tall, gaunt man--a black frock coat, ill-setting and too short for him in the body, skirt, and arms--a rolling collar, low-down, disclosing his long thin, shrivelled throat uncovered and exposed. No man in all New York appeared that night more simple, more unassuming, more modest, more unpretentious, more conscious of his own defects than Abraham Lincoln; and yet we now know that within his soul there burned the fires of an unbounded ambition, sustained by a self-reliance and self-esteem that bade him fix his gaze upon the very pinnacle of American fame and aspire to it in a time so troubled that its dangers appalled the soul of every American. What were this man's thoughts when he was left alone? Did a faint shadow of the future rest upon his soul? Did he feel in some mysterious way that on that night he had crossed the Rubicon of his life-march--that care and trouble and political discord, and slander and misrepresentation and ridicule and public responsibilities, such as hardly ever before burdened a conscientious soul, coupled with war and defeat and disaster, were to be thenceforth his portion nearly to his life's end, and that his end was to be a bloody act which would appall the world and send a thrill of horror through the hearts of friends and enemies alike, so that when the woeful tidings came the bravest of the Southern brave should burst into tears and cry aloud, "Oh! the unhappy South, the unhappy South!"

The impression left on his companion's mind as he gave a last glance at him in the street car was that he seemed sad and lonely; and when it was too late, when the car was beyond call, he blamed himself for not accompanying Mr. Lincoln to the Astor House--not because he was a distinguished stranger, but because he seemed a sad and lonely man.

_February 12, 1908_.

CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. LINCOLN

69 Wall St., New York,

February 9, 1860.

_Dear Sir_:

The "Young Men's Central Republican Union" of this city very
cordially desire that you should deliver during the ensuing
month--what I may term--_a political lecture_. The peculiarities of
the case are these--A series of lectures has been determined
upon--The first was delivered by Mr. Blair of St. Louis a short time
ago--the second will be in a few days by Mr. C.M. Clay, and the
third we would prefer to have from you, rather than from any other
person. Of the audience I should add that it is not that of an
ordinary political meeting. These lectures have been _contrived_ to
call out our better, but busier citizens, who never attend political
meetings. A large part of the audience would also consist of ladies.
The time we should prefer, would be about the middle of March, but
if any earlier or later day will be more convenient for you we would
alter our arrangements.

Allow me to hope that we shall have the pleasure of welcoming you to
New York. You are, I believe, an entire stranger to your Republican
brethren here; but they have, for you, the highest esteem, and your
celebrated contest with Judge Douglas awoke their warmest sympathy
and admiration. Those of us who are "in the ranks" would regard your
presence as very material aid, and as an honor and pleasure which I
cannot sufficiently express.

Respectfully,

Charles C. Nott.

To Hon. Abram Lincoln.

69 Wall St., New York,

May 23, 1860.

_Dear Sir_:

I enclose a copy of your address in New York.

We (the Young Men's Rep. Union) design to publish a new edition in
larger type and better form, with such notes and references as will
best attract readers seeking information. Have you any memoranda of
your investigations which you would approve of inserting?

You and your Western friends, I think, underrate this speech. It has
produced a greater effect here than any other single speech. It is
the real platform in the Eastern States, and must carry the
conservative element in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.

Therefore I desire that it should be as nearly perfect as may be.
Most of the emendations are trivial and do not affect the
substance--all are merely suggested for your judgment.

I cannot help adding that this speech is an extraordinary example
of condensed English. After some experience in criticising for
Reviews, I find hardly anything to touch and nothing to omit. It is
the only one I know of which I cannot _shorten_, and--like a good
arch--moving one word tumbles a whole sentence down.

Finally--it being a bad and foolish thing for a candidate to write
letters, and you having doubtless more to do of that than is
pleasant or profitable, we will not add to your burden in that
regard, but if you will let any friend who has nothing to do, advise
us as to your wishes, in this or any other matter, we will try to
carry them out.

Respectfully,

Charles C. Nott.

To Hon. Abraham Lincoln.

Springfield, Ills., May 31, 1860.

Charles C. Nott, Esq.

_My Dear Sir_:

Yours of the 23rd, accompanied by a copy of the speech delivered by
me at the Cooper Institute, and upon which you have made some notes
for emendations, was received some days ago--Of course I would not
object to, but would be pleased rather, with a more perfect edition
of that speech.

I did not preserve memoranda of my investigations; and I could not
now re-examine, and make notes, without an expenditure of time
which I can not bestow upon it--Some of your notes I do not
understand.

So far as it is intended merely to improve in grammar, and elegance
of composition, I am quite agreed; but I do not wish the sense
changed, or modified, to a hair's breadth--And you, not having
studied the particular points so closely as I have, can not be quite
sure that you do not change the sense when you do not intend it--For
instance, in a note at bottom of first page, you propose to
substitute "Democrats" for "Douglas"--But what I am saying there is
_true_ of Douglas, and is not true of "Democrats" generally; so that
the proposed substitution would be a very considerable blunder--Your
proposed insertion of "residences" though it would do little or no
harm, is not at all necessary to the sense I was trying to
convey--On page 5 your proposed grammatical change would certainly
do no harm--The "_impudently absurd"_ I stick to--The striking out
"_he"_ and inserting "_we"_ turns the sense exactly wrong--The
striking out "_upon it_" leaves the sense too general and
incomplete--The sense is "act as they acted _upon that question_
"--not as they acted generally.

After considering your proposed changes on page 7, I do not think
them material, but I am willing to defer to you in relation to them.

On page 9, striking out "_to us_" is probably right--The word
"_lawyer's"_ I wish retained. The word "_Courts"_ struck out twice,
I wish reduced to "Court" and retained--"Court" as a collection more
properly governs the plural "have" as I understand--"The" preceding
"Court," in the latter case, must also be retained--The words
"quite," "as," and "or" on the same page, I wish retained. The
italicising, and quotation marking, I have no objection to.

As to the note at bottom, I do not think any too much is
admitted--What you propose on page 11 is right--I return your copy
of the speech, together with one printed here, under my own hasty
supervising. That at New York was printed without any supervision by
me--If you conclude to publish a new edition, allow me to see the
proof-sheets.

And now thanking you for your very complimentary letter, and your
interest for me generally, I subscribe myself.

Your friend and servant,

A. Lincoln.

69 Wall Street, New York.

August 28, 1860.

_Dear Sir_:

Mr. Judd insists on our printing the revised edition of your Cooper
Ins. speech _without waiting to send you the_ proofs.

If this is so determined, I wish you to know, that I have made no
alterations other than those you sanctioned, except--

1. I do not find that Abraham Baldwin voted on the Ordinance of '87.
On the contrary he appears _not_ to have acted with Congress during
the sitting of the Convention. Wm. Pierce seems to have taken his
place then; and his name is recorded as voting for the Ordinance.
This makes no difference in the result, but I presume you will not
wish the historical inaccuracy (if it is such) to stand. I will
therefore (unless you write to the contrary) strike out his name in
that place and reduce the number from "four" to "three" where you
sum up the number of times he voted.

2. In the quotations from the Constitution I have given its exact
language; as "delegated" instead of "granted," etc. As it is given
in _quo_. marks, I presume the exact letter of the text should be
followed.

_If these are not correct please write immediately_.

_Our_ apology for the delay is that we have been weighed down by
other matters; _mine_ that I have but to-day returned to town.

Respectfully,

Charles C. Nott.

To Hon. Abraham Lincoln.

69 WALL STREET, N.Y.

Sept. 17, 1860.

_Dear Sir_:

We forward you by this day's express 250 copies, with the last
corrections. I delayed sending, thinking that you would prefer these
to those first printed.

The "Abraham Baldwin letter" referred to in your last I regret to
say has _not_ arrived. From your not touching the proofs in that
regard, I inferred (and hope) that the correction was not itself an
error.

Should you wish a larger number of copies do not hesitate to let us
know; it will afford us much pleasure to furnish them and no
inconvenience whatever.

Respectfully, etc.,

CHARLES C. NOTT.

Hon. A. Lincoln.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLS., Sept. 22, 1860.

CHARLES C. NOTT, Esq.,

_My Dear Sir_:

Yours of the 17th was duly received--The 250 copies have not yet
arrived--I am greatly obliged to you for what you have done, and
what you propose to do.

The "Abraham Baldwin letter" in substance was that I could not find
the Journal of the Confederation Congress for the session at which
was passed the Ordinance of 1787--and that in stating Mr. Baldwin
had voted for its passage, I had relied on a communication of Mr.
Greeley, over his own signature, published in the New York _Weekly
Tribune_ of October 15, 1859. If you will turn to that paper, you
will there see that Mr. Greeley apparently copies from the Journal,
and places the name of Mr. Baldwin among those of the men who voted
for the measure.

Still; if the Journal itself shows differently, of course it is
right.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.

The Address of

THE HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN,

In Vindication 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.

With Notes by

CHARLES C. NOTT and CEPHAS BRAINERD,

Members of the Board of Control.

OFFICERS OF THE UNION

CHARLES T. RODGERS, President. DEXTER A. HAWKINS, Vice-President. ERASMUS STERLING, Secretary. WILLIAM M. FRANKLIN, Treasurer.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

CEPHAS BRAINERD, Chairman. BENJAMIN P. MANIERRE, RICHARD C. McCORMICK, CHARLES C. NOTT, CHARLES H. COOPER, P.G. DEGRAW, JAMES H. WELSH, E.C. JOHNSON, LEWIS M. PECK.

ADVISORY BOARD

WM. CULLEN BRYANT, DANIEL DREW, HIRAM BARNEY, WILLIAM V. BRADY, JOHN JAY, GEORGE W. BLUNT, HENRY A. HURLBUT, ABIJAH MANN, JR., HAMILTON FISH, FRANCIS HALL, HORACE GREELEY, CHARLES A. PEABODY, EDGAR KETCHUM, JAMES KELLY, GEORGE FOLSOM, WILLIAM CURTIS NOYES, BENJAMIN F. MANIERRE.

PREFACE

This edition of Mr. Lincoln's address has been prepared and published by the Young Men's Republican Union of New York, to exemplify its wisdom, truthfulness, and learning. No one who has not actually attempted to verify its details can understand the patient research and historical labor which it embodies. The history of our earlier politics is scattered through numerous journals, statutes, pamphlets, and letters; and these are defective in completeness and accuracy of statement, and in indices and tables of contents. Neither can any one who has not travelled over this precise ground appreciate the accuracy of every trivial detail, or the self-denying impartiality with which Mr. Lincoln has turned from the testimony of "the Fathers," on the general question of slavery, to present the single question which he discusses. From the first line to the last--from his premises to his conclusion, he travels with swift, unerring directness which no logician ever excelled--an argument complete and full, without the affectation of learning, and without the stiffness which usually accompanies dates and details. A single, easy, simple sentence of plain Anglo-Saxon words contains a chapter of history that, in some instances, has taken days of labor to verify and which must have cost the author months of investigation to acquire. And, though the public should justly estimate the labor bestowed on the facts which are stated, they cannot estimate the greater labor involved on those which are omitted--how many pages have been read--how many works examined--what numerous statutes, resolutions, speeches, letters, and biographies have been looked through. Commencing with this address as a political pamphlet, the reader will leave it as an historical work--brief, complete, profound, impartial, truthful--which will survive the time and the occasion that called it forth, and be esteemed hereafter, no less for its intrinsic worth than its unpretending modesty.

NEW YORK, September, 1860.

ADDRESS

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.[4]

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.[5]

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,[6] 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,[7] 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.[8]

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 Territories 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[9]; 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.[10]

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.[11]

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.[12] In this Congress,
there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the
original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Oilman, 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.[13]

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.[14] 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.[15] 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.[16] 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.[17]

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.[18] 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.[19] 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.[20]

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
anyway.[21]

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.[22]

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.[23]

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.[24]

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."[25]

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.[26]

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."[27] 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--licence, 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 Lafayette 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.[28]

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.[29]