Chapter XVIII: Progress

President’s Speech at Washington--Speech to a New York Committee--
Speech In Baltimore--Letter to a Kentuckian--Employment of
Colored Troops--Davis’s Threat--General Order--President’s Order
on the Subject.

On the night of the eighteenth of March, 1864, in response to a call from the multitude at a fair held in the Patent Office at Washington, in aid of an organization for the relief of Union soldiers everywhere, Mr. Lincoln spoke as follows:

“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I appear, to say but a word. This
extraordinary war in which we are engaged falls heavily upon all
classes of people, but the most heavily upon the soldier. For it
has been said, ‘All that a man hath will he give for his life;’
and, while all contribute of their substance, the soldier puts his
life at stake, and often yields it up in his country’s cause. The
highest merit, then, is due to the soldier.

“In this extraordinary war, extraordinary developments have
manifested themselves, such as have not been seen in former wars;
and among these manifestations nothing has been more remarkable
than these fairs for the relief of suffering soldiers and their
families. And the chief agents in these fairs are the women of
America. I am not accustomed to the use of the language of eulogy;
I have never studied the art of paying compliments to women; but
I must say, that, if all that has been said by orators and poets,
since the creation of the world, in praise of women, were applied
to the women of America, it would not do them justice for their
conduct during this war. I will close by saying, God bless the
women of America!”

Three days later, a committee appointed by the Workingmen’s Democratic Republican Association of New York waited on the President, and presented him with an address informing him that he had been elected a member of that organization. After the chairman had stated the object of the visit, Mr. Lincoln made the following reply:

“GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE:--The honorary membership in your
Association so generously tendered is gratefully accepted. You
comprehend, as your address shows, that the existing rebellion
means more and tends to more than the perpetuation of African
slavery--that it is, in fact, a war upon the rights of all working
people. Partly to show that the view has not escaped my attention,
and partly that I cannot better express myself, I read a passage
from the message to Congress in December, 1861:

“‘It continues to develop that the insurrection is largely,
if not exclusively, a war upon the first principle of popular
government--the rights of the people. Conclusive evidence of
this is found in the most grave and maturely considered public
documents, as well as in the general tone of the insurgents. In
those documents we find the abridgement of the existing right of
suffrage, and the denial to the people of all right to participate
in the selection of public officers, except the legislative body,
boldly advocated with labored arguments, to prove that large
control of the people in government is the source of all political
evil. Monarchy is sometimes hinted at as a possible refuge from the
power of the people. In my present position, I could scarcely be
justified were I to omit raising my voice against this approach of
returning despotism.

“‘It is not needed or fitting here that a general argument should
be made in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point,
with its connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which
I ask a brief attention. It is the effort to place _capital_ on
an equal footing with, if not above, _labor_ in the structure of
the Government. It is assumed that labor is available only in
connection with capital; that nobody labors unless somebody else
owning capital somehow, by use of it, induces him to labor.

“‘This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that
capital shall _hire_ laborers, and thus induce them to work by
their own consent, or _buy them_ and drive them to it without their
consent. Having proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that
all laborers are either hired laborers or what we call slaves.
And, further, it is assumed that whoever is once a hired laborer
is fixed in that condition for life. Now there is no such relation
between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thing
as a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired
laborer. Both of these assumptions are false, and all inferences
from them are groundless.

“‘Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the
fruit of labor, and never could have existed if labor had not first
existed. Labor is the support of capital, and deserves much the
higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy
of protection as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is,
and probably always will be, a relation between labor and capital
producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole
labor of a community exists within that relation. A few men own
capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with that capital
hire or buy another few to labor for them.

“‘A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others
nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States
a majority of the whole people, of all colors, are neither slaves
nor masters, while, in the Northern States, a large majority are
neither hirers nor hired. Men with their families--wives, sons, and
daughters--work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and
in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking
no favors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or
slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerable number
of persons mingle their own labor with capital--that is, they labor
with their own hands and also buy or hire others to labor for them;
but this is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle
stated is disturbed by the existence of this mixed class.

“‘Again. As has already been said, there is not of necessity any
such thing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition
for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States, a few
years back in their lives, were hired laborers. The prudent,
penniless beginner in the world labors for wages awhile, saves a
surplus with which to buy tools or lands for himself, then labors
on his own account another while, and at length hires another
new beginner to help him. This is the just, and generous, and
prosperous system which opens the way to all--gives hope to all,
and consequent energy, and progress, and improvement to all. No men
living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from
poverty--none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have
not honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political
power which they already possess, and which, if surrendered, will
surely be used to close the door of advancement against such as
they, and to fix new disabilities and burdens upon them till all
of liberty shall be lost.’

“The views then expressed remain unchanged--nor have I much to
add. None are so deeply interested to resist the present rebellion
as the working people. Let them beware of prejudices working
disunion and hostility among themselves. The most notable feature
of a disturbance in your city last summer, was the hanging of
some working people by other working people. It should never be
so. The strongest bond of human sympathy, outside of the family
relation, should be one uniting all working people, of all nations,
tongues, and kindreds. Nor should this lead to a war upon property
or the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor;
property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That some
should be rich, shows that others may become rich, and hence is
just encouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who
is houseless pull down the house of another, but let him labor
diligently and build one for himself; thus, by example, assuring
that his own shall be safe from violence when built.”

And in Baltimore--that Baltimore through which, in February, 1861, he had been compelled to pass by stealth, to avoid the assassin, on his way to his inauguration--on the 18th of April, 1864, the anniversary eve of that murder of loyal citizens armed in defence of their imperilled country--Mr. Lincoln spoke at a similar Fair, and spoke, too, of slavery, as of an institution practically annihilated in Maryland.

Truly some advance had been made during those three years, so pregnant with events!

“LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--Calling it to mind that we are in
Baltimore, we cannot fail to note that the world moves. Looking
upon the many people I see assembled here to serve as they best
may the soldiers of the Union, it occurs to me that three years
ago those soldiers could not pass through Baltimore. I would say,
blessings upon the men who have wrought these changes, and the
ladies who have assisted them. This change which has taken place in
Baltimore, is part only of a far wider change that is taking place
all over the country.

“When the war commenced, three years ago, no one expected that it
would last this long, and no one supposed that the institution of
slavery would be materially affected by it. But here we are. The
war is not yet ended, and slavery has been very materially affected
or interfered with. So true is it that man proposes and God
disposes.

“The world is in want of a good definition of the word liberty. We
all declare ourselves to be for liberty, but we do not all mean the
same thing. Some mean that a man can do as he pleases with himself
and his property. With others, it means that some men can do as
they please with other men and other men’s labor. Each of these
things are called liberty, although they are entirely different. To
give an illustration: A shepherd drives the wolf from the throat
of his sheep when attacked by him, and the sheep, of course,
thanks the shepherd for the preservation of his life; but the wolf
denounces him as despoiling the sheep of his liberty--especially if
it be a black sheep.

“This same difference of opinion prevails among some of the people
of the North. But the people of Maryland have recently been doing
something to properly define the meaning of the word, and I thank
them from the bottom of my heart for what they have done and are
doing.

“It is not very becoming for a President to make a speech at
great length, but there is a painful rumor afloat in the country,
in reference to which a few words shall be said. It is reported
that there has been a wanton massacre of some hundreds of colored
soldiers at Fort Pillow, Tennessee, during a recent engagement
there, and it is fit to explain some facts in relation to the
affair. It is said by some persons that the Government is not, in
this matter, doing its duty. At the commencement of the war, it
was doubtful whether black men would be used as soldiers or not.
The matter was examined into very carefully, and after mature
deliberation, the whole matter resting as it were with himself, he,
in his judgment, decided that they should.

“He was responsible for the act to the American people, to a
Christian nation, to the future historian, and above all, to his
God, to whom he would have, one day, to render an account of
his stewardship. He would now say that in his opinion the black
soldier should have the same protection as the white soldier, and
he would have it. It was an error to say that the Government was
not acting in the matter. The Government has no direct evidence to
confirm the reports in existence relative to this massacre, but
he himself believed the facts in relation to it to be as stated.
When the Government does know the facts from official sources, and
they prove to substantiate the reports, retribution will be surely
given.”

Mr. Lincoln’s policy upon the question of slavery, is tersely presented in the following letter written by him to a Kentuckian, dated Executive Mansion, Washington, April 4, 1864.

“A. G. HODGES, ESQ., Frankfort, Ky.:

“MY DEAR SIR:--You ask me to put in writing the substance of what I
verbally said the other day in your presence, to Governor Bramlette
and Senator Dixon. It was about as follows:

“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is
wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think and feel. And
yet, I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon
me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and
feeling. It was in the oath I took, that I would, to the best of
my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the
United States. I could not take the office without taking the
oath. Nor was it my view, that I might take an oath to get power,
and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that
in ordinary civil administration, this oath even forbade me to
practically indulge my primary, abstract judgment, on the moral
question of slavery. I had publicly declared this many times, and
in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official
act in mere deference to my abstract judgment and feeling on
slavery.

“I did understand, however, that my oath to preserve the
Constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon me the duty
of preserving, by every indispensable means, the Government--that
Nation--of which that Constitution was the organic law. Was it
possible to lose the Nation, and yet preserve the Constitution?

“By general law, life and limb must be protected: yet often a limb
must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wisely given
to save a limb. I feel that measures, otherwise unconstitutional,
might become lawful, by becoming indispensable to the preservation
of the Constitution, through the preservation of the Nation. Right
or wrong, I assumed this ground and now avow it. I could not feel
that to the best of my ability I had even tried to preserve the
Constitution, if to save slavery or any minor matter, I should
permit the wreck of Government, Country and Constitution, all
together. When early in the war, Gen. Fremont attempted military
emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not then think it an
indispensable necessity. When a little later, Gen. Cameron, then
Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, I objected,
because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When,
still later, Gen. Hunter attempted military emancipation, I again
forbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessity
had come.

“When, in March, and May, and July, 1862, I made earnest and
successive appeals to the Border States to favor compensated
emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military
emancipation and arming the blacks would come, unless averted by
that measure. They declined the proposition, and I was, in my
best judgment, driven to the alternative of either surrendering
the Union, and with it the Constitution, or of laying strong hand
upon the colored element. I chose the latter. In choosing it, I
hoped for greater gain than loss; but of this I was not entirely
confident. More than a year of trial now shows no loss by it, in
our foreign relations; none in our home popular sentiment; none in
our white military force--no loss by it anyhow or anywhere. On the
contrary, it shows a gain of quite a hundred and thirty thousand
soldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about
which, as facts, there can be no caviling. We have the men, and we
could not have had them without the measure.

“And now, let any Union man who complains of the measure, test
himself, by writing down in one line that he is for subduing the
rebellion by force of arms, and in the next that he is for taking
these one hundred and thirty thousand men from the Union side, and
placing them where they would be, but for the measure he condemns.
If he can not face his cause so stated, it is only because he can
not face the truth.

“I add a word, which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling
this tale, I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim
not to have controlled events, but confess plainly that events
have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years’ struggle, the
Nation’s condition is not what either party or any man devised or
expected. God alone can claim it. Whither it is tending, seems
plain. If God now wills the removal of a great wrong, and wills
also that we of the North, as well as you of the South, shall
pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartial history
will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice and
goodness of God.

“Yours truly,
“A. LINCOLN.”

The results of the employment of negro soldiers--a measure which, at the time it was first announced, caused no little commotion among the over-sensitive in the loyal States, and was looked upon with disfavor by many white soldiers, as well--as shown in the above letter, precluded further arguments upon the question.

The Davis combination at Richmond, having announced that none of the immunities recognized under the laws of war would be granted to colored soldiers or their officers, General Orders No. 100, under date of April 24, 1863, “previously approved by the President,” promulgating general instructions for the government of our armies, was issued, containing the following:

“The law of nations knows of no distinction of color; and if an
enemy of the United States should enslave and sell any captured
persons of their army, it would be a case for the severest
retaliation, if not redressed upon complaint. The United States
cannot retaliate by enslavement; therefore, death must be the
retaliation for this crime against the law of nations.

“All troops of the enemy known or discovered to give no quarter in
general, or to any portion of the army, will receive none.”

The following order of the President, issued by him as Commander-in-chief, and communicated to the entire army deals with this subject alone:

“_Executive Mansion_, Washington, July 30, 1863.

“It is the duty of every Government to give protection to its
citizens of whatever class, color or condition, and especially to
those who are duly organized as soldiers in the public service.
The law of nations, and the usages and customs of war, as carried
on by civilized powers, prohibit no distinction as to color in the
treatment of prisoners of war as public enemies. To sell or enslave
any captured person, on account of his color, and for no offence
against the laws of war, is a relapse into barbarism, and a crime
against the civilization of the age.

“The Government of the United States will give the same protection
to all its soldiers; and if the enemy shall sell or enslave any one
because of his color, the offence shall be punished by retaliation
upon the enemy’s prisoners in our possession.

“It is therefore ordered, that for every soldier of the United
States killed in violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier
shall be executed; and for every one enslaved by the enemy or sold
into slavery, a rebel soldier shall be placed at hard labor on the
public works, and continued at such labor until the one shall be
released and receive the treatment due to a prisoner of war.

“ABRAHAM LINCOLN.”