Chapter III: Before the Nation

Speeches in Ohio--Extract from his Cincinnati Speech--Visits
the East--Celebrated Speech at the Cooper Institute, New York--
Interesting Incident.

The issue of this contest with Douglas, seemingly a defeat, was destined in due time to prove a decisive triumph. Mr. Lincoln’s reputation as a skillful debater and master of political fence was secure, and admitted throughout the land. During the year ensuing he again devoted himself almost exclusively to professional labors, delivering, however, in the campaign of 1859, at the earnest solicitation of the Republicans of Ohio, two most convincing speeches in that State, one at Columbus, and the other at Cincinnati.

In his speech in the latter city, alluding to the certainty of a speedy Republican triumph in the nation, Mr. Lincoln thus sketched what he regarded as the inevitable results of such a victory:

“I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the
opposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as
nearly as we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison
treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way interfere
with your institution; to abide by all and every compromise of
the Constitution; and, in a word, coming back to the original
proposition to treat you, so far as degenerated men (if we have
degenerated) may, imitating the example of those noble fathers,
Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. We mean to remember that you
are as good as we; that there is no difference between us other
than the difference of circumstances. We mean to recognize and
bear in mind always that you have as good hearts in your bosoms as
other people, or as we claim to have, and treat you accordingly.
We mean to marry your girls when we have a chance--the white ones
I mean--and I have the honor to inform you that I once did get a
chance in that way.

“I have told you what we mean to do. I want to know, now, when that
thing takes place, what you mean to do. I often hear it intimated
that you mean to divide the Union whenever a Republican, or any
thing like it, is elected President of the United States. [A voice,
‘That is so.’] ‘That is so,’ one of them says. I wonder if he is a
Kentuckian? [A voice, ‘He is a Douglas man.’] Well, then, I want to
know what you are going to do with your half of it? Are you going
to split the Ohio down through, and push your half off a piece? Or
are you going to keep it right alongside of us outrageous fellows?
Or are you going to build up a wall some way between your country
and ours, by which that movable property of yours can’t come
over here any more, and you lose it? Do you think you can better
yourselves on that subject, by leaving us here under no obligation
whatever to return those specimens of your movable property that
come hither? You have divided the Union because we would not do
right with you, as you think, upon that subject; when we cease to
be under obligations to do any thing for you, how much better off
do you think you will be? Will you make war upon us and kill us
all? Why, gentlemen, I think you are as gallant and as brave men
as live; that you can fight as bravely in a good cause, man for
man, as any other people living; that you have shown yourselves
capable of this upon various occasions; but, man for man, you are
not better than we are, and there are not so many of you as there
are of us. You will never make much of a hand at whipping us. If
we were fewer in numbers than you, I think that you could whip us;
if we were equal it would likely be a drawn battle; but being
inferior in numbers, you will make nothing by attempting to master
us.

“I say that we must not interfere with the institution of Slavery
in the States where it exists, because the Constitution forbids it,
and the general welfare does not require us to do so. We must not
withhold an efficient fugitive slave law because the Constitution
requires us, as I understand it, not to withhold such a law, but we
must prevent the outspreading of the institution, because neither
the constitution nor the general welfare requires us to extend it.
We must prevent the revival of the African slave-trade and the
enacting by Congress of a Territorial slave code. We must prevent
each of these things being done by either Congresses or Courts.
THE PEOPLE OF THESE UNITED STATES ARE THE RIGHTFUL MASTERS OF BOTH
CONGRESSES AND COURTS, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to
overthrow the men who pervert that Constitution.”

In the spring of 1860, Mr. Lincoln yielded to the urgent calls which came to him from the East for his aid in the exciting canvasses then in progress in that section, and spoke at various places in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island, and also in New York city, and was everywhere warmly welcomed by immense audiences.

Without doubt, one of the greatest speeches of his life was that delivered by him in the Cooper Institute, in New York, on the 27th of February, 1860, in the presence of a crowded assembly which received him with the most enthusiastic demonstrations. We subjoin a full report of this masterly analysis of men and measures. After being introduced in highly complimentary terms by the venerable William Cullen Bryant, who presided on the occasion, he proceeded:

“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 any thing 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 agreed starting
point for the discussion between Republicans and that wing of
Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry:
‘What was the understanding those fathers had of the questions
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 any thing in the Constitution, forbid our Federal
Government control as to slavery in our Federal Territories?

“Upon this, Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the
negative. This affirmative 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
any thing else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four--James
McHenry--voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some
cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.

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

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

“In 1789, by the First congress which sat under the Constitution,
an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of ’87 including the
prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill
for this act was reported by one of the ‘thirty-nine,’ Thomas
Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from
Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of
opposition, and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays,
which is equivalent to 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 Patterson, George Clymer,
Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carrol, James
Madison.

“This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local
from federal authority, nor any thing 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 any thing 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 any thing 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 proper
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 any thing 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,
three in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and
two in 1819-20--there would be thirty-one of them. But this would
be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King,
and George Read, each twice, and Abraham Baldwin four 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 ‘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 any thing 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 any thing 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 Governeur
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 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 property without due process of law;’ while Senator Douglas and
his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth commandment,
providing that ‘the powers not granted by the Constitution are
reserved to the States respectively, and 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 north-western territory. Not only was it the
same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual men
who, 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.

“That Congress, consisting in all of seventy-six members, 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 were really 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--we 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 us 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 it 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 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 have considerable variety of 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, re-adopt 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 to not designate the
man, and prove the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable
to assert it, and especially to persist 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
declarations which were not held to and made by our fathers who
framed the government under which we live. You never deal 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 any thing 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 contest 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 free men, 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 the 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 poisoning 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 in 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 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 to us. 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 Courts have decided the question
for you in a sort of way. The Courts 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 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 a 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 threat of death to me, to extort my money,
and 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 any thing 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. 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,
they 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 ‘dont 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, not 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.”

It was during this visit to New York that the following incident occurred, as related by a teacher in the Five-Points House of Industry, in that city:

“Our Sunday-school in the Five-Points was assembled, one
Sabbath morning, a few months since, when I noticed a tall and
remarkable-looking man enter the room and take a seat among
us. He listened with fixed attention to our exercises, and his
countenance manifested such genuine interest that I approached him
and suggested that he might be willing to say something to the
children. He accepted the invitation with evident pleasure, and,
coming forward, began a simple address, which at once fascinated
every little hearer, and hushed the room into silence. His language
was strikingly beautiful, and his tones musical with intensest
feeling. The little faces around would droop into sad conviction as
he uttered sentences of warning, and would brighten into sunshine
as he spoke cheerful words of promise. Once or twice he attempted
to close his remarks, but the imperative shout of ‘Go on!’ ‘Oh,
do go on!’ would compel him to resume. As I looked upon the gaunt
and sinewy frame of the stranger, and marked his powerful head and
determined features, now touched into softness by the impressions
of the moment, I felt an irrepressible curiosity to learn something
more about him, and when he was quietly leaving the room I begged
to know his name. He courteously replied, ‘It is Abra’m Lincoln,
from Illinois!’”