Chapter VI: The Campaign of 1858 and the John Brown Raid

The events described in the preceding chapter left Senator Douglas still the towering figure in national politics. Although he had contributed but a small part of the votes in the Senate and House by which the Lecompton Bill had been defeated, he had furnished an indispensable part. He had humbled the Buchanan administration. He had delivered Kansas from the grasp of the Border Ruffians. What he might do for freedom in the future, if properly encouraged, loomed large in the imagination of the Eastern Republicans. Greeley, Seward, Banks, Bowles, Burlingame, Henry Wilson, and scores of lesser lights were quoted as desiring to see him returned to the Senate by Republican votes. Some were even willing to support him for the Presidency.

The Republicans of Illinois did not share this enthusiasm. Not only had they fixed upon Lincoln as their choice for Senator, but they felt that they could not trust Douglas. He still said that he cared not whether slavery was voted down or voted up. That was the very thing they did care about. Could they assume that, after being reelected by their votes and made their standard-bearer, he would be a new man, different from the one he had been before? And if he remained of the same opinions as before, what would become of the Republican party? Who could answer for the demoralizing effects of taking him for a leader? The views of the party leaders in Illinois are set forth at considerable length in letters received by Senator Trumbull, the first one from Lincoln himself:

BLOOMINGTON, December 28, 1857.

HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL,

DEAR SIR: What does the New York _Tribune_ mean by its constant
eulogizing and admiring and magnifying Douglas? Does it, in
this, speak the sentiments of the Republicans at Washington?
Have they concluded that the Republican cause generally can be
best promoted by sacrificing us here in Illinois? If so, we
would like to know it soon; it will save us a great deal of
labor to surrender at once.

As yet I have heard of no Republican here going over to
Douglas, but if the _Tribune_ continues to din his praises into
the ears of its five or ten thousand readers in Illinois, it is
more than can be hoped that all will stand firm. I am not
complaining, I only wish for a fair understanding. Please write
me at Springfield.

Your obt. servant,

A. LINCOLN.

C. H. Ray, Chicago, March 9, 1858, protests against any trading with Douglas on the basis of reelecting him to the Senate by Republican votes. The Republicans of Illinois are unanimous for Lincoln and will not swerve from that purpose. Thinks that Douglas is coming to the Republican camp and that the disposal of him will be a difficult problem unless he will be content with a place in the Cabinet of the next Republican President.

J. K. Dubois, Springfield, April 8, says that Hatch (secretary of state) and himself were in Chicago a few days since. Found every man there firm and true--Judd, Peck, Ray, Scripps, W. H. Brown, etc. Herndon has just come home; says that Wilson, Banks, Greeley, etc., are for returning Douglas to the Senate. "God forbid! Are our friends crazy?"

J. M. Palmer, Carlinville, May 25:

We feel here that we have fought a strenuous and
well-maintained battle with Douglas, backed up by the whole
strength of the Federal patronage, and have won some prospect
of overthrowing him and placing Illinois permanently in the
ranks of the party of progress, whether called Republican or by
some other name, and now, by a "Wall street operation,"
Lincoln, to whom we are all under great obligations, and all
our men who have borne the heat and burden of the day, are to
be kicked to one side and we are to throw up our caps for Judge
Douglas, and he very coolly tells us all the time that we are
Abolitionists and negro worshipers and that he accepts our
votes as a favor to us! Messrs. Greeley, Seward, Burlingame,
etc., are presumed to be able to estimate themselves properly,
and if they fix only that value on themselves, no one has a
right to complain, but if I vote for Douglas under such
circumstances, may I be ----. I don't swear, but you may fill
this blank as you please. Yet I have no personal feelings
against Douglas.... Lincoln and his friends were under no
obligation to us in that controversy [of 1855]. We had, though
but five, refused to vote for him under circumstances that we
thought, at the time, furnished good reason for our refusal. We
elected an anti-Nebraska Democrat to the Senate, by his aid
most magnanimously rendered, and that result placed us, through
you, on the highest possible ground in the new party. If you
had not been elected, we should have been a baffled faction at
the tail of an alien organization. We have, as a consequence,
an anti-Nebraska Democrat for governor, and our men are the
bone and sinew of the new organization, though we are in a
minority. In all these results Lincoln has contributed his
efforts and the Whig element have cooeperated. For myself,
therefore, I am unalterably determined to do all that I can to
elect Lincoln to the Senate. _I_ cannot elect him, but I can
give him and all his friends conclusive proof that I am
animated by honor and good faith, and will stand up for his
election until the Republican party, including himself and his
personal friends, say we have done enough. Hence no arrangement
that looks to the election of Douglas by Republican votes, that
does not meet the approval of Lincoln and his friends, can meet
my approval.

The chief difficulty was that Douglas had never established for himself a character for stability. People did not know what they could depend upon in dealing with him. Other questions than Lecompton would soon come up, as to which his course would be uncertain. Who could say whether he would look northward or southward for the Presidency two years hence?

Douglas knew that he need not look in either direction unless he could first secure his reelection to the Senate. Bear-like, tied to a stake, he must fight the course. His campaign against Lincoln for the senatorship does not properly appertain to the Life of Trumbull, although the latter took an active part in it. The author's recollections and memoranda of that campaign were contributed to another publication.[34] He recalls with pity the weary but undaunted look, after nearly four months of incessant travel and speaking, of the Little Giant, whose health was already much impaired. A letter from Fessenden to Trumbull, dated November 16, 1856, spoke of him as "a dying man in almost every sense, unless he mends speedily--of which, I take it, there is little hope." In the Senate debates from 1855 on, he often spoke of his bad health, and in one instance he got out of a sick-bed to vote on the Lecompton Bill. The campaign of 1858 was a severe drain on his remaining strength, but in manner and mien he gave no sign of the waste and exhaustion within.

The Trumbull papers contain some contemporary notes on the campaign of 1858. The Buchanan Democrats in Illinois gave themselves the high-sounding title of the National Democracy. By the Douglas men they were called "Danites," a name borrowed from the literature of Mormondom. Traces of this sect are found in the following letters:

D. L. Phillips, Anna, Union County, February 16, 1858, says
that Hon. John Dougherty will start in a few days for
Washington to console the President and look for an office for
himself. (He obtained the Marshalship of southern Illinois.)

W. H. Herndon, Springfield, July 8:

Mr. Lincoln was here a moment ago and told me that he had just
seen Col. Dougherty and had a conversation with him. He told
Lincoln that the National Democracy intended to run in every
county and district, a National Democrat for each and every
office. Lincoln replied, "If you do this the thing is settled."
... Lincoln is very certain as to Miller's and Bateman's
election (on the state ticket), but is gloomy and rather
uncertain about his own success.

Lincoln's own thoughts respecting the Danites are set forth incidentally in the following letter:

SPRINGFIELD, June 23, 1858.

HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL,

MY DEAR SIR: Your letter of the 16th reached me only yesterday.
We had already seen by telegraph a report of Douglas's
onslaught upon everybody but himself. I have this morning seen
the Washington _Union_, in which I think the Judge is rather
worsted in regard to the onslaught.

In relation to the charge of an alliance between the
Republicans and the Buchanan men in the state, if being rather
pleased to see a division in the ranks of Democracy, and not
doing anything to prevent it, be such an alliance, then there
is such an alliance. At least, that is true of me. But if it be
intended to charge that there is any alliance by which there is
to be any concession of principle on either side, or furnishing
of sinews, or partition of offices, or swapping of votes to any
extent, or the doing of anything, great or small, on the one
side for a consideration expressed or implied on the other, no
such thing is true so far as I know or believe.

Before this reaches you, you will have seen the proceedings of
our Republican State Convention. It was really a grand affair
and was in all respects all that our friends could desire.

The resolution in effect nominating me for Senator was passed
more for the object of closing down upon the everlasting
croaking about Wentworth than anything else. The signs look
reasonably well. Our state ticket, I think, will be elected
without much difficulty. But with the advantages they have of
us, we shall be hard run to carry the legislature. We shall
greet your return home with great pleasure.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.

The only counties in the state in which the Danites showed any vitality were Union County in the south and Bureau County in the north. They polled only 5079 votes in the whole state.

The influence of the Eastern Republicans, who were inclined to support Douglas at the beginning of the campaign, and especially that of the New York _Tribune_, is noted by Judd and Herndon.

N. B. Judd, Chicago, July 16:

We have lost some Republicans in this region.... You may
attribute it to the course of the New York _Tribune_, which has
tended to loosen party ties and induce old Whigs to look upon
D.'s return to the Senate as rather desirable. You ought to
come to Illinois as soon as you can by way of New York and
straighten out the newspapers there. Even the _Evening Post_
compares Douglas to Silas Wright. Bah!

W. H. Herndon, Springfield, July 22:

There were some Republicans here--more than we had any idea
of--who had been silently influenced by Greeley, and who
intended to go for Douglas or not take sides against him. His
speech here aroused the old fires and now they are his enemies.
Has received a letter from Greeley in which he says: "Now,
Herndon, I am going to do all I reasonably can to elect
Lincoln."

N. B. Judd, Chicago, December 26 (after the election), says:

Horace Greeley has been here lecturing and doing what mischief
he could. He took Tom Dyer [Democrat, ex-mayor] into his
confidence and told him all the party secrets that he knew,
such as that we had been East and endeavored to get money for
the canvass and that we failed, etc.;--a beautiful chap he is,
to be entrusted with the interests of a party. Lecturing is a
mere pretense. He is running around to our small towns with
that pretense, but really to head off the defection from his
paper. It is being stopped by hundreds.

A. Jonas, Quincy, same date:

H. Greeley delivered a lecture before our lyceum last
evening--a large crowd to hear him. John Wood, Browning,
myself, and others talked to him very freely about the course
of the _Tribune_ in the late campaign. He acknowledged we were
right.

The Douglas men elected a majority of the legislature, but did not have a majority, or even a plurality, of the popular vote. So it appears from a letter to Trumbull, the existence of which the author himself had forgotten.

Horace White, Chicago, January 10, 1859, sends a table of votes
cast for members of the legislature in the election of 1858,
showing a plurality of 4191 for Republican candidates for the
House of Representatives.

W. H. Herndon, Springfield, says that Lincoln was defeated in
the counties of Sangamon, Morgan, Madison, Logan, and Mason--a
group of counties within a radius of eighty miles from the
capital. They were men from Kentucky, Tennessee, and Virginia
mainly, old-line Whigs, timid, but generally good men,
supporters of Fillmore in the election of 1856. "These men must
be reached in the coming election of 1860. Otherwise Trumbull
will be beaten also."

SPRINGFIELD, January 29,1859.

HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL,

DEAR SIR: I have just received your late speech in pamphlet
form, sent me by yourself. I had seen and read it before in a
newspaper and I really think it a capital one. When you can
find leisure, write me your present impression of Douglas's
movements.

Our friends here from different parts of the state, in and out
of the legislature, are united, resolute, and determined, and I
think it almost certain that we shall be far better organized
in 1860 than ever before.

We shall get no just apportionment (of legislative districts)
and the best we can do--if we can do that--is to prevent one
being made worse than the present.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.

A letter from Lincoln following the campaign of 1858, is appended as showing the cordial relations existing between himself and Trumbull. The latter had written to him from Washington under date January 29, 1859, saying that John Wentworth had written an article, intended for publication in the Chicago _Journal_ (but which the editor of that paper had refused to print), imputing bad faith toward Lincoln on the part of N. B. Judd, B. C. Cook, and others, including Trumbull, in the last senatorial campaign. Trumbull had received a copy of this article, and as its object was to create enmity between friends, and as it would probably be published somewhere, he wished to assure Lincoln that the statements and insinuations contained in it were wholly false. To this Lincoln replied as follows:

SPRINGFIELD, February 3, 1859.

HON. L. TRUMBULL,

MY DEAR SIR: Yours of the 29th is received. The article
mentioned by you, prepared for the Chicago _Journal_, I have
not seen; nor do I wish to see it, though I heard of it a month
or more ago. Any effort to put enmity between you and me is as
idle as the wind. I do not for a moment doubt that you, Judd,
Cook, Palmer, and the Republicans generally coming from the old
Democratic ranks, were as sincerely anxious for my success in
the late contest as myself, and I beg to assure you beyond all
possible cavil that you can scarcely be more anxious to be
sustained two years hence than I am that you shall be
sustained. I cannot conceive it possible for me to be a rival
of yours or to take sides against you in favor of any rival.
Nor do I think there is much danger of the old Democratic and
Whig elements of our party breaking into opposing factions.
They certainly shall not if I can prevent it.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.

Twenty days after this letter was penned, there was a debate in the Senate which was an echo of the Illinois campaign, which must have been extremely interesting to both Lincoln and Trumbull. In a debate with Douglas in 1856, as already noted, Trumbull had asked him whether, under his doctrine of popular sovereignty, the people could prohibit slavery in a territory before they came to form a state constitution. He replied that that was a judicial question to be settled by the courts, and that all good Democrats would bow to the decision of the Supreme Court whenever it should be made. At Freeport, in the campaign of 1858, Lincoln put the same question to him in a slightly different form.

On the 23d of February, 1859, there was a Senate debate on this question, in which Douglas contended that the Democratic party, by supporting General Cass in 1848, had endorsed the same opinion that he (Douglas) had maintained at Freeport, since Cass, in his so-called "Nicholson Letter," had affirmed the doctrine of squatter sovereignty as to slavery in the territories. Douglas now contended that every Southern state that gave its electoral vote to Cass, including Mississippi, was committed to the doctrine that the people of a territory could lawfully exclude slavery while still in a territorial condition. Jefferson Davis replied:

The State of Mississippi voted [in 1848] under the belief that
that letter meant no more than that when the territory became a
state, it had authority to decide that question.... If it had
been known that the venerable candidate then of the Democratic
party, and now Secretary of State, held the opinion which he so
frankly avowed at a subsequent period on the floor of the
Senate, I tell you, sir [addressing Douglas], he would have had
no more chance to get the vote of Mississippi than you with
your opinions would have to-day.[35]

On the 2d of February, 1860, Davis introduced a series of resolutions in the Senate of a political character evidently intended to head off Douglas at the coming Charleston Convention; or, failing that, to pave the way for the withdrawal of the delegates of the cotton-growing states. The fourth resolution was directed against the Douglas doctrine of unfriendly legislation, thus:

_Resolved_, That neither Congress nor a territorial
legislature, whether by direct legislation or legislation of
indirect and unfriendly nature, possesses the power to annul or
impair the constitutional right of any citizen of the United
States to take his slave property into the common territories;
but it is the duty of the Federal Government there to afford
for that, as for other species of property, the needful
protection; and if experience should at any time prove that the
judiciary does not possess power to insure adequate protection,
it will then become the duty of Congress to supply such
deficiency.

The Senate debate between Douglas and his Southern antagonists was resumed in May, after the explosion of the Charleston Convention. Douglas made a two days' speech (May 15 and 16) occupying four hours each day, but did not mention the subject of unfriendly legislation, or show how a territorial legislature could nullify or circumvent the Dred Scott decision. He was answered by Benjamin, of Louisiana, in a speech which made a sensation throughout the country, and in which the doctrine of unfriendly legislation was mauled to tatters. Benjamin was the first Southern statesman to make his bow to the rising fame of Lincoln. After examining the Freeport debate, he said:

We accuse him [Douglas] for this, to-wit: that, having
bargained with us upon a point upon which we were at issue,
that it should be considered a judicial question; that he would
abide the decision; that he would act under the decision and
consider it a doctrine of the party; that, having said that to
us here in the Senate, he went home, and under the stress of a
local election his knees gave way; his whole person trembled.
His adversary stood upon principle and was beaten, and lo, he
is the candidate of a mighty party for Presidency of the United
States. The Senator from Illinois faltered; he got the prize
for which he faltered, but lo, the prize of his ambition slips
from his grasp, because of the faltering which he paid as the
price of the ignoble prize--ignoble under the circumstances
under which he obtained it.[36]

There are scores of letters in Trumbull's correspondence calling for copies of Benjamin's speech, yet it had no effect in Illinois, the Danite vote being smaller in 1860 than it had been in 1858. Probably it had influence in the National Democratic Convention at Charleston, from which the delegates from ten Southern States seceded in whole or part when the Douglas platform was adopted. This split was followed by an adjournment to Baltimore, where a second split took place, Douglas being nominated by one faction and Breckinridge, of Kentucky, by the other.

* * * * *

Fifty years have passed since John Brown, with twenty-one men, seized the Government armory and arsenal at Harper's Ferry (October 16, 1859), in an attempt to abolish slavery in the United States. As sinews of war, he had about four thousand dollars, or dollars' worth of material of one kind and another. With such resources he expected to do something which the Government itself, with more than a million trained soldiers, five hundred warships, and three billions of dollars, accomplished with difficulty at the end of a four years' war, during which no negro insurrection, large or small, took place. One might think that the scheme itself was evidence of insanity. But to prove Brown insane on this ground alone, we must convict also the persons who plotted and cooeperated with him and who furnished him money and arms, knowing what he intended to do with them. Some of these were men of high intelligence who are still living without strait-jackets, and it is not conceivable that they aided and abetted him without first estimating, as well as they were able, the chances of success. Yet Brown refused to allow his counsel to put in a plea of insanity on his trial, saying that he was no more insane then than he had been all his life, which was probably true. If he was not insane at the time of the Pottawatomie massacre, he was a murderer who forfeited his own life five times in one night by taking that number of lives of his fellow men in cold blood.

I saw and talked with Brown perhaps half a dozen times at Chicago during his journeys to and from Kansas. He impressed me then as a religious zealot of the Old Testament type, believing in the plenary inspiration of the Scriptures and in himself as a competent interpreter thereof. But the text "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, I will repay," never engaged his attention. He was oppressed with no doubts about anything, least of all about his own mission in the world. His mission was to bring slavery to an end, but that was a subject that he did not talk about. He was a man of few words, and was extremely reticent about his plans, even those of ordinary movements in daily life. He had a square jaw, clean-shaven, and an air of calmness and self-confidence, which attracted weaker intellects and gave him mastery over them. He had steel-gray eyes, and steel-gray hair, close-cropped, that stood stiff on his head like wool cards, giving him an aspect of invincibleness. When he applied to the National Kansas Committee for the arms in their possession after the Kansas war was ended, he was asked by Mr. H. B. Hurd, the secretary, what use he intended to make of them. He refused to answer, and his request was accordingly denied. The arms were voted back to the Massachusetts men who had contributed them originally. Brown obtained an order for them from the owners.

The Thirty-sixth Congress met on the 5th of December, 1859. The first business introduced in the Senate was a resolution from Mason, of Virginia, calling for the appointment of a committee to inquire into the facts attending John Brown's invasion and seizure of the arsenal at Harper's Ferry. Trumbull offered an amendment proposing that a similar inquiry be made in regard to the seizure in December, 1855, of the United States Arsenal at Liberty, Missouri, and the pillage thereof by a band of Missourians, who were marching to capture and control the ballot-boxes in Kansas. On the following day Trumbull made a brief speech in support of his amendment, in the course of which he commented on the Harper's Ferry affair in words which have never faded from the memory of the present writer. Nobody during the intervening half-century has summed up the moral and legal aspects of the John Brown raid more truly or more forcibly. He said:

I hope this investigation will be thorough and complete. I
believe it will do good by disabusing the public mind, in that
portion of the Union which feels most sensitive upon this
subject, of the idea that the outbreak at Harper's Ferry
received any countenance or support from any considerable
number of persons in any portion of this Union. No man who is
not prepared to subvert the Constitution, destroy the
Government, and resolve society into its original elements, can
justify such an act. No matter what evils, either real or
imaginary, may exist in the body politic, if each individual,
or every set of twenty individuals, out of more than twenty
millions of people, is to be permitted, in his own way and in
defiance of the laws of the land, to undertake to correct those
evils, there is not a government on the face of the earth that
could last a day. And it seems to me, sir, that those persons
who reason only from abstract principles and believe themselves
justifiable on all occasions, and in every form, in combating
evil wherever it exists, forget that the right which they claim
for themselves exists equally in every other person. All
governments, the best which have been devised, encroach
necessarily more or less on the individual rights of man and to
that extent may be regarded as evils. Shall we, therefore,
destroy Government, dissolve society, destroy regulated and
constitutional liberty, and inaugurate in its stead anarchy--a
condition of things in which every man shall be permitted to
follow the instincts of his own passions, or prejudices, or
feelings, and where there will be no protection to the
physically weak against the encroachments of the strong? Till
we are prepared to inaugurate such a state as this, no man can
justify the deeds done at Harper's Ferry. In regard to the
misguided man who led the insurgents on that occasion, I have
no remarks to make. He has already expiated upon the gallows
the crime which he committed against the laws of his country;
and to answer for his errors, or his virtues, whatever they may
have been, he has gone fearlessly and willingly before that
Judge who cannot err; there let him rest.

The debate continued several days and took a pretty wide range, the leading Senators on both sides taking part in it. Trumbull bore the brunt of it on the Republican side, and was cross-examined in courteous but searching terms by Yulee, of Florida, Chesnut, of South Carolina, and Clay, of Alabama, who conceived that the teachings of the Republican party tended to produce such characters as John Brown. Trumbull answered all their queries promptly, fully, and satisfactorily to his political friends, if not to his questioners. Nothing in his senatorial career brought him more cordial letters of approval than this debate. One such came from Lincoln:

SPRINGFIELD, December 25, 1859.

HON. LYMAN TRUMBULL,

DEAR SIR: I have carefully read your speech, and I judge that,
by the interruptions, it came out a much better speech than you
expected to make when you began. It really is an excellent one,
many of the points being most admirably made.

I was in the inside of the post-office last evening when a mail
came bringing a considerable number of your documents, and the
postmaster said to me: "These will be put in the boxes, and
half will never be called for. If Trumbull would send them to
me, I would distribute a hundred where he will get ten
distributed this way." I said: "Shall I write this to
Trumbull?" He replied: "If you choose you may." I believe he
was sincere, but you will judge of that for yourself.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.

The next in chronological order of the letters of Lincoln to Trumbull is the following:

SPRINGFIELD, March 16, 1860.

HON. L. TRUMBULL,

MY DEAR SIR: When I first saw by the dispatches that Douglas
had run from the Senate while you were speaking, I did not
quite understand it; but seeing by the report that you were
cramming down his throat that infernal stereotyped lie of his
about "negro equality," the thing became plain.

Another matter; our friend Delahay wants to be one of the
Senators from Kansas. Certainly it is not for outsiders to
obtrude their interference. Delahay has suffered a great deal
in our cause and been very faithful to it, as I understand. He
writes me that some of the members of the Kansas legislature
have written you in a way that your simple answer might help
him. I wish you would consider whether you cannot assist that
far, without impropriety. I know it is a delicate matter; and I
do not wish to press you beyond your own judgment.

Yours as ever,

A. Lincoln.[37]

FOOTNOTES:

[34] Herndon-Weik. _Life of Lincoln_, 2d edition, vol. II, chap. IV.

[35] When Lincoln, at the Freeport debate, asked Douglas whether the people of a territory could in any lawful way exclude slavery from their limits prior to the formation of a state constitution, Douglas replied that Lincoln had heard him answer that question "a hundred times from every stump in Illinois." He certainly had answered it more than once, and his answer had been published without attracting attention or comment either North or South. On the 16th of July, 1858, six weeks before the Freeport joint debate, he spoke at Bloomington, and there announced and affirmed the doctrine of "unfriendly legislation" as a means of excluding slavery from the territories. Lincoln was one of the persons present when this speech was delivered. On the next day, Douglas spoke at Springfield and repeated what he had said at Bloomington. Both of these speeches were published in the Illinois _State Register_ of July 19, yet the fact was not perceived, either by Lincoln himself, or by any of the lynx-eyed editors and astute political friends who labored to prevent him from asking Douglas the momentous question. Nor did the Southern leaders seem to be aware of Douglas's views on this question until they learned it from the Freeport debate.

[36] _Cong. Globe_, 36th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 2241.

[37] The manuscript of the foregoing letter is in the Lambert collection of Lincolniana. The two following which relate also to Delahay's senatorial aspirations, are in the collection of Jesse W. Weik, of Greencastle, Ind.:

SPRINGFIELD, October 17, 1859.

DEAR DELAHAY: Your letter requesting me to drop a line in your
favor to Gen. Lane was duly received. I have thought it over,
and concluded it is not the best way. Any open attempt on my
part would injure you; and if the object merely be to assure
Gen. Lane of my friendship for you, show him the letter herewith
enclosed. I never saw him, or corresponded with him; so that a
letter directly from me to him, would run a great hazard of
doing harm to both you and me.

As to the pecuniary matter, about which you formerly wrote me, I
again appealed to our friend Turner by letter, but he never
answered. I can but repeat to you that I am so pressed myself,
as to be unable to assist you, unless I could get it from him.

Yours as ever,

(Enclosure) A. LINCOLN.

SPRINGFIELD, October 17, 1859.

M. W. DELAHAY, ESQ.,

My dear Sir: I hear your name mentioned for one of the seats in
the U.S. Senate from your new state. I certainly would be
gratified with your success; and if there was any proper way for
me to give you a lift, I would certainly do it. But, as it is, I
can only wish you well. It would be improper for me to
interfere; and if I were to attempt it, it would do you harm.

Your friend, as ever,

A. LINCOLN.

P.S. Is not the election news glorious?

We shall hear of Delahay again.