One of Mr. Lincoln's greatest speeches
was given on February 27, 1860 at the Cooper Institute in New York.
Lincoln, who had yet to announce his intentions to run for president
drew a crowd of over 1,500 people. Lincoln's speech electrified the
crowd, and helped elevate the Nation's awareness of him. One
eyewitness to the speech that evening said, "When Lincoln rose to speak,
I was greatly disappointed. He was tall, tall, - oh, how tall! and so
angular and awkward that I had, for an instant, a feeling of pity for so
ungainly a man." However, once Lincoln warmed up, "his face lighted up
as with an inward fire; the whole man was transfigured. I forgot his
clothes, his personal appearance, and his individual peculiarities.
Presently, forgetting myself, I was on my feet like the rest, yelling
like a wild Indian, cheering this wonderful man."
This speech was doubtless one of
Lincoln's most inspiring, and helped establish him as a man of
prominence on the national stage.
The President's Speech
Mr. President and fellow citizens of New
York: -
The facts with which I shall deal this evening are mainly old and
familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of
them. If there shall be any novelty, it will be in the mode of
presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations following that
presentation.
In his speech last autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in "The
New-York Times," Senator Douglas said:
"Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live,
understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now."
I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so
adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for
a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed
by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: "What was the
understanding those fathers had of the question mentioned?"
What is the frame of government under which we live?
The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United States." That
Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which
the present government first went into operation,) and twelve
subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in
1789.
Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the
"thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called
our fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost
exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say
they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at
that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to
quite all, need not now be repeated.
I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being "our fathers who
framed the Government under which we live."
What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers
understood "just as well, and even better than we do now?"
It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control
as to slavery in our Federal Territories?
Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the
negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue -
this question - is precisely what the text declares our fathers
understood "better than we."
Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted
upon this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it - how they
expressed that better understanding?
In 1784, three years before the Constitution - the United States then
owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the
Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in
that Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the
Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of
these, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the
prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing
local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The
other of the four - James M'Henry - voted against the prohibition,
showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.
In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in
session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the
only territory owned by the United States, the same question of
prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of
the Confederation; and two more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward
signed the Constitution, were in that Congress, and voted on the
question. They were William Blount and William Few; and they both voted
for the prohibition - thus showing that, in their understanding, no line
dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly
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 a unanimous
passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers
who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas
Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons,
William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George
Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll,
James Madison.
This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from
federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade
Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their
fidelity to correct principle, and their oath to support the
Constitution, would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.
Again, George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then
President of the United States, and, as such approved and signed the
bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in
his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor
anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government, to control
as to slavery in federal territory.
No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North
Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting
the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which
now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of
cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal
Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded territory. 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 bought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas
and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed
the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and
Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for it. Certainly they would
have placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their
understanding, any line dividing local from federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government to
control as to slavery in federal territory.
In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our
former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but
this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804,
Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now
constitutes the State of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part,
was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable
towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly
intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act,
prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it - take control of it -
in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of
Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made, in relation to
slaves, was:
First. That no slave should be imported into the territory from foreign
parts.
Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported
into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.
Third. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and
for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine
upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.
This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which
passed it, there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham
Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is
probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass
without recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it
violated either the line properly dividing local from federal authority,
or any provision of the Constitution.
In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were
taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various
phases of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine" - Rufus King
and Charles Pinckney - were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily
voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr.
Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all
compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no
line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the
Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal
territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his
understanding, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such
prohibition in that case.
The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of
any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.
To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in
1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20
- there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John
Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each
twice, and Abraham Baldwin, three times. The true number of those of the
"thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question, which,
by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving
sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.
Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who
framed the government under which we live," who have, upon their
official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very
question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even
better than we do now;" and twenty-one of them - a clear majority of the
whole "thirty-nine" - so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross
political impropriety and willful perjury, if, in their understanding,
any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in
the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade
the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal
territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder
than words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder.
Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of
slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they acted
upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They
may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from
federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution,
stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted
against the prohibition, on what appeared to them to be sufficient
grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution
can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an
unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may
and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if,
at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be
unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as
having done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of
local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade
the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.
The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered,
have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of
federal control of slavery in the federal territories. But there is much
reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not
have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it
been manifested at all.
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely
omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person,
however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the
original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted
whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the
"thirty-nine" even, on any other phase of the general question of
slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those
other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and policy of
slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of
federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they
had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three
did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men
of those times - as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur
Morris - while there was not one now known to have been otherwise,
unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.
The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the
original Constitution, twenty-one - a clear majority of the whole -
certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal
authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the
rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the
understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and
the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."
But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question
manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the
original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have
already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we
live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed
and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of slavery
in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the
provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand,
that all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in
the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case,
plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person
shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of
law;" while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves
upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to
the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States
respectively, or to the people."
Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first
Congress which sat under the Constitution - the identical Congress which
passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery
in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but
they were the identical, same individual men who, at the same session,
and at the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in
progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act
prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The
Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the
act enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency
of the act to enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were
also pending.
The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the
framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-
eminently our fathers who framed that part of "the Government under
which we live," which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal
Government to control slavery in the federal territories.
Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that
the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to
maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other?
And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with
the other affirmation from the same mouth, that those who did the two
things, alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were
inconsistent better than we - better than he who affirms that they are
inconsistent?
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original
Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed
the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who
may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which
we live." And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them
ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper
division of local from federal authority, or any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
the federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show
that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning
of the present century, (and I might almost say prior to the beginning
of the last half of the present century,) declare that, in his
understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or
any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in the federal territories. To those who now so declare, I
give, not only "our fathers who framed the Government under which we
live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it
was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the
evidence of a single man agreeing with them.
Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do
not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our
fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current
experience - to reject all progress - all improvement. What I do say is,
that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any
case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so
clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed,
cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare
they understood the question better than we.
If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of
local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids
the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal
territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all
truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to
mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to
study it, into the false belief that "our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live" were of the same opinion - thus
substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair
argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers who
framed the Government under which we live," used and applied principles,
in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper
division of local from federal authority or some part of the
Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
the federal territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the
same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion,
he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and
especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that
they "understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do
now."
But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the
Government under which we live, understood this question just as well,
and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they
acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask - all Republicans desire - in
relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again
marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected
only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that
toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guarantees 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 a 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 until you
show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do
repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but
this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussion of
the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice,
would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other
object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are
justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of
whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so
meet 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 at some time
have a confederacy of free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon
this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or
in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast
the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon
you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we
commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right
application of it.
But you say you are conservative - eminently conservative - while we are
revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new
and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the
point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and
scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting
something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that
substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but
you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the
fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for
a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress
forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some
for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some
for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another,
no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;"
but never a man among you is 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 or destructiveness against
us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.
Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it
formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we
deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old
policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation;
and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have
that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old
policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you
would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy
of the old times.
You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it;
and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no
Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his
Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that
matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are
inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do
not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for
persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the
proof. You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does
not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.
Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the
Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and
declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We
know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not
held to and made by "our fathers who framed the Government under which
we live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When
it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you
were in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon
us, you could get an advantage of us in those elections. The elections
came, and your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican
man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he
was not much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican
doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest
against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about
your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we
do, in common with "our fathers, who framed the Government under which
we live," declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do
not hear us declare even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves
would scarcely know there is a Republican party. I believe they would
not, in fact, generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us,
in their hearing. In your political contests among yourselves, each
faction charges the other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and
then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply
be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the
Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton
insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least three times as
many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your
very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was "got up by
Black Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United
States, I do not think a general, or even a very extensive slave
insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be
attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can
incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials
are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied,
the indispensable connecting trains.
Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their
masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for
an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty
individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite
master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave
revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring
under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history,
though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only
about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his
anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by
consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the
kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local
revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the
natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I
think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears,
or much hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed.
In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still
in our power to direct the process of emancipation, and deportation,
peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off
insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white
laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human
nature must shudder at the prospect held up."
Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of
emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as
to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only.
The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of
restraining the extension of the institution - the power to insure that
a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now
free from slavery.
John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It
was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which
the slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the
slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not
succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many
attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and
emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he
fancies himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the
attempt, which ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini's
attempt on Louis Napoleon, and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry
were, in their philosophy, precisely the same. The eagerness to cast
blame on old England in the one case, and on New England in the other,
does not disprove the sameness of the two things.
And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown,
Helper's Book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human
action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be
changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this
nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot
destroy that judgment and feeling - that sentiment - by breaking up the
political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter
and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of
your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing
the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the
ballot-box, into some other channel? What would that other channel
probably be? Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by
the operation?
But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your
Constitutional rights.
That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not
fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to
deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Constitution. But
we are proposing no such thing.
When you make these declarations, you have a specific and
well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional right of yours, to
take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as
property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution.
That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the
contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution,
even by implication.
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the
Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the
Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us.
You will rule or ruin in all events.
This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme
Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor.
Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and
decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a sort of way.
The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to
take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as
property. When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it
was made in a divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they
not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that
it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another
about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken
statement of fact - the statement in the opinion that "the right of
property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the
Constitution."
An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property
in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. Bear in
mind, the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is
impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity
that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there - "distinctly,"
that is, not mingled with anything else - "expressly," that is, in words
meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of
no other meaning.
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is
affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to
show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the
Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection with
language alluding to the things slave, or slavery; and that wherever in
that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person;" - and
wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it
is spoken of as "service or labor which may be due," - as a debt payable
in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous
history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of
speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the
Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.
To show all this, is easy and certain.
When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their
notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the
mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?
And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers, who framed the
Government under which we live" - the men who made the Constitution -
decided this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago -
decided it without division among themselves, when making the decision;
without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was
made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any
mistaken statement of facts.
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified
to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is,
shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of
political action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican
president! In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union;
and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon
us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters
through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you
will be a murderer!"
To be sure, what the robber demanded of me - my money - was my own; and
I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote
is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the
threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be
distinguished in principle.
A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all
parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one
with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though
much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even
though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us
calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate
view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and
by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us
determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered
to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against
us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections
are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, if, in the future, we have
nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We
so know, because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and
insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the
charge and the denunciation.
The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not
only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let
them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been
so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization,
but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have
constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no
tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the
fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb
them.
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will
convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and
join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done
in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must
place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas' 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
"don't care" on a question about which all true men do care - such as
Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists,
reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the
righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring
men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against
us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government
nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT,
AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE
UNDERSTAND IT.
|