Abraham Lincoln
Yüklə 0,49 Mb. Pdf görüntüsü
|
|
First. That no slave should be imported into the territory from foreign parts.
Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798. Third. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.[17] This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton.[18] As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from federal authority, or any provision of the Constitution. In 1819-20, came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"--Rufus King and Charles Pinckney--were members of that Congress.[19] Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding, there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.[20] The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover. To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20--there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question, which, by the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in anyway.[21] Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who framed the Government under which we live," who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better than we do now"; and twenty-one of them--a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine"--so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so actions under such responsibility speak still louder. Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they acted upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted against the prohibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even the two who voted against the prohibition, as having done so because, in their understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to Abraham Lincoln 67
control as to slavery in federal territory.[22] The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been manifested at all.[23] For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty-nine" even, on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times--as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris--while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina.[24] The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of the whole--certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we." But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of "life, liberty or property without due process of law"; while Senator Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."[25] Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution--the identical Congress which passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical same individual men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session had under consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after, the act enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending.[26] The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of "the Government under which we live," which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the federal territories. Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with the other affirmation from the same Abraham Lincoln 68
mouth, that those who did the two things, alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent better than we--better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent? It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live."[27] And so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century, (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the present century,) declare that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories. To those who now so declare, I give, not only "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but with them all other living men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them. Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did. To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience--to reject all progress--all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we. If any man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the false belief that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live," were of the same opinion--thus substituting falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerely believes "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they "understood the question just as well, and even better, than we do now." But enough! _Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask--all Republicans desire--in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it, be, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained_. For this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content. And now, if they would listen--as I suppose they will not--I would address a few words to the Southern people.
I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your contentions with Abraham Lincoln 69
one another each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite--licence, so to speak--among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify. You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started--to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration. Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free States.[28] Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right application of it. But you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live"; while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty"; but never a man among you in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and Abraham Lincoln 70
your charge of destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations. Again, you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times. You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be true, is simply malicious slander.[29] 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 was 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?[30] 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,[31] 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 Abraham Lincoln 71
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."[32] 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.[33] 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 Abraham Lincoln 72
Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it;[34] 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."[35] 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.[36] 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.[37] 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_.[38] 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 Abraham Lincoln 73
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'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.[39] 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.[40] 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.[41] 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. Abraham Lincoln 74
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. INDEX A
surrender at, 177 ff. Atlanta, capture of, 151 B Bahamas, trade of the, with the Confederacy, 167 ff. Banks, General N.P., 103 Bazaine, General, in command of French army in Mexico, 156 Belle Isle, the prison of, 189 Bentonville, battle of, 183 Bixby, Mrs., letter to, from Lincoln, 152 "Black Republicans," the, 250 Blair, Prank P., difficulties with, 161 Blount, William, 237 Border States, the, and emancipation, 114 ff. Bragg, Gen. Braxton, 136 ff. Brainerd, Cephas, on the Cooper Union address, 211 Brown, John, raid of, 254 Bryant on Lincoln, 202 Buckner, Gen. S.B., 99 Bull Run, second battle of, 122 Burnside, Gen. Ambrose F., and the Army of the Potomac, 127; and the defence of Knoxville, 137 Butler, Benjamin F., 103, 120 C Cabinet, cabals in the, 160 Cedar Creek, the battle of, 150 ff. Chancellorsville, battle of, 129 Charleston, evacuation of, 169 Chase, Salmon P., and the Presidential election of 1864, 154; resignation of, 154; appointed chief justice, 155; efforts of, for the Presidency, 157; difficulties with, in the Cabinet, 161 Chickamauga, battle of, 136 Clay, Cassius M., 223 Congress and slavery in the Territories, 246 ff. Constitution, the 13th amendment to, 163 ff.; defined by Lincoln, 236 ff.; and property in slaves, 260 ff. "Crocker, Master", 113 Curtin, Gov. A.G., 105 Curtis, Gen. S.R., 108 D Danville, the prison of, 147, 189 ff.; mortality in, 159 Davis, Jefferson, and Benj. F. Butler, 120; and the Peace Conference of Feb., 1865, 163; capture of, 187; and the other leaders of the South, 189; and the management of the Southern prisons, 190 ff; as a prisoner and martyr, 191 Douglas, Stephen A., and the debate with Lincoln, cited, 235; and the sedition act, 263; and the Dred Scott decision, 246 Dred Scott case, the, 246
E Early, Jubal A., raid of on Washington, 142 ff.; and the battle of Winchester, 149; and the battle of Cedar Creek, 150 Elliott, Charles W., 213 Emancipation Proclamation, the, 115 ff. Enfield rifles, use of, by Confederates, 146 F Farragut, Admiral D.G., 111 Few, William, 237 Fisher, Fort, capture of, 167 Fitzsimmons, Thomas, 238 Floyd, General John B., 99 Franklin, battle of, 151 ff. Franklin, Benjamin, 245 G Abraham Lincoln 75 Georgia, cession of territory by, 239 Gettysburg, campaign of, 132 ff. Goldsborough, surrender of Johnston's army at, 183 Goodell, Dr. Wm., 212 Grant, Gen. U.S., captures Fort Donelson, 99; and the Vicksburg campaign, 134; and the Chattanooga campaign, 136; commander of the armies, 137 ff.; suggested for the Presidency, 157; declines to consider terms of peace, 171; at Appomattox, 177 ff.; at Goldsborough, 184 ff. Greeley, Horace, 105 Greene, Frank V., on Lincoln, 106 H Halleck, Gen. H.W., 103 Hallowell, Col. Norwood, 116 Hamilton, Alexander, 245 Hancock, Gen. W.S., 127 Harper's Ferry, 124; John Brown's raid at, 254 Helper, H.R., the "Impending Crisis" of, 258 Hewitt, Abram S., 99 ff. Higginson, Col. T.W., 116 Hood, Gen. John B., 151 ff. Hooker, Gen. Joseph, 107, 127, 130 ff., 137 I Intervention of France and England threatened, 122 J Jefferson, Thomas, on emancipation, 257 Johnston, Gen. Joseph E., 138, 151, 169, 183 ft. K King, Rufus, 241 Knoxville, siege of, 137 L Lee, Gen. Robert E. and the Antietam campaign, 122; and the campaign of Gettysburg, 130 ff.; and the defence of Virginia, 137 ff.; proposes treaty of peace, 171; defeated at Five Forks, 171; at Appomattox, 171 Libby prison, Presidential election in, 158; mortality in, 159; record of, 189 ff. Lincoln, Abraham, and Hewitt, A.S., 100 ff.; writes to "Master Crocker", 113; as commander-in-chief, 103 ff.; and the death penalty for soldiers, 119; campaign methods of McClellan, 125 ff.; letter of, appointing Hooker, 128; to Grant on the fall of Vicksburg, 134; address of, at Gettysburg, 134; letter of, to Mrs. Bixby, 152; re-election of, as President, 157; and the exchange of prisoners, 158 ff.; and the control of the administration, 160; and the Peace Conference of Feb., 1865, 162 ff.; second inaugural of, 169 ff.; last public address of, 178; death of, 181; and the proposed capture of Jefferson Davis, 188; death of, reported to the army at Goldsborough, 190; comparison of, with Washington and Jackson, 195 ff.; Cooper Union address of, 205 ff.; writes to Nott, 225 ff. Lincoln, Robert, on the Cooper Union address, 209 Longstreet, Gen. James, 133, 137 Lookout Mountain, battle of, 137 Louisiana, purchase of, 240 Lowell on Lincoln, 202 M Maximilian, Prince, and the invasion of Mexico, 156 McClellan, Gen. George B. 102 ff.; and the Antietam campaign, 122 ff.; ordered to report to New Jersey, 126 Meade, Gen. Geo. G., 127, 131 Mifflin, Thomas, 237 Milliken's Bend, battle of, 118 Minnesota, troops from, 165; university of, 167 Missionary Ridge, battle of, 137 Mississippi, organisation of the Territory of, 240 Missouri, admission of, 241 Missouri Compromise, the, 31, 38 Monocacy Creek, battle of, 143 Morgan, Gen. John, 177 Morris, Gouverneur, 245 N Napoleon, Louis, and the invasion of Mexico, 156 Nashville, battle of, 151 ff. Nation, the London, on the character of Lincoln, 198 ff. New Orleans, capture of, 111 ff. Nineteenth Army Corps and Early's raid, 145 North Carolina, cession of territory by, 239 Northwestern Territory, the, of the U.S., 237 Nott, Chas. C., Abraham Lincoln 76
introduction to the Cooper Union address, 215 ff.; letter of, to Lincoln, 224 ff. Noyes, Wm. Curtis, 212 O Ordinance of 1787, 238 ff. P Pea Ridge, battle of, 108 Peace Conference of Feb., 1865, 162 Pickett, Gen. G.E., 133 Pinckney, Charles, 241 ff. Pope, Gen. John, 103, 122 Port Hudson, surrender of, 112 Presidential election in Libby prison, 158 Prisoners, the exchange of, 158 Putnam, George Palmer, and the Cooper Union address, 212 R Reagan, Postmaster-general, at Goldsborough, 184 Reconstruction, Lincoln's views on, 180 ff. Republican party, the, and slavery in the Territories, 249 ff. Republican Union, the Young Men's, 223, 232 Reynolds, Gen. J.T., 127 Rosecrans, Gen. Wm. S., and the Chattanooga campaign, 136 Rutledge, John, 245 S Schechter, Rabbi, on the character of Lincoln, 200 Schofield, Gen. Geo. W., 152 Schurz, Carl, on the character of Lincoln, 201 Seward, W.H., 64, 160 Sharp's breech-loaders introduced in 1864, 146 Shaw, Col. R.G., 116 Shenandoah, campaign in the valley of the, 149 Sheridan, Gen. Philip, in the Shenandoah, 149 ff.; wins battle of Five Forks, 171 Sherman, Roger, 237 Sherman, Gen. Wm. T., at Missionary Ridge, 137; captures Atlanta, 151; and the Georgia planter, 164; passes by Charleston, 169; at Goldsborough, 183 ff. Sigel, Gen. Franz, 108 Smith, Gen. Kirby, surrender of, 191 Soldiers authorised to vote in presidential election, 152 Southampton, insurrection at, 256 South Mountain, battle of the, 124 Stanton, Edwin, M., 65, 101 ff., 185 Stephens, Alexander H., and the Peace Conference of Feb., 1865, 162 ff. Sumter, Fort, restoration of the flag on, 182 T Taylor, Gen. Richard, surrender of, 191 Thomas. Gen. Geo. H., 136 V Vicksburg, surrender of, 112, 134 W Wallace, Gen. Lew, 143 Washington assailed by Early, 142 ff. Washington, George, and the Ordinance of 1787, 239; Farewell Address of, 252; the example of, 266 Weitzel, Gen. Godfrey, 119 Whittier on Lincoln, 201 Wilderness, battle of the, 140 ff. Williamson, Hugh, 237 Wilmington, capture of, 167 Winchester, third battle of, 149 Winder, Gen., and the management of the Southern prisons, 190 Wisconsin, troops from, 165 Wisewell, Col. F.H., 144 ff. FOOTNOTES: [Footnote 1: This letter has not been published. It is cited here through the courtesy of Mr. Robert Lincoln and Mr. R.W. Gilder.] Abraham Lincoln 77
[Footnote 2: The text of the speech, as revised by Lincoln and with the introduction and notes by Nott and Brainerd, is given as an appendix to this volume.] [Footnote 3: The late George Palmer Putnam.] [Footnote 4:--The Constitution is attested September 17, 1787. It was ratified by all of the States, excepting North Carolina and Rhode Island, in 1788, and went into operation on the first Wednesday in January, 1789. The first Congress proposed, in 1789, ten articles of amendments, all of which were ratified. Article XI. of the amendments was prepared by the Third Congress, in 1794, and Article XII. by the Eighth Congress, in 1803. Another Article was proposed by the Eleventh Congress, prohibiting citizens from receiving titles of nobility, presents or offices, from foreign nations. Although this has been printed as one of the amendments, it was in fact never ratified, being approved by but twelve States. Vide Message of President Monroe, Feb. 4, 1818.] [Footnote 5:--The Convention consisted of _sixty-five_ members. Of these, ten did not attend the Convention, and sixteen did not sign the Constitution. Of these sixteen, six refused to sign, and published their reasons for so refusing, _viz._: Robert Yates and John Lansing, of New-York; Edmund Randolph and George Mason, of Virginia; Luther Martin, of Maryland, and Elbridge Gerry, of Mass. Alexander Hamilton alone subscribed for New-York, and Rhode Island was not represented in the Convention. The names of the "thirty-nine," and the States which they represented are subsequently given.] [Footnote 6:--The cession of Territory was authorized by New-York, Feb. 19, 1780; by Virginia, January 2, 1781, and again, (without certain conditions at first imposed,) "at their sessions, begun on the 20th day of October, 1783;" by Mass., Nov. 13, 1784; by Conn., May----, 1786; by S. Carolina, March 8, 1787; by N. Carolina, Dec.----, 1789; and by Georgia at some time prior to April, 1802. The deeds of cession were executed by New-York, March 1, 1781; by Virginia, March 1, 1784; by Mass., April 19, 1785; by Conn., Sept. 13, 1786; by S. Carolina, August 9, 1787; by N. Carolina, Feb. 25, 1790; and by Georgia, April 24, 1802. Five of these grants were therefore made before the adoption of the Constitution, and one afterward; while the sixth (North Carolina) was authorized before, and consummated afterward. The cession of this State contains the express proviso "that no regulations made, or to be made by Congress, shall tend to emancipate slaves." The cession of Georgia conveys the Territory subject to the Ordinance of '87, except the provision prohibiting slavery. These dates are also interesting in connection with the extraordinary assertions of Chief Justice Taney, (19 How., page 434,) that "the example of Virginia was soon afterwards followed by other States," and that (p. 436) the power in the Constitution "to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the Territory or other property belonging to the United States," was intended only "to transfer to the new Government the property then held in common," "and has no reference whatever to any Territory or other property which the new sovereignty might afterwards itself acquire." On this subject, vide Federalist, No. 43, sub. 4 and 5.] [Footnote 7:--Sherman was from Connecticut; Mifflin from Penn.; Williamson from North Carolina, and M'Henry from Maryland.] [Footnote 8:--What Mr. M'Henry's views were, it seems impossible to ascertain. When the Ordinance of '87 was passed he was sitting in the Convention. He was afterwards appointed Secretary of War; yet no record has thus far been discovered of his opinion. Mr. M'Henry also wrote a biography of La Fayette, which, however, cannot be found in any of the public libraries, among which may be mentioned the State Library at Albany, and the Astor, Society, and Historical Society Libraries, at New York. Hamilton says of him, in a letter to Washington _(Works_, vol. vi., p. 65): "M'Henry you know. He would give no strength to the Administration, but he would not disgrace the office; his views are good."] Abraham Lincoln 78
[Footnote 9:--William Blount was from North Carolina, and William Few from Georgia--the two States which afterward ceded their Territory to the United States. In addition to these facts the following extract from the speech of Rufus King in the Senate, on the Missouri Bill, shows the entire unanimity with which the Southern States approved the prohibition: "The State of Virginia, which ceded to the United States her claims to this Territory, consented, by her delegates in the Old Congress, to this Ordinance. Not only Virginia, but North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia, by the unanimous votes of their delegates in the Old Congress, approved of the Ordinance of 1787, by which Slavery is forever abolished in the Territory northwest of the river Ohio. Without the votes of these States, the Ordinance could not have been passed; and there is no recollection of an opposition from any of these States to the act of confirmation passed under the actual Constitution."] [Footnote 10:--"The famous Ordinance of Congress of the 13th July, 1787, which has ever since constituted, in most respects, the model of all our territorial governments, and is equally remarkable for the brevity and exactness of its text, and for its masterly display of the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty."--_Justice Story, 1 Commentaries_: §1312. "It is well known that the Ordinance of 1787 was drawn by the Hon. Nathan Dane, of Massachusetts, and adopted with scarcely a verbal alteration by Congress. It is a noble and imperishable monument to his fame."--_Id._ note. The ordinance was reported by a committee, of which Wm. S. Johnson and Charles Pinckney were members. It recites that, "for extending the fundamental principles of civil and religious liberty, which form the basis whereon these republics, their laws and constitutions, are erected; to fix and establish those principles as the basis of all laws, constitutions, and governments which forever hereafter shall be formed in the said Territory; to provide also for the establishment of States and permanent government, and for their admission to a share in the federal councils, on an equal footing with the original States, at as early periods as may be consistent with the general interest-- "It is hereby ordained and declared, by the authority aforesaid, that the following articles shall be considered as articles of compact between the original States and the people and States in the said Territory, and forever remain unalterable, unless by common consent, to wit:" "_Art._ 6. There shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in the said Territory otherwise than in the punishment of crimes whereof the party shall have been duly convicted; provided always that any person escaping into the same, from whom labor or service is lawfully claimed in any one of the original States, such fugitive may be lawfully reclaimed, and conveyed to the person claiming his or her labor or service." On passing the ordinance, the ayes and nays were required by Judge Yates, of New York, when it appeared Yüklə 0,49 Mb. Dostları ilə paylaş:
|