Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln
Centenary Edition
Edited by Marion Mills Miller, Litt. D.
(Princeton)
In Nine Volumes: Volume II
fROM PHOTOGRAPH BY BRADY
LINCOLN IN FEBRUARY, i860
At the time of the Cooper Institute Speech
Early Speeches
1832-1856
Including Legislative and Congres-
sional Resolutions, Political
Circulars, Notes, etc.
By
Abraham Lincoln
\\
New York
The Current Literature Publishing Co.
1907
Copyright, 1907, Current Literature Publishing Company
THE QUINN & BODEN CO. PRESS
RAHWAV, N. J.
CONTENTS
Preface
pace
. ix
Introduction
Lincoln's Early Oratory. By G. S. Hubbard,
Alexander H. Stephens, William H. Herndon,
J. M. Sturtevant xi
Early Speeches, Political Papers, and Legal
Notes (March i, 1832, to May 29, 1856) :
"I Am Humble Abraham Lincoln." An-
nouncement of Candidacy for the State Legis-
lature. About March 1, 1832 1
The Improvement of Sangamon River. An
Address Delivered in Candidacy for the State
Legislature. March 9, 1832 1
In Favor of Equal Suffrage and Public Im-
provements. Announcement of Political Views
in Candidacy for the State Legislature. June
13, 1836 8
Perils of Mobocracy. Speech Before the Illi-
nois Legislature upon a Resolution to Inquire
into the Management of the State Bank. In
January, 1837 9
The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.
An Address Before the Young Men's Lyceum
of Springfield, 111. January 27, 1837 . . . 14
Injustice the Foundation of Slavery. Protest
of Representatives Stone and Lincoln in the
Illinois Legislature Against Certain Pro-
Slavery Resolutions of that Body. March 3,
1837 26
Against the Sale of State Lands at a Low Price.
Remarks in the Illinois Legislature. January
17, 1839 28
vi CONTENTS
Against the Sub-Treasury and Other Policies
of the Van Buren Administration. Speech at
a Political Discussion in the Hall of Repre-
sentatives at Springfield, 111., About December
20, 1839 29
Plan of Organization for Illinois Whigs in the
Harrison Campaign. Circular from Whig
State Committee, of which Lincoln was a
Member, Sent to Leading Whigs in each
County. About January 1, 1840 . . .60
Resolution for Ballot Reform. Offered in the
Illinois Legislature. November 28, 1840 . . 63
Remarks on an Election Contest. In the Illi-
nois Legislature. December 4, 1840 . . 64
Remarks in Favor of Issue of "Interest Bonds."
In the Illinois Legislature. December 4,
1840 65
Remarks in Favor of "Canal Scrip." In the
Illinois Legislature. January 23, 1841 . . 66
Against the Subordination of the Judiciary to
the Legislature. An Appeal to the People of
the State of Illinois, Issued by a Committee on
Behalf of the Whig Members of the Legislature,
A. Lincoln being one of the Committee. About
February 8, 1841 67
Against Reorganization of the Judiciary. Ex-
tract from a Protest in the Illinois Legislature
Signed by A. Lincoln and Others. February
26, 1841 72
{
73
Charity in Temperance Reform. Address Be
fore the Washingtonian Temperance Society o
Springfield, 111. February 22, 1842 .
In Favor of a Protective Tariff, a National
Bank, and Other Whig Policies. Resolutions
Offered at a Whig Meeting in Springfield, 111.
March i, 1843 86
CONTENTS vii
In Favor of a Protective Tariff, a National
Bank, and Other Whig Policies. An Address
to the People of Illinois, Issued by A. Lincoln
and Two Other Members of a Committee Ap-
pointed for the Purpose by a Whig Meeting at
Springfield. March 4, 1843 .... 88
The Home Market and Other Advantages of a
Protective Tariff. Notes Jotted Down while
Congressman-Elect. About December 1,
1847 101
"Spot Resolutions" on Mexican War. Offered
in the United States House of Representatives.
December 22, 1847 113
On Railroad Mail Contracts. Remarks in the
United States House of Representatives. Janu-
ary 5, 1848 115
Arraignment of President Polk for War
Against Mexico. Speech in the United
States House of Representatives. January 12,
1848 119
On Bounty Lands for Soldiers. Remarks
Made in the United States House of Represent-
atives. March 29, 1848 133
On Land Grants to States to Aid Internal
Improvements. Remarks Made in the United
States House of Representatives. May n,
1848 134
In Favor of Internal Improvements. Speech
in the United States House of Representatives.
June 20, 1848 138
On Discrimination Between States in Federal
Judiciary Facilities. Remarks Made in the
United States House of Representatives. June
28, 1848 155
"Were I President." Policies Jotted Down as
Appropriate for General Taylor, Whig Candi-
date for President, to Enunciate. About July
1, 1848 156
viii CONTENTS
On Military Heroes. Speech in Defense of
the Whigs and Their Presidential Candidate,
General Taylor, and in Ridicule of the Demo-
crats and Their Presidential Candidate, General
Cass, Delivered in the United States House of
Representatives. July 27, 1848 . . . 157
The Whigs the True "Free Soilers." Report
of Speech of Abraham Lincoln, M. C, at Wor-
cester, Mass. September 12, 1848 . . .180
Bill to Abolish Slavery in the District of
Columbia. January 16, 1849 .... 186
On the Bill Granting Lands to the States to
Make Railroads and Canals. Remarks in the
United States House of Representatives.
February 13, 1849 189
Resolutions of Sympathy with Hungarian
Revolutionists. About September 12, 1849 . 192
Niagara Falls. Notes for a Popular Lecture.
About July i, 1850 192
Principles of Law Practise. Notes for a Law
Lecture. About July 1, 1850 .... 194
Eulogy of Henry Clay. Delivered in the State
House at Springfield, 111. July 16, 1852 . . 197
The Nature and Object of Government, with
Special Reference to Slavery. Fragmentary
Notes. About July 1, 1854 .... 214
The Missouri Compromise: the Iniquity of Its
Repeal, and the Propriety of Its Restoration.
Speech at Peoria, 111., in Reply to Senator
Douglas. October 16, 1854 .... 218
"You Shall Not Go Out of the Union."
Speech Delivered at the First Republican State
Convention of Illinois, Held at Bloomington.
May 29, 1856 275
PREFACE
The present volume contains the public ad-
dresses of Lincoln from his first recorded speech,
the modest announcement of his candidacy for
the Illinois State Legislature about March i, 1832,
to the famous "Lost Speech" delivered at the
first Republican State convention at Blooming-
ton, May 29, 1856, which made him a figure in
national politics, as indicated by his receiving one
hundred and ten votes, the second largest number
cast for Vice-President in the national Repub-
lican convention of that year. Here are to be
found his speeches in the State Legislature and
Congress, together with such resolutions as the
protest against certain slavery resolutions in the
Illinois House of Representatives, the first of
such protests recorded in the minutes of any
State Legislature, and the unanswerable anti-
Mexican War resolutions, known as the "Spot
Resolutions" from the quaint phraseology used
by Lincoln in persistently pressing upon the weak
and tender "spot" in President Polk's justifica-
tion of the unhappy conflict. Besides speeches
on slavery and allied subjects, there are included
arguments for internal improvements, a pro-
tective tariff, and other policies of the Whig party,
of which from the beginning of his public career
Lincoln was a leading figure in Illinois politics,
and its sole representative from his State in the
Twenty-ninth Congress.
ix
x PREFACE
Lincoln as a sociologist is also presented in
speeches dealing with capitalism ("Perils of
Monocracy") ; mob rule ("The Perpetuation of
Our Political Institutions") ; and temperance
("Charity in Temperance Reform"). His style
as a popular lecturer is exhibited in his rather
commonplace notes for an address on "Niagara
Falls"; and the legal habit of his mind is shown
in his sound and practical notes for a law lecture.
A eulogy of Henry Clay, delivered on the death
of that popular idol, is a rather perfunctory per-
formance, since the future emancipator had al-
ready divined the coming of a nobler order of
statesmanship than that represented by the author
of the compromises of 1850.
While in Congress Lincoln served as a mem-
ber of the Committee on the Post-Office and Post
Roads, and as such made a number of reports,
some of which, as dealing with special cases in-
volving no principle, have been omitted from the
present collection.
So, too, formal calls for Whig conventions,
signed by Lincoln along with the other members
of the State Committee of the party, as well as an
opinion on the Illinois election law, signed by
him as one of three members of a sub-committee
of the general one, have been omitted as of no
value to the student either of politics or person-
ality.
LINCOLN'S EARLY ORATORY*
Lincoln in the Legislature.
By Gurdon S. Hubbard, Legislator at Van-
dalia.
My acquaintance with the lamented President
Lincoln began in the winter of 1832-3, during the
session of the Legislature of this State, of which I
was a member, and warmly interested in procur-
ing an act for the construction of the Illinois and
Michigan Canal, for which I had introduced a bill,
which was defeated. I then introduced a bill for
a railroad, instead of a canal, which passed the
House, lost in the Senate by the casting vote of
the Speaker, Zadoc Casey. At the next session
Mr. Lincoln was a member. I, as a lobbyist, at-
tended that and the successive sessions until the
passage of the act to construct the canal. Mr.
Lincoln, in and out of the Legislature, favored
its construction at the earliest possible moment,
by his advice, and rendered efficient aid. Indeed,
I very much doubt if the bill could have passed as
early as it did without his valuable help. We
*In 1882 Osborn H. Oldroyd of Springfield, 111., pub-
lished under the title of "The Lincoln Memorial " a collection
of tributes to Lincoln, chiefly from those who had known him
personally. With the editor's permission we reproduce a few
extracts bearing upon Lincoln's oratory during the period
(1832 to 1856) covered by the present volume.
xi
xii LINCOLN'S EARLY ORATORY
were thrown much together, our intimacy increas-
ing. I never had a friend to whom I was more
warmly attached. His character was nearly fault-
less. Possessing a warm, generous heart, genial,
affable, honest, courteous to his opponents, per-
severing, industrious in research, never losing
sight of the principal point under discussion, aptly
illustrating by his stories always introduced with
good effect, he was free from political trickery
or denunciation of the private character of his
opponents. In debate firm and collected, with
"charity towards all, malice towards none," he
won the confidence of the public, even of his
political opponents.
Lincoln in Congress.
By Alexander H. Stephens, Vice-President
of the Confederate States of America.
I knew Mr. Lincoln well and intimately. We
were both members of the Thirtieth Congress,
that is, from 1847 to 4th March, 1849. We both
belonged to the Whig organization of that day,
and were both ardent supporters of General Tay-
lor to the Presidency in 1848. Mr. Lincoln, Mr.
Wm. Ballard Preston, and Mr. Thos. S. Flournoy
of Virginia, Mr. Toombs of Georgia, Mr. E. C.
Campbell of Florida, and one or two others, and
myself formed the first Congressional Taylor
Club ; we were known as the Young Indians, who
by our extensive correspondence organized the
Taylor movement throughout the country, which
resulted in his nomination at Philadelphia. Mr.
Lincoln was careful as to his manners, awkward
in his speech, but was possessed of a very strong,
LINCOLN'S EARLY ORATORY xiii
clear, and vigorous mind. He always attracted the
riveted attention of the House when he spoke ; his
manner of speech as well as thought was original.
He had no model. He was a man of strong con-
victions, and was what Carlyle would have called
an earnest man. He abounded in anecdotes; he
illustrated everything that he was talking or
speaking about by an anecdote; his anecdotes
were always exceedingly apt and pointed, and
socially he always kept his company in a roar of
laughter. In my last interview with him at the
celebrated Hampton Roads Conference in 1865,
this trait of his character seemed to be as promi-
nent and striking as ever. He was a man of strong
attachments, and his nature overflowed with the
milk of human kindness. Widely as we were
separated in politics in the latter days of his life,
yet I ever cherish for him a high degree of per-
sonal regard.
The Elements of Lincoln's Eloquence.
By W. H. Herndon, Lincoln's Law Partner.
Mr. Lincoln's eloquence lay, first, in the
strength of his logical faculty, his supreme power
of reasoning, his great understanding, and his
love of principle ; second, in his clear, exact, and
very accurate vision ; third, in his cool and mas-
terly statement of his principles, around which
the issues gather ; in the statement of those issues,
and the grouping of the facts that are to carry
conviction, aided by his logic, to the minds of
men of every grade of intelligence. He was so
clear that he could not be misunderstood nor mis-
represented. He stood square and bolt upright to
xiv LINCOLN'S EARLY ORATORY
his convictions, and formed by them his thoughts
and utterances. Mr. Lincoln's mind was not a
wide, deep, broad, generalizing, and comprehen-
sive mind, nor versatile, quick, bounding here and
there, as emergencies demanded it. His mind
was deep, enduring, and strong, running in deep
iron grooves, with flanges on its wheels. His
mind was not keen, sharp, and subtile; it was
deep, exact, and strong.
Lincoln's Love of Truth.
By J. M. Sturtevant, President of Illinois
College, Jacksonville, III.
I knew Mr. Lincoln very well, I may say some-
what intimately, before he was ever thought of in
connection with the exalted station to which he
was afterwards elected. In those years of his
comparative obscurity, I knew him as preemi-
nently a truthful man. His love of truth was
conspicuous in all his thinking. The object of his
pursuit was truth, and not victory in argument or
the triumph of his party, or the success of his
own cause. This was always conspicuous in his
conversation. It constituted the charm of his
conversation. In his society one plainly saw that
his aim was so to use words as to express and
not conceal his real thoughts. This characteristic
had formed his style, both of conversation and of
writing. His habitual love of truth had led him
successfully to cultivate such a use of language as
would most clearly and accurately express his
thoughts. His words were a perfectly trans-
parent medium through which his thought always
shone out with unclouded distinctness. No mat-
ter on what subject he was speaking, any person
LINCOLN'S EARLY ORATORY xv
could understand him. This characteristic of his
mind and heart gave a peculiar complexion to his
speeches, whether at the bar, or in discussing the
great political issues of the time. He always pre-
ferred to do more than justice rather than less
to an opponent. It was often noticed that he
stated his opponent's argument with more force
than his opponent himself had done. In the open-
ing of his argument, his friends would often feel
for the moment that he was surrendering the
whole ground in debate. They had no need to
concern themselves on that subject; it would
always turn out that he had only surrendered
fallacious grounds, on which it was unsafe to rely,
while the solid foundation on which his own faith
rested was left intact, as the enduring basis on
which he would build his argument. He was a
very conscientious man ; his anti-slavery opinions
had their seat in no mere political expediency, but
in the very depths of his moral nature. In the
summer of 1856 he delivered a speech to a very
large audience assembled on the public square in
this city; the population of this country were at
that time very largely of Southern origin, and
had those views of slavery which prevailed in the
States from which they came. Yet Lincoln
made a very frank avowal of his opposition to
slavery on moral grounds, and drew his argu-
ment from the deepest roots of natural justice;
yet he presented the case with such irresistible
eloquence that his speech was received with the
greatest favor, and often with bursts of hearty
applause. That speech went far in all this region
to establish his reputation as a popular orator.
EARLY SPEECHES
(1832-1856)
"I Am Humble Abraham Lincoln."
Announcement of His Candidacy for the
State Legislature. About March i,
1832.
Fellow-Citizens: I presume you all know who
I am. I am humble Abraham Lincoln. I have
been solicited by many friends to become a can-
didate for the Legislature. My politics are short
and sweet, like the old woman's dance. I am in
favor of a national bank. I am in favor of the
internal improvement system, and a high pro-
tective tariff. These are my sentiments and po-
litical principles. If elected, I shall be thankful ;
if not it will be all the same.
The Improvement of Sangamon River.
An Address Delivered in Candidacy for the
State Legislature. About March i,
1832.*
Fellow-Citizens: Having become a candidate
for the honorable office of one of your represent-
atives in the next General Assembly of this State,
* This address was printed and distributed as a hand-
bill. It excited much interest among Lincoln's pro-
2 EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. i
in accordance with an established custom and the
principles of true Republicanism it becomes my
duty to make known to you, the people whom I
propose to represent, my sentiments with regard
to local affairs.
Time and experience have verified to a demon-
stration the public utility of internal improve-
ments. That the poorest and most thinly popu-
lated countries would be greatly benefited by the
opening of good roads, and in the clearing of
navigable streams within their limits, is what no
person will deny. Yet it is folly to undertake
works of this or any other kind without first
knowing that we are able to finish them, — as
half-finished work generally proves to be labor
lost. There cannot justly be any objection to
having railroads and canals, any more than to
other good things, provided they cost nothing.
The only objection is to paying for them; and
the objection arises from the want of ability to
pay.
With respect to the County of Sangamon,
some more easy means of communication than
it now possesses, for the purpose of facilitating
the task of exporting the surplus products of its
fertile soil, and importing necessary articles from
abroad, are indispensably necessary. A meeting
has been held of the citizens of Jacksonville and
the adjacent country, for the purpose of deliber-
ating and inquiring into the expediency of con-
structing a railroad from some eligible point on
the Illinois River, through the town of Jackson-
ville, in Morgan County, to the town of Spring-
spective constituents, but not enough to induce them
to elect so young a man (he had entered his twenty-
third year a month before) to the Legislature.
i8 3 2] SANGAMON RIVER 3
field, in Sangamon County. This is, indeed, a
very desirable object. No other improvement
that reason will justify us in hoping for can equal
in utility the railroad. It is a never-failing
source of communication between places of busi-
ness remotely situated from each other. Upon
the railroad the regular progress of commercial
intercourse is not interrupted by either high or
low water, or freezing weather, which are the
principal difficulties that render our future hopes
of water communication precarious and uncer-
tain.
Yet, however desirable an object the con-
struction of a railroad through our country may
be; however high our imaginations may be
heated at thoughts of it, — there is always a heart-
appalling shock accompanying the amount of its
cost, which forces us to shrink from our pleasing
anticipations. The probable cost of this contem-
plated railroad is estimated at $290,000 ; the bare
statement of which, in my opinion, is sufficient to
justify the belief that the improvement of the
Sangamon River is an object much better suited
to our infant resources.
Respecting this view, I think I may say, with-
out the fear of being contradicted, that its navi-
gation may be rendered completely practicable
as high as the mouth of the South Fork, or prob-
ably higher, to vessels of from twenty-five to
thirty tons burden, for at least one half of all
common years, and to vessels of much greater
burden a part of the time. From my peculiar
circumstances, it is probable that for the last
twelve months I have given as particular attention
to the stage of the water in this river as any other
person in the country. In the month of March,,
4 EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. i
183 1, in company with others, I commenced the
building of a flatboat on the Sangamon, and fin-
ished and took her out in the course of the spring.
Since that time I have been concerned in the mill
at New Salem. These circumstances are suffi-
cient evidence that I have not been very inatten-
tive to the stages of the water. The time at
which we crossed the mill-dam being in the last
days of April, the water was lower than it had
been since the breaking of winter in February,
or than it was for several weeks after. The prin-
cipal difficulties we encountered in descending
the river were from the drifted timber, which ob-
structions all know are not difficult to be re-
moved. Knowing almost precisely the height of
water at that time, I believe I am safe in saying
that it has as often been higher as lower since.
From this view of the subject it appears that
my calculations with regard to the navigation of
the Sangamon cannot but be founded in reason;
but, whatever may be its natural advantages, cer-
tain it is that it never can be practically useful to
any great extent without being greatly improved
by art. The drifted timber, as I have before
mentioned, is the most formidable barrier to this
object. Of all parts of this river, none will re-
quire so much labor in proportion to make it
navigable as the last thirty or thirty-five miles ;
and going with the meanderings of the channel,
when we are this distance above its mouth we
are only between twelve and eighteen miles above
Beardstown in something near a straight direc-
tion; and this route is upon such low ground as
to retain water in many places during the season,
and in all parts such as to draw two thirds or
three fourths of the river water at all high stages.
1S32] SANGAMON RIVER 5
This route is on prairie-land the whole distance,
so that it appears to me, by removing the turf a
sufficient width, and damming up the old channel,
the whole river in a short time would wash its
way through, thereby curtailing the distance and
increasing the velocity of the current very con-
siderably, while there would be no timber on the
banks to obstruct its navigation in future; and
being nearly straight, the timber which might
float in at the head would be apt to go clear
through. There are also many places above this
where the river, in its zigzag course, forms such
complete peninsulas as to be easier cut at the
necks than to remove the obstructions from the
bends, which, if done, would also lessen the dis-
tance.
What the cost of this work would be, I am un-
able to say. It is probable, however, that it would
not be greater than is common to streams of the
same length. Finally, I believe the improvement
of the Sangamon River to be vastly important
and highly desirable to the people of the county;
and, if elected, any measure in the legislature
having this for its object, which may appear ju-
dicious, will meet my approbation and receive my
support.
It appears that the practice of loaning money
at exorbitant rates of interest has already been
opened as a field for discussion ; so I suppose I
may enter upon it without claiming the honor, or
risking the danger which may await its first ex-
plorer. It seems as though we are never to have
an end to this baneful and corroding system, act-
ing almost as prejudicially to the general inter-
ests of the community as a direct tax of several
thousand dollars annually laid on each county for
6 EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. i
the benefit of a few individuals only, unless there
be a law made fixing the limits of usury. A law
for this purpose, I am of opinion, may be made
without materially injuring any class of people.
In cases of extreme necessity, there could always
be means found to cheat the law; while in all
other cases it would have its intended effect. I
would favor the passage of a law on this subject
which might not be very easily evaded. Let it
be such that the labor and difficulty of evading it
could only be justified in cases of greatest neces-
sity.
Upon the subject of education, not presuming
to dictate any plan or system respecting it, I can
only say that I view it as the most important sub-
ject which we as a people can be engaged in.
That every man may receive at least a moderate
education, and thereby be enabled to read the
histories of his own and other countries, by
which he may duly appreciate the value of our
free institutions, appears to be an object of vital
importance, even on this account alone, to say
nothing of the advantages and satisfaction to be
derived from all being able to read the Scriptures,
and other works both of a religious and moral
nature, for themselves.
For my part, I desire to see the time when
education — and by its means, morality, sobriety,
enterprise, and industry — shall become much
more general than at present, and should be
gratified to have it in my power to contribute
something to the advancement of any measure
which might have a tendency to accelerate that
happy period.
With regard to existing laws, some alterations
are thought to be necessary. Many respectable
1832] SANGAMON RIVER 7
men have suggested that our estray laws, the law
respecting the issuing of executions, the road
law, and some others, are deficient in their pres-
ent form, and require alterations. But, consider-
ing the great probability that the framers of
those laws were wiser than myself, I should pre-
fer not meddling with them, unless they were
first attacked by others; in which case I should
feel it both a privilege and a duty to take that
stand which, in my view, might tend most to the
advancement of justice.
But, fellow-citizens, I shall conclude. Consid-
ering the great degree of modesty which should
always attend youth, it is probable I have already
been more presuming than becomes me. How-
ever, upon the subjects of which I have treated,
I have spoken as I have thought. I may be
wrong in regard to any or all of them, but, hold-
ing it a sound maxim that it is better only some-
times to be right than at all times to be wrong, so
soon as I discover my opinions to be erroneous,
I shall be ready to renounce them.
Every man is said to have his peculiar ambi-
tion. Whether it be true or not, I can say, for
one, that I have no other so great as that of be-
ing truly esteemed of my fellow-men, by render-
ing myself worthy of their esteem. How far I
shall succeed in gratifying this ambition is yet to
be developed. I am young, and unknown to
many of you. I was born, and have ever re-
mained, in the most humble walks of life. I have
no wealthy or popular relations or friends to
recommend me. My case is thrown exclusively
upon the independent voters of the county ; and,
if elected, they will have conferred a favor upon
me for which I shall be unremitting in my labors
8 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan.
to compensate. But, if the good people in their
wisdom shall see fit to keep me in the back-
ground, I have been too familiar with disappoint-
ments to be very much chagrined.
In Favor of Equal Suffrage and Public Im-
provements.
Announcement of Political Views in Candi-
dacy for the State Legislature.*
New Salem, June 13, 1836.
To the Editor of the "Journal" : In y° ur paper
of last Saturday I see a communication, over the
signature of "Many Voters," in which the candi-
dates who are announced in the "Journal" are
called upon to "show their hands." Agreed.
Here's mine.
I go for all sharing the privileges of the gov-
ernment who assist in bearing its burdens. Con-
sequently, I go for admitting all whites to the
right of suffrage who pay taxes or bear arms (by
no means excluding females).
If elected, I shall consider the whole people of
Sangamon my constituents, as well those that op-
pose as those that support me.
While acting as their representative, I shall
be governed by their will on all subjects upon
which I have the means of knowing what their
will is; and upon all others I shall do what my
own judgment teaches me will best advance their
interests. Whether elected or not, I go for dis-
tributing the proceeds of the sales of the public
lands to the several States, to enable our State,
* At the close of the poll, Lincoln stood second of the
four successful candidates.
i8373 STATE BANK 9
in common with others, to dig- canals and con-
struct railroads without borrowing money and
paying the interest on it.
If alive on the first Monday in November, I
shall vote for Hugh L. White for President.*
Very respectfully,
A. Lincoln.
Perils of Mobocracy.
Speech Before the Illinois Legislature
Upon a Resolution to Inquire Into the
Management of the State BANK.f
. . . I now proceed to the resolution. By
examination it will be found that the first thirty-
three lines, being precisely one third of the whole,
relate exclusively to the distribution of the stock
by the commissioners appointed by the State.
Now, sir, it is clear that no question can arise on
this portion of the resolution, except a question
between capitalists in regard to the ownership of
stock. Some gentlemen have their stock in their
hands, while others, who have more money than
they know what to do with, want it; and this,
and this alone, is the question to settle which we
are called on to squander thousands of the peo-
* Judge Hugh L. White, Democratic Senator from
Tennessee, 1825 to 1839, wa s nominated by a combina-
tion of Whigs and anti-Jackson Democrats for Presi-
dent in 1836. He received the electoral votes of Ten-
nessee and Georgia.
f This speech appeared in the Vandalia Free Press
sometime in January, 1837. It was copied by the
Sangamon Journal of January 28, 1837. It is here given
in part, the omitted portions dealing largely with local
and transitory conditions.
io EARLY SPEECHES [Jan.
pie's money. What interest, let me ask, have the
people in the settlement of this question? What
difference is it to them whether the stock is
owned by Judge Smith or Sam Wiggins ? If any
gentleman be entitled to stock in the bank, which
he is kept out of possession of by others, let him
assert his right in the Supreme Court, and let
him or his antagonist, whichever may be found
in the wrong, pay the costs of suit. It is an old
maxim, and a very sound one, that he that dances
should always pay the fiddler. Now, sir, in the
present case, if any gentlemen, whose money is a
burden to them, choose to lead off a dance, I am
decidedly opposed to the people's money being
used to pay the fiddler. No one can doubt that
the examination proposed by this resolution must
cost the State some ten or twelve thousand dol-
lars ; and all this to settle a question in which the
people have no interest, and about which they
care nothing. These capitalists generally act har-
moniously and in concert to fleece the people, and
now that they have got into a quarrel with them-
selves, we are called upon to appropriate the peo-
ple's money to settle the quarrel. . . .
There are several insinuations in the resolu-
tion, which are too silly to require any sort of no-
tice, were it not for the fact that they conclude by
saying, "to the great injury of the people at
large." In answer to this I would say that it is
strange enough that the people are suffering
these "great injuries," and yet are not sensible of
it ! Singular indeed that the people should be
writhing under oppression and injury, and yet
not one among them to be found to raise the voice
of complaint. If the Bank be inflicting injury
upon the people, why is it that not a single peti-
i837l STATE BANK XI
tion.is presented to this body on the subject? If
the Bank really be a grievance, why is it that no
one of the real people is found to ask redress of
it? The truth is, no such oppression exists. If
it did, our people would groan with memorials
and petitions, and we would not be permitted to
rest day or night till we had put it down. The
people know their rights, and they are never
slow to assert and maintain them, when they are
invaded. Let them call for an investigation, and
I shall ever stand ready to respond to the call.
But they have made no such call. I make the
assertion boldly, and without fear of contradic-
tion, that no man who does not hold an office or
does not aspire to one has ever found any fault
with the Bank. It has doubled the prices of the
products of their farms and filled their pockets
with a sound circulating medium, and they are
all well pleased with its operations. No, sir, it is
the politician who is the first to sound the alarm
(which, by the way, is a false one). It is he
who, by these unholy means, is endeavoring to
blow up a storm that he may ride upon and di-
rect. It is he, and he alone, that here proposes
to spend thousands of the people's public treas-
ure, for no other advantage to them than to make
valueless in their pockets the reward of their in-
dustry. Mr. Chairman, this work is exclusively
the work of politicians ; a set of men who have
interests aside from the interests of the people,
and who, to say the most of them, are, taken as
a mass, at least one long step removed from
honest men. I say this with the greater freedom
because, being a politician myself, none can re-
gard it as personal. . . .
I am by no means the special advocate of the
12 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan.
Bank. I have long thought that it would be well
for it to report its condition to the General As-
sembly, and that cases might occur when it might
be proper to make an examination of its affairs
by a committee. Accordingly, during the last
session, while a bill supplemental to the Bank
charter was pending before the House, I offered
an amendment to the same, in these words : "The
said corporation shall, at the next session of the
General Assembly, and at each subsequent Gen-
eral Session, during the existence of its charter,
report to the same the amount of debts due from
said corporation ; the amount of debts due to the
same ; the amount of specie in its vaults, and an
account of all lands then owned by the same,
and the amount for which such lands have been
taken ; and, moreover, if said corporation shall
at any time neglect or refuse to submit its books,
papers, and all and everything necessary for a
full and fair examination of its affairs, to any
person or persons appointed by the General As-
sembly, for the purpose of making such examina-
tion, the said corporation shall forfeit its char-
ter."
This amendment was negatived by a vote of 34
to 15. Eleven of the 34 who voted against it are
now members of this House; and though it
would be out of order to call their names, I hope
they will all recollect themselves, and not vote
for this examination to be made without author-
ity, inasmuch as they refused to receive the
authority when it was within their power to
do so.
I have said that cases might occur when an
examination might be proper ; but I do not be-
lieve any such case has now occurred ; and if it
18373 STATE BANK 13
has, I should still be opposed to making an ex-
amination without legal authority. I am opposed
to encouraging that lawless and mobocratic
spirit, whether in relation to the Bank or any-
thing else, which is already abroad in the land;
and is spreading with rapid and fearful impetuos-
ity to the ultimate overthrow of every institution,
of every moral principle, in which persons and
property have hitherto found security.
But supposing we had the authority, I would
ask what good can result from the examination?
Can we declare the Bank unconstitutional, and
compel it to desist from the abuses of its power,
provided we find such abuses to exist? Can we
repair the injuries which it may have done to in-
dividuals? Most certainly we can do none of
these things. Why, then, shall we spend the
public money in such employment? Oh, say the
examiners, we can injure the credit of the Bank,
if nothing else. Please tell me, gentlemen, who
will suffer most by that? You cannot injure, to
any extent, the stockholders. They are men of
wealth — of large capital; and consequently, be-
yond the power of malice. But by injuring the
credit of the Bank you will depreciate the value
of its paper in the hands of the honest and un-
suspecting farmer and mechanic, and that is all
you can do. But suppose you could effect your
whole purpose ; suppose you could wipe the Bank
from existence, which is the grand ultimatum of
the project, what would be the consequence?
Why, sir, we should spend several thousand dol-
lars of the public treasure in the operation, an-
nihilate the currency of the State ; render value-
less in the hands of our people that reward of
their former labors; and finally, be once more
1 4 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. z 7
under the comfortable obligation of paying the
Wiggins loan, principal and interest.
The Perpetuation of Our Political Institutions.
An Address Delivered Before the Young
Men's Lyceum of Springfield, III. Janu-
ary 2"], 1837.*
As a subject for the remarks of the evening,
"The perpetuation of our political institutions" is
selected.
In the great journal of things happening under
the sun, we, the American people, find our ac-
count running under date of the nineteenth cen-
tury of the Christian era. We find ourselves in
the peaceful possession of the fairest portion of
the earth as regards extent of territory, fertility
of soil, and salubrity of climate. We find our-
selves under the government of a system of po-
litical institutions conducing more essentially to
the ends of civil and religious liberty than any of
which the history of former times tells us. We,
when mounting the stage of existence, found our-
selves the legal inheritors of these fundamental
blessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or
establishment of them ; they are a legacy be-
queathed us by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic,
but now lamented and departed, race of ances-
tors. Theirs was the task (and nobly they per-
formed it) to possess themselves, and through
themselves us, of this goodly land, and to'uprear
upon its hills and its valleys a political edifice of
* This society was formed by Lincoln and other
young men in the fall of 1836. The speech was printed
in the Sangamon Journal, February 3, 1838.
1837] LYCEUM ADDRESS 15
liberty and equal rights ; 'tis ours only to transmit
these — the former unprofaned by the foot of an
invader, the latter undecayed by the lapse of
time and untorn by usurpation — to the latest gen-
eration that fate shall permit the world to know.
This task gratitude to our fathers, justice to our-
selves, duty to posterity, and love for our species
in general, all imperatively require us faithfully
to perform.
How then shall we perform it ? At what point
shall we expect the approach of danger? By
what means shall we fortify against it ? Shall we
expect some transatlantic military giant to step
the ocean and crush us at a blow ? Never ! All
the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined,
with all the treasure of the earth (our own ex-
cepted) in their military chest, with a Bonaparte
for a commander, could not by force take a drink
from the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge
in a trial of a thousand years.
At what point then is the approach of danger
to be expected? I answer, If it ever reach us it
must spring up amongst us ; it cannot come from
abroad. If destruction be our lot we must our-
selves be its author and finisher. As a nation of
freemen we must live through all time or die by
suicide.
I hope I am over wary ; but if I am not, there
is even now something of ill omen amongst us.
I mean the increasing disregard for law which
pervades the country — the growing disposition to
substitute the wild and furious passions in lieu of
the sober judgment of courts, and the worse than
savage mobs for the executive ministers of jus-
tice. This disposition is awfully fearful in any
community; and that it now exists in ours,
1 6 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 27
though grating to our feelings to admit, it would
be a violation of truth and an insult to our intelli-
gence to deny. Accounts of outrages committed
by mobs form the every-day news of the times.
They have pervaded the country from New Eng-
land to Louisiana, they are neither peculiar to the
eternal snows of the former nor the burning suns
of the latter ; they are not the creature of climate,
neither are they confined to the slaveholding or
the non-slaveholding States. Alike they spring
up among the pleasure-hunting masters of
Southern slaves, and the order-loving citizens of
the land of steady habits. Whatever then their
cause may be, it is common to the whole country.
It would be tedious as well as useless to re-
count the horrors of all of them. Those happen-
ing in the State of Mississippi and at St. Louis
are perhaps the most dangerous in example and
revolting to humanity. In the Mississippi case
they first commenced by hanging the regular
gamblers — a set of men certainly not following
for a livelihood a very useful or very honest oc-
cupation, but one which, so far from being for-
bidden by the laws, was actually licensed by an
act of the legislature passed but a single year be-
fore. Next, negroes suspected of conspiring to
raise an insurrection were caught up and hanged
in all parts of the State; then, white men sup-
posed to be leagued with the negroes ; and finally,
strangers from neighboring States, going thither
on business, were in many instances subjected to
the same fate. Thus went on this process of
hanging, from gamblers to negroes, from negroes
to white citizens, and from these to strangers, till
dead men were seen literally dangling from the
boughs of trees upon every roadside, and in num-
i8373 LYCEUM ADDRESS I?
bers that were almost sufficient to rival the native
Spanish moss of the country as a drapery of the
forest.
Turn then to that horror-striking scene at St.
Louis. A single victim only was sacrificed there.
This story is very short, and is perhaps the most
highly tragic of anything of its length that has
ever been witnessed in real life. A mulatto man
by the name of Mcintosh was seized in the street,
dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a
tree, and actually burned to death ; and all within
a single hour from the time he had been a free-
man attending to his own business and at peace
with the world.
Such are the effects of mob law, and such are
the scenes becoming more and more frequent in
this land so lately famed for love of law and
order, and the stories of which have even now
grown too familiar to attract anything more than
an idle remark.
But you are perhaps ready to ask, "What has
this to do with the perpetuation of our political
institutions ?" I answer, "It has much to do with
it." Its direct consequences are, comparatively
speaking, but a small evil, and much of its danger
consists in the proneness of our minds to regard
its direct as its only consequences. Abstractly
considered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicks-
burg was of but little consequence. They consti-
tute a portion of population that is worse than
useless in any community ; and their death, if no
pernicious example be set by it, is never matter
of reasonable regret with any one. If they were
annually swept from the stage of existence by the
plague or smallpox, honest men would perhaps
be much profited by the operation. Similar too
1 8 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 27
is the correct reasoning in regard to the burning
of the negro at St. Louis. He had forfeited his
life by the perpetration of an outrageous murder
upon one of the most worthy and respectable
citizens of the city, and had he not died as he did,
he must have died by the sentence of the law in
a very short time afterward. As to him alone, it
was as well the way it was as it could otherwise
have been. But the example in either case was
fearful. When men take it in their heads to-day
to hang gamblers or burn murderers, they should
recollect that in the confusion usually attending
such transactions they will be as likely to hang
or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a
murderer as one who is, and that, acting upon
the example they set, the mob of to-morrow may,
and probably will, hang or burn some of them by
the very same mistake. And not only so ; the in-
nocent, those who have ever set their faces
against violations of law in every shape, alike
with the guilty fall victims to the ravages of mob
law ; and thus it goes on, step by step, till all the
walls erected for the defense of the persons and
property of individuals are trodden down and
disregarded. But all this, even, is not the full
extent of the evil. By such examples, by in-
stances of the perpetrators of such acts going un-
punished, the lawless in spirit are encouraged to
become lawless in practice ; and having been used
to no restraint but dread of punishment, they
thus become absolutely unrestrained. Having
ever regarded government as their deadliest
bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its
operations, and pray for nothing so much as its
total annihilation. While, on the other hand,
good men, men who love tranquillity, who desire
1837] LYCEUM ADDRESS 19
to abide by the laws and enjoy their benefits, who
would gladly spill their blood in the defense of
their country, seeing their property destroyed,
their families insulted, and their lives endan-
gered, their persons injured, and seeing nothing
in prospect that forebodes a change for the better,
become tired of and disgusted with a govern-
ment that offers them no protection, and are not
much averse to a change in which they imagine
they have nothing to lose. Thus, then, by the
operation of this mobocratic spirit which all must
admit is now abroad in the land, the strongest
bulwark of any government, and particularly of
those constituted like ours, may effectually be
broken down and destroyed — I mean the attach-
ment of the people. Whenever this effect shall be
produced among us ; whenever the vicious portion
of [our] population shall be permitted to gather
in bands of hundreds and thousands, and burn
churches, ravage and rob provision stores, throw
printing-presses into rivers, shoot editors, and
hang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure and
with impunity, depend upon it, this government
cannot last. By such things the feelings of the
best citizens will become more or less alienated
from it, and thus it will be left without friends,
or with too few, and those few too weak to make
their friendship effectual. At such a time, and
under such circumstances, men of sufficient talent
and ambition will not be wanting to seize the op-
portunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair
fabric which for the last half century has been
the fondest hope of the lovers of freedom
throughout the world.
I know the American people are much attached
to their government ; I know they would suffer
2 o EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 27
much for its sake ; I know they would endure
evils long and patiently before they would ever
think of exchanging it for another, — yet, not-
withstanding all this, if the laws be continually
despised and disregarded, if their rights to be
secure in their persons and property are held by
no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the
alienation of their affections from the govern-
ment is the natural consequence ; and to that,
sooner or later, it must come.
Here, then, is one point at which danger may
be expected.
The question recurs, "How shall we fortify
against it?" The answer is simple. Let every
American, every lover of liberty, every well-
wisher to his posterity swear by the blood of the
Revolution never to violate in the least particular
the laws of the country, and never to tolerate
their violation by others. As the patriots of sev-
enty-six did to the support of the Declaration of
Independence, so to the support of the Constitu-
tion and laws let every American pledge his life,
his property, and his sacred honor — let every
man remember that to violate the law is to tram-
ple on the blood of his father, and to tear the
charter of his own and his children's liberty. Let
reverence for the laws be breathed by every
American mother to the lisping babe that prattles
on her lap; let it be taught in schools, in semi-
naries, and in colleges ; let it be written in prim-
ers, spelling-books, and in almanacs ; let. it be
preached from the pulpit, proclaimed in legisla-
tive halls, and enforced in courts of justice. And,
in short, let it become the political religion of the
nation; and let the old and the young, the rich
and the poor, the grave and the gay of all sexes
i837] LYCEUM ADDRESS 21
and. tongues and colors and conditions, sacrifice
unceasingly upon its altars.
While ever a state of feeling such as this shall
universally or even very generally prevail
throughout the nation, vain will be every effort,
and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our na-
tional freedom.
When I so pressingly urge a strict observance
of all the laws, let me not be understood as say-
ing there are no bad laws, or that grievances may
not arise for the redress of which no legal pro-
visions have been made. I mean to say no such
thing. But I do mean to say that although bad
laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as
possible, still, while they continue in force, for
the sake of example they should be religiously
observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such
arise, let proper legal provisions be made for
them with the least possible delay, but till then
let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with.
There is no grievance that is a fit object of
redress by mob law. In any case that may
arise, as, for instance, the promulgation of
abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily
true — that is, the thing is right within itself, and
therefore deserves the protection of all law and
all good citizens, or it is wrong, and therefore
proper to be prohibited by legal enactments ; and
in neither case is the interposition of mob law
either necessary, justifiable, or excusable.
But it may be asked, "Why suppose danger to
our political institutions ? Have we not preserved
them for more than fifty years? And why may
we not for fifty times as long ?"
We hope there is no sufficient reason. We
hope all danger may be overcome; but to con-
22 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 27
elude that no danger may ever arise would itself
be extremely dangerous. There are now, and
will hereafter be, many causes, dangerous in their
tendency, which have not existed heretofore, and
which are not too insignificant to merit attention.
That our government should have been main-
tained in its original form, from its establishment
until now, is not much to be wondered at. It had
many props to support it through that period,
which now are decayed and crumbled away.
Through that period it was felt by all to be an
undecided experiment ; now it is understood to be
a successful one. Then, all that sought celebrity
and fame and distinction expected to find them
in the success of that experiment. Their all was
staked upon it ; their destiny was inseparably
linked with it. Their ambition aspired to display
before an admiring world a practical demonstra-
tion of the truth of a proposition which had hith-
erto been considered at best no better than prob-
lematical — namely, the capability of a people to
govern themselves. If they succeeded they were
to be immortalized ; their names were to be trans-
ferred to counties, and cities, and rivers, and
mountains ; and to be revered and sung, toasted
through all time. If they failed, they were to be
called knaves, and fools, and fanatics for a fleet-
ing hour; then to sink and be forgotten. They
succeeded. The experiment is successful, and
thousands have won their deathless names in
making it so. But the game is caught ; and I be-
lieve it is true that with the catching end the
pleasures of the chase. This field of glory is
harvested, and the crop is already appropriated.
But new reapers will arise, and they too will seek
a field. It is to deny what the history of the
1837] LYCEUM ADDRESS 23
world tells us is true, to suppose that men of am-
bition and talents will not continue to spring up
amongst us. And when they do, they will as
naturally seek the gratification of their ruling
passion as others have done before them. The
question then is, Can that gratification be found
in supporting and maintaining an edifice that has
been erected by others ? Most certainly it cannot.
Many great and good men, sufficiently qualified
for any task they should undertake, may ever be
found whose ambition would aspire to nothing
beyond a seat in Congress, a gubernatorial or a
presidential chair; but such belong not to the
family of the lion or the tribe of the eagle. What !
think you these places would satisfy an Alexan-
der, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never! Tower-
ing genius disdains a beaten path. It seeks re-
gions hitherto unexplored. It sees no distinction
in adding story to story upon the monuments of
fame erected to the memory of others. It denies
that it is glory enough to serve under any chief.
It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any prede-
cessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns
for distinction; and if possible, it will have it,
whether at the expense of emancipating slaves or
enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable, then, to
expect that some man possessed of the loftiest
genius, coupled with ambition sufficient to push
it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring
up among us ? And when such an one does, it
will require the people to be united with each
other, attached to the government and laws, and
generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his
designs.
Distinction will be his paramount object, and
although he would as willingly, perhaps more so,
24 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 27
acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that op-
portunity being past, and nothing left to be done
in the way of building up, he would set boldly to
the task of pulling down.
Here then is a probable case, highly danger-
ous, and such an one as could not have well ex-
isted heretofore.
Another reason which once was, but which, to
the same extent, is now no more, has done much
in maintaining our institutions thus far. I mean
the powerful influence which the interesting
scenes of the Revolution had upon the passions
of the people as distinguished from their judg-
ment. By this influence, the jealousy, envy, and
avarice incident to our nature and so common to
a state of peace, prosperity, and conscious
strength, were for the time in a great measure
smothered and rendered inactive, while the deep-
rooted principles of hate, and the powerful motive
of revenge, instead of being turned against each
other, were directed exclusively against the Brit-
ish nation. And thus, from the force of circum-
stances, the basest principles of our nature were
either made to lie dormant, or to become the
active agents in the advancement of the noblest
of causes — that of establishing and maintaining
civil and religious liberty.
But this state of feeling must fade, is fading,
has faded, with the circumstances that produced
it.
I do not mean to say that the scenes of the
Revolution are now or ever will be entirely for-
gotten, but that, like everything else, they must
fade upon the memory of the world, and grow
more and more dim by the lapse of time. In his-
tory, we hope, they will be read of, and recounted,
1837] LYCEUM ADDRESS
2 5
so long as the Bible shall be read ; but even grant-
ing that they will, their influence cannot be what
it heretofore has been. Even then they cannot be
so universally known nor so vividly felt as they
were by the generation just gone to rest. At the
close of that struggle, nearly every adult male
had been a participator in some of its scenes.
The consequence was that of those scenes, in
the form of a husband, a father, a son, or a
brother, a living history was to be found in every
family — a history bearing the indubitable testi-
monies of its own authenticity, in the limbs man-
gled, in the scars of wounds received, in the
midst of the very scenes related — a history, too,
that could be read and understood alike by all,
the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the
unlearned. But those histories are gone. They
can be read no more forever. They were a for-
tress of strength ; but what invading foeman
could never do, the silent artillery of time has
done — the leveling of its walls. They are gone.
They were a forest of giant oaks ; but the all-
restless hurricane has swept over them, and left
only here and there a lonely trunk, despoiled of
its verdure, shorn of its foliage, unshading and
unshaded, to murmur in a few more gentle
breezes, and to combat with its mutilated limbs
a few more ruder storms, then to sink and be no
more.
They were pillars of the temple of liberty ; and
now that they have crumbled away that temple
must fall unless we, their descendants, supply
their places with other pillars, hewn from the
solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped
us, but can do so no more. It will in future be
our enemy. Reason — cold, calculating, unimpas-
2 6 EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. 3
sioned reason — must furnish all the materials for
our future support and defense. Let those ma-
terials be molded into general intelligence, sound
morality, and, in particular, a reverence for the
Constitution and laws ; and that we improved to
the last, that we remained free to the last, that we
revered his name to the last, that during his long
sleep we permitted no hostile foot to pass over
or desecrate his resting place, shall be that which
to learn the last trump shall awaken our Wash-
ington.
Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom
rest, as the rock of its basis ; and as truly as has
been said of the only greater institution, "the
gates of hell shall not prevail against it."
Injustice the Foundation of Slavery.
Protest of Representatives Stone and Lin-
coln in the Illinois Legislature Against
Certain Pro-Slavery Resolutions of that
Body. March 3, 1837.*
The following protest was presented to the House,
which was read and ordered to be spread on the
journals, to wit :
Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slav-
ery having passed both branches of the General
Assembly at its present session, the undersigned
hereby protest against the passage of the same.
They believe that the institution of slavery is
founded on both injustice and bad policy, but
* "The first formal declaration against the system of
slavery that was made in any legislative body in the
United States, at least west of the Hudson River."— W.
E. Curtis.
1837] SLAVERY PROTEST 27
that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends
rather to increase than abate its evils.
They believe that the Congress of the United
States has no power under the Constitution to
interfere with the institution of slavery in the
different States.
They believe that the Congress of the United
States has the power, under the Constitution, to
abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, but
that the power ought not to be exercised, unless
at the request of the people of the District.
The difference between these opinions and
those contained in the said resolutions is their
reason for entering this protest.*
Dan Stone,
A. Lincoln,
Representatives from the County of Sangamon.
*The resolutions protested against were as follows :
"Resolved by the General Assembly of the State of
Illinois:
"That we highly disapprove of the formation of Abo-
lition Societies, and of the doctrines promulgated by
them.
"That the right of property in slaves is sacred to
the slaveholding States by the Federal Constitution, and
that they cannot be deprived of that right without their
consent.
"That the General Government cannot abolish slavery
in the District of Columbia against the consent of the
citizens of said District, without a manifest breach of
good faith.
"That the Governor be requested to transmit to the
States of Virginia, Alabama, Mississippi, New York,
and Connecticut a copy of the foregoing report and
resolutions."
2 8 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
Against the Sale of State Lands at a Low
Price.
Remarks in the Illinois Legislature. Jan-
uary 17, 1839.
Mr. Lincoln, from Committee on Finance, to
which the subject was referred, made a report on
the subject of purchasing of the United States all
the unsold lands lying within the limits of the
State of Illinois, accompanied by resolutions that
this State propose to purchase all unsold lands at
twenty-five cents per acre, and pledging the faith
of the State to carry the proposal into effect if the
government accept the same within two years.
• • • •
Mr. Lincoln thought the resolutions ought to
be seriously considered. In reply to the gentle-,
man from Adams, he said that it was not to en-
rich the State. The price of the lands may be
raised, it was thought by some; by others, that
it would be reduced. The conclusion in his mind
was that the representatives in this legislature
from the country in which the lands lie would be
opposed to raising the price, because it would
operate against the settlement of the lands. He
referred to the lands in the military tract. They
had fallen into the hands of large speculators in
consequence of the low price. He was opposed
to a low price of land. He thought it was ad-
verse to the interests of the poor settler,, because
speculators buy them up. He was opposed to a
reduction of the price of public lands.
Mr. Lincoln referred to some official docu-
ments emanating from Indiana, and compared
the progressive population of the two States. Illi-
iS 3 9l SUBTREASURY 29
nois had gained upon that State under the public
land system as it is. His conclusion was that ten
years from this time Illinois would have no more
public land unsold than Indiana now has. He
referred also to Ohio. That State had sold nearly
all her public lands. She was but twenty years
ahead of us, and as our lands were equally sal-
able — more so, as he maintained — we should
have no more twenty years from now than she
has at present.
Mr. Lincoln referred to the canal lands, and
supposed that the policy of the State would be
different in regard to them, if the representatives
from that section of country could themselves
choose the policy; but the representatives from
other parts of the State had a veto upon it, and
regulated the policy. He thought that if the
State had all the lands, the policy of the legis-
lature would be more liberal to all sections.
He referred to the policy of the General Gov-
ernment. He thought that if the national debt
had not been paid, the expenses of the govern-
ment would not have doubled, as they had done
since that debt was paid.
Against the Subtreasury and Other Policies
of the Van Buren Administration.
Speech at a Political Discussion in the
Hall of the House of Representatives at
Springfield, III. About December 20,
1839.*
The subject heretofore and now to be dis-
cussed is the subtreasury scheme of the present
* This address, the last of a series on national poli-
tics by Stephen A. Douglas, and other rising statesmen,
3 o EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
administration, as a means of collecting, safe-
keeping, transferring, and disbursing the reve-
nues of the nation, as contrasted with a national
bank for the same purposes. Mr. [Stephen A.]
Douglas has said that we (the Whigs) have not
dared to meet them (the Locos) in argument on
this question. I protest against this assertion. I
assert that we have again and again, during this
discussion, urged facts and arguments against
the subtreasury which they have neither dared
to deny nor attempted to answer. But lest some
may be led to believe that we really wish to avoid
the question, I now propose, in my humble way,
to urge those arguments again ; at the same time
begging the audience to mark well the positions
I shall take and the proof I shall offer to sustain
them, and that they will not again permit Mr.
Douglas or his friends to escape the force of
them by a round and groundless assertion that
we "dare not meet them in argument."
Of the subtreasury, then, as contrasted with a
national bank for the before enumerated pur-
poses, I lay down the following propositions, to
wit: (1) It will injuriously affect the commu-
nity by its operation on the circulating medium.
(2) It will be a more expensive fiscal agent.
(3) It will be a less secure depository of the pub-
lic money. To show the truth of the first propo-
sition, let us take a short review of our condition
under the operation of a national bank. It was
the depository of the public revenues. Between
the collection of those revenues and the disburse-
ment of them by the government, the bank was
permitted to and did actually loan them out to
was considered the best of all, and in response to a
general demand was ordered to be printed.
1839] SUBTREASURY 31
individuals, and hence the large amount of money
annually collected for revenue purposes, which
by any other plan would have been idle a great
portion of the time, was kept almost constantly
in circulation. Any person who will reflect that
money is only valuable while in circulation, will
readily perceive that any device which will keep
the government revenues in constant circulation,
instead of being locked up in idleness, is no in-
considerable advantage. By the subtreasury the
revenue is to be collected and kept in iron boxes
until the government wants it for disbursement;
thus robbing the people of the use of it, while
the government does not itself need it, and while
the money is performing no nobler office than
that of rusting in iron boxes. The natural effect
of this change of policy, every one will see, is to
reduce the quantity of money in circulation. But,
again, by the subtreasury scheme the revenue is
to be collected in specie. I anticipate that this
will be disputed. I expect to hear it said that it
is not the policy of the administration to collect
the revenue in specie. If it shall, I reply that
Mr. Van Buren, in his message recommending
the subtreasury, expended nearly a column of
that document in an attempt to persuade Con-
gress to provide for the collection of the revenue
in specie exclusively; and he concludes with
these words : "It may be safely assumed that no
motive of convenience to the citizen requires the
reception of bank paper." In addition to this,
Mr. Silas Wright, senator from New-York, and
the political, personal, and confidential friend of
Mr. Van Buren, drafted and introduced into the
Senate the first subtreasury bill, and that bill pro-
vided for ultimately collecting the revenue in
32 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
specie. It is true, I know, that that clause was
stricken from the bill, but it was done by the
votes of the Whigs, aided by a portion only of
the Van Buren senators. No subtreasury bill has
yet become a law, though two or three have been
considered by Congress, some with and some
without the specie clause ; so that I admit there
is room for quibbling upon the question of
whether the administration favor the exclusive
specie doctrine or not ; but I take it that the fact
that the President at first urged the specie doc-
trine, and that under his recommendation the
first bill introduced embraced it, warrants us in
charging it as the policy of the party until their
head as publicly recants it as he at first espoused
it. I repeat, then, that by the subtreasury the
revenue is to be collected in specie. Now mark
what the effect of this must be. By all estimates
ever made there are but between sixty and eighty
millions of specie in the United States. The ex-
penditures of the Government for the year 1838
— the last for which we have had the report —
were forty millions. Thus it is seen that if the
whole revenue be collected in specie, it will take
more than half of all the specie in the nation to
do it. By this means more than half of all the
specie belonging to the fifteen millions of souls
who compose the whole population of the country
is thrown into the hands of the public-office hold-
ers, and other public creditors, composing in
number perhaps not more than one quarter of a
million, leaving the other fourteen millions and
three quarters to get along as they best can, with
less than one half of the specie of the country,
and whatever rags and shin plasters they may be
able to put, and keep, in circulation. By this
1839] SUBTREASURY
33
means every office-holder and other public cred-
itor may, and most likely will, set up shaver ; and
a most glorious harvest will the specie-men have
of it, — each specie-man, upon a fair division,
having to his share the fleecing of about fifty-
nine rag-men.* In all candor let me ask, was
such a system for benefiting the few at the ex-
pense of the many ever before devised? And
was the sacred name of Democracy ever before
made to indorse such an enormity against the
rights of the people ?
I have already said that the subtreasury will
reduce the quantity of money in circulation. This
position is strengthened by the recollection that
the revenue is to be collected in specie, so that the
* On January 4, 1839, the Senate of the United States
passed the following resolution, to wit :
"Resolved, That the Secretary of the Treasury be
directed to communicate to the Senate any information
he may recently have received in respect to the mode
of collecting, keeping, and disbursing public moneys
in foreign countries."
Under this resolution, the secretary communicated to
the Senate a letter, the following extract from which
clearly shows that the collection of the revenue in specie
will establish a sound currency for the office-holders,
and a depreciated one for the people; and that the
office-holders and other public creditors will turn
shavers upon all the rest of the community. Here is the
extract from the letter, being all of it that relates to
the question.
"Hague, October 12, 1838.
"The financial system of Hamburg is, as far as is
known, very simple, as may be supposed from so small
a territory. The whole amount of Hamburg coined
money is about four and a half millions of marks cur-
rent, or one million two hundred and eight-two thou-
sand five hundred dollars ; and, except under very ex-
traordinary circumstances, not more than one half that
amount is in circulation, and all duties, taxes, and
34
EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
mere amount of revenue is not all that is with-
drawn, but the amount of paper circulation that
the forty millions would serve as a basis to is
withdrawn, which would be in a sound state at
least one hundred millions. When one hundred
millions, or more, of the circulation we now have
shall be withdrawn, who can contemplate with-
out terror the distress, ruin, bankruptcy, and beg-
gary that must follow ? The man who has pur-
chased any article — say a horse — on credit, at
one hundred dollars, when there are two hundred
millions circulating in the country, if the quantity
be reduced to one hundred millions by the arrival
of pay-day, will find the horse but sufficient to
pay half the debt ; and the other half must either
excise must be paid in Hamburg currency. The conse-
quence is that it invariably commands a premium of one
to three per centum. Every year one senator and ten
citizens are appointed to transact the whole of the
financial concern, both as to receipt and disbursement of
the funds, which is always in cash, and is every day
deposited in the bank, to the credit of the chancery;
and, on being paid out, the citizen to whose department
the payment belongs must appear personally with the
check or order, stating the amount and to whom to be
paid. The person receiving very seldom keeps the
money, preferring to dispose of it to a money-changer at
a premium, and taking other coin at a discount, of
which there is a great variety and a large amount con-
stantly in circulation, and on which in his daily pay-
ment he loses nothing; and those who have payments
to make to the government apply to the money-changers
again for Hamburg currency, which keeps it in constant
motion, and I believe it frequently occurs that the bags,
which are sealed and labeled with the amount, are re-
turned again to the bank without being opened.
"With great respect, your obedient servant,
"John Cuthbert.
"To the Hon. Levi Woodbury, Secretary of the Treas-
ury, Washington, D. C."
1839] SUBTREASURY 35
be paid out of his other means, and thereby be-
come a clear loss to him, or go unpaid, and there-
by become a clear loss to his creditor. What I
have here said of a single case of the purchase of
a horse will hold good in every case of a debt
existing at the time a reduction in the quantity
of money occurs, by whomsoever, and for what-
soever, it may have been contracted. It may be
said that what the debtor loses the creditor gains
by this operation ; but on examination this will
be found true only to a very limited extent. It is
more generally true that all lose by it — the cred-
itor by losing more of his debts than he gains by
the increased value of those he collects; the
debtor by either parting with more of his prop-
erty to pay his debts than he received in con-
tracting them, or by entirely breaking up his
business, and thereby being thrown upon the
world in idleness.
The general distress thus created will, to be
sure, be temporary, because whatever change
may occur in the quantity of money in any com-
munity, time will adjust the derangement pro-
duced; but while that adjustment is progressing,
all suffer more or less, and very many lose every-
thing that renders life desirable. Why, then,
shall we suffer a severe difficulty, even though it
be but temporary, unless we receive some equiva-
lent for it?
What I have been saying as to the effect pro-
duced by a reduction of the quantity of money
relates to the whole country. I now propose to
show that it would produce a peculiar and per-
manent hardship upon the citizens of those States
and Territories in which the public lands lie. The
land-offices in those States and Territories, as all
36 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
know, form the great gulf by which all, or nearly-
all, the money in them is swallowed up. When
the quantity of money shall be reduced, and con-
sequently everything under individual control
brought down in proportion, the price of those
lands, being fixed by law, will remain as now.
Of necessity it will follow that the produce or
labor that now raises money sufficient to pur-
chase eighty acres will then raise but sufficient to
purchase forty, or perhaps not that much ; and
this difficulty and hardship will last as long, in
some degree, as any portion of these lands shall
remain undisposed of. Knowing, as I well do,
the difficulty that poor people now encounter in
procuring homes, I hesitate not to say that when
the price of the public lands shall be doubled or
trebled, or, which is the same thing, produce and
labor cut down to one half or one third of their
present prices, it will be little less than impossible
for them to procure homes at all.
In answer to what I have said as to the effect
the subtreasury would have upon the currency,
it is often urged that the money collected for
revenue purposes will not lie idle in the vaults
of the treasury ; and, farther, that a national bank
produces greater derangement in the currency,
by a system of contractions and expansions, than
the subtreasury would produce in any way. In
reply, I need only show that experience proves
the contrary of both these propositions. It is an
undisputed fact that the late Bank of the United
States paid the government $75,000 annually for
the privilege of using the public money between
the times of its collection and disbursement. Can
any man suppose that the bank would have paid
this sum annually for twenty years, and then
1*39] SUBTREASURY
37
offered to renew its obligations to do so, if in
reality there was no time intervening between
the collection and disbursement of the revenue,
and consequently no privilege of using the money
extended to it? Again, as to the contractions
and expansions of a national bank, I need only
point to the period intervening between the time
that the late bank got into successful operation
and that at which the government commenced
war upon it, to show that during that period no
such contractions or expansions took place. If,
before or after that period, derangement oc-
curred in the currency, it proves nothing. The
bank could not be expected to regulate the cur-
rency, either before it got into successful opera-
tion, or after it was crippled and thrown into
death convulsions, by the removal of the deposits
from it, and other hostile measures of the gov-
ernment against it. We do not pretend that a
national bank can establish and maintain a
sound and uniform state of currency in the coun-
try, in spite of the National Government ; but we
do say that it has established and maintained
such a currency, and can do so again, by the aid
of that government ; and we further say that no
duty is more imperative on that government than
the duty it owes the people of furnishing them
a sound and uniform currency.
I now leave the proposition as to the effect of
the subtreasury upon the currency of the coun-
try, and pass to that relative to the additional ex-
pense which must be incurred by it over that in-
curred by a national bank as a fiscal agent of the
government. By the late national bank we had
the public revenue received, safely kept, trans-
ferred, and disbursed, not only without expense,
38 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
but we actually received of the bank $75,000 an-
nually for its privileges while rendering us those
services. By the subtreasury, according to the
estimate of the Secretary of the Treasury, who is
the warm advocate of the system (and which
estimate is the lowest made by any one), the
same services are to cost $60,000. Mr. Rives,
who, to say the least, is equally talented and hon-
est, estimates that these services, under the sub-
treasury system, cannot cost less than $600,000.
For the sake of liberality, let us suppose that the
estimates of the secretary and Mr. Rives are the
two extremes, and that their mean is about the
true estimate, and we shall then find that when
to that sum is added the $75,000 which the bank
paid us, the difference between the two systems,
in favor of the bank and against the subtreasury,
is $405,000 a year. This sum, though small
when compared to the many millions annually
expended by the General Government, is, when
viewed by itself, very large, and much too large,
when viewed in any light, to be thrown away
once a year for nothing. It is sufficient to pay
the pensions of more than four thousand Revo-
lutionary soldiers, or to purchase a forty-acre
tract of government land for each one of more
than eight thousand poor families.
To the argument against the subtreasury, on
the score of additional expense, its friends, so
far as I know, attempt no answer. They choose,
so far as I can learn, to treat the throwing away
of $405,000 once a year as a matter entirely too
small to merit their Democratic notice.
I now come to the proposition that it would
be less secure than a national bank as a deposi-
tory of the public money. The experience of the
1839] SUBTREASURY 39
past, I think, proves the truth of this. And here,
inasmuch as I rely chiefly upon experience to
establish it, let me ask how is it that we know
anything— that any event will occur, that any
combination of circumstances will produce a cer-
tain result— except by the analogies of past ex-
perience? What has once happened will invari-
ably happen again when the same circumstances
which combined to produce it shall again combine
in the same way. We all feel that we know that
a blast of wind would extinguish the flame of the
candle that stands by me. How do we know it ?
We have never seen this flame thus extinguished.
We know it because we have seen through all
our lives that a blast of wind extinguishes the
flame of a candle whenever it is thrown fully
upon it. Again, we all feel to know that we have
to die. How? We have never died yet. We
know it because we know, or at least think we
know, that of all the beings, just like ourselves,
who have been coming into the world for six
thousand years, not one is now living who was
here two hundred years ago. I repeat, then, that
we know nothing of what will happen in future,
but by the analogy of experience, and that the
fair analogy of past experience fully proves that
the subtreasury would be a less safe depository
of the public money than a national bank. Ex-
amine it. By the subtreasury scheme the pub-
lic money is to be kept between the times of its
collection and disbursement, by treasurers of the
mint, custom-house officers, land officers, and
some new officers to be appointed in the same
way that those first enumerated are. Has a year
passed, since the organization of the government,
that numerous defalcations have not occurred
40 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
among this class of officers? Look at Swart-
wout with his $1,200,000, Price with his $75,000,
Harris with his $109,000, Hawkins with his
$100,000, Linn with his $55,000, together with
some twenty-five hundred lesser lights. Place
the public money again in these same hands, and
will it not again go the same way ? Most assur-
edly it will. But turn to the history of the na-
tional banks in this country, and we shall there
see that those banks performed the fiscal opera-
tions of the government through a period of forty
years, received, safely kept, transferred, dis-
bursed an aggregate of nearly five hundred mil-
lions of dollars; and that, in all this time, and
with all that money, not one dollar, nor one cent,
did the government lose by them. Place the pub-
lic money again in a similar depository, and will
it not again be safe? But, conclusive as the ex-
perience of fifty years is that individuals are un-
safe depositories of the public money, and of
forty years that national banks are safe deposi-
tories, we are not left to rely solely upon that ex-
perience for the truth of those propositions. If
experience were silent upon the subject, conclu-
sive reasons could be shown for the truth of
them.
It is often urged that to say the public money
will be more secure in a national bank than in the
hands of individuals, as proposed in the subtreas-
ury, is to say that bank directors and bank offi-
cers are more honest than sworn officers of the
government. Not so. We insist on no such
thing. We say that public officers, selected with
reference to their capacity and honesty (which,
by the way, we deny is the practice in these
days), stand an equal chance precisely, of being
1839] SUBTREASURY 4 r
capable and honest with bank officers selected by
the same rule. We further say that with how-
ever much care selections may be made, there
will be some unfaithful and dishonest in both
classes. The experience of the whole world, in
all bygone times, proves this true. The Saviour
of the world chose twelve disciples, and even one
of that small number, selected by superhuman
wisdom, turned out a traitor and a devil. And it
may not be improper here to add that Judas car-
ried the bag — was the subtreasurer of the Sav-
iour and his disciples. We, then, do not say —
nor need we say to maintain our proposition —
that bank officers are more honest than govern-
ment officers selected by the same rule. What
we do say is that the interest of the subtreasurer
is against his duty, while the interest of the bank
is on the side of its duty. Take instances : A
subtreasurer has in his hands one hundred thou-
sand dollars of public money; his duty says,
"You ought to pay this money over," but his in-
terest says, "You ought to run away with this
sum, and be a nabob the balance of your life."
And who that knows anything of human nature
doubts that in many instances interest will pre-
vail over duty, and that the subtreasurer will pre-
fer opulent knavery in a foreign land to honest
poverty at home? But how different is it with
a bank. Besides the government money depos-
ited with it, it is doing business upon a large capi-
tal of its own. If it proves faithful to the gov-
ernment it continues its business ; if unfaithful, it
forfeits its charter, breaks up its business, and
thereby loses more than all it can make by seiz-
ing upon the government funds in its possession.
Its interest, therefore, is on the side of its duty —
42
EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
is to be faithful to the government, and conse-
quently even the dishonest amongst its managers
have no temptation to be faithless to it. Even if
robberies happen in the bank, the losses are
borne by the bank, and the government loses
nothing. It is for this reason, then, that we
say a bank is the more secure. It is because of
that admirable feature in the bank system which
places the interest and the duty of the depository
both on one side ; whereas that feature can never
enter into the subtreasury system. By the latter
the interest of the individuals keeping the public
money will wage an eternal war with their duty,
and in very many instances must be victorious.
In answer to the argument drawn from the fact
that individual depositories of public money
have always proved unsafe, it is urged that, even
if we had a national bank, the money has to pass
through the same individual hands that it will
under the subtreasury. This is only partially
true in fact, and wholly fallacious in argument.
It is only partially true in fact, because by the
subtreasury bill four receivers-general are to be
appointed by the President and Senate. These
are new officers, and consequently it cannot be
true that the money, or any portion of it, has
heretofore passed through their hands. These
four new officers are to be located at New York,
Boston, Charleston, and St. Louis, and conse-
quently are to be depositories of all the money
collected at or near those points ; so that more
than three fourths of the public money'will fall
into the keeping of these four new officers, who
did not exist as officers under the national bank
system. It is only partially true, then, that the
money passes through the same hands, under a
iS 3 g] SUBTREASURY 43
national bank, as it would do under the sub-
treasury. It is true that under either system in-
dividuals must be employed as collectors of the
customs, receivers at the land-offices, etc., but the
difference is that under the bank system the re-
ceivers of all sorts receive the money and pay it
over to the bank once a week when the collec-
tions are large, and once a month when they are
small ; whereas by the subtreasury system indi-
viduals are not only to collect the money, but
they are to keep it also, or pay it over to other in-
dividuals equally unsafe as themselves, to be by
them kept until it is wanted for disbursement. It
is during the time that it is thus lying idle in
their hands that opportunity is afforded and
temptation held out to them to embezzle and
escape with it. By the bank system each col-
lector or receiver is to deposit in bank all the
money in his hands at the end of each month at
most, and to send the bank certificates of deposit
to the Secretary of the Treasury. Whenever
that certificate of deposit fails to arrive at the
proper time, the secretary knows that the officer
thus failing is acting the knave ; and, if he is
himself disposed to do his duty, he has him im-
mediately removed from office, and thereby cuts
him off from the possibility of embezzling but
little more than the receipts of a single month.
But by the subtreasury system the money is to
lie month after month in the hands of indi-
viduals ; larger amounts are to accumulate in the
hands of the receivers-general and some others,
by perhaps ten to one, than ever accumulated in
the hands of individuals before ; yet during all
this time, in relation to this great stake, the Sec-
retary of the Treasury can comparatively know
44
EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
nothing. Reports, to be sure, he will have ; but
reports are often false, and always false when
made by a knave to cloak his knavery. Long ex-
perience has shown that nothing short of an ac-
tual demand of the money will expose an adroit
peculator. Ask him for reports, and he will give
them to your heart's content ; send agents to ex-
amine and count the money in his hands, and he
will borrow of a friend, merely to be counted and
then returned, a sufficient sum to make the sum
square. Try what you will, it will all fail till
you demand the money; then, and not till then,
the truth will come.
The sum of the whole matter I take to be this :
Under the bank system, while sums of money, by
the law, were permitted to lie in the hands of in-
dividuals for very short periods only, many and
very large defalcations occurred by those indi-
viduals. Under the subtreasury much larger
sums are to lie in the hands of individuals for
much longer periods, thereby multiplying tempta-
tion in proportion as the sums are larger, and
multiplying opportunity in proportion as the
periods are longer to and for those individuals
to embezzle and escape with the public treasure ;
and therefore, just in the proportion that the
temptation and the opportunity are greater under
the subtreasury than the bank system, will the
peculations and defalcations be greater under the
former than they have been under the latter. The
truth of this, independent of actual experience, is
but little less than self-evident. I therefore leave
it.
But it is said, and truly too, that there is to be
a penitentiary department to the subtreasury.
This, the advocates of the system will have it,
1839] SUBTREASURY 45
will be a "king cure-all." Before I go farther,
may I not ask if the penitentiary department is
not itself an admission that they expect the pub-
lic money to be stolen? Why build the cage if
they expect to catch no birds? But as to the
question how effectual the penitentiary will be in
preventing defalcations. How effectual have
penitentiaries heretofore been in preventing the
crimes they were established to suppress? Has
not confinement in them long been the legal pen-
alty of larceny, forgery, robbery, and many other
crimes, in almost all the States ? And yet are not
those crimes committed weekly, daily, — nay, and
even hourly, — in every one of those States?
Again, the gallows has long been the penalty of
murder, and yet we scarcely open a newspaper
that does not relate a new case of that crime. If,
then, the penitentiary has ever heretofore failed
to prevent larceny, forgery, and robbery, and the
gallows and halter have likewise failed to pre-
vent murder, by what process of reasoning, I
ask, is it that we are to conclude the penitentiary
will hereafter prevent the stealing of the public
money? But our opponents seem to think they
answer the charge that the money will be stolen
fully if they can show that they will bring the
offenders to punishment. Not so. Will the pun-
ishment of the thief bring back the stolen money?
No more so than the hanging of a murderer re-
stores his victim to life. What is the object de-
sired? Certainly not the greatest number of
thieves we can catch, but that the money may not
be stolen. If then, any plan can be devised for
depositing the public treasure where it will never
be stolen, never embezzled, is not that the plan
to be adopted? Turn, then, to a national bank,
46 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
and you have that plan, fully and completely suc-
cessful, as tested by the experience of forty
years.
I have now done with the three propositions
that the subtreasury would injuriously affect the
currency, and would be more expensive and less
secure as a depository of the public money than
a national bank. How far I have succeeded in
establishing their truth, is for others to judge.
Omitting, for want of time, what I had intended
to say as to the effect of the subtreasury to bring
the public money under the more immediate con-
trol of the President than it has ever heretofore
been, I now ask the audience, when Mr. Calhoun
shall answer me, to hold him to the questions.
Permit him not to escape them. Require him
either to show that the subtreasury would not in-
juriously affect the currency, or that we should in
some way receive an equivalent for that injurious
effect. Require him either to show that the sub-
treasury would not be more expensive as a fiscal
agent than a bank, or that we should in some way
be compensated for that additional expense. And
particularly require him to show that the public
money would be as secure in the subtreasury as
in a national bank, or that the additional insecur-
ity would be overbalanced hy some good results
of the proposed change.
No one of them, in my humble judgment, will
he be able to do; and I venture the prediction,
and ask that it may be especially noted, that he
will not attempt to answer the proposition that
the subtreasury would be more expensive than a
national bank as a fiscal agent of the govern-
ment.
As a sweeping objection to a national bank,
i839l SUBTREASURY 47
and consequently an argument in favor of the
subtreasury as a substitute for it, it often has
been urged, and doubtless will be again, that such
a bank is unconstitutional. We have often here-
tofore shown, and therefore need not in detail do
so again, that a majority of the Revolutionary
patriarchs, who ever acted officially upon the
question, commencing with General Washington,
and embracing General Jackson, the larger num-
ber of the signers of the Declaration, and of the
framers of the Constitution, who were in the
Congress of 1791, have decided upon their oaths
that such a bank is constitutional. We have also
shown that the votes of Congress have more
often been in favor of than against its constitu-
tionality. In addition to all this, we have shown
that the Supreme Court — that tribunal which the
Constitution has itself established to decide con-
stitutional questions — has solemnly decided that
such a bank is constitutional. Protesting that
these authorities ought to settle the question, —
ought to be conclusive, — I will not urge them
further now. I now propose to take a view of
the question which I have not known to be taken
by any one before. It is that whatever objection
ever has or ever can be made to the constitution-
ality of a bank, will apply with equal force, in its
whole length, breadth, and proportions, to the
subtreasury. Our opponents say there is no ex-
press authority in the Constitution to establish a
bank, and therefore, a bank is unconstitutional ;
but we with equal truth may say there is no ex-
press authority in the Constitution to establish a
subtreasury, and therefore a subtreasury is un-
constitutional. Who, then, has the advantage of
this "express authority" argument? Does it not
48 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
cut equally both ways ? Does it not wound them
as deeply and as deadly as it does us? Our posi-
tion is that both are constitutional. The Consti-
tution enumerates expressly several powers
which Congress may exercise, superadded to
which is a general authority "to make all laws
necessary and proper" for carrying into effect all
the powers vested by the Constitution in the Gov-
ernment of the United States, One of the ex-
press powers given Congress is "to lay and collect
taxes, duties, imports, and excises; to pay the
debts and provide for the common defense and
general welfare of the United States." Now,
Congress is expressly authorized to make all laws
necessary and proper for carrying this power
into execution. To carry it into execution, it is
indispensably necessary to collect, safely keep,
transfer, and disburse a revenue. To do this, a
bank is "necessary and proper." But, say our
opponents, to authorize the making of a bank,
the necessity must be so great that the power
just recited would be nugatory without it; and
that that necessity is expressly negatived by the
fact that they have got along ten whole years
without such a bank. Immediately we turn on
them, and say that that sort of necessity for a
subtreasury does not exist, because we have got
along forty whole years without one. And this
time, it may be observed that we are not merely
equal with them in the argument, but we beat
them forty to ten, or, which is the same thing,
four to one. On examination, it will be found
that the absurd rule which prescribes that before
we can constitutionally adopt a national bank as
a fiscal agent, we must show an indispensable
necessity for it, will exclude every sort of fiscal
1839] SUBTREASURY 49
agent that the mind of man can conceive. A
bank is not indispensable, because we can take
the subtreasury ; the subtreasury is not indis-
pensable, because we can take the bank. The
rule is too absurd to need further comment.
Upon the phrase "necessary and proper" in the
Constitution, it seems to me more reasonable to
say that some fiscal agent is indispensably neces-
sary ; but inasmuch as no particular sort of agent
is thus indispensable, because some other sort
might be adopted, we are left to choose that sort
of agent which may be most "proper" on grounds
of expediency. But it is said the Constitution
gives no power to Congress to pass acts of in-
corporation. Indeed! What is the passing an
act of incorporation but the making of a law ? Is
any one wise enough to tell? The Constitution
expressly gives Congress power "to pass all laws
necessary and proper," etc. If, then, the passing
of a bank charter be the "making a law necessary
and proper," is it not clearly within the constitu-
tional power of Congress to do so?
I now leave the bank and the subtreasury to
try to answer, in a brief way, some of the argu-
ments which on previous evenings here have been
urged by Messrs. Lamborn and Douglas. Mr.
Lamborn admits that "errors," as he charitably
calls them, have occurred under the present and
late administrations ; but he insists that as great
"errors" have occurred under all administrations.
This we respectfully deny. We admit that errors
may have occurred under all administrations ; but
we insist that there is no parallel between them
and those of the two last. If they can show that
their errors are no greater in number and magni-
tude than those of former times, we call off the
50 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
dogs. But they can do no such thing. To be
brief, I will now attempt a contrast of the
"errors" of the two latter with those of former
administrations, in relation to the public expendi-
tures only. What I am now about to say as to
the expenditures will be, in all cases, exclusive of
payments on the national debt. By an examina-
tion of authentic public documents, consisting of
the regular series of annual reports made by all
the secretaries of the treasury from the estab-
lishment of the government down to the close
of the year 1838, the following contrasts will be
presented :
(1) The last ten years under General Jackson
and Mr. Van Buren cost more money than the
first twenty-seven did (including the heavy ex-
penses of the late British war) under Washing-
ton, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison.
(2) The last year of J. Q. Adams's adminis-
tration cost, in round numbers, thirteen millions,
being about one dollar to each soul in the na-
tion; the last (1838) of Mr. Van Buren's cost
forty millions, being about two dollars and fifty
cents to each soul, and being larger than the ex-
penditure of Mr. Adams in the proportion of five
to two.
(3) The highest annual expenditure during
the late British war — being in 1814, and while we
had in actual service rising 188,000 militia, to-
gether with the whole regular army, swelling the
number to greatly over 200,000, and they to be
clad, fed, and transported from point to -point,
with great rapidity and corresponding expense,
and to be furnished with arms and ammunition,
and they to be transported in like manner, and
at like expense — was no more in round numbers
1839] SUBTREASURY 51
than thirty millions ; whereas the annual expendi-
ture of 1838, under Mr. Van Buren, and while
we were at peace with every government in the
world, was forty millions ; being over the high-
est year of the late and very expensive war in the
proportion of four to three.
(4) General Washington administered the
government eight years for sixteen millions ; Mr.
Van Buren administered it one year (1838) for
forty millions ; so that Mr. Van Buren expended
twice and a half as much in one year as General
Washington did in eight, and being in the pro-
portion of twenty to one ; or in other words, had
General Washington administered the govern-
ment twenty years at the same average expense
that he did for eight, he would have carried us
through the whole twenty for no more money
than Mr. Van Buren has expended in getting us
through the single one of 1838. Other facts
equally astounding might be presented from the
same authentic document; but I deem the fore-
going abundantly sufficient to establish the prop-
osition that there is no parallel between the
"errors" of the present and late administrations
and those of former times, and that Mr. Van
Buren is wholly out of the line of all precedents.
But Mr. Douglas, seeing that the enormous ex-
penditure of 1838 has no parallel in the olden
times, comes in with a long list of excuses for it.
This list of excuses I will rapidly examine, and
show, as I think, that the few of them which are
true prove nothing, and that the majority of
them are wholly untrue in fact. He first says
that the expenditures of that one year were made
under the appropriations of Congress — one
branch of which was a Whig body. It is true
52 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
that those expenditures were made under the ap-
propriations of Congress; but it is untrue that
either branch of Congress was a Whig body.
The Senate had fallen into the hands of the ad-
ministration more than a year before, as proven
by the passage of the Expunging Resolution ;
and at the time those appropriations were made
there were too few Whigs in that body to make
a respectable struggle, in point of numbers, upon
any question. This is notorious to all. The
House of Representatives that voted those ap-
propriations was the same that first assembled at
the called session of September, 1838. Although
it refused to pass the Subtreasury Bill, a major-
ity of its members were elected as friends of the
administration, and proved their adherence to it
by the election of a Van Buren speaker, and two
Van Buren clerks. It is clear, then, that both
branches of the Congress that passed those ap-
propriations were in the hands of Mr. Van
Buren's friends, so that the Whigs had no power
to arrest them, as Mr. Douglas would insist. And
is not the charge of extravagant expenditures
equally well sustained, if shown to have been
made by a Van Buren Congress, as if shown to
have been made in any other way? A Van
Buren Congress passed the bills, and Mr. Van
Buren himself approved them, and consequently
the party are wholly responsible for them.
Mr. Douglas next says that a portion of the
expenditures of that year was made for the .pur-
chase of public lands from the Indians. Now it
happens that no such purchase was made during
that year. It is true that some money was paid
that year in pursuance of Indian treaties ; but no
more, or rather not as much as had been paid on
i839] SUBTREASURY 53
the same account in each of several preceding
years.
Next he says that the Florida war created
many millions of this year's expenditure. This is
true, and it is also true that during that and
every other year that that war has existed, it has
cost three or four times as much as it would have
done under an honest and judicious administra-
tion of the government. The large sums fool-
ishly, not to say corruptly, thrown away in that
war constitute one of the just causes of complaint
against the administration. Take a single in-
stance. The agents of the government in con-
nection with that war needed a certain steam-
boat ; the owner proposed to sell it for ten thou-
sand dollars ; the agents refused to give that sum,
but hired the boat at one hundred dollars per day,
and kept it at that hire till it amounted to ninety-
two thousand dollars. This fact is not found in
the public reports, but depends with me, on the
verbal statement of an officer of the navy, who
says he knows it to be true. That the adminis-
tration ought to be credited for the reasonable
expenses of the Florida war, we have never de-
nied. Those reasonable charges, we say, could
not exceed one or two millions a year. Deduct
such a sum from the forty-million expenditure of
1838, and the remainder will still be without a
parallel as an annual expenditure.
Again, Mr. Douglas says that the removal of
the Indians to the country west of the Mississippi
created much of the expenditure of 1838. I have
examined the public documents in relation to this
matter, and find that less was paid for the re-
moval of Indians in that than in some former
years. The whole sum expended on that account
54 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
in that year did not much exceed one quarter of
a million. For this small sum, although we do
not think the administration entitled to credit, be-
cause large sums have been expended in the same
way in former years, we consent it may take one
and make the most of it.
Next, Mr. Douglas says that five millions of
the expenditures of 1838 consisted of the pay-
ment of the French indemnity money to its in-
dividual claimants. I have carefully examined
the public documents, and thereby find this state-
ment to be wholly untrue. Of the forty millions
of dollars expended in 1838, I am enabled to say
positively that not one dollar consisted of pay-
ments on the French indemnities. So much for
that excuse.
Next comes the Post-office. He says that five
millions were expended during that year to sus-
tain that department. By a like examination
of public documents, I find this also wholly un-
true. Of the so often mentioned forty millions,
not one dollar went to the Post-office. I am glad,
however, that the Post-office has been referred
to, because it warrants me in digressing a little to
inquire how it is that that department of the gov-
ernment has become a charge upon the treasury,
whereas under Mr. Adams and the presidents
before him it not only, to use a homely phrase,
out its own fodder, but actually threw a surplus
into the treasury. Although nothing of the forty
millions was paid on that account in 1838, it is
true that five millions are appropriated to be so
expended in 1839; showing clearly that the de-
partment has become a charge upon the treasury.
How has this happened ? I account for it in this
way. The chief expense of the Post-office De-
i8 3 9l SUBTREASURY 55
partment consists of the payments of contractors
for carrying the mail. Contracts for carrying
the mails are by law let to the lowest bidders,
after advertisement. This plan introduces com-
petition, and insures the transportation of the
mails at fair prices, so long as it is faithfully ad-
hered to. It has ever been adhered to until Mr.
Barry was made postmaster-general. When he
came into office, he formed the purpose of throw-
ing: the mail contracts into the hands of his
friends to the exclusion of his opponents. To
effect this, the plan of letting to the lowest bid-
der must be evaded, and it must be done in this
way; the favorite bid less by perhaps three or
four hundred per cent, than the contract could be
performed for, and consequently shutting out all
honest competition, became the contractor. The
Postmaster-General would immediately add
some slight additional duty to the contract, and
under the pretense of extra allowance for extra
services run the contract to double, triple, and
often quadruple what honest and fair bidders had
proposed to take it at. In 1834 the finances of
the department had become so deranged that
total concealment was no longer possible, and
consequently a committee of the Senate were di-
rected to make a thorough investigation of its
affairs. Their report is found in the Senate Doc-
uments of 1833-4, Vol. V, Doc. 422; which docu-
ments may be seen at the secretary's office, and
I presume elsewhere in the State. The report
shows numerous cases of similar import, of one
of which I give the substance. The contract for
carrying the mail upon a certain route had ex-
pired, and of course was to be let again. The
old contractor offered to take it for $300 a year,
5 6 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
the mail to be transported thereon three times a
week, or for $600 transported daily. One James
Reeside bid $40 for three times a week ; or $99
daily, and of course received the contract. On
the examination of the committee, it was discov-
ered that Reeside had received for the service on
this route, which he had contracted to render for
less than $100, the enormous sum of $1999 ! This
is but a single case. Many similar ones, cover-
ing some ten or twenty pages of a large volume,
are given in that report. The department was
found to be insolvent to the amount of half a
million, and to have been so grossly mismanaged,
or rather so corruptly managed, in almost every
particular, that the best friends of the Postmas-
ter-General made no defense of his administra-
tion of it. They admitted that he was wholly un-
qualified for that office ; but still he was retained
in it by the President until he resigned it volun-
tarily about a year afterward. And when he re-
signed it, what do you think became of him?
Why, he sunk into obscurity and disgrace, to be
sure, you will say. No such thing. Well, then,
what did become of him? Why, the President
immediately expressed his high disapprobation of
his almost unequaled incapacity and corruption
by appointing him to a foreign mission, with a
salary and outfit of $18,000 a year! The party
now attempt to throw Barry off, and to avoid
the responsibility of his sins. Did not the Presi-
dent indorse those sins when, on the very heel
of their commission, he appointed their author
to the very highest and most honorable office in
his gift, and which is but a single step behind the
very goal of American political ambition?
I return to another of Mr. Douglas's excuses
1839] SUBTREASURY 57
for the expenditures of 1838, at the same time
announcing the pleasing intelligence that this is
the last one. He says that ten millions of that
year's expenditure was a contingent appropria-
tion, to prosecute an anticipated war with Great
Britain on the Maine boundary question. Few
words will settle this. First, that the ten mil-
lions appropriated was not made till 1839, and
consequently could not have been expended in
1838; second, although it was appropriated, it
has never been expended at all. Those who
heard Mr. Douglas recollect that he indulged
himself in a contemptuous expression of pity for
me. "Now he's got me," thought I. But when
he went on to say that five millions of the expend-
iture of 1838 were payments of the French in-
demnities, which I knew to be untrue; that five
millions had been for the Post-office, which I
knew to be untrue ; that ten millions had been for
the Maine boundary war, which I not only knew
to be untrue, but supremely ridiculous also ; and
when I saw that he was stupid enough to hope
that I would permit such groundless and au-
dacious assertions to go unexposed, — I readily
consented that, on the score both of veracity and
sagacity, the audience should judge whether he
or I were the more deserving of the world's con-
tempt.
Mr. Lamborn insists that the difference be-
tween the Van Buren party and the Whigs is that
although the former sometimes err in practice,
they are always correct in principle, whereas the
latter are wrong in principle ; and, better to im-
press this proposition, he uses a figurative ex-
pression in these words : "The Democrats are vul-
nerable in the heel, but they are sound in the head
58 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 20
and the heart." The first branch of the figure
— that is, that the Democrats are vulnerable in
the heel — I admit is not merely figuratively, but
literally true. Who that looks but for a moment
at their Swartwouts, their Prices, their Harring-
tons, and their hundreds of others, scampering
away with the public money to Texas, to Europe,
and to every spot of the earth where a villain may
hope to find refuge from justice, can at all doubt
that they are most distressingly affected in their
heels with a species of "running itch." It seems
that this malady of their heels operates on these
sound-headed and honest-hearted creatures very
much like the cork leg in the comic song did on
its owner ; which, when he had once got started
on it, the more he tried to stop it, the more it
would run away. At the hazard of wearing this
point threadbare, I will relate an anecdote which
seems too strikingly in point to be omitted. A
witty Irish soldier, who was aways boasting of
his bravery when no danger was near, but who
invariably retreated without orders at the first
charge of an engagement, being asked by his
captain why he did so, replied : "Captain, I have
as brave a heart as Julius Caesar ever had ; but,
somehow or other, whenever danger approaches,
my cowardly legs will run away with it." So
with Mr. Lamborn's party. They take the public
money into their hand for the most laudable pur-
pose that wise heads and honest hearts can dic-
tate; but before they can possibly get it out
again, their rascally "vulnerable heels" will run
away with them.
Seriously, this proposition of Mr. Lamborn's is
nothing more or less than a request that his party
may be tried by their professions instead of their
1839] SUBTREASURY 59
practices. Perhaps no position that the party as-
sumes is more liable to or more deserving of ex-
posure than this very modest request; and noth-
ing but the unwarrantable length to which I have
already extended these remarks forbids me now
attempting to expose it. For the reason given,
I pass it by.
I shall advert to but one more point. Mr.
Lamborn refers to the late elections in the States,
and from their results confidently predicts that
every State in the Union will vote for Mr. Van
Buren at the next presidential election. Address
that argument to cowards and to knaves ; with
the free and the brave it will effect nothing. It
may be true ; if it must, let it. Many free coun-
tries have lost their liberty, and ours may lose
hers ; but if she shall, be it my proudest plume,
not that I was the last to desert, but that I never
deserted her. I know that the great volcano at
Washington, aroused and directed by the evil
spirit that reigns there, is belching forth the lava
of political corruption in a current broad and
deep, which is sweeping with frightful velocity
over the whole length and breadth of the land,
bidding fair to leave unscathed no green spot or
living thing; while on its bosom are riding, like
demons on the waves of hell, the imps of that evil
spirit, and fiendishly taunting all those who dare
resist its destroying course with the hopelessness
of their effort ; and, knowing this, I cannot deny
that all may be swept away. Broken by it I, too,
may be ; bow to it I never will. The probability
that we may fall in the struggle ought not to
deter us from the support of a cause we believe
to be just; it shall not deter me. If ever I feel
the soul within me elevate and expand to those
60 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. i
dimensions not wholly unworthy of its almighty
Architect, it is when I contemplate the cause of
my country, deserted by all the world beside, and
I standing up boldly and alone, and hurling de-
fiance at her victorious oppressors. Here with-
out contemplating consequences, before high
heaven and in the face of the world, I swear
eternal fidelity to the just cause, as I deem it, of
the land of my life, my liberty, and my love.
And who that thinks with me will not fearlessly
adopt the oath that I take ? Let none falter who
thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But if,
after all, we shall fail, be it so. We still shall
have the proud consolation of saying to our con-
sciences, and to the departed shade of our coun-
try's freedom, that the cause approved of our
judgment, and adored of our hearts, in disaster,
in chains, in torture, in death, we never faltered
in defending.
Plan of Organization for Illinois Whigs in the
Harrison Campaign.
Circular from Whig State Committee, of
Which Lincoln Was a Member, to Lead-
ing Whigs in Each County. About Janu-
ary i, 1840.
Confidential.
To Messrs. .
Gentlemen : In obedience to a resolution of the
Whig State Convention, we have appointed you
the Central Whig Committee of your county. The
trust confided to you will be one of watchfulness
and labor; but we hope the glory of having con-
tributed to the overthrow of the corrupt powers
i84o] WHIG CIRCULAR 61
that now control our beloved country will be a
sufficient reward for the time and labor you will
devote to it. Our Whig brethren throughout the
Union have met in convention, and after due de-
liberation and mutual concessions have elected
candidates for the presidency and vice-presidency
not only worthy of our cause, but worthy of the
support of every true patriot who would have
our country redeemed, and her institutions hon-
estly and faithfully administered. To overthrow
the trained bands that are opposed to us, whose
salaried officers are ever on the watch, and whose
misguided followers are ever ready to obey
their smallest commands, every Whig must not
only know his duty, but must firmly resolve,
whatever of time and labor it may cost, boldly
and faithfully to do it. Our intention is to or-
ganize the whole State, so that every Whig can
be brought to the polls in the coming presidential
contest. We cannot do this, however, without
your co-operation ; and as we do our duty, so we
shall expect you to do yours. After due delib-
eration, the following is the plan of organization,
and the duties required of each county commit-
tee :
(i) To divide their county into small districts,
and to appoint in each a subcommittee, whose
duty it shall be to make a perfect list of all the
voters in their respective districts, and to ascer-
tain with certainty for whom they will vote. If
they meet with men who are doubtful as to the
man they will support, such voters should be
designated in separate lines, with the name of the
man they will probably support.
(2) It will be the duty of said subcommittee
to keep a constant watch on the doubtful voters,
62 EARLY SPEECHES [Nov. 28
and from time to time have them talked to by
those in whom they have the most confidence,
and also to place in their hands such documents
as will enlighten and influence them.
(3) It will also be their duty to report to you,
at least once a month, the progress they are mak-
ing, and on election days see that every Whig is
brought to the polls.
(4) The subcommittees should be appointed
immediately; and by the last of April, at least,
they should make their first report.
(5) On the first of each month hereafter we
shall expect to hear from you. After the first re-
port of your subcommittees, unless there should
be found a great many doubtful voters, you can
tell pretty accurately the manner in which your
county will vote. In each of your letters to us,
you will state the number of certain votes both
for and against us, as well as the number of
doubtful votes, with your opinion of the manner
in which they will be cast.
(6) When we have heard from all the coun-
ties, we shall be able to tell with similar accuracy
the political complexion of the State. This in-
formation will be forwarded to you as soon as re-
ceived.
(7) Inclosed is a prospectus for a newspaper
to be continued until after the presidential elec-
tion. It will be superintended by ourselves, and
every Whig in the State must take it. It will be
published so low that every one can afford it.
You must raise a fund and forward us for extra
copies, — every county ought to send fifty or one
hundred dollars, — and the copies will be for-
warded to you for distribution among our politi-
cal opponents. The paper will be devoted ex-
i8 4 o] BALLOT RESOLUTION 63
clusively to the great cause in which we are en-
gaged. Procure subscriptions, and forward them
to us immediately.
(8) Immediately after any election in your
county, you must inform us of its results ; and as
early as possible after any general election we
will give you the like information.
(9) A senator in Congress is to be elected by
our next legislature. Let no local interests di-
vide you ; but select candidates that can succeed.
(10) Our plan of operations will of course be \
concealed from every one except our good /
friends who of right ought to know them.
Trusting much in our good cause, the strength
of our candidates, and the determination of the
Whigs everywhere to do their duty, we go to the
work of organization in this State confident of
success. We have the numbers, and if properly
organized and exerted, with the gallant Harrison
at our head, we shall meet our foes and conquer
them in all parts of the Union.
Address your letters to Dr. A. G. Henry, R. F.
Barrett, A. Lincoln, E. D. Baker, J. F. Speed.
Resolution for Ballot Reform.
Offered in the Illinois Legislature. No-
vember 28, 1840.
Resolved, That so much of the governor's
message as relates to fraudulent voting, and
other fraudulent practices at elections, be re-
ferred to the Committee on Elections, with in-
structions to said committee to prepare and re-
port to the House a bill for such an act as may
in their judgment afford the greatest possible
64 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec 4
protection of the elective franchise against all
frauds of all sorts whatever.
Remarks on an Election Contest.
In the House of Representatives, Illinois, De-
cember 4, 1840, on presentation of a report re-
specting petition of H. N. Purple, claiming the
seat of Mr. Phelps from Peoria, Mr. Lincoln
moved that the House resolve itself into Commit-
tee of the Whole on the question, and take it up
immediately. Mr. Lincoln considered the ques-
tion of the highest importance, whether an in-
dividual had a right to sit in this House or not.
The course he should propose would be to take
up the evidence and decide upon the facts seri-
atim.
Mr. Drummond wanted time; they could not
decide in the heat of debate, etc.
Mr. Lincoln thought that the question had bet-
ter be gone into now. In courts of law jurors
were required to decide on evidence, without pre-
vious study or examination. They were required
to know nothing of the subject until the evidence
was laid before them for their immediate de-
cision. He thought that the heat of party would
be augmented by delay.
The Speaker called Mr. Lincoln to order as
being irrelevant; no mention had been made of
party heat.
Mr. Drummond said he had only spoken of de-
bate.
Mr. Lincoln asked what caused the heat, if it
was not party? Mr. Lincoln concluded by urg-
ing that the question would be decided now bet-
i8 4 o] "INTEREST BONDS" 65
ter than hereafter, and he thought with less heat
and excitement.
(Further debate, in which Lincoln partici-
pated.)
Remarks in Favor of Issue of "Interest
Bonds."
In the Illinois House of Representatives, De-
cember 4, 1840, — House in Committee of the
Whole on the bill providing for payment of in-
terest on the State debt, — Mr. Lincoln moved to
strike out the body and amendments of the bill,
and insert in lieu thereof an amendment which in
substance was that the governor be authorized
to issue bonds for the payment of the interest;
that these be called "interest bonds"; that the
taxes accruing on Congress lands as they become
taxable be irrevocably set aside and devoted as a
fund to the payment of the interest bonds. Mr.
Lincoln went into the reasons which appeared to
him to render this plan preferable to that of
hypothecating the State bonds. By this course
we could get along till the next meeting of the
legislature, which was of great importance. To
the objection which might be urged that these in-
terest bonds could not be cashed, he replied that
if our other bonds could, much more could these,
which offered a perfect security, a fund being
irrevocably set aside to provide for their redemp-
tion. To another objection that we should be
paying compound interest, he would reply that
the rapid growth and increase of our resources
was in so great a ratio as to outstrip the diffi-
culty; that his object was to do the best that
could be done in the present emergency. All
66 EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 3
agreed that the faith of the State must be pre-
served ; this plan appeared to him preferable to
a hypothecation of bonds, which would have to
be redeemed and the interest paid. How this
was to be done, he could not see ; therefore he
had, after turning the matter over in every way,
devised this measure, which would carry us on
till the next legislature.
(Mr. Lincoln spoke at some length, advocating
his measure.)
Lincoln advocated his measure, December n,
1840.
December 12, 1840, he had thought some per-
manent provision ought to be made for the bonds
to be hypothecated, but was satisfied taxation
and revenue could not be connected with it now.
Remarks in Favor of "Canal Scrip."
In the Illinois House of Representatives, Jan-
uary 23, 1841, while discussing the continuation
of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, Mr. Moore
was afraid the holders of the "scrip" would lose.
Mr. Napier thought there was no danger of
that; and
Mr. Lincoln said he had not examined to see
what amount of scrip would probably be needed.
The principal point in his mind was this, that
nobody was obliged to take these certificates. It
is altogether voluntary on their part, and if they
apprehend it will fall on their hands, they will not
take it. Further, the loss, if any there be, will
fall on the citizens of that section of the country.
This scrip is not going to circulate over an ex-
tensive range of country, but will be confined
1841] JUDICIARY ADDRESS 67
chiefly to the vicinity of the canal. Now, we find
the representatives of that section of the country
are all in favor of the bill. When we propose to
protect their interests, they say to us : Leave us
to take care of ourselves ; we are willing to run
the risk. And this is reasonable; we must sup-
pose they are competent to protect their own in-
terests, and it is only fair to let them do it.
Against the Subordination of the Judiciary to
the Legislature.
An Address Issued by a Committee on Behalf
of the Whig Members of the Legislature,
A. Lincoln Being One of the Committee.
About February 8, 1841.
'Appeal to the People of the State of Illinois.
Fellow-citizens: When the General Assembly,
now about adjourning, assembled in November
last, from the bankrupt state of the public treas-
ury, the pecuniary embarrassments prevailing in
every department of society, the dilapidated state
of the public works, and the impending danger
of the degradation of the State, you had a right
to expect that your representatives would lose no
time in devising and adopting measures to avert
threatened calamities, alleviate the distresses of
the people, and allay the fearful apprehensions
in regard to the future prosperity of the State.
It was not expected by you that the spirit of party
would take the lead in the councils of the State,
and make every interest bend to its demands.
Nor was it expected that any party would as-
sume to itself the entire control of legislation, and
68 EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 8
convert the means and offices of the State, and
the substance of the people, into aliment for
party subsistence. Neither could it have been
expected by you that party spirit, however strong
its desires and unreasonable its demands, would
have passed the sanctuary of the Constitution,
and entered with its unhallowed and hideous
form into the formation of the judiciary system.
At the early period of the session, measures
were adopted by the dominant party to take pos-
session of the State, to fill all public offices with
party men, and make every measure affecting the
interests of the people and the credit of the State
operate in furtherance of their party views. The
merits of men and measures therefore became
the subject of discussion in caucus, instead of the
halls of legislation, and decisions there made by
a minority of the legislature have been executed
and carried into effect by the force of party dis-
cipline, without any regard whatever to the rights
of the people or the interests of the State. The
Supreme Court of the State was organized, and
judges appointed, according to the provisions of
the Constitution, in 1834. The people have never
complained of the organization of that court ; no
attempt has ever before been made to change
that department. Respect for public opinion, and
regard for the rights and liberties of the people,
have hitherto restrained the spirit of party from
attacks upon the independence and integrity of
the judiciary. The same judges have continued
in office since 1824; their decisions have not been
the subject of complaint among the people; the
integrity and honesty of the court have not been
questioned, and it has never been supposed that
the court has ever permitted party prejudice or
i8 4 i] JUDICIARY ADDRESS 69
party considerations to operate upon their de-
cisions. The court was made to consist of four
judges, and by the Constitution two form a
quorum for the transaction of business. With
this tribunal, thus constituted, the people have
been satisfied for near sixteen years. The same
law which organized the Supreme Court in 1824
also established and organized circuit courts to
be held in each county in the State, and five cir-
cuit judges were appointed to hold those courts.
In 1826 the legislature abolished these circuit
courts, repealed the judges out of office, and re-
quired the judges of the Supreme Court to hold
the circuit courts. The reasons assigned for this
change were, first, that the business of the coun-
try could be better attended to by the four judges
of the Supreme Court than by the two sets of
judges; and, second, the state of the public treas-
ury forbade the employment of unnecessary offi-
cers. In 1828 a circuit was established north of
the Illinois River, in order to meet the wants of
the people, and a circuit judge was appointed to
hold the courts in that circuit.
In 1834 the circuit-court system was again
established throughout the State, circuit judges
appointed to hold the courts, and the judges of the
Supreme Court were relieved from the perform-
ance of circuit-court duties. The change was
recommended by the then acting governor of the
State, General W. L. D. Ewing, in the following
terms :
The augmented population of the State, the multi-
plied number of organized counties, as well as the in-
crease of business in all, has long since convinced every-
one conversant with this department of our government
of the indispensable necessity of an alteration in our
7 o EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 8
judiciary system, and the subject is, therefore, recom-
mended to the earnest patriotic consideration of the
legislature. The present system has never been exempt
from serious and weighty objections. The idea of
appealing from the circuit court to the same judges in
the Supreme Court is recommended by little hopes
of redress to the injured party below. The duties of
the circuit, too, it may be added, consume one-half of
the year, leaving a small and inadequate portion of time
(when that required for domestic purposes is deducted)
to erect, in the decisions of the Supreme Court, a judi-
cial monument of legal learning and research, which the
talent and ability of the court might otherwise be en-
tirely competent to.
With this organization of circuit courts the
people have never complained. The only com-
plaints which we have heard have come from cir-
cuits which were so large that the judges could
not dispose of the business, and the circuits in
which Judges Pearson and Ralston lately pre-
sided.
Whilst the honor and credit of the State de-
manded legislation upon the subject of the public
debt, the canal, the unfinished public works, and
the embarrassments of the people, the judiciary
stood upon a basis which required no change — no
legislative action. Yet the party in power, neg-
lecting every interest requiring legislative ac-
tion, and wholly disregarding the rights, wishes,
and interests of the people, has, for the unholy
purpose of providing places for its partizans and
supplying them with large salaries, disorganized
that department of the government. Provision is
made for the election of five party judges of the
Supreme Court, the proscription of four circuit
judges, and the appointment of party clerks in
more than half the counties of the State. Men
professing respect for public opinion, and ac-
i8 4 i] JUDICIARY ADDRESS 71
knowledged to be leaders of the party, have
avowed in the halls of legislation that the change
in the judiciary was intended to produce political
results favorable to their party and party friends.
The immutable principles of justice are to make
way for party interests, and the bonds of social
order are to be rent in twain, in order that a
desperate faction may be sustained at the ex-
pense of the people. The change proposed in the
judiciary was supported upon grounds so de-
structive to the institutions of the country, and
so entirely at war with the rights and liberties of
the people, that the party could not secure entire
unanimity in its support, — three Democrats of
the Senate and five of the House voting against
the measure. They were unwilling to see the
temples of justice and the seats of independent
judges occupied by the tools of faction. The dec-
larations of the party leaders, the selection of
party men for judges, and the total disregard for
the public will in the adoption of the measure,
prove conclusively that the object has been not
reform, but destruction ; not the advancement of
the highest interests of the State, but the pre-
dominance of party.
We cannot in this manner undertake to point
out all the objections to this party measure ; we
present you with those stated by the Council of
Revision upon returning the bill, and we ask for
them a candid consideration.
Believing that the independence of the ju-
diciary has been destroyed, that hereafter our
courts will be independent of the people, and en-
tirely dependent upon the legislature; that our
rights of property and liberty of conscience can
no longer be regarded as safe from the encroach-
72 EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 22
ments of unconstitutional legislation; and know-
ing of no other remedy which can be adopted con-
sistently with the peace and good order of so-
ciety, we call upon you to avail yourselves of the
opportunity afforded, and, at the next general
election, vote for a convention of the people.
S. H. Little,
E. D. Baker,
Committee on behalf
J. J. Hardin, i_ of the Whig Mem-
E. B. Webb,
A. Lincoln,
J. Gillespie,
bers of the Legis-
lature.
Against Reorganization of the Judiciary.
Extract from a Protest in the Illinois
Legislature, Signed by A. Lincoln and
Others. February 26, 1841.
For the reason thus presented, and for others
no less apparent, the undersigned cannot assent
to the passage of the bill, or permit it to become
a law, without this evidence of their disapproba-
tion ; and they now protest against the reorgani-
zation of the judiciary, because — (1) It violates
the great principles of free government by sub-
jecting the judiciary to the legislature. (2) It is
a fatal blow at the independence of the judges
and the constitutional term of their office. (3)
It is a measure not asked for, or wished for, by
the people. (4) It will greatly increase the ex-
pense of our courts, or else greatly diminish'their
utility. (5) It will give our courts a political
and partizan character, thereby impairing public
confidence in their decisions. (6) It will impair
our standing with other States and the world.
1842] TEMPERANCE ADDRESS 73
(7) It is a party measure for party purposes,
from which no practical good to the people can
possibly arise, but which may be the source of
immeasurable evils.
The undersigned are well aware that this pro-
test will be altogether unavailing with the ma-
jority of this body. The blow has already fallen,
and we are compelled to stand by, the mournful
spectators of the ruin it will cause.
[Signed by 35 members, among whom was
Abraham Lincoln.]
Charity in Temperance Reform.
Address Before the Washingtonian Society
of Springfield, III. February 22, 1842.
Although the temperance cause has been in
progress for near twenty years, it is apparent to
all that it is just now being crowned with a de-
gree of success hitherto unparalleled.
The list of its friends is daily swelled by the
additions of fifties, of hundreds, and of thou-
sands. The cause itself seems suddenly trans-
formed from a cold abstract theory to a living,
breathing, active, and powerful chieftain, going
forth "conquering and to conquer." The citadels
of his great adversary are daily being stormed
and dismantled ; his temple and his altars, where
the rites of his idolatrous worship have long
been performed, and where human sacrifices have
long been wont to be made, are daily desecrated
and deserted. The triumph of the conqueror's
fame is sounding from hill to hill, from sea to
sea, and from land to land, and calling millions
to his standard at a blast.
74 EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 22
For this new and splendid success we heartily
rejoice. That that success is so much greater
now than heretofore is doubtless owing to rational
causes ; and if we would have it continue, we
shall do well to inquire what those causes are.
The warfare heretofore waged against the de-
mon intemperance has somehow or other been
erroneous. Either the champions engaged or the
tactics they adopted have not been the most
proper. These champions for the most part
have been preachers, lawyers, and hired agents.
Between these and the mass of mankind there is
a want of approachability, if the term be admissi-
ble, partially, at least, fatal to their success. They
are supposed to have no sympathy of feeling or
interest with those very persons whom it is their
object to convince and persuade.
And again, it is so common and so easy to
ascribe motives to men of these classes other than
those they profess to act upon. The preacher,
it is said, advocates temperance because he is a
fanatic, and desires a union of the church and
state; the lawyer from his pride and vanity of
hearing himself speak; and the hired agent for
his salary. But when one who has long been
known as a victim of intemperance bursts the fet-
ters that have bound him, and appears before his
neighbors "clothed and in his right mind," a re-
deemed specimen of long-lost humanity, and
stands up, with tears of joy trembling in his eyes,
to tell of the miseries once endured, now to be
endured no more forever ; of his once naked and
starving children, now clad and fed comfortably ;
of a wife long weighed down with woe, weeping,
and a broken heart, now restored to health, hap-
piness, and a renewed affection; and how easily
i8 4 2] TEMPERANCE ADDRESS 75
it is all done, once it is resolved to be done ; how
simple his language ! — there is a logic and an
eloquence in it that few with human feelings can
resist. They cannot say that he desires a union
of church and state, for he is not a church mem-
ber; they cannot say he is vain of hearing him-
self speak, for his whole demeanor shows he
would gladly avoid speaking at all ; they cannot
says he speaks for pay, for he receives none, and
asks for none. Nor can his sincerity in any way
be doubted, or his sympathy for those he would
persuade to imitate his example be denied.
In my judgment, it is to the battles of this new
class of champions that our late success is
greatly, perhaps chiefly, owing. But, had the
old-school champions themselves been of the
most wise selecting, was their system of tactics
the most judicious? It seems to me it' was not.
Too much denunciation against dram-sellers and
dram-drinkers was indulged in. This I think was
both impolitic and unjust. It was impolitic, be-
cause it is not much in the nature of man to be
driven to anything; still less to be driven about
that which is exclusively his own business ; and
least of all where such driving is to be submitted
to at the expense of pecuniary interest or burning
appetite. When the dram-seller and drinker
were incessantly told — not in accents of entreaty
and persuasion, diffidently addressed by erring
man to an erring brother, but in the thundering
tones of anathema and denunciation with which
the lordly judge often groups together all the
crimes of the felon's life, and thrusts them in his
face just ere he passes sentence of death upon
him — that they were the authors of all the vice
and misery and crime in the land ; that they were
7 6 EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 22
the manufacturers and material of all the thieves
and robbers and murderers that infest the earth,
that their houses were the workshops of the devil ;
and that their persons should be shunned by all
the good and virtuous, as moral pestilences — I
say, when they were told all this, and in this way,
it is not wonderful that they were slow, very
slow, to acknowledge the truth of such denuncia-
tions, and to join the ranks of their denouncers
in a hue and cry against themselves.
To have expected them to do otherwise than
they did — to have expected them not to meet de-
nunciation with denunciation, crimination with
crimination, and anathema with anathema — was
to expect a reversal of human nature, which is
God's decree and can never be reversed.
When the conduct of men is designed to be
influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming per-
suasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and
a true maxim "that a drop of honey catches more
flies than a gallon of gall." So with men. If
you would win a man to your cause, first con-
vince him that you are his sincere friend. There-
in is a drop of honey that catches his heart,
which, say what he will, is the great highroad to
his reason, and which, when once gained, you
will find but little trouble in convincing his judg-
ment of the justice of your cause, if indeed that
cause really be a just one. On the contrary, as-
sume to dictate to his judgment, or to command
his action, or to mark him as one to be shunned
and despised, and he will retreat within himself,
close all the avenues to his head and his heart;
and though your cause be naked truth itself,
transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than
steel, and sharper than steel can be made, and
1842] TEMPERANCE ADDRESS 77
though you throw it with more than herculean
force and precision, you shall be no more able to
pierce him than to penetrate the hard shell of a
tortoise with a rye straw. Such is man, and so
must he be understood by those who would lead
him, even to his own best interests.
On this point the Washingtonians greatly ex-
cel the temperance advocates of former times.
Those whom they desire to convince and persuade
are their old friends and companions. They
know they are not demons, nor even the worst
of men ; they know that generally they are kind,
generous, and charitable, even beyond the exam-
ple of their more staid and sober neighbors.
They are practical philanthropists ; and they
glow with a generous and brotherly zeal that
mere theorizers are incapable of feeling. Be-
nevolence and charity possess their hearts en-
tirely ; and out of the abundance of their hearts
their tongues give utterance ; "Love through all
their actions runs, and all their words are mild."
In this spirit they speak and act, and in the same
they are heard and regarded. And when such
is the temper of the advocate, and such of the
audience, no good cause can be unsuccessful.
But I have said that denunciations against dram-
sellers and dram-drinkers are unjust, as well as
impolitic. Let us see. I have not inquired at
what period of time the use of intoxicating
liquors commenced ; nor is it important to know.
It is sufficient that to all of us who now inhabit
the world, the practice of drinking them is just
as old as the world itself — that is, we have seen
the one just as long as we have seen the other.
When all such of us as have now reached the
years of maturity first opened our eyes upon the
78 EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 22
stage of existence, we found intoxicating liquor
recognized by everybody, used by everybody, re-
pudiated by nobody. It commonly entered into
the first draught of the infant and the last
draught of the dying man. From the sideboard
of the parson down to the ragged pocket of the
houseless loafer, it was constantly found. Physi-
cians prescribed it in this, that, and the other
disease; government provided it for soldiers and
sailors ; and to have a rolling or raising, a husk-
ing or "hoedown," anywhere about without it
was positively insufferable. So, too, it was
everywhere a respectable article of manufacture
and merchandise. The making of it was regarded
as an honorable livelihood, and he who could
make most was the most enterprising and re-
spectable. Large and small manufactories of it
were everywhere erected, in which all the earthly
good of their owners were invested. Wagons
drew it from town to town ; boats bore it from
clime to clime, and the winds wafted it from na-
tion to nation ; and merchants bought and sold it,
by wholesale and retail, with precisely the same
feelings on the part of the seller, buyer, and by-
stander as are felt at the selling and buying of
plows, beef, bacon, or any other of the real neces-
saries of life. Universal public opinion not only
tolerated but recognized and adopted its use.
It is true that even then it was known and
acknowledged that many were greatly injured
by it; but none seemed to think the injury arose
from the use of a bad thing, but from the 'abuse
of a very good thing. The victims of it were to
be pitied and compassionated, just as are the
heirs of consumption and other hereditary dis-
eases. Their failing was treated as a misfor-
1 842] TEMPERANCE ADDRESS 79
tune, and not as a crime, or even as a disgrace.
If, then, what I have been saying is true, is it
wonderful that some should think and act now
as all thought and acted twenty years ago ? and is
it just to assail, condemn, or despise them for
doing so? The universal sense of mankind on
any subject is an argument, or at least an influ-
ence, not easily overcome. The success of the
argument in favor of the existence of an over-
ruling Providence mainly depends upon that
sense; and men ought not in justice to be de-
nounced for yielding to it in any case, or giving
it up slowly, especially when they are backed by
interest, fixed habits, or burning appetites.
Another error, as it seems to me, into which
the old reformers fell, was the position that all
habitual drunkards were utterly incorrigible,
and therefore must be turned adrift and damned
without remedy in order that the grace of tem-
perance might abound, to the temperate then, and
to all mankind some hundreds of years there-
after. There is in this something so repugnant
to humanity, so uncharitable, so cold-blooded
and feelingless, that it never did nor ever can en-
list the enthusiasm of a popular cause. We could
not love the man who taught it — we could not
hear him with patience. The heart could not
throw open its portals to it, the generous man
could not adopt it — it could not mix with his
blood. It looked so fiendishly selfish, so like
throwing fathers and brothers overboard to
lighten the boat for our security, that the noble-
minded shrank from the manifest meanness of
the thing. And besides this, the benefits of a
reformation to be effected by such a system were
too remote in point of time to warmly engage
80 EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 22
many in its behalf. Few can be induced to labor
exclusively for posterity ; and none will do it en-
thusiastically. Posterity has done nothing for
us ; and theorize on it as we may, practically we
shall do very little for it, unless we are made to
think we are at the same time doing something
for ourselves.
What an ignorance of human nature does it
exhibit, to ask or expect a whole community to
rise up and labor for the temporal happiness of
others, after themselves shall be consigned to the
dust, a majority of which community take no
pains whatever to secure their own eternal wel-
fare at no more distant day? Great distance in
either time or space has wonderful power to lull
and render quiescent the human mind. Pleasures
to be enjoyed, or pains to be endured, after we
shall be dead and gone are but little regarded
even in our own cases, and much less in the
cases of others. Still, in addition to this there is
something so ludicrous in promises of good or
threats of evil a great way off as to render the
whole subject with which they are connected
easily turned into ridicule. "Better lay down
that spade you are stealing, Paddy ; if you don't
you'll pay for it at the day of judgment." "Be
the powers, if ye'll credit me so long I'll take an-
other jist."
By the Washingtonians this system of con-
signing the habitual drunkard to hopeless ruin is
repudiated. They adopt a more enlarged philan-
thropy ; they go for present as well as vfuture
good. They labor for all now living, as well as
hereafter to live. They teach hope to all — de-
spair to none. As applying to their cause, they
deny the doctrine of unpardonable sin; as in
j8 4 2] TEMPERANCE ADDRESS 8 i
Christianity it is taught, so in this they teach —
"While the lamp holds out to burn, The vilest
sinner may return." And, what is a matter of
more profound congratulation, they, by experi-
ment upon experiment and example upon exam-
ple, prove the maxim to be no less true in the
one case than in the other. On every hand we
behold those who but yesterday were the chief of
sinners, now the chief apostles of the cause.
Drunken devils are cast out by ones, by sevens,
by legions; and their unfortunate victims, like
the poor possessed who were redeemed from
their long and lonely wanderings in the tombs,
are publishing to the ends of the earth how great
things have been done for them.
To these new champions and this new system
of tactics our late success is mainly owing, and
to them we must mainly look for the final con-
summation. The ball is now rolling gloriously
on, and none are so able as they to increase its
speed and its bulk, to add to its momentum and
its magnitude — even though unlearned in letters,
for this task none are so well educated. To fit
them for this work they have been taught in the
true school. They have been in that gulf from
which they would teach others the means of
escape. They have passed that prison wall,
which others have long declared impassable ; and
who that has not shall dare to weigh opinions
with them as to the mode of passing
But if it be true, as I have insisted, that those
who have suffered by intemperance personally,
and have reformed, are the most powerful and
efficient instruments to push the reformation to
ultimate success, it does not follow that those
who have not suffered have no part left them to
82 EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 22
perform. Whether or not the world would be
vastly benefited by a total and final banishment
from it of all intoxicating drinks seems to me not
now an open question. Three fourths of man-
kind confess the affirmative with their tongues,
and, I believe, all the rest acknowledge it in their
hearts.
Ought any, then, to refuse their aid in doing
what good the good of the whole demands?
Shall he who cannot do much be for that reason
excused if he do nothing? "But," says one,
"what good can I do by signing the pledge? I
never drink, even without signing." This ques-
tion has already been asked and answered more
than a million of times. Let it be answered once
more. For the man suddenly or in any other way
to break off from the use of drams, who has in-
dulged in them for a long course of years, and
until his appetite for them has grown ten or a
hundred-fold stronger, and more craving than
any natural appetite can be, requires a most pow-
erful moral effort. In such an undertaking he
needs every moral support and influence that can
possibly be brought to his aid and thrown around
him. And not only so, but every moral prop
should be taken from whatever argument might
rise in his mind to lure him to his backsliding.
When he casts his eyes around him, he should be
able to see all that he respects, all that he admires,
all that he loves, kindly and anxiously pointing
him onward, and none beckoning him back to his
former miserable "wallowing in the mire."
But it is said by some that men will think and
act for themselves ; that none will disuse spirits
or anything else because his neighbors do ; and
that moral influence is not that powerful engine
1 842] TEMPERANCE ADDRESS 83
contended for. Let us examine this. Let me ask
the man who could maintain this position most
stiffly, what compensation he will accept to go to
church some Sunday and sit during the sermon
with his wife's bonnet upon his head? Not a tri-
fle, I'll venture. And why not? There would be
nothing irreligious in it, nothing immoral, noth-
ing uncomfortable — then why not? Is it not be-
cause there would be something egregiously un-
fashionable in it? Then it is the influence of
fashion ; and what is the influence of fashion but
the influence that other people's actions have on
our actions — the strong inclination each of us
feels to do as we see all our neighbors do? Nor
is the influence of fashion confined to any partic-
ular thing or class of things; it is just as strong
on one subject as another. Let us make it as un-
fashionable to withhold our names from the tem-
perance cause as for husbands to wear their
wives' bonnets to church, and instances will be
just as rare in the one case as the other.
"But," say some, "we are no drunkards, and
we shall not acknowledge ourselves such by join-
ing a reformed drunkards' society, whatever our
influence might be." Surely no Christian will
adhere to this objection. If they believe as they
profess, that Omnipotence condescended to take
on himself the form of sinful man, and as such
to die an ignominious death for their sakes,
surely they will not refuse submission to the in-
finitely lesser condescension, for the temporal,
and perhaps eternal, salvation of a large, erring,
and unfortunate class of their fellow-creatures.
Nor is the condescension very great. In my
judgment such of us as have never fallen victims
have been spared more by the absence of appetite
84 EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 22
than from any mental or moral superiority over
those who have. Indeed, I believe if we take
habitual drunkards as a class, their heads and
their hearts will bear an advantageous compari-
son with those of any other class. There seems
ever to have been a proneness in the brilliant and
warm-blooded to fall into this vice — the demon
of intemperance ever seems to have delighted in
sucking the blood of genius and of generos-
ity. What one of us but can call to mind some
relative, more promising in youth than all his fel-
lows, who has fallen a sacrifice to his rapacity?
He ever seems to have gone forth like the Egyp-
tian angel of death, commissioned to slay, if not
the first, the fairest born of every family. Shall
he now be arrested in his desolating career? In
that arrest all can give aid that will ; and who
shall be excused that can and will not? Far
around as human breath has ever blown he
keeps our fathers, our brothers, our sons, and our
friends prostrate in the chains of moral death.
To all the living everywhere we cry, "Come
sound the moral trump, that these may rise and
stand up an exceeding great army." "Come
from the four winds, O breath ! and breathe upon
these slain that they may live." If the relative
grandeur of revolutions shall be estimated by the
great amount of human misery they alleviate,
and the small amount they inflict, then indeed
will this be the grandest the world shall ever have
seen.
Of our political revolution of '76 we are all
justly proud. It has given us a degree of politi-
cal freedom far exceeding that of any other na-
tion of the earth. In it the world has found a
solution of the long-mooted problem as to the
1842] TEMPERANCE ADDRESS 85
capability of man to govern himself. In it was
the germ which has vegetated, and still is to
grow and expand into the universal liberty of
mankind. But, with all these glorious results,
past, present, and to come, it had its evils too. It
breathed forth famine, swam in blood, and rode
in fire ; and long, long after, the orphan's cry and
the widow's wail continued to break the sad
silence that ensued. These were the price, the
inevitable price, paid for the blessings it bought.
Turn now to the temperance revolution. In
it we shall find a stronger bondage broken, a
viler slavery manumitted, a greater tyrant de-
posed ; in it, more of want supplied, more disease
healed, more sorrow assuaged. By it no orphans
starving, no widows weeping. By it, none
wounded in feeling, none injured in interest;
even the dram-maker and dram-seller will have
glided into other occupations so gradually as
never to have felt the change, and will stand
ready to join all others in the universal song of
gladness. And what a noble ally this to the cause
of political freedom; with such an aid its march
cannot fail to be on and on, till every son of earth
shall drink in rich fruition the sorrow-quenching
draughts of perfect liberty. Happy day when —
all appetites controlled, all poisons subdued, all
matter subjected — mind, all-conquering mind,
shall live and move, the monarch of the world.
Glorious consummation ! Hail, fall of fury !
Reign of reason, all hail!
And when the victory shall be complete, — when
there shall be neither a slave nor a drunkard on
the earth, — how proud the title of that land
which may truly claim to be the birthplace and
the cradle of both those revolutions that shall
86 EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. i
have ended in that victory. How nobly distin-
guished that people who shall have planted and
nurtured to maturity both the political and moral
freedom of their species.
This is the one hundred and tenth anniversary
of the birthday of Washington ; we are met to
celebrate this day. Washington is the mightiest
name of earth — long since mightiest in the cause
of civil liberty, still mightiest in moral reforma-
tion. On that name no eulogy is expected. It
cannot be. To add brightness to the sun or glory
to the name of Washington is alike impossible.
Let none attempt it. In solemn awe pronounce
the name, and in its naked deathless splendor
leave it shining on.
In Favor of a Protective Tariff, National Bank,
and Other Whig Policies.
Resolutions Offered at a Whig Meeting at
Springfield, III. March i, 1843.
The object of the meeting was stated by Mr. Lin-
coln of Springfield, who offered the following resolu-
tions, which were unanimously adopted :
Resolved, That a tariff of duties on imported
goods, producing sufficient revenue for payment
of the necessary expenditures of the National
Government, and so adjusted as to protect
American industry, is indispensably necessary to
the prosperity of the American people.
Resolved, That we are opposed to direct taxa-
tion for the support of the National Government.
Resolved, That a national bank, properly re-
stricted, is highly necessary and proper to the
1843] TARIFF RESOLUTIONS 87
establishment and maintenance of a sound cur-
rency, and for the cheap and safe collection,
keeping, and disbursing of the public revenue.
Resolved, That the distribution of the proceeds
of the sales of the public lands, upon the princi-
ples of Mr. Clay's bill, accords with the best in-
terests of the nation, and particularly with those
of the State of Illinois.
Resolved, That we recommend to the Whigs
of each congressional district of the State, to
nominate and support at the approaching elec-
tion a candidate of their own principles, regard-
less of the chances of success.
Resolved, That we recommend to the Whigs
of all portions of the State to adopt and rigidly
adhere to the convention system of nominating
candidates.
Resolved, That we recommend to the Whigs
of each congressional district to hold a district
convention on or before the first Monday of May
next, to be composed of a number of delegates
from each county equal to double the number of
its representatives in the General Assembly, pro-
vided, each county shall have at least one dele-
gate. Said delegates to be chosen by primary
meetings of the Whigs, at such times and places
as they in their respective counties may see fit.
Said district conventions each to nominate one
candidate for Congress, and one delegate to a
National Convention for the purpose of nominat-
ing candidates for President and Vice-President
of the United States. The seven delegates so
nominated to a national convention to have power
to add two delegates to their own number, and
to fill all vacancies.
Resolved, That A. T. Bledsoe, S. T. Logan,
88 EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. 4
and A. Lincoln be appointed a committee to pre-
pare an address to the people of the State.
Resolved, That N. W. Edwards, A. G. Henry,
James H. Matheny, John C. Doremtis, and
James C. Conkling be appointed a Whig Central
State Committee, with authority to fill any va-
cancy that may occur in the committee.
In Favor of a Protective Tariff, a National
Bank, and Other Whig Policies.
An Address to the People of Illinois Issued
by A. Lincoln and Two Other Members
of a Committee Appointed for the Pur-
pose by a Whig Meeting in Springfield.
March 4, 1843.
Address to the People of Illinois.
Fellozv-citizens: By a resolution of a meeting
of such of the Whigs of the State as are now at
Springfield, we, the undersigned, were appointed
to prepare an address to you. The performance
of that task we now undertake.
Several resolutions were adopted by the meet-
ing; and the chief object of this address is to
show briefly the reasons for their adoption.
The first of those resolutions declares a tariff
of duties upon foreign importations, producing
sufficient revenue for the support of the General
Government, and so adjusted as to protect
American industry, to be indispensably necessary
to the prosperity of the American people; and
the second declares direct taxation for a national
revenue to be improper. Those two resolutions
are kindred in their nature, and therefore proper
1843] TARIFF ADDRESS 89
and convenient to be considered together. The
question of protection is a subject entirely too
broad to be crowded into a few pages only, to-
gether with' several other subjects. On that
point we therefore content ourselves with giving
the following extracts from the writings of Mr.
Jefferson, General Jackson, and the speech of
Mr. Calhoun :
To be independent for the comforts of life, we must
fabricate them ourselves. We must now place the
manufacturer by the side of the agriculturalist. The
grand inquiry now is, Shall we make our own comforts,
or go without them at the will of a foreign nation?
He, therefore, who is now against domestic manu-
factures must be for reducing us either to dependence
on that foreign nation, or to be clothed in skins and to
live like wild beasts in dens and caverns. I am not one
of those; experience has taught me that manufactures
are now as necessary to our independence as to our com-
fort. — Letter of Mr. Jefferson to Benjamin Austin. _
I ask, What is the real situation of the agricul-
turalist? Where has the American farmer a market
for his surplus produce? Except for cotton, he has
neither a foreign nor a home market. Does not this
clearly prove, when there is no market at home or
abroad, that there is too much labor employed in
agriculture? Common sense at once points out the
remedy. Take from agriculture six hundred thousand
men, women, and children, and you will at once give
a market for more breadstuffs than all Europe now
furnishes. In short, we have been too long subject
to the policy of British merchants. It is time we should
become a little more Americanized, and instead of
feeding the paupers and laborers of England, feed our
own; or else in a short time, by continuing our present
policy, we shall all be rendered paupers ourselves. —
General Jackson's Letter to Dr. Coleman.
When our manufactures are grown to a certain per-
fection, as they soon will be, under the fostering care of
government, the farmer will find a ready market for his
surplus produce, and — what is of equal consequence —
a certain and cheap supply of all he wants ; his pros-
5 o EARLY SPEECHES CMar. 4
perity will diffuse itself to every class of the com-
munity.— Speech of Hon. J. C. Calhoun on the Tariff.
The question of revenue we will now briefly
consider. For several years past the revenues of
the government have been unequal to its expendi-
tures, and consequently loan after loan, some-
times direct and sometimes indirect in form, has
been resorted to. By this means a new national
debt has been created, and is still growing on us
with a rapidity fearful to contemplate — a rapid-
ity only reasonably to be expected in time of war.
This stage of things has been produced by a pre-
vailing unwillingness either to increase the tariff
or resort to direct taxation. But the one or the
other must come. Coming expenditures must be
met, and the present debt must be paid; and
money cannot always be borrowed for these ob-
jects. The system of loans is but temporary in
its nature, and must soon explode. It is a system
not only ruinous while it lasts, but one that must
soon fail and leave us destitute. As an individual
who undertakes to live by borrowing soon finds
his original means devoured by interest, and,
next, no one left to borrow from, so must it be
with a government.
We repeat, then, that a tariff sufficient for
revenue, or a direct tax, must soon be resorted
to ; and, indeed, we believe this alternative is now
denied by no one. But which system shall be
adopted? Some of our opponents, in theory, ad-
mit the propriety of a tariff sufficient for a reve-
nue; but even they will not in practice vote for
such a tariff ; while others boldly advocate direct
taxation. Inasmuch, therefore, as some of them
boldly advocate direct taxation, and all the rest —
1843] TARIFF ADDRESS 91
or so nearly all as to make exceptions needless —
refuse to adopt the tariff, we think it is doing
them no injustice to class them all as advocates
of direct taxation. Indeed, we believe they are
only delaying an open avowal of the system till
they can assure themselves that the people will
tolerate it. Let us, then, briefly compare the two
systems. The tariff is the cheaper system, be-
cause the duties, being- collected in large parcels
at a few commercial points, will require com-
paratively few officers in their collection; while
by the direct-tax system the land must be literally
covered with assessors and collectors, going
forth like swarms of Egyptian locusts, devouring
every blade of grass and other green thing.
And, again, by the tariff system the whole reve-
nue is paid by the consumers of foreign goods,
and those chiefly the luxuries, and not the neces-
saries, of life. By this system the man who con-
tents himself to live upon the products of his own
country pays nothing at all. And surely that
country is extensive enough, and its products
abundant and varied enough, to answer all the
real wants of its people. In short, by this sys-
tem the burthen of revenue falls almost entirely
on the wealthy and luxurious few, while the sub-
stantial and laboring many who live at home, and
upon home products, go entirely free. By the
direct tax system none can escape. However
strictly the citizen may exclude from his prem-
ises all foreign luxuries, — fine cloths, fine silks,
rich wines, golden chains, and diamond rings, —
still, for the possession of his house, his barn,
and his homespun, he is to be perpetually haunted
and harassed by the tax-gatherer. With these
views we leave it to be determined whether we or
9 2
EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. 4
our opponents are the more truly democratic on
the subject.
The third resolution declares the necessity and
propriety of a national bank. During the last
fifty years so much has been said and written
both as to the constitutionality and expediency
of such an institution, that we could not hope to
improve in the least on former discussions of the
subject, were we to undertake it. We, therefore,
upon the question of constitutionality content
ourselves with remarking the facts that the first
national bank was established chiefly by the same
men who formed the Constitution, at a time when
that instrument was but two years old, and re-
ceiving the sanction, as president, of the immor-
tal Washington; that the second received the
sanction, as president, of Mr. Madison, to whom
common consent has awarded the proud title of
"Father of the Constitution"; and subsequently
the sanction of the Supreme Court, the most en-
lightened judicial tribunal in the world. Upon
the question of expediency, we only ask you to
examine the history of the times during the ex-
istence of the two banks, and compare those
times with the miserable present.
The fourth resolution declares the expediency
of Mr. Clay's Land Bill. Much incomprehensible
jargon is often used against the constitutionality
of this measure. We forbear, in this place, at-
tempting an answer to it, simply because, in our
opinion, those who urge it are through party zeal
resolved not to see or acknowledge the "truth.
The question of expediency, at least so far as
Illinois is concerned, seems to us the clearest
imaginable. By the bill we are to receive an-
nually a large sum of money, no part of which
1843] TARIFF ADDRESS 93
we otherwise receive. The precise annual sum
cannot be known in advance ; it doubtless will vary-
in different years. Still it is something to know
that in the last year — a year of almost unparal-
leled pecuniary pressure — it amounted to more
than forty thousand dollars. This annual in-
come, in the midst of our almost insupportable
difficulties, in the days of our severest necessity,
our political opponents are furiously resolving to
take and keep from us. And for what? Many
silly reasons are given, as is usual in cases where
a single good one is not to be found. One is that
by giving us the proceeds of the lands, we im-
poverish the national treasury, and thereby ren-
der necessary an increase of the tariff. This may
be true; but if so, the amount of it only is that
those whose pride, whose abundance of means,
prompt them to spurn the manufactures of our
country, and to strut in British cloaks and coats
and pantaloons, may have to pay a few cents
more on the yard for the cloth that makes them.
A terrible evil, truly, to the Illinois farmer, who
never wore, nor ever expects to wear, a single
yard of British goods in his whole life. Another
of their reasons is that by the passage and con-
tinuance of Mr. Clay's bill, we prevent the pas-
sage of a bill which would give us more. This,
if it were sound in itself, is waging destructive
war with the former position; for if Mr. Clay's
bill impoverishes the treasury too much, what
shall be said of one that impoverishes it still
more? But it is not sound in itself. It is not
true that Mr. Clay's bill prevents the passage of
one more favorable to us of the new States. Con-
sidering the strength and opposite interest of the
old States, the wonder is that they ever per-
94
EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. 4
mitted one to pass so favorable as Mr. Clay's.
The last twenty-odd years' efforts to reduce the
price of the lands, and to pass graduation bills
and cession bills, prove the assertion to be true;
and if there were no experience in support of it,
the reason itself is plain. The States in which
none, or few, of the public lands lie, and those
consequently interested against parting with
them except for the best price, are the majority;
and a moment's reflection will show that they
must ever continue the majority, because by the
time one of the original new States (Ohio, for
example) becomes populous and gets weight in
Congress, the public lands in her limits are so
nearly sold out that in every point material to
this question she becomes an old State. She does
not wish the price reduced, because there is none
left for her citizens to buy; she does not wish
them ceded to the States in which they lie, be-
cause they no longer lie in her limits, and she
will get nothing by the cession. In the nature of
things, the States interested in the reduction of
price, in graduation, in cession, and in all similar
projects, never can be the majority. Nor is there
reason to hope that any of them can ever succeed
as a Democratic party measure, because we have
heretofore seen that party in full power, year
after year, with many of their leaders making
loud professions in favor of these projects, and
yet doing nothing. What reason, then, is there
to believe they will hereafter do better? In every
light in which we can view this question, it
amounts simply to this : Shall Ave accept our
share of the proceeds under Mr. Clay's bill, or
shall we rather reject that and get nothing?
The fifth resolution recommends that a Whig
1843] TARIFF ADDRESS 95
candidate for Congress be run in every district,
regardless of the chances of success. We are
aware that it is sometimes a temporary gratifica-
tion, when a friend cannot succeed, to be able to
choose between opponents; but we believe that
that gratification is the seed-time which never
fails to be followed by a most abundant harvest
of bitterness. By this policy we entangle our-
selves. By voting for our opponents, such of us
as do it in some measure estop ourselves to com-
plain of their acts, however glaringly wrong we
may believe them to be. By this policy no one
portion of our friends can ever be certain as to
what course another portion may adopt; and by
this want of mutual and perfect understanding
our political identity is partially frittered away
and lost. And, again, those who are thus elected
by our aid ever become our bitterest persecutors.
Take a few prominent examples. In 1830 Reyn-
olds was so elected governor; in 1835 we ex ~
erted our whole strength to elect Judge Young
to the United States Senate, which effort, though
failing, gave him the prominence that subse-
quently elected him; in 1836 General Ewing was
so elected to the United States Senate ; and yet let
us ask what three men have been more perse-
veringly vindictive in their assaults upon all our
men and measures than they? During the last
summer the whole State was covered with pam-
phlet editions of misrepresentations against us,
methodized into chapters and verses, written by
two of these same men, — Reynolds and Young,
— in which they did not stop at charging us with
error merely, but roundly denounced us as the
designing enemies of human liberty itself. If it
be the will of Heaven that such men shall politi-
9 6 EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. 4
cally live, be it so ; but never, never again per-
mit them to draw a particle of their sustenance
from us.
The sixth resolution recommends the adoption
of the convention system for the nomination of
candidates. This we believe to be of the very
first importance. Whether the system is right in
itself we do not stop to inquire; contenting our-
selves with trying to show that while our oppo-
nents use it, it is madness in us not to defend
ourselves with it. Experience has shown that we
cannot successfully defend ourselves without it.
For examples, look at the elections of last year.
Our candidate for governor, with the approba-
tion of a large portion of the party, took the field
without a nomination, and in open opposition to
the system. Wherever in the counties the Whigs
had held conventions and nominated candidates
for the legislature, the aspirants who were not
nominated were induced to rebel against the
nominations, and to become candidates, as is
said, "on their own hook." And, go where you
would into a large Whig county, you were sure
to find the Whigs not contending shoulder to
shoulder against the common enemy, but divided
into factions, and fighting furiously with one an-
other. The election came, and what was the re-
sult? The governor beaten — the Whig vote be-
ing decreased many thousands since 1840, al-
though the Democratic vote had not increased
any. Beaten almost everywhere for members of
the legislature, — Tazewell, with her four hun-
dred Whig majority, sending a delegation half
Democratic ; Vermillion, with her five hundred,
doing the same; Coles, with her four hundred,
sending two out of three ; and Morgan, with her
1843] TARIFF ADDRESS 97
two hundred and fifty, sending three out of four,
— and this to say nothing of the numerous other
less glaring examples ; the whole winding up
with the aggregate number of twenty-seven
Democratic representatives sent from Whig
counties. As to the senators, too, the result was
of the same character. And it is most worthy to
be remembered that of all the Whigs in the State
who ran against the regular nominees, a single
one only was elected. Although they succeeded
in defeating the nominees almost by scores, they
too were defeated, and the spoils chucklingly
borne off by the common enemy?
We do not mention the fact of many of the
Whigs opposing the convention system hereto-
fore for the purpose of censuring them. Far
from it. We expressly protest against such a
conclusion. We know they were generally, per-
haps universally, as good and true Whigs as we
ourselves claim to be. We mention it merely to
draw attention to the disastrous result it pro-
duced, as an example forever hereafter to be
avoided. That "union is strength" is a truth
that has been known, illustrated, and declared in
various ways and forms in all ages of the world.
That great fabulist and philosopher, 7Eso\>,
illustrated it by his fable of the bundle of sticks ;
and he whose wisdom surpasses that of all phi-
losophers has declared that "a house divided
against itself cannot stand." It is to induce our
friends to act upon this important and univer-
sally acknowedged truth that we urge the adop-
tion of the convention system. Reflection will
prove that there is no other way of practically ap-
plying it. In its application we know there will
be incidents temporarily painful ; but, after all,
98 EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. 4
those incidents will be fewer and less intense with
than without the system. If two friends aspire
to the same office it is certain that both cannot
succeed. Would it not, then, be much less pain-
ful to have the question decided by mutual
friends some time before, than to snarl and quar-
rel until the day of election, and then both be
beaten by the common enemy?
Before leaving this subject, we think proper
to remark that we do not understand the resolu-
tion as intended to recommend the application of
the convention system to the nomination of can-
didates for the small offices no way connected
with politics ; though we must say we do not per-
ceive that such an application of it would be
wrong.
The seventh resolution recommends the hold-
ing of district conventions in May next, for the
purpose of nominating candidates for Congress.
The propriety of this rests upon the same reasons
with that of the sixth, and therefore needs no
further discussion.
The eighth and ninth also relate merely to the
practical application of the foregoing, and there-
fore need no discussion.
Before closing, permit us to add a few reflec-
tions on the present condition and future pros-
pects of the Whig party. In almost all the States
we have fallen into the minority, and despond-
ency seems to prevail universally among us. Is
there just cause for this? In 1840 we carried
the nation by more than a hundred and- forty
thousand majority. Our opponents charged
that we did it by fraudulent voting; but what-
ever they may have believed, we know the charge
to be untrue. Where, now, is that mighty host?
i8 4 33 TARIFF ADDRESS
99
Have they gone over to the enemy? Let the re-
sults of the late elections answer. Every State
which has fallen off from the Whig cause since
1840 has done so not by giving more Democratic
votes than they did then, but by giving fewer
Whig. Bouck, who was elected Democratic gov-
ernor of New York last fall by more than 15,000
majority, had not then as many votes as he had
in 1840, when he was beaten by seven or eight
thousand. And so has it been in all the other
States which have fallen away from our cause.
From this it is evident that tens of thousands in
the late elections have not voted at all. Who and
what are they? is an important question, as re-
spects the future. They can come forward and
give us the victory again. That all, or nearly all,
of them are Whigs is most apparent. Our oppo-
nents, stung to madness by the defeat of 1840,
have ever since rallied with more than their usual
unanimity. It has not been they that have been
kept from the polls. These facts show what the re-
sult must be, once the people again rally in their
entire strength. Proclaim these facts, and pre-
dict this result ; and although unthinking oppo-
nents may smile at us, the sagacious ones will
"believe and tremble." And why shall the Whigs
not all rally again ? Are their principles less dear
now than in 1840? Have any of their doctrines
since then been discovered to be untrue? It is
true, the victory of 1840 did not produce the
happy results anticipated ; but it is equally true,
as we believe, that the unfortunate death of Gen-
eral Harrison was the cause of the failure. It
was not the election of General Harrison that
was expected to produce happy effects, but the
measures to be adopted by his administration. By
ioo EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. i
means of his death, and the unexpected course of
his successor, those measures were never
adopted. How could the fruits follow? The
consequences we always predicted would follow
the failure of those measures have followed, and
are now upon us in all their horrors. By the
course of Mr. Tyler the policy of our opponents
has continued in operation, still leaving them
with the advantage of charging all its evils upon
us as the results of a Whig administration. Let
none be deceived by this somewhat plausible,
though entirely false charge. If they ask us for
the sufficient and sound currency we promised,
let them be answered that we only promised it
through the medium of a national bank, which
they, aided by Mr. Tyler, prevented our estab-
lishing. And let them be reminded, too, that
their own policy in relation to the currency has
all the time been, and still is, in full operation.
Let us then again come forth in our might, and
by a second victory accomplish that which death
only prevented in the first. We can do it. When
did the Whigs ever fail if they were fully
aroused and united? Even in single States and
districts, under such circumstances, defeat sel-
dom overtakes them. Call to mind the contested
elections within the last few years, and particu-
larly those of Moore and Letcher from Ken-
tucky; Newland and Graham from North Caro-
lina, and the famous New Jersey case. In all
these districts Locofocoism had stalked omnipo-
tent before ; but when the whole people * were
aroused by its enormities on those occasions,
they put it down never to rise again.
We declare it to be our solemn conviction, that
the Whigs are always a majority of this nation;
i8 4 7] NOTES ON PROTECTION TO i
and that to make them always successful needs
but to get them all to the polls and to vote unit-
edly. This is the great desideratum. Let us
make every effort to attain it. At every election,
let every Whig act as though he knew the result
to depend upon his action. In the great contest
of 1840, some more than twenty-one hundred
thousand votes were cast, and so surely as there
shall be that many, with the ordinary increase
added, cast in 1844, that surely will a Whig be
elected President of the United States.
A. Lincoln,
S. T. Logan,
A. T. Bledsoe.
March 4, 1843.
The Home Market and Other Advantages of a
Protective Tariff.
Notes Jotted Down While Congressman-
Elect. About December i, 1847.
Whether the protective policy shall be finally
abandoned is now the question. — Discussion and
experience already had, and question now in
greater dispute than ever. — Has there not been
some great error in the mode of discussion? —
Propose a single issue of fact, namely: From
1 816 to the present, have protected articles cost
us more of labor during the higher than during
the lower duties upon them? — Introduce the evi-
dence. — Analyze this issue, and try to show that
it embraces the true and the whole question of
the protective policy. — Intended as a test of ex-
perience. — The period selected is fair, because it
is a period of peace — a period sufficiently long
102 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. i
[to] furnish a fair average under all other causes
operating on prices, a period in which various
modifications of higher and lower duties have oc-
curred. — Protected articles only are embraced.
Show that these only belong to the question. —
The labor price only is embraced. Show this to
be correct.
• • • •
I suppose the true effect of duties upon prices
to be as follows : If a certain duty be levied upon
an article which by nature cannot be produced in
this country, as three cents a pound upon coffee,
the effect will be that the consumer will pay one
cent more per pound than before, the producer
will take one cent less, and the merchant one cent
less in profits ; in other words, the burden of the
duty will [be] distributed over consumption, pro-
duction, and commerce, and not confined to either.
But if a duty amounting to full protection be
levied upon an article which can be produced
here with as little labor as elsewhere, — as iron, —
that article will ultimately, and at no distant day,
in consequence of such duty, be sold to our peo-
ple cheaper than before, at least by the amount
of the cost of carrying it from abroad.
First. As to useless labor. Before proceed-
ing, however, it may be as well to give a speci-
men of what I conceive to be useless labor. I say,
then, that all carrying, and incidents of carrying,
of articles from the place of their production to
a distant place for consumption, which articles
could be produced of as good quality, in sufficient
quantity and with as little labor, at the place of
consumption as at the place carried from, is use-
less labor. Applying this principle to our own
country by an example, let us suppose that A
1847] NOTES ON PROTECTION 103
and B are a Pennsylvania farmer and a Pennsyl-
vania iron-maker whose lands are adjoining.
Under the protective policy A is furnishing B
with bread and meat, and vegetables and fruits,
and food for horses and oxen, and fresh supplies
of horses and oxen themselves occasionally, and
receiving in exchange all the iron, iron utensils,
tools, and implements he needs. In this process
of exchange each receives the whole of that
which the other parts with, and the reward of
labor between them is perfect — each receiving
the product of just so much labor as he has him-
self bestowed on what he parts with for it. But
the change comes. The protective policy is aban-
doned, and A determines to buy his iron and iron
manufactures of C in Europe. This he can only
do by a direct or an indirect exchange of the
produce of his farm for them. We will suppose
the direct exchange is adopted. In this A desires
to exchange ten barrels of flour — the precise
product of one hundred days' labor — for the
largest quantity of iron, etc., that he can get. C
also wishes to exchange the precise product, in
iron, of one hundred days' labor for the greatest
quantity of flour he can get. In intrinsic
value the things to be so exchanged are pre-
cisely equal. But before this exchange can
take place, the flour must be carried from Penn-
sylvania to England, and the iron from England
to Pennsylvania. The flour starts. The wagoner
who hauls it to Philadelphia takes a part of it
to pay him for his labor; then a merchant there
takes a little more for storage and forwarding
commission, and another takes a little more for
insurance ; and then the ship-owner carries it
across the water, and takes a little more of it for
104 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. i
his trouble. Still, before it reaches C, it is tolled
two or three times more for storage, drayage,
commission, and so on ; so that when C gets it
there are but seven and a half barrels of it left.
The iron, too, in its transit from England to
Pennsylvania goes through the same process of
tolling; so that when it reaches A there are but
three quarters of it left. The result of this case
is that A and C have each parted with one hun-
dred days' labor, and each received but seventy-
five in return. That the carrying in this case was
introduced by A ceasing to buy of B and turning
[to] C; that it was utterly useless; and that it is
ruinous in its effects upon A, are all little less
than self-evident. "But," asks one, "if A is now
only getting three quarters as much iron from C
for ten barrels of flour as he used to get of B,
why does he not turn back to B?" The answer
is : "B has quit making iron, and so has none to
sell." "But why did B quit making?" "Because
A quit buying of him, and he had no other cus-
tomer to sell to." "But surely A did not cease
buying of B with the expectation of buying of C
on harder terms?" "Certainly not. Let me tell
you how that was. When B was making iron as
well as C, B had but one customer, this farmer
A ; C had four customers in Europe."
It seems to be an opinion very generally enter-
tained that the condition of a nation is best when-
ever it can buy cheapest; but this is not neces-
sarily true, because if, at the same time arid by
the same cause, it is compelled to sell correspond-
ingly cheap, nothing is gained. Then it is said
the best condition is when we can buy cheapest
and sell dearest ; but this again is not necessarily
1847] NOTES ON PROTECTION 105
true, because with both these we might have
scarcely anything to sell, or, which is the same
thing, to buy with. To illustrate this, suppose a
man in the present state of things is laboring the
year round, at ten dollars per month, which
amounts in the year to $120. A change in affairs
enables him to buy supplies at half the former
price, to get fifty dollars per month for his labor,
but at the same time deprives him of employ-
ment during all the months of the year but one.
In this case, though goods have fallen one half,
and labor risen five to one, it is still plain that at
the end of the year the laborer is twenty dollars
poorer than under the old state of things.
These reflections show that to reason and act
correctly on this subject we must look not merely
to buying cheap, nor yet to buying cheap and sell-
ing dear, but also to having constant employment,
so that we may have the largest possible amount
of something to sell. This matter of employ-
ment can only be secured by an ample, steady,
and certain market to sell the products of our
labor in.
But let us yield the point, and admit that by
abandoning the protective policy our farmers can
purchase their supplies of manufactured articles
cheaper than by continuing it ; and then let us see
Avhether, even at that, they will upon the whole be
gainers by the change. To simplify this ques-
tion, let us suppose the whole agricultural interest
of the country to be in the hands of one man,
who has one hundred laborers in his employ; the
whole manufacturing interest to be in the hands
of one other man, who has twenty laborers in his
employ. The farmer owns all the plow and
pasture land, and the manufacturer all the iron-
106 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. i
mines and coal-banks and sites of water-power.
Each is pushing on in his own way, and obtaining
supplies from the other so far as he needs, —
that is, the manufacturer is buying of the farmer
all the cotton he can use in his cotton-factory ; all
the wool he can use in his woolen establishment;
all the bread and meat, as well as all the fruits
and vegetables, which are necessary for himself
and all his hands in all his departments ; all the
corn and oats and hay which are necessary for all
his horses and oxen, as well as fresh supplies of
horses and oxen themselves to do all his heavy
hauling about his iron-works and generally of
every sort. The farmer, in turn, is buying of the
manufacturer all the iron, iron tools, wooden
tools, cotton goods, woolen goods, etc., that he
needs in his business and for his hands. But
after a while farmer discovers that were it not for
the protective policy he could buy all these sup-
plies cheaper from a European manufacturer,
owing to the fact that the price of labor is only
one quarter as high there as here. He and his
hands are a majority of the whole, and therefore
have the legal and moral right to have their inter-
est first consulted. They throw off the protective
policy, and farmer ceases buying of home manu-
facturer. Very soon, however, he discovers that
to buy even at the cheaper rate requires some-
thing to buy with, and somehow or other he is
falling short in this particular.
In the early days of our race the Almighty said
to the first of our race, "In the sweat of thy face
shalt thou eat bread" ; and since then, if we ex-
cept the light and the air of heaven, no good
thing has been or can be enjoyed by us without
1847] NOTES ON PROTECTION 107
having first cost labor. And inasmuch as most
good things are produced by labor, it follows that
all such things of right belong to those whose
labor has produced them. But it has so hap-
pened, in all ages of the world, that some have
labored, and others have without labor enjoyed
a large proportion of the fruits. This is wrong,
and should not continue. To secure to each la-
borer the whole product of his labor, or as nearly
as possible, is a worthy object of any good gov-
ernment.
But then a question arises, How can a govern-
ment best effect this ? In our own country, in its
present condition, will the protective principle
advance or retard this object? Upon this sub-
ject the habits of our whole species fall into three
great classes — useful labor, useless labor, and
idleness. Of these the first only is meritorious,
and to it all the products of labor rightfully be-
long; but the two latter, while they exist, are
heavy pensioners upon the first, robbing it of a
large portion of its just rights. The only remedy
for this is to, so far as possible, drive useless la-
bor and idleness out of existence. And, first, as
to useless labor. Before making war upon this,
we must learn to distinguish it from the useful.
It appears to me that all labor done directly and
indirectly in carrying articles to the place of con-
sumption, which could have been produced in
sufficient abundance, with as little labor, at the
place of consumption as at the place they were
carried from, is useless labor. Let us take a few
examples of the application of this principle to
our own country. Iron, and everything made of
iron, can be produced in sufficient abundance,
and with as little labor, in the United States as
io8 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. i
anywhere else in the world; therefore all labor
done in bringing iron and its fabrics from a for-
eign country to the United States is useless labor.
The same precisely may be said of cotton, wool,
and of their fabrics respectively, as well as many
other articles. While the uselessness of the carry-
ing labor is equally true of all the articles men-
tioned, and of many others not mentioned, it is
perhaps more glaringly obvious in relation to the
cotton goods we purchase from abroad. The
raw cotton from which they are made itself
grows in our own country, is carried by land and
by water to England, is there spun, wove, dyed,
stamped, etc., and then carried back again and
worn in the very country where it grew, and
partly by the very persons who grew it. Why
should it not be spun, wove, etc., in the very
neighborhood where it both grows and is con-
sumed, and the carrying thereby dispensed with ?
Has nature interposed any obstacle ? Are not all
the agents — animal-power, water-power, and
steam-power — as good and as abundant here as
elsewhere? Will not as small an amount of hu-
man labor answer here as elsewhere? We may
easily see that the cost of this useless labor is very
heavy. It includes not only the cost of the actual
carriage, but also the insurances of every kind,
and the profits of the merchants through whose
hands it passes. All these create a heavy burden
necessarily falling upon the useful labor con-
nected with such articles, either depressing the
price to the producer or advancing it to the con-
sumer, or, what is more probable, doing both in
part.
A supposed case will serve to illustrate several
points now to the purpose. A, in the interior of
1847] NOTES ON PROTECTION 109
South Carolina, has one hundred pounds of cot-
ton, which we suppose to be the precise product
of one man's labor for twenty days. B, in Man-
chester, England, has one hundred yards of cot-
ton cloth, the precise product of the same amount
of labor. This lot of cotton and lot of cloth are
precisely equal to each other in their intrinsic
value. But A wishes to part with his cotton for
the largest quantity of cloth he can get. B also
wishes to part with his cloth for the greatest
quantity of cotton he can get. An exchange is
therefore necessary; but before this can be
effected, the cotton must be carried to Manches-
ter, and the cloth to South Carolina. The cotton
starts to Manchester. The man that hauls it to
Charleston in his wagon takes a little of it out to
pay him for his trouble ; the merchant who stores
it a while before the ship is ready to sail takes
a little out for his trouble; the ship-owner who
carries it across the water takes a little out for
his trouble. Still, before it gets to Manchester
it is tolled two or three times more for drayage,
storage, commission, and so on; so that when it
reaches B's hands there are but seventy-five
pounds of it left. The cloth, too, in its transit
from Manchester to South Carolina, goes
through the same process of tolling ; so that when
it reaches A there are but seventy-five yards of it.
Now, in this case, A and B have each parted with
twenty days' labor, and each received but fifteen
in return. But now let us suppose that B has re-
moved to the side_of A's farm in South Carolina,
and has there made his lot of cloth. Is it not
clear that he and A can then exchange their cloth
and cotton, each getting the whole of what the
other parts with?
no EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. i
This supposed case shows the utter uselessness
of the carrying labor in all similar cases, and also
the direct burden it imposes upon useful labor.
And whoever will take up the train of reflection
suggested by this case, and run it out to the full
extent of its just application, will be astonished
at the amount of useless labor he will thus dis-
cover to be done in this very way. I am mis-
taken if it is not in fact many times over equal
to all the real want in the world. This useless
labor I would have discontinued, and those en-
gaged in it added to the class of useful laborers.
If I be asked whether I would destroy all com-
merce, I answer, Certainly not ; I would continue
it where it is necessary, and discontinue it where
it is not. An instance : I would continue com-
merce so far as it is employed in bringing us
coffee, and I would discontinue it so far as it is
employed in bringing us cotton goods.
But let us yield the point, and admit that by
abandoning the protective policy our farmers can
purchase their supplies of manufactured articles
cheaper than before ; and then let us see whether,
even at that, the farmers will upon the whole be
gainers by the change. To simplify this question,
let us suppose our whole population to consist of
but twenty men. Under the prevalence of the
protective policy, fifteen of these are farmers,
one is a miller, one manufactures iron, one im-
plements from iron, one cotton goods, and one
woolen goods. The farmers discover that, owing
to labor only costing one quarter as much' in
Europe as here, they can buy iron, iron imple-
ments, cotton goods, and woolen goods cheaper
when brought from Europe than when made by
their neighbors. They are the majority, and
i8 4 7] NOTES ON PROTECTION in
therefore have both the legal and moral right to
have their interest first consulted. They throw
off the protective policy, and cease buying these
articles of their neighbors. But they soon dis-
cover that to buy, and at the cheaper rate, re-
quires something to buy with. Falling short in
this particular, one of these farmers takes a load
of wheat to the miller and gets it made into flour,
and starts, as had been his custom, to the iron
furnace. He approaches the well-known spot,
but, strange to say, all is cold and still as death ;
no smoke rises, no furnace roars, no anvil rings.
After some search he finds the owner of the deso-
late place, and calls out to him, "Come, Vulcan,
don't you want to buy a load of flour?" "Why,"
says Vulcan, "I am hungry enough, to be sure, —
haven't tasted bread for a week ; but then you see
my works are stopped, and I have nothing to
give you for your flour." "But, Vulcan, why
don't you go to work and get something?" "I
am ready to do so. Will you hire me, farmer?"
"Oh, no, I could only set you to raising wheat,
and you see I have more of that already than I
can get anything for." "But give me employ-
ment, and send your flour to Europe for a mar-
ket." "Why, Vulcan, how silly you talk ! Don't
you know they raise wheat in Europe as well as
here, and that labor is so cheap there as to fix
the price of flour there so low as scarcely to pay
the long carriage of it from here, leaving noth-
ing whatever to me?" "But, farmer, couldn't
you pay to raise and prepare garden stuffs,
and .fruits, such as radishes, cabbages, Irish and
sweet potatoes, cucumbers, watermelons and
musk-melons, plums, pears, peaches, apples, and
the like ? All these are good things, and used to
U2 EARLY SPEECHES [Dec. 22
sell well." "So they did use to sell well; but it
was to you we sold them, and now you tell us
you have nothing to buy with. Of course I can-
not sell such things to the other farmers, because
each of them raises enough for himself, and in
fact rather wishes to sell than to buy. Neither
can I send them to Europe for a market, because,
to say nothing of European markets being
stocked with such articles at lower prices than I
can afford, they are of such a nature as to rot
before they could reach there. The truth is,
Vulcan, I am compelled to quit raising these
things altogether, except a few for my own use ;
and this leaves part of my own time idle on my
hands, instead of my finding employment for
you."
• • • • •
If at any time all labor should cease, and all
existing provisions be equally divided among the
people, at the end of a single year there could
scarcely be one human being left alive : all would
have perished by want of subsistence. So, again,
if upon such division all that sort of labor which
produces provisions should cease, and each in-
dividual should take up so much of his share as
he could, and carry it continually around his
habitation, although in this carrying the amount
of labor going on might be as great as ever so
long as it could last, at the end of the year the re-
sult would be precisely the same — that is, none
would be left living.
The first of these propositions shows that uni-
versal idleness would speedily result in universal
ruin ; and the second shows that useless labor is
in this respect the same as idleness. I submit,
then, whether it does not follow that partial idle-
1847] "SPOT RESOLUTIONS" 113
ness and partial useless labor would, in the pro-
portion of their extent, in like manner result in
partial ruin; whether, if all should subsist upon
the labor that one half should perform, it would
not result in very scanty allowance to the whole.
Believing- that these propositions and the con-
clusions I draw from them cannot be successfully
controverted, I for the present assume their cor-
rectness, and proceed to try to show that the
abandonment of the protective policy by the
American government must result in the increase
of both useless labor and idleness, and so, in pro-
portion, must produce want and ruin among our
people.
"Spot Resolutions" on Mexican War.
Offered in the United States House of Rep-
resentatives. December 22, 1847.
Whereas, The President of the United States,
in his message of May 11, 1846, has declared that
"the Mexican Government not only refused to re-
ceive him [the envoy of the United States], or
to listen to his propositions, but, after a long-
continued series of menaces, has at last invaded
our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-
citizens on our own soil."
And again, in his message of December 8,
1846, that "we had ample cause of war against
Mexico long before the breaking out of hostili-
ties ; but even then we forbore to take redress into
our own hands until Mexico herself became the
aggressor, by invading our soil in hostile array,
and shedding the blood of our citizens."
And yet again, in his message of December 7,
u 4 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 5
1847, that "the Mexican Government refused
even to hear the terms of adjustment which he
[our minister of peace] was authorized to pro-
pose, and finally, under wholly unjustifiable pre-
texts, involved the two countries in war, by in-
vading the territory of the State of Texas, strik-
ing the first blow, and shedding the blood of our
citizens on our own soil."
And whereas, This House is desirous to ob-
tain a full knowledge of all the facts which go to
establish whether the particular spot on which
the blood of our citizens was so shed was or was
not at that time our own soil ; therefore,
Resolved, By the House of Representatives,
that the President of the United States be re-
spectfully requested to inform this House —
First. Whether the spot on which the blood of
our citizens was shed, as in his message declared,
was or was not within the territory of Spain, at
least after the treaty of 1819 until the Mexican
revolution.
Second. Whether that spot is or is not within
the territory which was wrested from Spain by
the revolutionary Government of Mexico.
Third. Whether that spot is or is not within a
settlement of people, which settlement has ex-
isted ever since long before the Texas revolution,
and until its inhabitants fled before the approach
of the United States army.
Fourth. Whether that settlement is or is not
isolated from any and all other settlements by the
Gulf and the Rio Grande on the south and west,
and by wide uninhabited regions on the north
and east.
Fifth. Whether the people of that settlement,
or a majority of them, or any of them, have ever
1848] MAIL CONTRACTS 115
submitted themselves to the government or laws
of Texas or of the United States, by consent or
by compulsion, either by accepting office, or vot-
ing at elections, or paying tax, or serving on
juries, or having process served upon them, or in
any other way.
Sixth. Whether the people of that settlement
did or did not flee from the approach of the
United States army, leaving unprotected their
homes and their growing crops, before the blood
was shed, as in the message stated ; and whether
the first blood, so shed, was or was not shed
Within the inclosure of one of the people who had
thus fled from it.
Seventh. Whether our citizens, whose blood
was shed, as in his message declared, were or
were not, at that time, armed officers and
soldiers, sent into that settlement by the military
order of the President, through the Secretary of
War.
Eighth. Whether the military force of the
United States was or was not so sent into that
settlement after General Taylor had more than
once intimated to the War Department that, in
his opinion, no such movement was necessary to
the defense or protection of Texas.
On Railroad Mail Contracts.
Remarks in the United States House of
Representatives. January 5, 1848.
Mr. Lincoln said he had made an effort some
few days since, to obtain the floor in relation to
this measure [resolution to direct Postmaster-
General to make arrangements with railroad for
n6 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. s
carrying the mails — in Committee of the Whole],
but had failed. One of the objects he had then
had in view was now in a great measure super-
seded by what had fallen from the gentleman
from Virginia who had just taken his seat. He
begged to assure his friends on the other side of
the House that no assault whatever was meant
upon the Postmaster-General, and he was glad
that what the gentleman had now said modified
to a great extent the impression which might
have been created by the language he had used
on a previous occasion. He wanted to state to
gentlemen who might have entertained such im-
pressions, that the Committee on the Post-office
was composed of five Whigs and four Demo-
crats, and their report was understood as sus-
taining, not impugning, the position taken by the
Postmaster-General. That report had met with
the approbation of all the Whigs, and of all the
Democrats also, with the exception of one, and
he wanted to go even further than this. [Inti-
mation was informally given Mr. Lincoln that it
zvas not in order to mention on the floor what had
taken place in committee.] He then observed
that if he had been out of order in what he had
said, he took it all back so far as he could. He
had no desire, he could assure gentlemen, ever to
be out of order — though he never could keep long
in order.
Mr. Lincoln went on to observe that he dif-
fered in opinion, in the present case, from his
honorable friend from Richmond [Mr. Botts).
That gentleman had begun his remarks by saying
that if all prepossessions in this matter could be
removed out of the way, but little difficulty would
be experienced in coming to an agreement. Now,
i8 4 8] MAIL CONTRACTS 117
he could assure that gentleman that he had him-
self begun the examination of the subject with
prepossessions all in his favor. He had long
and often heard of him, and, from what he had
heard, was prepossessed in his favor. Of the
Postmaster-General he had also heard, but had
no prepossessions in his favor, though certainly
none of an opposite kind. He differed, however,
with that gentleman in politics, while in this re-
spect he agreed with the gentleman from Vir-
ginia [Mr. Botts], whom he wished to oblige
whenever it was in his power. That gentleman
had referred to the report made to the House by
the Postmaster-General and had intimated an
apprehension that gentlemen would be disposed
to rely on that report alone, and derive their
views of the case from that document alone.
Now it so happened that a pamphlet had been
slipped into his [Mr. Lincoln's] hand before he
read the report of the Postmaster-General; so
that, even in this, he had begun with preposses-
sions in favor of the gentleman from Virginia.
As to the report, he had but one remark to
make : he had carefully examined it, and he did
not understand that there was any dispute as to
the facts therein stated — the dispute, if he under-
stood it, was confined altogether to the inferences
to be drawn from those facts. It was a differ-
ence not about facts, but about conclusions. The
facts were not disputed. If he was right in this,
he supposed the House might assume the facts to
be as they were stated, and thence proceed to
draw their own conclusions.
The gentleman had said that the Postmaster-
General had got into a personal squabble with
the railroad company. Of this Mr. Lincoln
n8 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 12
knew nothing, nor did he need or desire to know
anything, because it had nothing whatever to do
with a just conclusion from the premises. But
the gentleman had gone on to ask whether so
great a grievance as the present detention of the
Southern mail ought not to be remedied? Mr.
Lincoln would assure the gentleman that if there
was a proper way of doing it, no man was more
anxious than he that it should be done. The re-
port made by the committee had been intended to
yield much for the sake of removing that griev-
ance. That the grievance was very great, there
was no dispute in any quarter. He supposed
that the statements made by the gentleman from
Virginia to show this were all entirely correct in
point of fact. He did suppose that the interrup-
tions of regular intercourse, and all the other in-
conveniences growing out of it, were all as that
gentleman had stated them to be ; and certainly,
if redress could be rendered, it was proper it
should be rendered as soon as possible. The
gentleman said that in order to effect this, no
new legislative action was needed ; all that was
necessary was that the Postmaster-General
should be required to do what the law, as it stood,
authorized and required him to do.
We come then, said Mr. Lincoln, to the law.
Now the Postmaster-General says he cannot give
to this company more than two hundred and
thirty-seven dollars and fifty cents per railroad
mile of transportation, and twelve and a half per
cent, less for transportation by steamboats. He
considers himself as restricted by law to this
amount ; and he says, further, that he would not
give more if he could, because in his apprehen-
sion it would not be fair and just.
1848] MEXICAN WAR 119
Arraignment of President Polk for War
Against Mexico.
Speech in the United States House of Rep-
resentatives. January 12, 1848.
Mr. Chairman: Some if not all the gentlemen
on the other side of the House who have ad-
dressed the committee within the last two days
have spoken rather complainingly, if I have rightly
understood them, of the vote given a week or ten
days ago declaring that the war with Mexico was
unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced
by the President. I admit that such a vote should
not be given in mere party wantonness, and that
the one given is justly censurable, if it have no
other or better foundation. I am one of those
who joined in that vote ; and I did so under my
best impression of the truth of the case. How I
got this impression, and how it may possibly be
remedied, I will now try to show. When the war
began, it was my opinion that all those who be-
cause of knowing too little, or because of know-
ing too much, could not conscientiously oppose
the conduct of the President in the beginning of
it should nevertheless, as good citizens and
patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till
the war should be ended. Some leading Demo-
crats, including ex-President Van Buren, have
taken this same view, as I understand them ; and
I adhered to it and acted upon it, until since I
took my seat here ; and I think I should still ad-
here to it were it not that the President and his
friends will not allow it to be so. Besides the
continual effort of the President to argue every
silent vote given for supplies into an indorse-
ment of the justice and wisdom of his conduct;
120 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 12
besides that singularly candid paragraph in his
late message in which he tells us that Congress
with great unanimity had declared that "by the
act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war ex-
ists between that Government and the United
States," when the same journals that informed
him of this also informed him that when that
declaration stood disconnected from the question
of supplies sixty-seven in the House, and not
fourteen merely, voted against it ; besides this
open attempt to prove by telling the truth what
he could not prove by telling the whole truth —
demanding of all who will not submit to be mis-
represented, in justice to themselves, to speak
out, — besides all this, one of my colleagues [Mr.
Richardson] at a very early day in the session
brought in a set of resolutions expressly indors-
ing the original justice of the war on the part of
the President. Upon these resolutions when they
shall be put on their passage I shall be compelled
to vote ; so that I cannot be silent if I would.
Seeing this, I went about preparing myself to
give the vote understanding^ when it should
come. I carefully examined the President's mes-
sage, to ascertain what he himself had said and
proved upon the point. The result of this exam-
ination was to make the impression that, taking
for true all the President states as facts, he falls
far short of proving his justification; and that
the President would have gone farther with his
proof if it had not been for the small matter that
the truth would not permit him. Under the im-
pression thus made I gave the vote before men-
tioned. I propose now to give concisely the
process of the examination I made, and how I
reached the conclusion I did. The President, in
1848] MEXICAN WAR 121
his first war message of May, 1846, declares that
the soil was ours on which hostilities were com-
menced by Mexico, and he repeats that declara-
tion almost in the same language in each suc-
cessive annual message, thus showing that he
deems that point a highly essential one. In the
importance of that point I entirely agree with the
President. To my judgment it is the very point
upon which he should be justified, or condemned.
In his message of December, 1846, it seems to
have occurred to him, as is certainly true, that
title — ownership— to soil or anything elseis not
a simple fact, but is a conclusion following on
one or more simple facts ; and that it was incum-
bent upon him to present the facts from which
he concluded the soil was ours on which the first
blood of the war was shed.
Accordingly, a little below the middle of page
twelve in the message last referred to he enters
upon that task ; forming an issue and introducing
testimony, extending the whole to a little below
the middle of page fourteen. Now, I propose to
try to show that the whole of this — issue and evi-
dence — is from beginning to end the sheerest de-
ception. The issue, as he presents it, is in these
words : "But there are those who, conceding all
this to be true, assume the ground that the true
western boundary of Texas is the Nueces, instead
of the Rio Grande ; and that, therefore, in march-
ing our army to the east bank of the latter river,
we passed the Texas line and invaded the terri-
tory of Mexico." Now this issue is made up of
two affirmatives and no negative. The main de-
ception of it is that it assumes as true that one
river or the other is necessarily the boundary ;
and cheats the superficial thinker entirely out of
122 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. iz
the idea that possibly the boundary is somewhere
between the two, and not actually at either. A
further deception is that it will let in evidence
which a true issue would exclude. A true issue
made by the President would be about as fol-
lows : "I say the soil was ours, on which the first
blood was shed; there are those who say it was
not."
I now proceed to examine the President's evi-
dence as applicable to such an issue. When that
evidence is analyzed, it is all included in the fol-
lowing propositions :
(i) That the Rio Grande was the western
boundary of Louisiana as we purchased it of
France in 1803.
(2) That the Republic of Texas always
claimed the Rio Grande as her western boundary.
(3) That by various acts she had claimed it on
paper.
(4) That Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas
recognized the Rio Grande as her boundary.
(5) That Texas before, and the United States
after, annexation had exercised jurisdiction be-
yond the Nueces — between the two rivers.
(6) That our Congress understood the bound-
ary of Texas to extend beyond the Nueces.
Now for each of these in its turn. His first
item is that the Rio Grande was the western
boundary of Louisiana, as we purchased it of
France in 1803 ; and seeming to expect this to be
disputed, he argues over the amount of nearly a
page to prove it true ; at the end of which he lets
us know that by the treaty of 1819 we sold to
Spain the whole country from the Rio Grande
eastward to the Sabine. Now, admitting for the
present that the Rio Grande was the boundary of
1848] MEXICAN WAR 123
Louisiana, what, under heaven, had that to do
with the present boundary between us and Mex-
ico? How, Mr. Chairman, the line that once di-
vided your land from mine can still be the
boundary between us after I have sold my land to
you is to me beyond all comprehension. And how
any man, with an honest purpose only of proving
the truth, could ever have thought of introducing
such a fact to prove such an issue is equally in-
comprehensible. His next piece of evidence is
that "the Republic of Texas always claimed this
river (Rio Grande) as her western boundary."
That is not true, in fact. Texas has claimed it,
but she has not always claimed it. There is at
least one distinguished exception. Her State
constitution — the republic's most solemn and
well-considered act ; that which may, without im-
propriety, be called her last will and testament,
revoking all others — makes no such claim. But
suppose she had always claimed it. .Has not
Mexico always claimed the contrary? So that
there is but claim against claim, leaving nothing
proved until we get back of the claims and find
which has the better foundation. Though not in
the order in which the President presents his
evidence, I now consider that class of his state-
ments which are in substance nothing more than
that Texas has, by various acts of her Conven-
tion and Congress, claimed the Rio Grande as
her boundary, on paper. I mean here what he
says about the fixing of the Rio Grande as her
boundary in her old constitution (not her State
constitution), about forming congressional dis-
tricts, counties, etc. Now all of this is but naked
claim ; and what I have already said about claims
is strictly applicable to this. If I should claim
124 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan.
12
your land by word of mouth, that certainly would
not make it mine; and if I were to claim it by a
deed which I had made myself, and with which
you had had nothing to do, the claim would be
quite the same in substance — or rather, in utter
nothingness. I next consider the President's
statement that Santa Anna in his treaty with
Texas recognized the Rio Grande as the western
boundary of Texas. Besides the position so
often taken, that Santa Anna while a prisoner of
war, a captive, could not bind Mexico by a treaty,
which I deem conclusive — besides this, I wish to
say something in relation to this treaty, so called
by the President, with Santa Anna. If any man
would like to be amused by a sight of that little
thing which the President calls by that big name,
he can have it by turning to "Niles's Register,"
Vol. L, p. 336. And if any one should suppose
that "Niles's Register" is a curious repository of
so mighty a document as a solemn treaty between
nations, I can only say that I learned to a toler-
able degree of certainty, by inquiry at the State
Department, that the President himself never
saw it anywhere else. By the way, I believe I
should not err if I were to declare that during the
first ten years of the existence of that document
it was never by anybody called a treaty — that it
was never so called till the President, in his ex-
tremity, attempted by so calling it to wring
something from it in justification of himself in
connection with the Mexican war. It has none of
the distinguishing features of a treaty. It does
not call itself a treaty. Santa Anna does not
therein assume to bind Mexico ; he assumes only
to act as the President-Commander-in-Chief of
the Mexican army and navy; stipulates that the
i8 4 8] MEXICAN WAR 125
then present hostilities should cease, and that he
would not himself take up arms, nor influence
the Mexican people to take up arms, against
Texas during- the existence of the war of inde-
pendence. He did not recognize the independ-
ence of Texas ; he did not assume to put an end
to the war, but clearly indicated his expectation
of its continuance ; he did not say one word about
boundary, and, most probably, never thought of it.
It is stipulated therein that the Mexican forces
should evacuate the territory of Texas, passing
to the other side of the Rio Grande; and in an-
other article it is stipulated that, to prevent col-
lisions between the armies, the Texas army
should not approach nearer than within five
leagues — of what is not said, but clearly, from
the object stated, it is of the Rio Grande. Now,
if this is a treaty recognizing the Rio Grande as
the boundary of Texas, it contains the singular
features of stipulating that Texas shall not go
within five leagues of her own boundary.
Next comes the evidence of Texas before an-
nexation, and the United States afterward, exer-
cising jurisdiction beyond the Nueces and be-
tween the two rivers. This actual exercise of
jurisdiction is the very class or quality of evi-
dence we want. It is excellent so far as it goes ;
but does it go far enough? He tells us it went
beyond the Nueces, but he does not tell us it went
to the Rio Grande. He tells us jurisdiction was
exercised between the two rivers, but he does not
tell us it was exercised over all the territory be-
tween them. Some simple-minded people think
it is possible to cross one river and go beyond it
without going all the way to the next, that juris-
diction may be exercised between two rivers with-
126 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 12
out covering all the country between them. I
know a man, not very unlike myself, who exer-
cises jurisdiction over a piece of land between
the Wabash and the Mississippi ; and yet so far
is this from being all there is between those rivers
that it is just one hundred and fifty-two feet long
by fifty feet wide, and no part of it much within
a hundred miles of either. He has a neighbor be-
tween him and the Mississippi — that is, just
across the street, in that direction — whom I am
sure he could neither persuade nor force to give
up his habitation; but which nevertheless he
could certainly annex, if it were to be done by
merely standing on his own side of the street and
claiming it, or even sitting down and writing a
deed for it.
But next the President tells us the Congress
of the United States understood the State of
Texas they admitted into the Union to extend
beyond the Nueces. Well, I suppose they did. I
certainly so understood it. But how far beyond?
That Congress did not understand it to extend
clear to the Rio Grande is quite certain, by the
fact of their joint resolutions for admission ex-
pressly leaving all questions of boundary to fu-
ture adjustment. And it may be added that
Texas herself is proved to have had the same un-
derstanding of it that our Congress had, by the
fact of the exact conformity of her new constitu-
tion to those resolutions.
I am now through the whole of the President's
evidence ; and it is a singular fact that if any orte
should declare the President sent the army into
the midst of a settlement of Mexican people who
had never submitted, by consent or by force, to
the authority of Texas or of the United States,
1848] MEXICAN WAR 127
and that there and thereby the first blood of the
war was shed, there is not one word in all the
President has said which would either admit or
deny the declaration. This strange omission it
does seem to me could not have occurred but by
design. My way of living leads me to be about
the courts of justice; and there I have some-
times seen a good lawyer, struggling for his
client's neck in a desperate case, employing every
artifice to work round, befog, and cover up with
many words some point arising in the case which
he dared not admit and yet could not deny. Party
bias may help to make it appear so, but with all
the allowance I can make for such bias, it still
does appear to me that just such, and from just
such necessity, is the President's struggle in this
case.
Some time after my colleague [Mr. Richard-
son] introduced the resolutions I have mentioned,
I introduced a preamble, resolution, and interro-
-gations, intended to draw the President out, if
possible, on this hitherto untrodden ground. To
show their relevancy, I propose to state my un-
derstanding of the true rule for ascertaining the
boundary between Texas and Mexico. It is that
wherever Texas was exercising jurisdiction was
hers; and wherever Mexico was exercising juris-
diction was hers ; and that whatever separated
the actual exercise of jurisdiction of the one
from that of the other was the true boundary be-
tween them. If, as is probably true, Texas was
exercising jurisdiction along the western bank
of the Nueces, and Mexico was exercising it
along the eastern bank of the Rio Grande, then
neither river was the boundary; but the unin-
habited country between the two was. The ex-
128 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 12
tent of our territory in that region depended not
on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had
attempted it), but on revolution. Any people
anywhere being inclined and having the power
have the right to rise up and shake off the exist-
ing government, and form a new one that suits
them better. This is a most valuable, a most sa-
cred right — a right which we hope and believe is
to liberate the world. Nor is this right confined
to cases in which the whole people of an existing
government may choose to exercise it. Any por-
tion of such people that can may revolutionize
and make their own of so much of the territory as
they inhabit. More than this, a majority of any
portion of such people may revolutionize, putting
down a minority, intermingled with or near about
them, who may oppose this movement. Such
minority was precisely the case of the Tories of
our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions
not to go by old lines or old laws ; but to break up
both, and make new ones.
As to the country now in question, we bought
it of France in 1803, and sold it to Spain in 1819,
according to the President's statements. After
this, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized
against Spain ; and still later Texas revolution-
ized against Mexico. In my view, just so far as she
carried her revolution by obtaining the actual,
willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so
far the country was hers, and no farther. Now,
sir, for the purpose of obtaining the very best evi-
dence as to whether Texas had actually carried
her revolution to the place where the hostilities
of the present war commenced, let the President
answer the interrogatories I proposed, as before
mentioned, or some other similar ones. Let him
1848] MEXICAN WAR 129
answer fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him an-
swer with facts and not with arguments. Let him
remember he sits where Washington sat, and so
remembering, let him answer as Washington
would answer. As a nation should not, and the
Almighty will not, be evaded, so let him attempt
no evasion — no equivocation. And, if, so an-
swering, he can show that the soil was ours
where the first blood of the war was shed, — that
it was not within an inhabited country, or, if
within such, that the inhabitants had submitted
themselves to the civil authority of Texas or of
the United States, and that the same is true of
the site of Fort Brown, — then I am with him for
his justification. In that case I shall be most
happy to reverse the vote I gave the other day.
I have a selfish motive for desiring that the
President may do this — I expect to gain some
votes, in connection with the war, which, with-
out his so doing, will be of doubtful propriety in
my own judgment, but which will be free from
the doubt if he does so. But if he can not or will
not do this, — if on any pretense or no pretense
he shall refuse or omit it — then I shall be fully
convinced of what I more than suspect already —
that he is deeply conscious of being in the wrong ;
that he feels the blood of this war, like the blood
of Abel, is crying to Heaven against him ; that
originally having some strong motive — what, I
will not stop now to give my opinion concerning
— to involve the two countries in a war, and
trusting to escape scrutiny by fixing the public
gaze upon the exceeding brightness of military
glory, — that attractive rainbow that rises in
showers of blood — that serpent's eye that charms
to destroy, — he plunged into it, and has swept on
130 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 12
and on till, disappointed in his calculation of the
ease with which Mexico might be subdued, he
now finds himself he knows not where. How
like the half-insane mumbling of a fever dream is
the whole war part of his late message ! At one
time telling us that Mexico has nothing what-
ever that we can get but territory; at another
showing us how we can support the war by levy-
ing contributions on Mexico. At one time urging
the national honor, the security of the future, the
prevention of foreign interference, and even the
good of Mexico herself as among the objects of
the war; at another telling us that "to reject in-
demnity, by refusing to accept a cession of terri-
tory, would be to abandon all our just demands,
and to wage the war bearing all its expenses,
without a purpose or definite object." So then
this national honor, security of the future, and
everything but territorial indemnity may be con-
sidered the no-purposes and indefinite objects of
the war ! But, having it now settled that terri-
torial indemnity is the only object, we are urged
to seize, by legislation here, all that he was con-
tent to take a few months ago, and the whole
province of Lower California to boot, and to still
carry on the war — to take all we are fighting for,
and still fight on. Again, the President is re-
solved under all circumstances to have full terri-
torial indemnity for the expenses of the war ; but
he forgets to tell us how we are to get the excess
after those expenses shall have surpassed the
value of the whole of the Mexican territory. §0
again, he insists that the separate national exist-
ence of Mexico shall be maintained ; but he does
not tell us how this can be done, after we shall
have taken all her territory. Lest the questions I
i8 4 8] MEXICAN WAR 131
have suggested be considered speculative merely,
let me be indulged a moment in trying to show
they are not. The war has gone on some twenty
months ; for the expenses of which, together with
an inconsiderable old score, the President now
claims about one half of the Mexican territory,
and that by far the better half, so far as concerns
our ability to make anything out of it. It is com-
paratively uninhabited ; so that we could establish
land offices in it, and raise some money in that
way. But the other half is already inhabited, as
I understand it, tolerably densely for the nature
of the country, and all its lands, or all that are
valuable, already appropriated as private prop-
erty. How then are we to make anything out of
these lands with this encumbrance on them? or
how remove the ercumbrance? I suppose no one
would say we should kill the people, or drive
them out, or make slaves of them ; or confiscate
their property. How, then, can we make much
out of this part of the territory? If the prose-
cution of the war has in expenses already equaled
the better half of the country, how long its future
prosecution will be in equaling the less valuable
half is not a speculative, but a practical, question,
pressing closely upon us. And yet it is a question
which the President seems never to have thought
of. As to the mode of terminating the war and
securing peace, the President is equally wander-
ing and indefinite. First, it is to be done by a
more vigorous prosecution of the war in the vital
parts of the enemy's country; and after appar-
ently talking himself tired on this point, the
President drops down into a half-despairing tone,
and tells us that "with a people distracted and
divided by contending factions, and a govern-
i 3 2 EARLY SPEECHES [Mar. 29
ment subject to constant changes by successive
revolutions, the continued success of our arms
may fail to secure a satisfactory peace." Then
he suggests the propriety of wheedling the
Mexican people to desert the counsels of their
own leaders, and, trusting in our protestations,
to set up a government from which we can secure
a satisfactory peace ; telling us that "this may be-
come the only mode of obtaining such a peace."
But soon he falls into doubt of this too ; and then
drops back onto the already half-abandoned
ground of "more vigorous prosecution." All this
shows that the President is in nowise satisfied
with his own positions. First he takes up one,
and in attempting to argue us into it he argues
himself out of it, then seizes another and goes
through the same process, and then, confused at
being able to think of nothing new, he snatches
up the old one again, which he has some time
before cast off. His mind, taxed beyond its
power, is running hither and thither, like some
tortured creature on a burning surface, finding
no position on which it can settle down to be at
ease.
Again, it is a singular omission in this message
that it nowhere intimates when the President ex-
pects the war to terminate. At its beginning,
General Scott was by this same President driven
into disfavor, if not disgrace, for intimating that
peace could not be conquered in less than three or
four months. But now, at the end of about
twenty months, during which time our arms have
given us the most splendid successes, every de-
partment and every part, land and water, officers
and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all
that men could do, and hundreds of things which
i8 4 8] BOUNTY LANDS 133
it had ever before been thought men could not
do — after all this, this same President gives a long
message, without showing us that as to the end
he himself has even an imaginary conception. As
I have before said, he knows not where he is. He
is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably per-
plexed man. God grant he may be able to show
there is not something about his conscience more
painful than all his mental perplexity.
Remarks on Bounty Lands for Soldiers.
Made in the United States House of Repre-
sentatives. March 29, 1848.
Upon report of a bill from the Committee on
Judiciary for raising additional military force for
a limited time, etc. (similar bills having been
previously reported from other committees), Mr.
Lincoln made a few remarks. The bill amended
existing legislation so as to grant bounty lands
to such persons as had served for a time as pri-
vates, but had never been discharged as such, be-
cause promoted to office. This amendment he
endorsed, and to it he desired to add two further
amendments. The first of these was, that bounty
lands should be given to the surviving volunteers
of the War of 1812. His friend from Maryland
said there were no such men. He [Mr. L.] did
not say there were many, but he was very confi-
dent there were some. His friend from Ken-
tucky near him [Mr. Gaines] told him he him-
self was one. The second additional amendment
was, that persons entitled to bounty land should
by law be entitled to locate these lands in parcels,
I34 EARLY SPEECHES [May n
and not be required to locate them in one body,
as was provided by the existing law
Now he had carefully drawn up a bill embrac-
ing these three separate propositions, which he
intended to propose as a substitute for all these
bills in the House, or in Committee of the Whole
on the State of the Union, at some suitable time.
If there was a disposition on the part of the
House to act at once on the first amendment sep-
arately, concurring with the gentleman from Ar-
kansas [Mr. Johnson] he should prefer such ac-
tion lest all the amendments should be lost. But
if there was to be a reference he desired to intro-
duce his bill embracing the three propositions,
thus enabling the Committee and the House to
act at the same time, whether favorably or un-
favorably, upon all. He inquired whether an
amendment was now in order.
The Speaker replied in the negative.
Remarks on Land Grants to States to Aid
Internal Improvements.
In the United States House of Representa-
tives. May ii, 1848.
A bill for the admission of Wisconsin into the
Union had been passed.
Mr. Lincoln moved to reconsider the vote by
which the bill was passed. He stated to the
House that he had made this motion for the pur-
pose of obtaining an opportunity to say a few
words in relation to a point raised in the course
of the debate on this bill, which he would now
proceed to make if in order. The point in the
1848] LAND GRANTS TO STATES 135
case to which he referred arose on the amend-
ment that was submitted by the gentleman from
Vermont [Mr. Collamer] in Committee of the
Whole on the State of the Union, and which was
afterward renewed in the House, in relation to the
question whether the reserved sections, which,
by some bills heretofore passed, by which an
appropriation of land had been made to Wiscon-
sin, had been enhanced in value, should be re-
duced to the minimum price of the public lands.
The question of the reduction in value of those
sections was to him at this time a matter very
nearly of indifference. He was inclined to desire
that Wisconsin should be obliged by having it re-
duced. But the gentleman from Indiana [Mr.
C. B. Smith], the chairman of the Committee on
Territories, yesterday associated that question
with the general question, which is now to some
extent agitated in Congress, of making appro-
priations of alternate sections of land to aid the
States in making internal improvements, and en-
hancing the price of the sections reserved ; and
the gentleman from Indiana took ground against
that policy. He did not make any special argu-
ment in favor of Wisconsin, but he took ground
generally against the policy of giving alternate
sections of land, and enhancing the price of the
reserved sections. Now he [Mr. Lincoln] did
not at this time take the floor for the purpose of
attempting to make an argument on the general
subject. He rose simply to protest against the
doctrine which the gentleman from Indiana had
avowed in the course of what he [Mr. Lincoln]
could not but consider an unsound argument.
It might, however, be true, for anything he
knew, that the gentleman from Indiana might
136 EARLY SPEECHES [May n
convince him that his argument was sound; but
he [Mr. Lincoln] feared that gentleman would
not be able to convince a majority in Congress
that it was sound. It was true the question ap-
peared in a different aspect to persons in conse-
quence of a difference in the point from which
they looked at it. It did not look to persons re-
siding east of the mountains as it did to those
who lived among the public lands. But, for his
part, he would state that if Congress would make
a donation of alternate sections of public land for
the purpose of internal improvements in his
State, and forbid the reserved sections being sold
at $1.25, he should be glad to see the appropria-
tion made ; though he should prefer it if the re-
served sections were not enhanced in price. He
repeated, he should be glad to have such appro-
priations made, even though the reserved sec-
tions should be enhanced in price. He did not
wish to be understood as concurring in any inti-
mation that they would refuse to receive such an
appropriation of alternate sections of land be-
cause a condition enhancing the price of the re-
served sections should be attached thereto. He
believed his position would now be understood ;
if not, he feared he should not be able to make
himself understood.
But, before he took his seat he would remark
that the Senate during the present session had
passed a bill making appropriations of land on
that principle for the benefit of the State in which
he resided — the State of Illinois. The alternate
sections were to be given for the purpose of con-
structing roads, and the reserved sections were
to be enhanced in value in consequence. When
that bill came here for the action of this House —
i848] LAND GRANTS TO STATES 137
it had been received, and was now before the
Committee on Public Lands — he desired much to
see it passed as it was, if it could be put in no more
favorable form for the State of Illinois. When
it should be before this House, if any member
from a section of the Union in which these lands
did not lie, whose interest might be less than that
which he felt, should propose a reduction of the
price of the reserved sections to $1,35, he should
be much obliged ; but he did not think it would
be well for those who came from the section of
the Union in which the lands lay to do so. He
wished it, then, to be understood that he did not
join in the warfare against the principle which
had engaged the minds of some members of Con-
gress who were favorable to the improvements
in the western country.
There was a good deal of force, he admitted, in
what fell from the chairman of the Committee on
Territories. It might be that there was no pre-
cise justice in raising the price of the reserved
sections to $2.50 per acre. It might be proper
that the price should be enhanced to some extent,
though not to double the usual price ; but he
should be glad to have such an appropriation
with the reserved sections at $2.50; he should be
better pleased to have the price of those sections
at something less ; and he should be still better
pleased to have them without any enhancement
at all.
There was one portion of the argument of the
gentleman from Indiana, the chairman of the
Committee on Territories [Mr. Smith], which he
wished to take occasion to say that he did not
view as unsound. He alluded to the statement
that the General Government was interested in
I3 8 EARLY SPEECHES [June 20
these internal improvements being made, inas-
much as they increased the value of the lands that
were unsold, and they enabled the government to
sell the lands which could not be sold without
them. Thus, then, the government gained by in-
ternal improvements as well as by the general
good which the people derived from them, and
it might be, therefore, that the lands should not
be sold for more than $1.50 instead of the price
being doubled. He, however, merely mentioned
this in passing, for he only rose to state, as the
principle of giving these lands for the purposes
which he had mentioned had been laid hold of
and considered favorably, and as there were some
gentlemen who had constitutional scruples about
giving money for these purchases who would not
hesitate to give land, that he was not willing to
have, it understood that he was one of those who
made war against that principle. This was all he
desired to say, and having accomplished the ob-
ject with which he rose, he withdrew his motion
to reconsider.
In Favor of Internal Improvements.
Speech in the United States House of Rep-
resentatives. June 20, 1848.
In Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union,
on the Civil and Diplomatic Appropriation Bill :
Mr. Chairman: I wish at all times in no way
to practise any fraud upon the House or the com-
mittee, and I also desire to do nothing which may
be very disagreeable to any of the members. I
therefore state in advance that my object in tak-
ing the floor is to make a speech on the general
1848] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 139
subject of internal improvements ; and if I am
out of order in doing so, I give the chair an op-
portunity of so deciding, and I will take my seat.
The Chair: I will not undertake to anticipate what
the gentleman may say on the subject of internal im-
provements. He will, therefore, proceed in his remarks,
and if any question of order shall be made, the chair
will then decide it.
Mr. Lincoln : At an early day of this session
the President sent us what may properly be
called an internal improvement veto message.
The late Democratic convention, which sat at
Baltimore, and which nominated General Cass
for the presidency, adopted a set of resolutions,
now called the Democratic platform, among
which is one in these words :
That the Constitution does not confer upon the Gen-
eral Government the power to commence and carry oa
a general system of internal improvements.
General Cass, in his letter accepting the nomi-
nation, holds this language :
I have carefully read the resolutions of the Demo-
cratic National Convention, laying down the platform
of our political faith, and I adhere to them as firmly
as I approve them cordially.
These things, taken together, show that the
question of internal improvements is now more
distinctly made — has become more intense — than
at any former period. The veto message and the
Baltimore resolution I understand to be, in sub-
stance, the same thing; the latter being the more
general statement, of which the former is the am-
plification — the bill of particulars. While I know
there are many Democrats, on this floor and else-
where, who disapprove that message, I under-
I 4 EARLY SPEECHES [June 20
stand that all who shall vote for General Cass
will thereafter be counted as having approved it,
— as having indorsed all its doctrines. I suppose
all, or nearly all, the Democrats will vote for him.
Many of them will do so not because they like his
position on this question, but because they prefer
him, being wrong on this, to another whom they
consider farther wrong on other questions. In
this way the internal improvement Democrats are
to be, by a sort of forced consent, carried over
and arrayed against themselves on this measure
of policy. General Cass, once elected, will not
trouble himself to make a constitutional argu-
ment, or perhaps any argument at all, when he
shall veto a river or harbor bill ; he will consider
it a sufficient answer to all Democratic murmurs
to point to Mr. Polk's message, and to the
"Democratic Platform." This being the case, the
question of improvements is verging to a final
crisis ; and the friends of this policy must now
battle, and battle manfully, or surrender all. In
this view, humble as I am, I wish to review, and
contest as well as I may, the general positions of
this veto message. When I say general positions,
I mean to exclude from consideration so much as
relates to the present embarrassed state of the
treasury in consequence of the Mexican War.
Those general positions are that internal im-
provements ought not to be made by the General
Government — First. Because they would over-
whelm the treasury. Second. Because, while
their burdens would be general, their benefits
would be local and partial, involving an obnox-
ious inequality ; and — Third. Because they would
be unconstitutional. Fourth. Because the States
may do enough by the levy and collection of ton-
1848] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 141
nage duties; or if not — Fifth. That the Consti-
tution may be amended. "Do nothing- at all, lest
you do something wrong," is the sum of these
positions — is the sum of this message. And this,
with the exception of what is said about consti-
tutionality, applying as forcibly to what is said
about making improvements by State authority
as by the national authority; so that we must
abandon the improvements of the country alto-
gether, by any and every authority, or we must
resist and repudiate the doctrines of this mes-
sage. Let us attempt the latter.
The first position is, that a system of internal
improvements would overwhelm the treasury.
That in such a system there is a tendency to un-
due expansion, is not to be denied. Such tend-
ency is founded in the nature of the subject. A
member of Congress will prefer voting for a bill
which contains an appropriation for his district,
to voting for one which does not ; and when a bill
shall be expanded till every district shall be pro-
vided for, that it will be too greatly expanded is
obvious. But is this any more true in Congress
than in a State legislature? If a member of Con-
gress must have an appropriation for his district,
so a member of a legislature must have one for
his county. And if one will overwhelm the na-
tional treasury, so the other will overwhelm the
State treasury. Go where we will, the difficulty
is the same. Allow it to drive us from the hall's
of Congress, and it will, just as easily, drive us
from the State legislatures. Let us, then, grap-
ple with it, and test its strength. Let us, judging
of the future by the past, ascertain whether there
may not be, in the discretion of Congress, a suffi-
cient power to limit and restrain this expansive
1 42 EARLY SPEECHES [June 20
tendency within reasonable and proper bounds.
The President himself values the evidence of the
past. He tells us that at a certain point of our
history more than two hundred millions of dol-
lars had been applied for to make improvements ;
and this he does to prove that the treasury would
be overwhelmed by such a system. Why did he
not tell us how much was granted? Would not
that have been better evidence ? Let us turn to it,
and see what it proves. In the message the Presi-
dent tells us that "during the four succeeding
years embraced by the administration of Presi-
dent Adams, the power not only to appropriate
money, but to apply it, under the direction and
authority of the General Government, as well to
the construction of roads as to the improvement
of harbors and rivers, was fully asserted and ex-
ercised."
This, then, was the period of greatest enor-
mity. These, if any, must have been the days of
the two hundred millions. And how much do
you suppose was really expended for improve-
ments during that four years? Two hundred
millions? One hundred? Fifty? Ten? Five?
No, sir; less than two millions. As shown by
authentic documents, the expenditures on im-
provements during 1825, 1826, 1827, and 1828
amounted to one million eight hundred and sev-
enty-nine thousand six hundred and twenty-seven
dollars one cent. These four years were the
period of Mr. Adams's administration, nearly
and substantially. This fact shows that when the
power to make improvements "was fully asserted
and exercised," the Congress did keep within rea-
sonable limits ; and what has been done, it seems
to me, can be done again.
1S4S] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 143
Now for the second portion of the message —
namely, that the burdens of improvements would
be general, while their benefits would be local
and partial, involving an obnoxious inequality.
That there is some degree of truth in this posi-
tion, I shall not deny. No commercial object of
government patronage can be so exclusively gen-
eral as to not be of some peculiar local advan-
tage. The navy, as I understand it, was estab-
lished, and is maintained at a great annual ex-
pense, partly to be ready for war when war shall
come, and partly also, and perhaps chiefly for the
protection of our commerce on the high seas.
This latter object is, for all I can see, in principle
the same as internal improvements. The driving
a pirate from the track of commerce on the broad
ocean, and the removing a snag from its more
narrow path in the Mississippi River, cannot, I
think, be distinguished in principle. Each is done
to save life and property, and for nothing else.
The navy, then, is the most general in its bene-
fits of all this class of objects ; and yet even the
navy is of some peculiar advantage to Charles-
ton, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and
Boston, beyond what it is to the interior towns of
Illinois. The next most general object I can
think of would be improvements on the Mississ-
ippi River and its tributaries. They touch thir-
teen of our States — Pennsylvania, Virginia, Ken-
tucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkan-
sas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin,
and Iowa. Now I suppose it will not be denied
that these thirteen States are a little more inter-
ested in improvements on that great river than
are the remaining seventeen. These instances of
the navy and the Mississippi River show clearly
144 EARLY SPEECHES [June 20
that there is something of local advantage in the
most general objects. But the converse is also
true. Nothing is so local as to not be of some
general benefit. Take, for instance, the Illinois
and Michigan Canal. Considered apart from its
effects, it is perfectly local. Every inch of it is
within the State of Illinois. That canal was first
opened for business last April. In a very few
days we were all gratified to learn, among other
things, that sugar had been carried from New
Orleans through this canal to Buffalo in New
York. This sugar took this route, doubtless, be-
cause it was cheaper than the old route. Suppos-
ing benefit of the reduction in the cost of carriage
to be shared between seller and buyer, the result
is that the New Orleans merchant sold his sugar
a little dearer, and the people of Buffalo sweet-
ened their coffee a little cheaper, than before, —
a benefit resulting from the canal, not to Illinois,
where the canal is, but to Louisiana and New
York, where it is not. In other transactions Illi-
nois will, of course, have her share, and perhaps
the larger share too, of the benefits of the canal ;
but this instance of the sugar clearly shows that
the benefits of an improvement are by no means
confined to the particular locality of the improve-
ment itself.
The just conclusion from all this is that if the
nation refuse to make improvements of the more
general kind because their benefits may be some-
what local, a State may for the same reason re-
fuse to make an improvement of a local kind be-
cause its benefits may be somewhat general. A
State may well say to the nation, "If you will do
nothing for me, I will do nothing for you." Thus
it is seen that if this argument of "inequality" is
1848] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 145
sufficient anywhere, it is sufficient everywhere,
and puts an end to improvements altogether. I
hope and believe that if both the nation and the
States would, in good faith, in their respective
spheres do what they could in the way of im-
provements, what of inequality might be pro-
duced in one place might be compensated in an-
other, and the sum of the whole might not be very
unequal.
But suppose, after all, there should be some
degree of inequality. Inequality is certainly never
to be embraced for its own sake; but is every
good thing to be discarded which may be insepa-
rably connected with some degree of it? If so,
we must discard all government. This capitol is
built at the public expense, for the public benefit ;
but does any one doubt that it is of some peculiar
local advantage to the property-holders and busi-
ness people of Washington ? Shall we remove it
for this reason ? And if so, where shall we set it
down, and be free from the difficulty ? To make
sure of our object, shall we locate it nowhere,
and have Congress hereafter to hold its sessions,
as the loafer lodged, "in spots about"? I make
no allusion to the present President when I say
there are few stronger cases in this world of
"burden to the many and benefit to the few," of
"inequality," than the presidency itself is by some
thought to be. An honest laborer digs coal at
about seventy cents a day, while the President
digs abstractions at about seventy dollars a day.
The coal is clearly worth more than the abstrac-
tions, and yet what a monstrous inequality in the
prices ! Does the President, for this reason, pro-
pose to abolish the presidency? He does not, and
he ought not. The true rule in determining to
146 EARLY SPEECHES [June 20
embrace or reject anything, is not whether it have
any evil in it, but whether it have more of evil
than of good. There are few things wholly evil
or wholly good. Almost everything, especially
of government policy, is an inseparable com-
pound of the two; so that our best judgment of
the preponderance between them is continually
demanded. On this principle the President, his
friends, and the world generally act on most sub-
jects. Why not apply it, then, upon this ques-
tion? Why, as to improvements, magnify the
evil, and stoutly refuse to see any good in
them ?
Mr. Chairman, on the third position of the
message — the constitutional question — I have not
much to say. Being the man I am, and speaking
where I do, I feel that in any attempt at an orig-
inal constitutional argument, I should not be, and
ought not to be, listened to patiently. The ablest
and the best of men have gone over the whole
ground long ago. I shall attempt but little more
than a brief notice of what some of them have
said. In relation to Mr. Jefferson's views, I read
from Mr. Polk's veto message :
President Jefferson, in his message to Congress in
1806, recommended an amendment of the Constitution,
with a view to apply an anticipated surplus in the
Treasury "to the great purposes of the public educa-
tion, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of
public improvements as it may be thought proper to
add to the constitutional enumeration of the federal
powers" ; and he adds : "I suppose an amendment to
the Constitution, by consent of the States, necessary,
because the objects now recommended are not among
those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it
permits the public moneys to be applied." In 1825, he
repeated in his published letters the opinion that no
such power has been conferred upon Congress.
i3 4 8] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 147
I introduce this not to controvert just now the
constitutional opinion, but to show that, on the
question of expediency, Mr. Jefferson's opinion
was against the present President — that this
opinion of Mr. Jefferson, in one branch at least,
is in the hands of Mr. Polk like McFingal's gun
— "bears wide and kicks the owner over."
But to the constitutional question. In 1826
Chancellor Kent first published his "Commen-
taries" on American law. He devoted a portion
of one of the lectures to the question of the
authority of Congress to appropriate public
moneys for internal improvements. He men-
tions that the subject had never been brought un-
der judicial consideration, and proceeds to give
a brief summary of the discussion it had under-
gone between the legislative and executive
branches of the government. He shows that the
legislative branch had usually been for, and the
executive against, the power, till the period of
Mr. J. Q. Adams's administration, at which point
he considers the executive influence as with-
drawn from opposition, and added to the support
of the power. In 1844 the chancellor published
a new edition of his "Commentaries," in which
he adds some notes of what had transpired on
the question since 1826. I have not time to read
the original text on the notes ; but the whole may
be found on page 267, and the two or three fol-
lowing pages, of the first volume of the edition of
1844. As to what Chancellor Kent seems to con-
sider the sum of the whole, I read from one of
the notes :
Mr. Justice Story, in his commentaries on the Con-
stitution of the United States, Vol. II., pp. 429-440, and
again pp. 519-538, has stated at large the arguments for
i 4 8 EARLY SPEECHES [June 20
and against the proposition that Congress have a
constitutional authority to lay taxes, and to apply the
power to regulate commerce as a means directly to
encourage and protect domestic manufactures ; and
without giving any opinion of his own on the contested
doctrine, he has left the reader to draw his own con-
clusions. I should think, however, from the arguments
as stated, that every mind which has taken no part in
the discussion, and felt no prejudice or territorial bias
on either side of the question, would deem the argu-
ments in favor of the Congressional power vastly su-
perior.
It will be seen that in this extract the power to
make improvements is not directly mentioned ;
but by examining the context, both of Kent and
Story, it will be seen that the power mentioned
in the extract, and the power to make improve-
ments, are regarded as identical. It is not to be
denied that many great and good men have been
against the power ; but it is insisted that quite as
many, as great and as good, have been for it ;
and it is shown that, on a full survey of the
whole, Chancellor Kent was of opinion that the
arguments of the latter were vastly superior.
This is but the opinion of a man ; but who was
that man? He was one of the ablest and most
learned lawyers of his age, or of any age. It is
no disparagement to Mr. Polk, nor indeed to
any one who devotes much time to politics, to
be placed far beyond Chancellor Kent as a law-
yer. His attitude was most favorable to correct
conclusions. He wrote coolly, and in retirement.
He was struggling to rear a durable monument
of fame ; and he well knew that truth and thor-
oughly sound reasoning were the only sure
foundations. Can the party opinion of a party
President on a law question, as this purely is, be
1848] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 149
at all compared or set in opposition to that of
such a man, in such an attitude, as Chancellor
Kent? This constitutional question will probably
never be better settled than it is, until it shall pass
under judicial consideration; but I do think no
man who is clear on the questions of expediency
need feel his conscience much pricked upon this.
Mr. Chairman, the President seems to think
that enough may be done, in the way of improve-
ments, by means of tonnage duties under State
authority, with the consent of the General Gov-
ernment. Now I suppose this matter of tonnage
duties is well enough in its own sphere. I sup-
pose it may be efficient, and perhaps sufficient, to
make slight improvements and repairs in harbors
already in use and not much out of repair. But
if I have any correct general idea of it, it must be
wholly inefficient for any general beneficent pur-
poses of improvement. I know very little, or
rather nothing at all, of the practical matter of
levying and collecting tonnage duties ; but I sup-
pose one of its principles must be to lay a duty
for the improvement of any particular harbor
upon the tonnage coming into that harbor; to do
otherwise — to collect money in one harbor, to be
expended on improvements in another — would
be an extremely aggravated form of that inequal-
ity which the President so much deprecates. If
I be right in this, how could we make any en-
tirely new improvement by means of tonnage
duties? How make a road, a canal, or clear a
greatly obstructed river ? The idea that we could
involves the same absurdity as the Irish bull
about the new boots. "I shall niver git 'em on,"
says Patrick, "till I wear 'em a day or two, and
stretch 'em a little." We shall never make a
150 EARLY SPEECHES [June 20
canal by tonnage duties until it shall already have
been made awhile, so the tonnage can get into it.
After all the President concludes that possibly
there may be some great objects of improvement
which cannot be effected by tonnage duties, and
which it therefore may be expedient for the Gen-
eral Government to take in hand. Accordingly he
suggests, in case any such be discovered, the pro-
priety of amending the Constitution. Amend it
for what? If, like Mr. Jefferson, the President
thought improvements expedient, but not consti-
tutional, it would be natural enough for him to
recommend such an amendment. But hear what
he says in this very message :
In view of these portentous consequences, I cannot but
think that this course of legislation should be arrested,
even were there nothing to forbid it in the fundamental
laws of our Union.
For what, then, would he have the Constitu-
tion amended? With him it is a proposition to
remove one impediment merely to be met by oth-
ers, which, in his opinion, cannot be removed, —
to enable Congress to do what, in his opinion,
they ought not to do if they could.
[Here Mr. Meade of Virginia inquired if Mr. Lincoln
understood the President to be opposed, on grounds of
expediency, to any and every improvement.]
Mr. Lincoln answered : In the very part of his
message of which I am speaking, I understand
him as giving some vague expression in favor of
some possible objects of improvement ; but in do-
ing so I understand him to be directly on the
teeth of his own arguments in other parts of it.
Neither the President nor any one can possibly
specify an improvement which shall not be
1848] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 151
clearly liable to one or another of the objections
he has urged on the score of expediency. I have
shown, and might show again, that no work — no
object — can be so general as to dispense its bene-
fits with precise equality; and this inequality is
chief among the "portentous consequences" for
which he declares that improvements should be
arrested. No, sir. When the President inti-
mates that something in the way of improve-
ments may properly be done by the General Gov-
ernment, he is shrinking from the conclusions to
which his own arguments would force him. He
feels that the improvements of this broad and
goodly land are a mighty interest ; and he is un-
willing to confess to the people, or perhaps to
himself, that he has built an argument which,
when pressed to its conclusions, entirely annihi-
lates his interest.
I have already said that no one who is satisfied
of the expediency of making improvements needs
be much uneasy in his conscience about its con-
stitutionality. I wish now to submit a few re-
marks on the general proposition of amending
the Constitution. As a general rule, I think we
would much better let it alone. No slight occa-
sion should tempt us to touch it. Better not take
the first step, which may lead to a habit of alter-
ing it. Better, rather, habituate ourselves to
think of it as unalterable. It can scarcely be
made better than it is. New provisions would in-
troduce new difficulties, and thus create and in-
crease appetite for further change. No, sir; let
it stand as it is. New hands have never touched
it. The men who made it have done their work,
and have passed away. Who shall improve on
what they did ?
i 5 2 EARLY SPEECHES [June 20
Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of reviewing
this message in the least possible time, as well as
for the sake of distinctness, I have analyzed its
arguments as well as I could, and reduced them
to the propositions I have stated. I have now ex-
amined them in detail. I wish to detain the com-
mittee only a little while longer with some gen-
eral remarks upon the subject of improvements.
That the subject is a difficult one, cannot be de-
nied. Still it is no more difficult in Congress
than in the State legislatures, in the counties, or
in the smallest municipal districts which any-
where exist. All can recur to instances of this
difficulty in the case of county roads, bridges, and
the like. One man is offended because a road
passes over his land, and another is offended be-
cause it does not pass over his ; one is dissatisfied
because the bridge for which he is taxed crosses
the river on a different road from that which
leads from his house to town; another cannot
bear that the county should be got in debt for
these same roads and bridges ; while not a few
struggle hard to have roads located over their
lands, and then stoutly refuse to let them be
opened until they are first paid the damages.
Even between the different wards and streets of
towns and cities we find this same wrangling and
difficulty. Now these are no other than the very
difficulties against which, and out of which, the
President constructs his objections of "inequal-
ity," "speculation," and "crushing the treasury."
There is but a single alternative about them ; they
are sufficient, or they are not. If sufficient, they
are sufficient out of Congress as well as in it, and
there is the end. We must reject them as insuffi-
cient, or lie down and do nothing by any author-
1848] INTERNAL IMPROVEMENTS 153
ity. Then, difficulty though there be, let us
meet and encounter it. "Attempt the end, and
never stand to doubt ; nothing so hard, but search
will find it out." Determine that the thing can
and shall be done, and then we shall find the way.
The tendency to undue expansion is unquestion-
ably the chief difficulty.
How to do something, and still not do too
much, is the desideratum. Let each contribute
his mite in the way of suggestion. The late Silas
Wright, in a letter to the Chicago convention,
contributed his, which was worth something;
and I now contribute mine, which may be worth
nothing. At all events, it will mislead nobody,
and therefore will do no harm. I would not bor-
row money. I am against an overwhelming,
crushing system. Suppose that, at each session,
Congress shall first determine how much money
can, for that year, be spared for improvements ;
then apportion that sum to the most important
objects. So far all is easy ; but how shall we de-
termine which are the most important? On this
question comes the collision of interests. I shall
be slow to acknowledge that your harbor or your
river is more important than mine, and vice
versa. To clear this difficulty, let us have that
same statistical information which the gentleman
from Ohio [Mr. Vinton] suggested at the begin-
ning of this session. In that information we shall
have a stern, unbending basis of facts — a basis
in no wise subject to whim, caprice, or local in-
terest. The pre-limited amount of means will
save us from doing too much, and the statistics
will save us from doing what we do in wrong
places. Adopt and adhere to this course, and, it
seems to me, the difficulty is cleared.
154 EARLY SPEECHES [June 28
One of the gentlemen from South Carolina
[Mr. Rhett] very much deprecates these statis-
tics. He particularly objects, as I understand
him, to counting all the pigs and chickens in the
land. I do not perceive much force in the objec-
tion. It is true that if everything be enumerated,
a portion of such statistics may not be very use-
ful to this object. Such products of the country
as are to be consumed where they are produced
need no roads or rivers, no means of transporta-
tion, and have no very proper connection with
this subject. The surplus — that which is pro-
duced in one place to be consumed in another;
the capacity of each locality for producing a
greater surplus ; the natural means of transporta-
tion, and their susceptibility of improvement ;
the hindrances, delays, and losses of life and
property during transportation, and the causes of
each, would be among the most valuable statis-
tics in this connection. From these it would
readily appear where a given amount of expendi-
ture would do the most good. These statistics
might be equally accessible, as they would be
equally useful, to both the nation and the States.
In this way, and by these means, let the nation
take hold of the larger works, and the States the
smaller ones ; and thus, working in a meeting di-
rection, discreetly, but steadily and firmly, what
is made unequal in one place may be equalized in
another, extravagance avoided, and the whole
country put on that career of prosperity which
shall correspond with its extent of territory, ijts
natural resources, and the intelligence and enter-
prise of its people.
i8 4 8] FEDERAL DISCRIMINATION 155
Remarks on Discrimination Between States in
Federal Judiciary Facilities.
In the United States House of Representa-
tives. June 28, 1848.
Discussion as to salary of judge of western
Virginia. — Wishing to increase it from $1800 to
$2500.
Mr. Lincoln said he felt unwilling to be either
unjust or ungenerous, and he wanted to under-
stand the real case of this judicial officer. The
gentleman from Virginia had stated that he had
to hold eleven courts. Now everybody knew
that it was not the habit of the district judges of
the United States in other States to hold any-
thing like that number of courts ; and he there-
fore took it for granted that this must happen
under a peculiar law which required that large
number of courts to be holden every year; and
these laws, he further supposed, were passed at
the request of the people of that judicial district.
It came, then, to this : that the people in the west-
ern district of Virginia had got eleven courts to
be held among them in one year, for their own
. accommodation ; and being thus better accommo-
dated than their neighbors elsewhere, they
wanted their judge to be a little better paid. In
Illinois there had been, until the present season,
but one district court held in the year. There
were now to be two. Could it be that the western
district of Virginia furnished more business for
a judge than the whole State of Illinois?
156 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
"Were I President."
Policies Jotted Down as Appropriate for
General Taylor, Whig Candidate for
President, to Enunciate. About July
I, 1848.
The question of a national bank is at rest.
Were I President, I should not urge its reagita-
tion upon Congress ; but should Congress see fit
to pass an act to establish such an institution, I
should not arrest it by the veto, unless I should
consider it subject to some constitutional objec-
tion from which I believe the two former banks
to have been free.
It appears to me that the national debt created
by the war renders a modification of the existing
tariff indispensable; and when it shall be modi-
fied I should be pleased to see it adjusted with a
due reference to the protection of our home in-
dustry. The particulars, it appears to me, must
and should be left to the untrammeled discretion
of Congress.
As to the Mexican war, I still think the de-
fensive line policy the best to terminate it. In a
final treaty of peace, we shall probably be under
a sort of necessity of taking some territory ; but
it is my desire that we shall not acquire any ex-
tending so far south as to enlarge and aggravate
the distracting question of slavery. Should I
come into the presidency before these questions
shall be settled, I should act in relation to them in
accordance with the views here expressed.
Finally, were I President, I should desire the
legislation of the country to rest with Congress,
uninfluenced by the executive in its origin or
1848] MILITARY HEROES 157
progress, and undisturbed by the veto unless in
very special and clear cases.
On Military Heroes.
Speech in Defense of the Whigs and Their
Presidential Candidate, General Taylor,
and in Ridicule of the Democrats and
Their Presidential Candidate, General
Cass, Delivered in the United States
House of Representatives. July 27, 1848.
General Taylor and the Veto.
Mr. Speaker, our Democratic friends seem to
be in great distress because they think our candi-
date for the presidency don't suit us. Most of
them cannot find out that General Taylor has any
principles at all ; some, however, have discovered
that he has one, but that one is entirely wrong.
This one principle is his position on the veto
power. The gentleman from Tennessee [Mr.
Stanton] who has just taken his seat, indeed, has
said there is very little, if any, difference on this
question between General Taylor and all the
presidents ; and he seems to think it sufficient de-
traction from General Taylor's position on it that
it has nothing new in it. But all others whom I
have heard speak assail it furiously. A new
member from Kentucky [Mr. Clark], of very
considerable ability, was in particular concerned
about it. He thought it altogether novel and un-
precedented for a president or a presidential can-
didate to think of approving bills whose constitu-
tionality may not be entirely clear to his own
mind. He thinks the ark of our safety is gone
IS 8 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
unless presidents shall always veto such bills as
in their judgment may be of doubtful constitu-
tionality. However clear Congress may be on
their authority to pass any particular act, the
gentleman from Kentucky thinks the President
must veto it if he has doubts about it. Now I
have neither time nor inclination to argue with
the gentleman on the veto power as an original
question ; but I wish to show that General Tay-
lor, and not he, agrees with the earlier statesmen
on this question. When the bill chartering the
first Bank of the United States passed Congress,
its constitutionality was questioned. Mr. Madi-
son, then in the House of Representatives, as
well as others, had opposed it on that ground.
General Washington, as President, was called on
to approve or reject it. He sought and obtained
on the constitutionality question the separate
written opinions of Jefferson, Hamilton, and Ed-
mund Randolph, they then being respectively
Secretary of State, Secretary of the Treasury,
and Attorney-General. Hamilton's opinion was
for the power; while Randolph's and Jefferson's
were both against it. Mr. Jefferson, after giving
his opinion deciding only against the constitu-
tionality of the bill, closes his letter with the para-
graph which I now read :
It must be admitted, however, that unless the Presi-
dent's mind, on a view of everything which is urged
for and against this bill, is tolerably clear that it is un-
authorized by the Constitution,— if the pro and can.
hang so even as to balance his judgment, — a just re-
spect for the wisdom of the legislature would naturaMy
decide the balance in favor of their opinion. It is
chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error,
ambition, or interest, that the Constitution has placed
a check in the negative of the President.
February 15, 1791. Thomas Jefferson.
1848] MILITARY HEROES 159
General Taylor's opinion, as expressed in his
Allison letter, is as I now read :
The power given by the veto is a high conservative
power; but, in my opinion, should never be exercised
except in cases of clear violation of the Constitution, or
manifest haste and want of consideration by Congress.
It is here seen, that in Mr. Jefferson's opinion,
if on the constitutionality of any given bill the
President doubts, he is not to veto it, as the gen-
tleman from Kentucky would have him do, but is
to defer to Congress and approve it. And if we
compare the opinions of Jefferson and Taylor, as
expressed in these paragraphs, we shall find them
more exactly alike than we can often find any
two expressions having any literal difference.
None but interested faultfinders, I think, can dis-
cover any substantial variation.
Taylor on Measures of Policy.
But gentlemen on the other side are unani-
mously agreed that General Taylor has no other
principles. They are in utter darkness as to his
opinions on any of the questions of policy which
occupy the public attention. But is there any
doubt as to what he will do on the prominent
questions if elected? Not the least. It is not
possible to know what he will or would do in
every imaginable case, because many questions
have passed away, and others doubtless will arise
which none of us have yet thought of ; but on
the prominent questions of currency, tariff, in-
ternal improvements, and Wilmot proviso, Gen-
eral Taylor's course is at least as well defined as
is General Gass's. Why, in their eagerness to get
160 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
at General Taylor, several Democratic members
here have desired to know whether, in case of his
election, a bankrupt law is to be established. Can
they tell us General Cass's opinion on this ques-
tion? [Some member answered, "He is against
it."] Aye, how do you know he is? There is
nothing about it in the platform, nor elsewhere,
that I have seen. If the gentleman knows of any-
thing which I do not, he can show it. But to re-
turn. General Taylor, in his Allison letter, says :
Upon the subject of the tariff, the currency, the im-
provement of our great highways, rivers, lakes, and
harbors, the will of the people, as expressed through
their representatives in Congress, ought to be respected
and carried out by the executive.
Now this is the whole matter. In substance,
it is this. The people say to General Taylor, "If
you are elected, shall we have a national bank?"
He answers, "Your will, gentlemen, not mine."
"What about the tariff?" "Say yourselves."
"Shall our rivers and harbors be improved?"
"Just as you please. If you desire a bank, an al-
teration of the tariff, internal improvements, any
or all, I will not hinder you. If you do not desire
them, I will not attempt to force them on you.
Send up your members of Congress from the
various districts, with opinions according to your
own, and if they are for these measures, or any
of them, I shall have nothing to oppose ; if they
are not for them, I shall not, by any appliances
whatever, attempt to dragoon them into thejr
adoption." Now can there be any difficulty in
understanding this? To you Democrats it may
not seem like principle ; but surely you cannot
fail to perceive the position plainly enough. The
1848] MILITARY HEROES 16 1
distinction between it and the position of your
candidate is broad and obvious ; and I admit you
have a clear right to show it is wrong if you can ;
but you have no right to pretend you cannot see
it at all. We see it, and to us it appears like
principle, and the best sort of principle at that —
the principle of allowing the people to do as they
please with their own business. My friend from
Indiana [C. B. Smith] has aptly asked, "Are you
willing to trust the people?" Some of you an-
swered substantially, "We are willing to trust the
people; but the President is as much the repre-
sentative of the people as Congress." In a cer-
tain sense, and to a certain extent, he is the repre-
sentative of the people. He is elected by them,
as well as Congress is ; but can he in the nature of
things, know the wants of the people, as well as
three hundred other men, coming from all the
various localities of the nation? If so, where is
the propriety of having a Congress? That the
Constitution gives the President a negative on
legislation, all know ; but that this negative should
be so combined with platforms and other appli-
ances as to enable him, and in fact almost compel
him, to take the whole of legislation into his own
hands, is what we object to, is what General
Taylor objects to, and is what constitutes the
broad distinction between you and us. To thus
transfer legislation is clearly to take it from
those who understand with minuteness the inter-
ests of the people, and give it to one who does
not and cannot so well understand it. I under-
stand your idea that if a presidential candidate
avow his opinion upon a given question, or rather
upon all questions, and the people, with full
knowledge of this, elect him, they thereby dis-
1 62 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
tinctly approve all those opinions. By means of
it, measures are adopted or rejected contrary to
the wishes of the whole of one party, and often
nearly half of the other. Three, four, or half a
dozen questions are prominent at a given time ;
the party selects its candidate, and he takes his
position on each of these questions. On all but
one his positions have already been indorsed at
former elections, and his party fully committed
to them ; but that one is new and a large portion
of them are against it. But what are they to do ?
The whole was strung together; and they must
take all, or reject all. They cannot take what
they like, and leave the rest. What they are al-
ready committed to being the majority, they shut
their eyes, and gulp the whole. Next election,
still another is introduced in the same way. If
we run our eyes along the line of the past, we
shall see that almost if not quite all the articles
of the present Democratic creed have been at first
forced upon the party in this very way. And just
now, and just so, opposition to internal improve-
ments is to be established if General Cass shall be
elected. Almost half the Democrats here are for
improvements ; but they will vote for Cass, and
if he succeeds their vote will have aided in clos-
ing the doors against improvements. Now this
is a process which we think is wrong. We pre-
fer a candidate who, like General Taylor, will
allow the people to have their own way, regard-
less of his private opinions ; and I should think
the internal-improvement Democrats, at least,
ought to prefer such a candidate. He would
force nothing on them which they don't want,
and he would allow them to have improvements
which their own candidate, if elected, will not.
1848] MILITARY HEROES 163
Mr. Speaker, I have said General Taylor's po-
sition is as well denned as is that of General
Cass. In saying this, I admit I do not certainly
know what he would do on the Wilmot proviso.
I am a Northern man, or rather a Western free-
State man, with a constituency I believe to be,
and with personal feelings I know to be, against
the extension of slavery. As such, and with what
information I have, I hope and believe General
Taylor, if elected, would not veto the proviso.
But I do not know it. Yet if I knew he would,
I still would vote for him. I should do so be-
cause, in my judgment, his election alone can de-
feat General Cass ; and because, should slavery
thereby go to the territory we now have, just so
much will certainly happen by the election of
Cass, and, in addition a course of policy leading
to new wars, new acquisitions of territory and
still further extensions of slavery. One of the
two is to be President. Which is preferable?
But there is as much doubt of Cass on improve-
ments as there is of Taylor on the proviso. I
have no doubt myself of General Cass on this
question ; but I know the Democrats differ among
themselves as to his position. My internal-im-
provement colleague [Mr. Wentworth] stated on
this floor the other day that he was satisfied Cass
was for improvements, because he had voted for
all the bills that he [Mr. Wentworth] had. So far
so good. But Mr. Polk vetoed some of these very
bills. The Baltimore convention passed a set of
resolutions, among other things, approving these
vetoes, and General Cass declares, in his letter
accepting the nomination, that he has carefully
read these resolutions, and that he adheres to
them as firmly as he approves them cordially. In
1 64 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
other words, General Cass voted for the bills, and
thinks the President did right to veto them ; and
his friends here are amiable enough to consider
him as being on one side or the other, just as one
or the other may correspond with their own re-
spective inclinations. My colleague admits that
the platform declares against the constitutionality
of a general system of improvements ; and that
General Cass indorses the platform; but he still
thinks General Cass is in favor of some sort of
improvements. Well, what are they? As he is
against general objects, those he is for must be
particular and local. Now this is taking the sub-
ject precisely by the wrong end. Particularity —
expending the money of the whole people for an
object which will benefit only a portion of them —
is the greatest real objection to improvements,
and has been so held by General Jackson, Mr.
Polk, and all others, I believe, till now. But now,
behold, the objects most general — nearest free
from this objection — are to be rejected, while
those most liable to it are to be embraced. To re-
turn : I cannot help believing that General Cass,
when he wrote his letter of acceptance, well un-
derstood he was to be claimed by the advocates of
both sides of this question, and that he then
closed the door against all further expressions of
opinion purposely to retain the benefits of that
double position. His subsequent equivocation at
Cleveland, to my mind, proves such to have been
the case.
One word more, and I shall have done wifh
this branch of the subject. You Democrats, and
your candidate, in the main are in favor of laying
down in advance a platform — a set of party posi-
tions — as a unit, and then of forcing the people,
1848] MILITARY HEROES 165
by every sort of appliance, to ratify them, how-
ever unpalatable some of them may be. We and
our candidate are in favor of making presidential
elections, and the legislation of the country dis-
tinct matters ; so that the people can elect whom
they please, and afterward legislate just as they
please, without any hindrance, save only so much
as may guard against infractions of the Consti-
tution, undue haste, and want of consideration.
The difference between us is clear as noonday.
That we are right we cannot doubt. We hold the
true Republican position. In leaving the people's
business in their hands, we cannot be wrong.
We are willing, and even anxious, to go to the
people on this issue.
Old Horses and Military Coat-tails.
But I suppose I cannot reasonably hope to
convince you that we have any principles. The
most I can expect is to assure you that we think
we have, and are quite contented with them. The
other day one of the gentlemen from Georgia
[Mr. Iverson], an eloquent man, and a man of
learning, so far as I can judge, not being learned
myself, came down upon us astonishingly. He
spoke in what the Baltimore American calls
the "scathing and withering style." At the end
of his second severe flash I was struck blind, and
found myself feeling with my fingers for an as-
surance of my continued existence. A little of
the bone was left, and I gradually revived. He
eulogized Mr. Clay in high and beautiful terms,
and then declared that we had deserted all our
principles, and had turned Henry Clay out, like
an old horse, to root. This is terribly severe.
1 66 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
It cannot be answered by argument — at least I
cannot so answer it. I merely wish to ask the
gentleman if the Whigs are the only party he
can think of who sometimes turn old horses out
to root. Is not a certain Martin Van Buren an
old horse which your own party have turned out
to root ? and is he not rooting a little to your dis-
comfort about now? But in not nominating Mr.
Clay we deserted our principles, you say? Ah!
In what? Tell us, ye men of principle, what
principle we violated. We say you did violate
principle in discarding Van Buren, and we can
tell you how. You violated the primary, the
cardinal, the one great living principle of all
democratic representative government — the prin-
ciple that the representative is bound to carry
out the known will of his constituents. A large
majority of the Baltimore convention of 1844
were, by their constituents, instructed to procure
Van Buren's nomination if they could. In viola-
tion — in utter glaring contempt — of this, you re-
jected him — rejected him, as the gentleman from
New- York [Mr. Birdsall] the other day ex-
pressly admitted, for availability — that same
"general availability" which you charge upon us,
and daily chew over here, as something exceed-
ingly odious and unprincipled. But the gentle-
man from Georgia [Mr. Iverson] gave us a sec-
ond speech yesterday, all well considered and put
down in writing, in which Van Buren was
scathed and withered a "few" for his present
position and movements. I cannot remember the
gentleman's precise language ; but I do remember
he put Van Buren down, down, till he got him
where he was finally to "stink" and "rot."
Mr. Speaker, it is no business or inclination of
1848] MILITARY HEROES 167
mine to defend Martin Van Buren in the war of
extermination now waging between him and his
old admirers. I say, "Devil take the hindmost"
— and the foremost. But there is no mistaking
the origin of the breach ; and if the curse of
"stinking" and "rotting" is to fall on the first
and greatest violators of principle in the matter,
I disinterestedly suggest that the gentleman from
Georgia and his present co-workers are bound to
take it upon themselves. But the gentleman
from Georgia further says we have deserted all
our principles, and taken shelter under General
Taylor's military coat-tail, and he seems to think
this js exceedingly degrading. Well, as his faith
is, so be it unto him. But can he remember no
other military coat-tail under which a certain
other party have been sheltering for near a quar-
ter of a century? Has he no acquaintance with
the ample military coat-tail of General Jackson?
Does he not know that his own party have run
the five last presidential races under that coat-
tail? And that they are now running the sixth
under the same cover? Yes, sir, that coat-tail
was used not only for General Jackson himself,
but has been clung to, with the grip of death, by
every Democratic candidate since. You have
never ventured, and dare not now venture, from
under it. Your campaign papers have constantly
been "Old Hickories," with rude likenesses of the
old general upon them ; hickory poles and hickory
brooms your never-ending emblems ; Mr. Polk
himself was "Young Hickory," "Little Hick-
ory," or something so; and even now your cam-
paign paper here is proclaiming that Cass and
Butler are of the true "Hickory stripe." Now,
sir, you dare not give it up. Like a horde of
1 68 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
hungry ticks you have stuck to the tail of the
Hermitage lion to the end of his life ; and you are
still sticking to it, and drawing a loathsome sus-
tenance from it, after he is dead. A fellow once
advertised that he had made a discovery by which
he could make a new man out of an old one, and
have enough of the stuff left to make a little
yellow dog. Just such a discovery has General
Jackson's popularity been to you. You not only
twice made President of him out of it, but you
have had enough of the stuff left to make Presi-
dents of several comparatively small men since ;
and it is your chief reliance now to make still
another.
Mr. Speaker, old horses and military coat-tails,
or tails of any sort, are not figures of speech such
as I would be the first to introduce into discus-
sions here; but as the gentleman from Georgia
has thought fit to introduce them, he and you are
welcome to all you have made, or can make by
them. If you have any more old horses, trot
them out; any more tails, just cock them and
come at us. I repeat, I would not introduce this
mode of discussion here ; but I wish gentlemen
on the other side to understand that the use of
degrading figures is a game at which they may
not find themselves able to take all the winnings.
["We give it up!"] Aye, you give it up, and
well you may; but for a very different reason
from that which you would have us understand.
The point — the power to hurt — of all figures con-
sists in the truthfulness of their application ; and,
understanding this, you may well give it up.
They are weapons which hit you, but miss us.
1848] MILITARY HEROES 169
Military Tail of the Great Michigander.
But in my hurry I was near closing this sub-
ject of military tails before I was done with it.
There is one entire article of the sort I have not
discussed yet, — I mean the military tail you Dem-
ocrats are now engaged in dovetailing into the
great Michigander. Yes, sir; all his biographies
(and they are legion) have him in hand, tying
him to a military tail, like so many mischievous
boys tying a dog to a bladder of beans. True
the material they have is very limited, but they
drive at it might and main. He znvaded Canada
without resistance, and he outvaded it without
pursuit. As he did both under orders, I suppose
there was to him neither credit nor discredit in
them ; but they constitute a large part of the tail.
He was not at Hull's surrender, but he was close
by; he was volunteer aid to General Harrison
on the day of the battle of the Thames ; and as
you said in 1840 Harrison was picking huckle-
berries two miles off while the battle was fought,
I suppose it is a just conclusion with you to say
Cass was aiding Harrison to pick huckleberries.
This is about all, except the mooted question of
the broken sword. Some authors say he broke it,
some say he threw it away, and some others, who
ought to know, say nothing about it. Perhaps it
would be a fair historical compromise to say, if
he did not break it, he did not do anything else
with it.
By the way, Mr. Speaker, did you know I am
a military hero? Yes, sir; in the days of the
Black Hawk war I fought, bled, and came away.
Speaking of General Cass's career reminds me of
my own. I was not at Stillman's defeat, but I
170 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
was about as near it as Cass was to Hull's sur-
render; and, like him, I saw the place very soon
afterward. It is quite certain I did not break my
sword, for I had none to break; but I bent a
musket pretty badly on one occasion. If Cass
broke his sword, the idea is he broke it in desper-
ation ; I bent the musket by accident. If General
Cass went in advance of me in picking huckle-
berries, I guess I surpassed him in charges upon
the wild onions. If he saw any live, righting In-
dians, it was more than I did ; but I had a good
many bloody struggles with the mosquitoes, and
although I never fainted from the loss of blood,
I can truly say I was often very hungry. Mr.
Speaker, if I should ever conclude to doff what-
ever our Democratic friends may suppose there
is of black-cockade federalism about me, and
therefore they shall take me up as their candidate
for the presidency, I protest they shall not make
fun of me, as they have of General Cass, by at-
tempting to write me into a military hero.
Cass on the Wilmot Proviso.
While I have General Cass in hand, I wish to
say a word about his political principles. As a
specimen, I take the record of his progress in the
Wilmot proviso. In the Washington Union
of March 2, 1847, there is a report of a speech
of General Cass, made the day before in the Sen-
ate, on the Wilmot proviso, during the delivery
of which Mr. Miller of New Jersey is reported
to have interrupted him as follows, to wit :
Mr. Miller expressed his great surprise at the change
in the sentiments of the senator from Michigan, who
had been regarded as the great champion of freedom
1848] MILITARY HEROES 17 r
in the Northwest, of which he was a distinguished or-
nament. Last year the senator from Michigan was
understood to be decidedly in favor of the Wilmot pro-
viso; and as no reason had been stated for the change,
he {Mr. Miller] could not refrain from the expression
of his extreme surprise.
To this General Cass is reported to have re-
plied as follows, to wit :
Mr. Cass said that the course of the senator from
New Jersey was most extraordinary. Last year he [Mr.
Cass] should have voted for the proposition, had it
come up. But circumstances had altogether changed.
The honorable senator then read several passages from
the remarks, as given above, which he had committed
to writing, in order to refute such a charge as that of
the senator from New Jersey.
In the "remarks above reduced to writing" is
one numbered four, as follows, to wit :
Fourth. Legislation now would be wholly inoperative,
because no territory hereafter to be acquired can be
governed without an act of Congress providing for its
government ; and such an act, on its passage, would
open the whole subject, and leave the Congress called
on to pass it free to exercise its own discretion, en-
tirely uncontrolled by any declaration found on the
statute-book.
In "Niles's Register," Vol. LXXIIL, p. 293,
there is a letter of General Cass to Nichol-
son, of Nashville, Tenn., dated December 24,
1847, from which the following are correct ex-
tracts :
The Wilmot proviso has been before the country
some time. It has been repeatedly discussed in Congress
and by the public press. I am strongly impressed with
the opinion that a great change has been going on in
the public mind upon this subject, — in my own as well
as others', — and that doubts are resolving themselves
l 7 2 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
into convictions that the principle it involves should be
kept out of the national legislature, and left to the
people of the confederacy in their respective local gov-
ernments. . . . Briefly, then, I am opposed to the
exercise of any jurisdiction by Congress over this mat-
ter ; and I am in favor of leaving the people of any
territory which may be hereafter acquired the right to
regulate it themselves, under the general principles of
the Constitution. Because —
First. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of
the requisite power to Congress ; and I am not disposed
to extend a doubtful precedent beyond its necessity, —
the establishment of territorial governments when
needed, — leaving to the inhabitants all the right com-
patible with the relations they bear to the confedera-
tion.
These extracts show that in 1846 General Cass
was for the proviso at once ; that in March, 1847,
he was still for it, but not just then; and that in
December, 1847, ne was against it altogether.
This is a true index to the whole man. When
the question was raised in 1846, he was in a
blustering hurry to take ground for it. He
sought to be in advance, and to avoid the uninter-
esting position of a mere follower; but soon he
began to see glimpses of the great Democratic
ox-goad waving in his face, and to hear indis-
tinctly a voice saying, "Back ! Back, sir ! Back
a little !" He shakes his head, and bats his eyes,
and blunders back to his position of March, 1847 >
but still the goad waves, and the voice grows
more distinct and sharper still, "Back, sir ! Back,
I say ! Further back !" — and back he goes to the
position of December, 1847, at which the goad *is
still, and the voice soothingly says, "So ! Stand
at that !"
Have no fears, gentlemen, of your candidate.
He exactly suits you, and we congratulate you
1848] MILITARY HEROES 173
upon it. However much you may be distressed
about our candidate, you have all cause to be con-
tented and happy with your own. If elected, he
may not maintain all, or even any of his positions
previously taken ; but he will be sure to do what-
ever the party exigency for the time being may
require ; and that is precisely what you want.
He and Van Buren are the same "manner of
men" ; and, like Van Buren, he will never desert
you till you first desert him.
Cass on Working and Eating.
Mr. Speaker, I adopt the suggestion of a
friend, that General Cass is a general of splen-
didly successful charges — charges to be sure, not
upon the public enemy, but upon the public treas-
ury. He was Governor of Michigan Territory,
and ex-officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs,
from the 9th of October, 1813, till the 31st of
July, 1831 — a period of seventeen years, nine
months, and twenty-two days. During this
period he received from the United States treas-
ury, for personal services and personal expenses,
the aggregate sum of ninety-six thousand and
twenty-eight dollars, being an average of four-
teen dollars and seventy-nine cents per day for
every day of the time. This large sum was
reached by assuming that he was doing service
at several different places, and in several differ-
ent capacities in the same place, all at the same
time. By a correct analysis of his accounts dur-
ing that period, the following propositions may
be deduced :
First. He was paid in three different capacities
during the whole of the time; that is to say — (1)
174 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
As governor's salary at the rate per year of
$2000. (2) As estimated for office rent, clerk
hire, fuel, etc., in superintendence of Indian
affairs in Michigan, at the rate per year of $1500.
(3) As compensation and expenses for various
miscellaneous items of Indian service out of
Michigan, an average per year of $625.
Second. During part of the time — that is, from
the 9th of October, 1813, to the 29th of May,
1822 — he was paid in four different capacities;
that is to say, the three as above, and in addition
thereto, the commutation of ten rations per day,
amounting per year to $730.
Third. During another part of the time — that
is, from the beginning of 1822 to the 31st day of
July, 1 83 1 — he was also paid in four different
capacities ; that is to say, the first three, as above
(the rations being dropped after the 29th of May,
1822), and, in addition thereto, for superintend-
ing Indian Agencies at Piqua, Ohio ; Fort
Wayne, Ind. ; and Chicago, 111., at the rate
per year of $1500. It should be observed
here that the last item, commencing at the be-
ginning of 1822, and the item of rations, ending
on the 29th of May, 1822, lap on each other dur-
ing so much of the time as lies between those two
dates.
Fourth. Still another part of the time — that is,
from the 31st of October, 1821, to the 29th of
May, 1822 — he was paid in six different capaci-
ties ; that is to say, the three first, as above ; the
item of rations, as above; and, in addition there-
to, another item of ten rations per day while at
Washington settling his accounts, being at the
rate per year of $730 ; and also an allowance for
expenses traveling to and from Washington, and
1848] MILITARY HEROES 175
while there, of $1022, being at the rate per year
of $1793.
Fifth. And yet during the little portion of the
time which lies between the 1st of January, 1822,
and the 29th of May, 1822, he was paid in seven
different capacities; that is to say, the six last
mentioned, and also, at the rate of $1500 per
year, for the Piqua, Fort Wayne, and Chicago
service, as mentioned above.
These accounts have already been discussed
some here; but when we are amongst them, as
when we are in the Patent Office, we must peep
about a good deal before we can see all the curi-
osities. I shall not be tedious with them. As to
the large item of $1500 per year — amounting in
the aggregate to $26,715— for office rent, clerk
hire, fuel, etc., I barely wish to remark that so
far as I can discover in the public documents,
there is no evidence, by word or inference, either
from any disinterested witness or of General
Cass himself, that he ever rented or kept a sepa-
rate office, ever hired or kept a clerk, or even used
any extra amount of fuel, etc., in consequence of
his Indian services. Indeed, General Cass's en-
tire silence in regard to these items, in his two
long letters urging his claims upon the govern-
ment, is, to my mind, almost conclusive that no
such claims had any real existence.
But I have introduced General Cass's accounts
here chiefly to show the wonderful physical
capacities of the man. They show that he not
only did the labor of several men at the same
time, but that he often did it at several places,
many hundreds of miles apart, at the same time.
And at eating, too, his capacities are shown to be
quite as wonderful. From October, 1821, to
i 7 6 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
May, 1822, he eat ten rations a day in Michigan,
ten rations a day here in Washington, and near
five dollars' worth a day on the road between the
two places ! And then there is an important dis-
covery in his example — the art of being paid for
what one eats, instead of having to pay for it.
Hereafter if any nice young man should owe a
bill which he cannot pay in any other way, he can
just board it out. Mr. Speaker, we have all
heard of the animal standing in doubt between
two stacks of hay and starving to death. The
like of that would never happen to General Cass.
Place the stacks a thousand miles apart, he would
stand stock-still midway between them, and eat
them both at once, and the green grass along the
line would be apt to suffer some, too, at the same
time. By all means make him President, gentle-
men. He will feed you bounteously — if — if there
is any left after he shall have helped himself.
The Whigs and the War.
But, as General Taylor is, par excellence, the
hero of the Mexican War, and as you Democrats
say we Whigs have always opposed the war,
you think it must be very awkward and embar-
rassing for us to go for General Taylor. The
declaration that we have always opposed the war
is true or false, according as one may understand
the term "oppose the war." If to say "the
war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally
commenced by the President" be opposing tr\e
war, then the Whigs have very generally opposed
it. Whenever they have spoken at all, they have
said this ; and they have said it on what has ap-
peared good reason to them. The marching an
1848] MILITARY HEROES 177
army into the midst of a peaceful Mexican settle-
ment, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving
their growing crops and other property to
destruction, to you may appear a perfectly ami-
able, peaceful, unprovoking procedure ; but it
does not appear so to us. So to call such an act,
to us appears no other than a naked, impudent
absurdity, and we speak of it accordingly. But
if, when the war had begun, and had become the
cause of the country, the giving of our money
and our blood in common with yours, was sup-
port of the war, then it is not true that we have
always opposed the war. With few individual ex-
ceptions you have constantly had our votes here
for all the necessary supplies. And, more than this,
you have had the services, the blood, and the lives
of our political brethren in every trial and on
every field. The beardless boy and the mature
man, the humble and the distinguished — you have
had them. Through suffering and death, by dis-
ease and in battle, they have endured, and fought
and fell with you. Clay and Webster each gave a
son, never to be returned. From the State of
my own residence, besides other worthy but less
known Whig names, we sent Marshall, Morrison,
Baker, and Hardin ; they all fought, and one fell,
and in the fall of that one we lost our best Whig
man. Nor were the Whigs few in number, or
laggard in the day of danger. In that fearful,
bloody, breathless struggle at Buena Vista, where
each man's hard task was to beat back five foes
or die himself, of the five high officers who per-
ished, four were Whigs.
In speaking of this, I mean no odious compari-
son between the lion-hearted Whigs and the
Democrats who fought there. On other occa-
178 EARLY SPEECHES [July 27
sions, and among the lower officers and privates
on that occasion, I doubt not the proportion was
different. I wish to do justice to all. I think of
all those brave men as Americans, in whose
proud fame, as an American, I too have a share.
Many of them, Whigs and Democrats, are my
constituents and personal friends ; and I thank
them, — more than thank them, — one and all, for
the high imperishable honor they have conferred
on our common State.
But the distinction between the cause of the
President in beginning the war, and the cause of
the country after it was begun, is a distinction
which you cannot perceive. To you the Presi-
dent and the country seem to be all one. You are
interested to see no distinction between them ;
.and I venture to suggest that probably your in-
terest blinds you a little. We see the distinction,
as we think, clearly enough ; and our friends who
Slave fought in the war have no difficulty in see-
ing it also. What those who have fallen would
say, were they alive and here, of course we can
never know ; but with those who have returned
there is no difficulty. Colonel Haskell and Major
Gaines, members here, both fought in the war, and
one of them underwent extraordinary perils and
hardships ; still they, like all other Whigs here,
vote on the record, that the war was unneces-
sarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the
President. And even General Taylor himself,
the noblest Roman of them all, has declared that
as a citizen, and particularly as a soldier, it js
sufficient for him to know that his country is at
■war with a foreign nation, to do all in his power
to bring it to a speedy and honorable termination
hy the most vigorous and energetic operations,
1848] MILITARY HEROES 179
without inquiry about its justice, or anything else
connected with it.
Mr. Speaker, let our Democratic friends be
comforted with the assurance that we are con-
tent with our position, content with our company,
and content with our candidate ; and that al-
though they, in their generous sympathy, think
we ought to be miserable, we really are not, and
that they may dismiss the great anxiety they
have on our account.
Mr. Speaker, I see I have but three minutes
left, and this forces me to throw out one whole
branch of my subject. A single word on still
another. The Democrats are keen enough to
frequently remind us that we have some dissen-
sions in our ranks. Our good friend from Balti-
more immediately before me [Mr. McLane] ex-
pressed some doubt the other day as to which
branch of our party General Taylor would ulti-
mately fall into the hands of. That was a new
idea to me. I knew we had dissenters, but I did
not know they were trying to get our candidate
away from us. I would like to say a word to our
dissenters, but I have not the time. Some such
we certainly have; have you none, gentlemen
Democrats ? Is it all union and harmony in your
ranks? no bickerings? no divisions? If there be
doubt as to which of our divisions will get our
candidate, is there no doubt as to which of your
candidates will get your party?
Divided Gangs of Hogs!
I have heard some things from New York;
and if they are true, one might well say of your
party there, as a drunken fellow once said when
180 EARLY SPEECHES [Sept. 12
he heard the reading of an indictment for hog-
stealing. The clerk read on till he got to and
through the words, "did steal, take, and carry
away ten boars, ten sows, ten shoats, and ten
pigs," at which he exclaimed, "Well, by golly,
that is the most equally divided gang of hogs I
ever did hear of !" If there is any other gang of
hogs more equally divided than the Democrats of
New York are about this time, I have not heard
of it.
The Whigs the True "Free Soilers."
Report of Speech of Abraham Lincoln,
M. C, at Worcester, Mass. September
12, 1848.*
Mr. Kellogg then introduced to the meeting
the Hon. Abraham Lincoln, Whig member of
Congress from Illinois, a representative of free
soil.
Mr. Lincoln has a very tall and thin figure,
with an intellectual face, showing a searching
mind, and a cool judgment. He spoke in a clear
and cool, and very eloquent manner, for an hour
and a half, carrying the audience with him in his
able arguments and brilliant illustrations — only
interrupted by warm and frequent applause. He
began by expressing a real feeling of modesty in
addressing an audience "this side of the moun-
* This is the only one of Lincoln's speeches, made in
his canvass of New England in 1848, which has beet\
preserved. It was considered the most brilliant effort
of his tour, however, and the other speeches, delivered
in Boston, Cambridge, Dorchester, Chelsea, and else-
where, were probably repetitions of its substance. The
report here given is from the Boston Advertiser.
1 848] WORCESTER SPEECH 181
tains," a part of the country where, in the opinion
of the people of his section, everybody was sup-
posed to be instructed and wise. But he had de-
voted his attention to the question of the coming
presidential election, and was not unwilling to
exchange with all whom he might the ideas to
which he had arrived. He then began to show
the fallacy of some of the arguments against
General Taylor, making his chief theme the
fashionable statement of all those who oppose
him ("the old Locofocos as well as the new"),
that he has no principles, and that the Whig
party have abandoned their principles by adopt-
ing him as their candidate. He maintained that
General Taylor occupied a high and unexception-
able Whig ground, and took for his first instance
and proof of this, Taylor's statement in the Alli-
son letter with regard to the Bank, Tariff, Rivers
and Harbors, etc. — that the will of the people
should produce its own results, without Executive
influence. The principle that the people should
do what — under the Constitution — they please, is
a Whig principle. General Taylor not only con-
sents to this, but he appeals to the people to
judge and act for themselves. And this was no
new doctrine for Whigs. It was the "platform"
on which they had fought all their battles, the
resistance of Executive influence, and the prin-
ciple of enabling the people to frame the govern-
ment according to their will. General Taylor
consents to be the candidate, and to assist the
people to do what they think to be their duty,
and think to be best in their national affairs, but
because he don't want to tell what we ought to
do, he is accused of having no principles. The
Whigs have maintained for years that neither
x& 2 EARLY SPEECHES [Sept. 12
the influence, the duress, or the prohibition of
the Executive should control the legitimately ex-
pressed will of the people ; and now that on that
very ground, General Taylor says that he should
use the power given him by the people to do, to
the best of his judgment, the will of the people,
he is accused of want of principle and of incon-
sistency in position.
Mr. Lincoln proceeded to examine the absurd-
ity of an attempt to make a platform or creed for
a national party, to all parts of which all must
consent and agree, when it was clearly the inten-
tion and the true philosophy of our government,
that in Congress all opinions and principles
should be represented, and that when the wisdom
of all had been compared and united, the will of
the majority should be carried out. On this
ground he conceived (and the audience seemed
to go with him) that General Taylor held correct,
sound republican principles.
Mr. Lincoln then passed to the subject of
slavery in the States, saying that the people of
Illinois agreed entirely with the people of Mas-
sachusetts on this subject, except perhaps that
they did not keep so constantly thinking about
it. All agreed that slavery was an evil, but that
we were not responsible for it and cannot affect
it in States of this Union where we do not live.
But, the question of the extension of slavery
to new territories of this country, is a part of
our responsibility and care, and is under our con-
trol. In opposition to this, Mr. Lincoln believed
that the self-named "Free Soil" party was far
behind the Whigs. Both parties opposed the ex-
tension. As he understood it, the new party had
no principle except this opposition. If their
i8 4 8] WORCESTER SPEECH 183
platform held any other, it was in such a general
way that it was like the pair of pantaloons the
Yankee peddler offered for sale, "large enough
for any man, small enough for any boy." They
therefore had taken a position calculated to break-
down their single important declared object..
They were working for the election of either"
General Cass or General Taylor. The speaker
then went on to show, clearly and eloquently, the
danger of extension of slavery, likely to result
from the election of General Cass. To unite with
those who annexed the new territory to prevent
the extension of slavery in that territory seemed'
to him to be in the highest degree absurd and ;
ridiculous. Suppose these gentlemen succeed in;
electing Mr. Van Buren, they had no specific
means to prevent the extension of slavery to New
Mexico and California, and General Taylor, he
confidently believed, would not encourage it, and
would not prohibit its restriction. But if General
Cass was elected, he felt certain that the plans of
farther extension of territory would be encour-
aged, and those of the extension of slavery would"
meet no check. The "Free Soil" men in claiming
that name indirectly attempt a deception, by im-
plying that Whigs were not Free Soil men. In
declaring that they would "do their duty and
leave the consequences to God," they merely gave
an excuse for taking a course they were not able
to maintain by a fair and full argument. To make
this declaration did not show what their duty
was. If it did we should have no use for judg-
ment, we might as well be made without intellect,
and when divine or human law does not clearly
point out what is our duty, we have no means of
finding out what it is by using our most intelli-
1 84 EARLY SPEECHES [Sept. 12
gent judgment of the consequences. If there
were divine law, or human law, for voting for
Martin Van Buren, or if a fair examination of
the consequences and first reasoning would show
that voting for him would bring about the ends
they pretended to wish — then he would give up
the argument. But since there was no fixed law
on the subject, and since the whole probable re-
sult of their action would be an assistance in
electing General Cass, he must say that they were
behind the Whigs in their advocacy of the
freedom of the soil.
Mr. Lincoln proceeded to rally the Buffalo
Convention for forbearing to say anything — after
all the previous declarations of those members
who were formerly Whigs — on the subject of the
Mexican War, because the Van Burens had been
known to have supported it. He declared that of
all the parties asking the confidence of the coun-
try, this new one had less of principle than any
other.
He wondered whether it was still the opinion
of these Free Soil gentlemen as declared in the
"whereas" at Buffalo, that the Whig and Demo-
cratic parties were both entirely dissolved and
absorbed into their own body. Had the Vermont
election given them any light? They had calcu-
lated on making as great an impression in that
State as in any part of the Union, and there their
attempts had been wholly ineffectual. Their fail-
ure there was a greater success than they would
find in any other part of the Union.
Mr. Lincoln went on to say that he honestly
believed that all those who wished to keep up the
character of the Union ; who did not believe in
enlarging our field, but in keeping our fences
1848] WORCESTER SPEECH 185
where they are and cultivating our present pos-
sessions, making it a garden, improving the
morals and education of the people ; devoting the
administrations to this purpose; all real Whigs,
friends of good honest government; — the race
was ours. He had opportunities of hearing from
almost every part of the Union from reliable
sources and had not heard of a county in which
we had not received accessions from other
parties. If the true Whigs come forward and
join these new friends, they need not have a
doubt. We had a candidate whose personal char-
acter and principles he had already described,
whom he could not eulogize if he would. Gen-
eral Taylor had been constantly, perseveringly,
quietly standing up, doing his duty, and asking
no praise or reward for it. He was and must be
just the man to whom the interests, principles,
and prosperity of the country might be safely in-
trusted. He had never failed in anything he had
undertaken, although many of his duties had
been considered almost impossible.
Mr. Lincoln then went into a terse though
rapid review of the origin of the Mexican War
and the connection of the administration and
General Taylor with it, from which he deduced a
strong appeal to the Whigs present to do their
duty in the support of General Taylor, and closed
with the warmest aspirations for and confidences
in a deserved success.
At the close of this truly masterly and convinc-
ing speech, the audience gave three enthusiastic
cheers for Illinois, and three more for the elo-
quent Whig member from that State.
X 86 EARLY SPEECHES [Jan. 16
Bill to Abolish Slavery in the District of
Columbia.
On January 16, 1849, Mr. Lincoln moved the follow-
ing amendment in the House of Representatives in
Congress, instructing the proper committee to report a
bill for the abolition of slavery in the District of Co-
lumbia, with the consent of the voters of the District,
and with compensation to owners :
Resolved, That the Committee on the District
of Columbia be instructed to report a bill in sub-
stance as follows :
Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House
of Representatives of the United States, in Con-
gress assembled, That no person not now within
the District of Columbia, nor now owned by any
person or persons now resident within it, nor
hereafter born within it, shall ever be held in
slavery within said District.
Sec. 2. That no person now within said Dis-
trict, or now owned by any person or persons
now resident within the same, or hereafter born
within it, shall ever be held in slavery without
the limits of said District : Provided, That officers
of the Government of the United States, being-
citizens of the slaveholding States, coming into
said District on public business, and remaining
only so long as may be reasonably necessary for
that object, may be attended into and out of said
District, and while there, by the necessary serv-
ants of themselves and their families, without
their right to hold such servants in service being
thereby impaired.
Sec. 3. That all children born of slave mothers
within said District, on or after the first day of
January, in the year of our Lord eighteen hun-
1849] SLAVERY IN D. C. 187
dred and fifty, shall be free ; but shall be reason-
ably supported and educated by the respective
owners of their mothers, or by their heirs or rep-
resentatives, and shall owe reasonable service as
apprentices to such owners, heirs, or representa-
tives until they respectively arrive at the age of
years, when they shall be entirely free ; and
the municipal authorities of Washington and
Georgetown, within their respective jurisdic-
tional limits, are hereby empowered and required
to make all suitable and necessary provision for
enforcing obedience to this section, on the part
of both masters and apprentices.
Sec. 4. That all persons now within this Dis-
trict, lawfully held as slaves, or now owned by
any person or persons now resident within said
District, shall remain such at the will of their
respective owners, their heirs, and legal repre-
sentatives : Provided, That such owner, or his
legal representative, may at any time receive
from the Treasury of the United States the full
value of his or her slave, of the class in this sec-
tion mentioned, upon which such slave shall be
forthwith and forever free : And provided fur-
ther, That the President of the United States,
the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of the
Treasury shall be a board for determining the
value of such slaves as their owners may desire
to emancipate under this section, and whose duty
it shall be to hold a session for the purpose on
the first Monday of each calendar month, to re-
ceive all applications, and, on satisfactory evi-
dence in each case that the person presented for
valuation is a slave, and of the class in this sec-
tion mentioned, and is owned by the applicant,
shall value such slave at his or her full cash
j 88 EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 13
value, and give to the applicant an order on the
Treasury for the amount, and also to such slave
a certificate of freedom.
Sec. 5. That the municipal authorities of
Washington and Georgetown, within their re-
spective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empow-
ered and required to provide active and efficient
means to arrest and deliver up to their owners
all fugitive slaves escaping into said District.
Sec. 6. That the election officers within said
District of Columbia are hereby empowered and
required to open polls, at all the usual places of
holding elections, on the first Monday of April
next, and receive the vote of every free white
male citizen above the age of twenty-one years,
having resided within said District for the period
of one year or more next preceding the time of
such voting for or against this act, to proceed
in taking said votes, in all respects not herein
specified, as at elections under the municipal laws,
and with as little delay as possible to transmit
correct statements of the votes so cast to the
President of the United States ; and it shall be
the duty of the President to canvass said votes
immediately, and if a majority of them be found
to be for this act, to forthwith issue his proclama-
tion giving notice of the fact; and this act shall
only be in full force and effect on and after the
day of such proclamation.
Sec. 7. That involuntary servitude for the
punishment of crime, whereof the party shall
have been duly convicted, shall in no wise be pro,-
hibited by this act.
Sec. 8. That for all the purposes of this act,
the jurisdictional limits of Washington are ex-
tended to all parts of the District of Columbia
1849] RAILROAD LAND GRANT 189
not now included within the present limits of
Georgetown.
On the Bill Granting Lands to the States to
Make Railroads and Canals.
Remarks in the United States House of
Representatives. February 13, 1849.
Mr. Lincoln said he had not risen for the pur-
pose of making a speech, but only for the purpose
of meeting some of the objections to the bill. If
he understood those objections, the first was that
if the bill were to become a law, it would be used
to lock large portions of the public lands from
sale, without at last effecting the ostensible object
of the bill — the construction of railroads in the
new States ; and secondly, that Congress would
be forced to the abandonment of large portions
of the public lands to the States for which they
might be reserved, without their paying for them.
This he understood to be the substance of the
objections of the gentleman from Ohio to the
passage of the bill.
If he could get the attention of the House for
a few minutes, he would ask gentlemen to tell
us what motive could induce any State legisla-
ture, or individual, or company of individuals, of
the new States, to expend money in surveying
roads which they might know they could not
make? [A voice: They are not required to make
the road.]
Mr. Lincoln continued : That was not the case
he was making. What motive would tempt any
set of men to go into an extensive survey of a
railroad which they did not intend to make?
190
EARLY SPEECHES [Feb. 13
What good would it do? Did men act without
motive ? Did business men commonly go into an
expenditure of money which could be of no ac-
count to them? He generally found that men
who have money were disposed to hold on to it,
unless they could see something to be made by its
investment. He could not see what motive of
advantage to the new States could be subserved
by merely keeping the public lands out of market,
and preventing their settlement. As far as he
could see, the new States were wholly without
any motive to do such a thing. This, then, he
took to be a good answer to the first objection.
In relation to the fact assumed, that after a
while, the new States having got hold of the
public lands to a certain extent, they would turn
round and compel Congress to relinquish all
claim to them, he had a word to say, by way of
recurring to the history of the past. When was
the time to come (he asked) when the States in
which the public lands were situated would com-
pose a majority of the representation in Con-
gress, or anything like it? A majority of Rep-
resentatives would very soon reside west of the
mountains, he admitted ; but would they all come
from States in which the public lands were situ-
ated? They certainly would not; for, as these
Western States grew strong in Congress, the
public lands passed away from them, and they
got on the other side of the question ; and the
gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vinton] was an ex-
ample attesting that fact.
Mr. Vinton interrupted here to say that he had
stood on this question just where he was now,
for five and twenty years.
Mr. Lincoln was not making an argument for
1849] RAILROAD LAND GRANT 191
the purpose of convicting the gentleman of any
impropriety at all. He was speaking of a fact
in history, of which his State was an example.
He was referring to a plain principle in the
nature of things. The State of Ohio had now
grown to be a giant. She had a large delegation
on that floor ; but was she now in favor of grant-
ing lands to the new States, as she used to be?
The New England States, New York, and the
Old Thirteen were all rather quiet upon the sub-
ject; and it was seen just now that a member
from one of the new States was the first man to
rise up in opposition. And so it would be with
the history of this question for the future. There
never would come a time when the people re-
siding in the States embracing the public lands
would have the entire control of this subject ; and
so it was a matter of certainty that Congress
would never do more in this respect than what
would be dictated by a just liberality. The ap-
prehension, therefore, that the public lands were
in danger of being wrested from the General
Government by the strength of the delegation in
Congress from the new States, was utterly futile.
There never could be such a thing. If we take
these lands (said he) it will not be without your
consent. We can never outnumber you. The
result is that all fear of the new States turning
against the right of Congress to the public
domain must be effectually quelled, as those who
are opposed to that interest must always hold a
vast majority here, and they will never surrender
the whole or any part of the public lands unless
they themselves choose to do so. That was all
he desired to say.
i 9 2 EARLY SPEECHES [July i
Resolutions of Sympathy with Hungarian
Revolutionists.
About September 12, 1849.
At a meeting to express sympathy with the cause of
Hungarian Freedom, Dr. Todd, Thos. Lewis, Hon. A.
Lincoln, and Wm. Carpenter were appointed a commit-
tee to present appropriate resolutions, which reported
through Hon. A. Lincoln the following:
Resolved, That in their present glorious strug-
gle for liberty, the Hungarians command our
highest admiration and have our warmest sym-
pathy.
Resolved, That they have our most ardent
prayers for their speedy triumph and final
success.
Resolved, That the Government of the United
States should acknowledge the independence of
Hungary as a nation of freemen at the very
earliest moment consistent with our amicable re-
lations with the government against which they
are contending.
Resolved, That in the opinion of this meeting,
the immediate acknowledgment of the independ-
ence of Hungary by our government is due from
American freemen to their struggling brethren,
to the general cause of republican liberty, and not
violative of the just rights of any nation or
people.
Niagara Falls.
Notes for a Popular Lecture. About July
1, 1850.
Niagara Falls ! By what mysterious power is
it that millions and millions are drawn from all
1850] NIAGARA FALLS 193
parts of the world to gaze upon Niagara Falls?
There is no mystery about the thing itself. Every
effect is just as any intelligent man, knowing the
causes, would anticipate without seeing it. If
the water moving onward in a great river reaches
a point where there is a perpendicular jog of a
hundred feet in descent in the bottom of the
river, it is plain the water will have a violent and
continuous plunge at that point. It is also plain,
the water, thus plunging, will foam and roar,
and send up a mist continuously, in which last,
during sunshine, there will be perpetual rain-
bows. The mere physical of Niagara Falls is
only this. Yet this is really a very small part of
that world's wonder. Its power to excite reflec-
tion and emotion is its great charm. The geolo-
gist will demonstrate that the plunge, or fall,
was once at Lake Ontario, and has worn its way
back to its present position ; he will ascertain how
fast it is wearing now, and so get a basis for
determining how long it has been wearing back
from Lake Ontario, and finally demonstrate by it
that this world is at least fourteen thousand years
old. A philosopher of a slightly different turn will
say, "Niagara Falls is only the lip of the basin out
of which pours all the surplus water which rains
down on two or three hundred thousand square
miles of the earth's surface." He will estimate
with approximate accuracy that five hundred
thousand tons of water fall with their full weight
a distance of a hundred feet each minute — thus
exerting a force equal to the lifting of the same
weight, through the same space, in the same time.
And then the further reflection comes that this
vast amount of water, constantly pounding down,
is supplied by an equal amount constantly lifted
194
EARLY SPEECHES [July i
up, by the sun ; and still he says, "If this much is
lifted up for this one space of two or three hun-
dred thousand square miles, an equal amount
must be lifted up for every other equal space" ;
and he is overwhelmed in the contemplation of
the vast power the sun is constantly exerting in
the quiet noiseless operation of lifting water up
to be rained down again.
But still there is more. It calls up the indefi-
nite past. When Columbus first sought this con-
tinent — when Christ suffered on the cross — when
Moses led Israel through the Red Sea — nay, even
when Adam first came from the hand of his
Maker : then, as now, Niagara was roaring here.
The eyes of that species of extinct giants whose
bones fill the mounds of America have gazed on
Niagara, as ours do now. Contemporary with
the first race of men, and older than the first
man, Niagara is strong and fresh to-day as ten
thousand years ago. The Mammoth and Masto-
don, so long dead that fragments of their mon-
strous bones alone testify that they ever lived,
have gazed on Niagara — in that long, long time
never still for a single moment [never dried],
never froze, never slept, never rested.
Principles of Law Practise.
Notes for Law Lecture. About July i, 1850.
I am not an accomplished lawyer. I find quite
as much material for a lecture in those points '
wherein I have failed, as in those wherein I have
been moderately successful. The leading rule
for the lawyer, as for the man of every other
calling, is diligence. Leave nothing for to-mor-
j8so] LAW LECTURE 195
row which can be done to-day. Never let your
correspondence fall behind. Whatever piece of
business you have in hand, before stopping, do
all the labor pertaining to it which can then be
done. When you bring a common-law suit, if
you have the facts for doing so, write the decla-
ration at once. If a law point be involved, ex-
amine the books, and note the authority you rely
on upon the declaration itself, where you are sure
to find it when wanted. The same of defenses
and pleas. In business not likely to be
litigated, — ordinary collection cases, foreclos-
ures, partitions, and the like, — make all ex-
aminations of titles, and note them, and
even draft orders and decrees in advance.
This course has a triple advantage; it avoids
omissions and neglect, saves your labor when
once done, performs the labor out of court when
you have leisure, rather than in court when you
have not. Extemporaneous speaking should be
practised and cultivated. It is the lawyer's ave-
nue to the public. However able and faithful he
may be in other respects, people are slow to bring
him business if he cannot make a speech. And
yet there is not a more fatal error to young law-
yers than relying too much on speech-making.
If any one, upon his rare powers of speaking,
shall claim an exemption from the drudgery of
the law, his case is a failure in advance.
Discourage litigation. Persuade your neigh-
bors to compromise whenever you can. Point
out to them how the nominal winner is often a
real loser — in fees, expenses, and waste of time.
As a peacemaker the lawyer has a superior op-
portunity of being a good man. There will still
be business enough.
196 EARLY SPEECHES [July 16
Never stir up litigation. A worse man can
scarcely be found than one who does this. Who
can be more nearly a fiend than he who habitually
overhauls the register of deeds in search of de-
fects in titles, whereon to stir up strife, and put
money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to be
infused into the profession which should drive
such men out of it.
The matter of fees is important, far beyond the
mere question of bread and butter involved.
Properly attended to, fuller justice is done to
both lawyer and client. An exorbitant fee should
never be claimed. As a general rule never take
your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a
small retainer. When fully paid beforehand, you
are more than a common mortal if you can feel
the same interest in the case, as if something was
still in prospect for you, as well as for your client.
And when you lack interest in the case the job
will very likely lack skill and diligence in the
performance. Settle the amount of fee and take
a note in advance. Then you will feel that you
are working for something, and you are sure to
do your work faithfully and well. Never sell a
fee note — at least not before the consideration
service is performed. It leads to negligence and
dishonesty — negligence by losing interest in the
case, and dishonesty in refusing to refund when
you have allowed the consideration to fail.
There is a vague popular belief that lawyers
are necessarily dishonest. I say vague, because
when we consider to what extent confidence and <
honors are reposed in and conferred upon law-
yers by the people, it appears improbable that
their impression of dishonesty is very distinct and
vivid. Yet the impression is common, almost
i8 5 2] EULOGY OF CLAY 197
universal. Let no young man choosing the law
for a calling for a moment yield to the popular
belief — resolve to be honest at all events ; and if
in your own judgment you cannot be an honest
lawyer, resolve to be honest without being a law-
yer. Choose some other occupation, rather than
one in the choosing of which you do, in advance,
consent to be a knave.
Eulogy of Henry Clay.
Delivered in the State House at Spring-
field, III. July 16, 1852. Reported in the
Illinois State Journal.
On the fourth day of July, 1776, the people of
a few feeble and oppressed colonies of Great
Britain, inhabiting a portion of the Atlantic coast
of North America, publicly declared their na-
tional independence, and made their appeal to the
justice of their cause and to the God of battles
for the maintenance of that declaration. That
people were few in number and without re-
sources, save only their wise heads and stout
hearts. Within the first year of that declared
independence, and while its maintenance was yet
problematical, — while the bloody struggle be-
tween . those resolute rebels and their haughty
would-be masters was still waging, — of undis-
tinguished parents and in an obscure district of
one of those colonies Henry Clay was born. The
infant nation and the infant child began the race
of life together. For three quarters of a century
they have traveled hand in hand. They have
been companions ever. The nation has passed its
perils, and it is free, prosperous, and powerful.
198 EARLY SPEECHES [July 16
The child has reached his manhood, his middle
age, his old age, and is dead. In all that has
concerned the nation the man ever sympathized ;
and now the nation mourns the man.
The day after his death one of the public jour-
nals, opposed to him politically, held the follow-
ing pathetic and beautiful language, which I
adopt partly because such high and exclusive
eulogy, originating with a political friend, might
offend good taste, but chiefly because I could not
in any language of my own so well express my
thoughts :
Alas ! who can realize that Henry Clay is dead ! Who
can realize that never again that majestic form shall
rise in the council-chambers of his country to beat back
the storms of anarchy which may threaten, or pour the
oil of peace upon the troubled billows as they rage and
menace around? Who can realize that the workings of
that mighty mind have ceased, that the throbbings of
that gallant heart are stilled, that the mighty sweep of
that graceful arm will be felt no more, and the magic
of that eloquent tongue, which spake as spake no other
tongue besides, is hushed — hushed for ever! Who can
realize that freedom's champion, the champion of a
civilized world and of all tongues and kindreds of peo-
ple, has indeed fallen ! Alas, in those dark hours of
peril and dread which our land has experienced, and
which she may be called to experience again, to whom
now may her people look up for that counsel and ad-
vice which only wisdom and experience and patriotism
can give, and which only the undoubting confidence of a
nation will receive? Perchance in the whole circle of the
great and gifted of our land there remains but one on
whose shoulders the mighty mantle of the departed
statesman may fall ; one who while we now write is
doubtless pouring his tears over the bier of his brother
and friend — brother, friend, ever, yet in political senti-
ment as far apart as party could make them. Ah, it is
at times like these that the petty distinctions of mere
party disappear. We see only the great, the grand,
the noble features of the departed statesman ; and we
i85*] EULOGY OF CLAY
199
do not even beg permission to bow at his feet and
mingle our tears with those who have ever been his
political adherents — we do [not] beg this permission,
we claim it as a right, though we feel it as a privilege.
Henry Clay belonged to his country — to the world;
mere party cannot claim men like him. His career has
been national, his fame has filled the earth, his memory
will endure to the last syllable of recorded time.
Henry Clay is dead ! He breathed his last on yester-
day, at twenty minutes after eleven, in his chamber at
Washington. To those who followed his lead in public
affairs, it more appropriately belongs to pronounce his
eulogy and pay specific honors to the memory of the
illustrious dead. But all Americans may show the grief
which his death inspires, for his character and fame
are national property. As on a question of liberty he
knew no North, no South, no East, no West, but only
the Union which held them all in its sacred circle, so
now his countrymen will know no grief that is not as
wide-spread as the bounds of the confederacy. The
career of Henry Clay was a public career. From his
youth he was devoted to the public service, at a
period, too, in the world's history justly regarded as a
remarkable era in human affairs. He witnessed in the
beginning the throes of the French Revolution. He
saw the rise and fall of Napoleon. He was called upon
to legislate for America, and direct her policy when all
Europe was the battle-field of contending dynasties, and
when the struggle for supremacy imperiled the rights
of all neutral nations. His voice spoke war and peace
in the contest with Great Britain.
When Greece rose against the Turks and struck for
liberty, his name was mingled with the battle-cry of
freedom. When South America threw off the thral-
dom of Spain, his speeches were read at the head of her
armies by Bolivar. His name has been, and will con-
tinue to be, hallowed in two hemispheres, for it is
"One of the few, the immortal names
That were not born to die!"
To the ardent patriot and profound statesman, he
added a quality possessed by few of the gifted on earth.
His eloquence has not been surpassed. In the effective
power to move the heart of man, Clay was without an
zoo EARLY SPEECHES [July 16
equal, and the heaven-born endowment, in the spirit of
its origin, has been most conspicuously exhibited
against intestine feud. On at least three important oc-
casions he has quelled our civil commotions by a power
and influence which belonged to no other statesman of
his age and times. And in our last internal discord,
when this Union trembled to its centre, in old age he
left the shades of private life, and gave the death-blow
to fraternal strife, with the vigor of his earlier years,
in a series of senatorial efforts which in themselves
would bring immortality by challenging comparison
with the efforts of any statesman in any age. He ex-
orcised the demon which possessed the body politic,
and gave peace to a distracted land. Alas! the achieve-
ment cost him his life. He sank day by day to the
tomb — his pale but noble brow bound with a triple
wreath, put there by a grateful country. May his ashes
rest in peace, while his spirit goes to take its station
among the great and good men who preceded him.
While it is customary and proper upon occa-
sions like the present to give a brief sketch of the
life of the deceased, in the case of Mr. Clay it is
less necessary than most others ; for his biography
has been written and rewritten, and read and re-
read, for the last twenty-five years ; so that, with
the exception of a few of the latest incidents of
his life, all is as well known as it can be. The
short sketch which I give is, therefore, merely to
maintain the connection of this discourse.
Henry Clay was born on the twelfth day of
April, 1777, in Hanover County, Virginia. Of
his father, who died in the fourth or fifth year of
Henry's age, little seems to be known, except
that he was a respectable man and a preacher of
the Baptist persuasion. Mr. Clay's education to
the end of life was comparatively limited. I say
"to the end of life," because I have understood
that from time to time he added something to his
i8 5 2] EULOGY OF CLAY 201
education during the greater part of his whole
life. Mr. Clay's lack of a more perfect early
education, however it may be regretted generally,
teaches at least one profitable lesson : it teaches
that in this country one can scarcely be so poor
but that, if he will, he can acquire sufficient edu-
cation to get through the world respectably. In
his twenty-third year, Mr. Clay was licensed to
practise law, and emigrated to Lexington, Ky.
Here he commenced and continued the practice
till the year 1803, when he was first elected to
the Kentucky legislature. By successive elec-
tions he was continued in the legislature till the
latter part of 1806, when he was elected to fill a
vacancy of a single session in the United States
Senate. In 1807 he was again elected to the
Kentucky House of Representatives, and by that
body chosen Speaker. In 1808 he was reelected
to the same body. In 1809 he was again chosen
to fill a vacancy of two years in the United States
Senate. In 181 1 he was elected to the United
States House of Representatives, and on the first
day of taking his seat in that body he was chosen
its Speaker. In 18 13 he was again elected
Speaker. Early in 1814, being the period of our
last British war, Mr. Clay was sent as commis-
sioner, with others, to negotiate a treaty of peace,
which treaty was concluded in the latter part of
the same year. On his return from Europe he
was again elected to the lower branch of Con-
gress, and on taking his seat in December, 181 5,
was called to his old post — the Speaker's chair,
a position in which he was retained by successive
elections, with one brief intermission, till the in-
auguration of John Quincy Adams, in March,
1825. He was then appointed Secretary of State,
202 EARLY SPEECHES [July 16
and occupied that important station till the in-
auguration of General Jackson, in March, 1829.
After this he returned to Kentucky, resumed the
practice of law, and continued it till the autumn
of 183 1, when he was by the legislature of Ken-
tucky again placed in the United States Senate.
By a reelection he was continued in the Senate
till he resigned his seat and retired, in March,
1848. In December, 1849, he again took his seat
in the Senate, which he again resigned only a
few months before his death.
By the foregoing it is perceived that the period
from the beginning of Mr. Clay's official life in
1803 to the end of 1852 is but one year short of
half a century, and that the sum of all the inter-
vals in it will not amount to ten years. But mere
duration of time in office constitutes the smallest
part of Mr. Clay's history. Throughout that
long period he has constantly been the most loved
and most implicitly followed by friends, and the
most dreaded by opponents, of all living Ameri-
can politicians. In all the great questions which
have agitated the country, and particularly in
those fearful crises, the Missouri question, the
nullification question, and the late slavery ques-
tion, as connected with the newly acquired terri-
tory, involving and endangering the stability of
the Union, his has been the leading and most con-
spicuous part. In 1824 he was first a candidate
for the Presidency, and was defeated; and al-
though he was successively defeated for the same
office in 1832 and in 1844, there has never been
a moment since 1824 till after 1848 when a very
large portion of the American people did not
cling to him with an enthusiastic hope and
purpose of still elevating him to the Presidency.
i8 S 2] EULOGY OF CLAY 203
With other men, to be defeated was to be forgot-
ten ; but with him defeat was but a trifling inci-
dent, neither changing him nor the world's esti-
mate of him. Even those of both political parties
who have been preferred to him for the highest
office have run far briefer courses than he, and
left him still shining high in the heavens of the
political world. Jackson, Van Buren, Harrison,
Polk, and Taylor all rose after, and set long be-
fore him. The spell — the long-enduring spell —
with which the souls of men were bound to him
is a miracle. Who can compass it? It is prob-
ably true he owed his preeminence to no one
quality, but to a fortunate combination of several.
He was surpassingly eloquent; but many elo-
quent men fail utterly, and they are not, as a
class, generally successful. His judgment was
excellent ; but many men of good judgment live
and die unnoticed. His will was indomitable ;
but this quality often secures to its owner nothing
better than a character for useless obstinacy.
These, then, were Mr. Clay's leading qualities.
No one of them is very uncommon ; but all to-
gether are rarely combined in a single individual,
and this is probably the reason why such men as
Henry Clay are so rare in the world.
Mr. Clay's eloquence did not consist, as many
fine specimens of eloquence do, of types and fig-
ures, of antithesis and elegant arrangement of
words and sentences, but rather of that deeply
earnest and impassioned tone and manner which
can proceed only from great sincerity, and a
thorough conviction in the speaker of the justice
and importance of his cause. This it is that truly
touches the chords of sympathy ; and those who
heard Mr. Clay never failed to be moved by it,
204 EARLY SPEECHES [July 16
or ever afterward forgot the impression. All his
efforts were made for practical effect. He never
spoke merely to be heard. He never delivered a
Fourth of July oration, or a eulogy on an occa-
sion like this. As a politician or statesman, no
one was so habitually careful to avoid all sec-
tional ground. Whatever he did he did for the
whole country. In the construction of his meas-
ures, he ever carefully surveyed every part of the
field, and duly weighed every conflicting interest.
Feeling as he did, and as the truth surely is, that
the world's best hope depended on the continued
Union of these States, he was ever jealous of and
watchful for whatever might have the slightest
tendency to separate them.
Mr. Clay's predominant sentiment, from first
to last, was a deep devotion to the cause of
human liberty — a strong sympathy with the op-
pressed everywhere, and an ardent wish for their
elevation. With him this was a primary and all-
controlling passion. Subsidiary to this was the
conduct of his whole life. He loved his country
partly because it was his own country, and mostly
because it was a free country; and he burned
with a zeal for its advancement, prosperity, and
glory, because he saw in such the advancement,
prosperity, and glory of human liberty, human
right, and human nature. He desired the pros-
perity of his countrymen, partly because they
were his countrymen, but chiefly to show to the
world that free men could be prosperous.
That his views and measures were always the
wisest needs not to be affirmed ; nor should it be
on this occasion, where so many thinking differ-
ently join in doing honor to his memory. A free
people in times of peace and quiet — when pressed
i8 5 2] EULOGY OF CLAY 205
by no common danger — naturally divide into par-
ties. At such times the man who is of neither
party is not, cannot be, of any consequence. Mr.
Clay therefore was of a party. Taking a prom-
inent part as he did, in all the great political
questions of his country for the last half century,
the wisdom of his course on many is doubted and
denied by a large portion of his countrymen ; and
of such it is not now proper to speak particularly.
But there are many others about his course, upon
which there is little or no disagreement amongst
intelligent and patriotic Americans. Of these
last are the war of 1812, the Missouri question,
nullification, and the now recent compromise
measures. In 1812 Mr. Clay, though not un-
known, was still a young man. Whether we
should go to war with Great Britain being the
question of the day, a minority opposed the decla-
ration of war by Congress, while the majority,
though apparently inclined to war, had for years
wavered, and hesitated to act decisively. Mean-
while British aggressions multiplied, and grew
more daring and aggravated. By Mr. Clay more
than any other man the struggle was brought to
a decision in Congress. The question, being now
fully before Congress, came up in a variety of
ways in rapid succession, on most of which occa-
sions Mr. Clay spoke. Adding to all the logic of
which the subject was susceptible that noble in-
spiration which came to him as it came to no
other, he aroused and nerved and inspired his
friends, and confounded and bore down all op-
position. Several of his speeches on these occa-
sions were reported and are still extant, but the
best of them all never was. During its delivery
the reporters forgot their vocations, dropped
2o6 EARLY SPEECHES [July 16
their pens, and sat enchanted from near the be-
ginning to quite the close. The speech now lives
only in the memory of a few old men, and the en-
thusiasm with which they cherish their recollec-
tion of it is absolutely astonishing. The precise
language of this speech we shall never know ;
but we do know — we cannot help knowing — that
with deep pathos it pleaded the cause of the in-
jured sailor, that it invoked the genius of the
Revolution, that it apostrophized the names of
Otis, of Henry, and of Washington, that it ap-
pealed to the interest, the pride, the honor, and
the glory of the nation, that it shamed and
taunted the timidity of friends, that it scorned
and scouted and withered the temerity of domes-
tic foes, that it bearded and defied the British
lion, and rising and swelling and maddening in
its course, it sounded the onset, till the charge,
the shock, the steady struggle, and the glorious
victory all passed in vivid review before the en-
tranced hearers.
Important and exciting as was the war ques-
tion of 1812, it never so alarmed the sagacious
statesmen of the country for the safety of the Re-
public as afterward did the Missouri question.
This sprang from that unfortunate source of dis-
cord — negro slavery. When our Federal Consti-
tution was adopted, we owned no territory be-
yond the limits or ownership of the States, except
the territory northwest of the River Ohio and
east of the Mississippi. What has since been
formed into the States of Maine, Kentucky, and «
Tennessee, was, I believe, within the limits of or
owned by Massachusetts, Virginia, and North
Carolina. As to the Northwestern Territory,
provision had been made even before the adop-
i8sa] EULOGY OF CLAY 207
tion of the Constitution that slavery should never
go there. On the admission of States into the
Union, carved from the territory we owned be-
fore the Constitution, no question, or at most no
considerable question, arose about slavery —
those which were within the limits of or owned
by the old States following respectively the con-
dition of the parent State, and those within the
Northwest Territory following the previously
made provision. But in 1803 we purchased
Louisiana of the French, and it included with
much more what has since been formed into the
State of Missouri. With regard to it, nothing
had been done to forestall the question of slavery.
When, therefore, in 1819, Missouri, having
formed a State constitution, without excluding
slavery, and with slavery already actually exist-
ing within its limits, knocked at the door of the
Union for admission, almost the entire repre-
sentation of the non-slaveholding States objected.
A fearful and angry struggle instantly followed.
This alarmed thinking men more than any pre-
vious question, because unlike all the former, it
divided the country by geographical lines. Other
questions had their opposing partisans in all
localities of the country and in almost every fam-
ily, so that no division of the Union could follow
such without a separation of friends to quite as
great an extent as that of opponents. Not so
with the Missouri question. On this a geograph-
ical line could be traced, which in the main would
separate opponents only. This was the danger.
Mr. Jefferson, then in retirement, wrote :
I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers or to
pay any attention to public affairs, confident they were
2 o8 EARLY SPEECHES [July 16
in good hands and content to be a passenger in our bark
to the shore from which I am not distant. But this
momentous question, like a fire-bell in the night,
awakened and filled me with terror. I considered it at
once as the knell of the Union. It is hushed, indeed,
for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a final
sentence. A geographical line coinciding with a
marked principle, moral and political, once conceived
and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be
obliterated, and every irritation will mark it deeper and
deeper. I can say with conscious truth that there is not
a man on earth who would sacrifice more than I would
to relieve us from this heavy reproach in any practicable
way. The cession of that kind of property — for it is so
misnamed — is a bagatelle which would not cost me a
second thought if in that way a general emancipation
and expatriation could be effected, and gradually and
with due sacrifices I think it might be. But as it is,
we have the wolf by the ears, and we can neither hold
him nor safely let him go. Justice is in one scale, and
self-preservation in the other.
Mr. Clay was in Congress, and, perceiving the
danger, at once engaged his whole energies to
avert it. It began, as I have said, in 1819; and
it did not terminate till 1821. Missouri would
not yield the point ; and Congress — that is, a ma-
jority in Congress — by repeated votes showed a
determination not to admit the State unless it
should yield. After several failures and great
labor on the part of Mr. Clay to so present the
question that a majority could consent to the
admission, it was by a vote rejected, and as all
seemed to think, finally. A sullen gloom hung
over the nation. All felt that the rejection of
Missouri was equivalent to a dissolution of the
Union, because those States which already had
what Missouri was rejected for refusing to re-
linquish would go with Missouri. All deprecated
and deplored this, but none saw how to avert it.
1 85*] EULOGY OF CLAY
209
For the judgment of members to be convinced
of the necessity of yielding was not the whole
difficulty ; each had a constituency to meet and to
answer to. Mr. Clay, though worn down and
exhausted, was appealed to by members to renew
his efforts at compromise. He did so, and by
some judicious modifications of his plan, coupled
with laborious efforts with individual members
and his own overmastering eloquence upon that
floor, he finally secured the admission of the
State. Brightly and captivatingly as it had previ-
ously shone, it was now perceived that his great
eloquence was a mere embellishment, or at most
but a helping hand to his inventive genius, and
his devotion to his country in the day of her ex-
treme peril.
After the settlement of the Missouri question,
although a portion of the American people have
differed with Mr. Clay, and a majority even ap-
pear generally to have been opposed to him on
questions of ordinary administration, he seems
constantly to have been regarded by all as the
man for a crisis. Accordingly, in the days of
nullification, and more recently in the reappear-
ance of the slavery question connected with our
territory nev/ly acquired of Mexico, the task of
devising a mode of adjustment seems to have
been cast upon Mr. Clay by common consent —
and his performance of the task in each case was
little else than a literal fulfillment of the public
expectation.
Mr. Clay's efforts in behalf of the South Amer-
icans, and afterward in behalf of the Greeks, in
the times of their respective struggles for civil
liberty, are among the finest on record, upon the
noblest of all themes, and bear ample corrobora-
210 EARLY SPEECHES [July 16
tion of what I have said was his ruling passion —
a love of liberty and right, unselfishly, and for
their own sakes.
Having been led to allude to domestic slavery
so frequently already, I am unwilling to close
without referring more particularly to Mr. Clay's
views and conduct in regard to it. He ever was
on principle and in feeling opposed to slavery.
The very earliest, and one of the latest, public
efforts of his life, separated by a period of more
than fifty years, were both made in favor of
gradual emancipation. He did not perceive that
on a question of human right the negroes were
to be excepted from the human race. And yet
Mr. Clay was the owner of slaves. Cast into life
when slavery was already widely spread and
deeply seated, he did not perceive, as I think no
wise man has perceived, how it could be at once
eradicated without producing a greater evil even
to the cause of human liberty itself. His feeling
and his judgment, therefore, ever led him to op-
pose both extremes of opinion on the subject.
Those who would shiver into fragments the
Union of these States, tear to tatters its now ven-
erated Constitution, and even burn the last copy
of the Bible, rather than slavery should continue
a single hour, together with all their more halting
sympathizers, have received, and are receiving,
their just execration; and the name and opinions
and influence of Mr. Clay are fully and, as I
trust, effectually and enduringly arrayed against
them. But I would also, if I could, array his •
name, opinions, and influence against the oppo-
site extreme — against a few but an increasing
number of men who, for the sake of perpetuating
slavery, are beginning to assail and to ridicule the
!8 5 2] EULOGY OF CLAY 2ii
white man's charter of freedom, the declaration
that "all men are created free and equal." So
far as I have learned, the first American of any
note to do or attempt this was the late John C.
Calhoun ; and if I mistake not, it soon after found
its way into some of the messages of the Gov-
ernor of South Carolina. We, however, look for
and are not much shocked by political eccen-
tricities and heresies in South Carolina. But
only last year I saw with astonishment what
purported to be a letter of a very distinguished
and influential clergyman of Virginia, copied,
with apparent approbation, into a St. Louis
newspaper ; containing the following to me very
unsatisfactory language :
I am fully aware that there is a text in some Bibles
that is not in mine. Professional Abolitionists have
made more use of it than of any passage in the Bible.
It came, however, as I trace it. from Saint Voltaire, and
was baptized by Thomas Jefferson, and since almost
universally regarded as canonical authority, ''All men
are born free and equal."
This is a genuine coin in the political currency of our
generation. I am sorry to say that I have never seen
two men of whom it is true. But I must admit I never
saw the Siamese Twins, and therefore will not dog-
matically say that no man ever saw a proof of this sage
aphorism.
This sounds strangely in republican America.
The like was not heard in the fresher days of the
republic. Let us contrast with it the language of
that truly national man whose life and death we
now commemorate and lament. I quote from a
speech of Mr. Clay delivered before the Ameri-
can Colonization Society in 1827 :
We are reproached with doing mischief by the agita-
tion of this question. The society goes into no house-
212 EARLY SPEECHES [July 16
hold to disturb its domestic tranquillity. It addresses
itself to no slaves to weaken their obligations of obedi-
ence. It seeks to affect no man's property. It neither
has the power nor the will to affect the property of any
one contrary to his consent. The execution of its
scheme would augment instead of diminishing the
value of property left behind. The society, composed of
free men, concerns itself only with the free. Collateral
consequences we are not responsible for. It is not this
society which has produced the great moral revolution
which the age exhibits. What would they who thus
reproach us have done? If they would repress all ten-
dencies toward liberty and ultimate emancipation, they
must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of
society. They must go back to the era of our liberty
and independence, and muzzle the cannon which thun-
ders its annual joyous return. They must renew the
slave-trade, with all its train of atrocities. They must
suppress the workings of British philanthropy, seeking
to meliorate the condition of the unfortunate West In-
dian slave. They must arrest the career of South Amer-
ican deliverance from thraldom. They must blow out
the moral light around us and extinguish that greatest
torch of all which America presents to a benighted
world — pointing the way to their rights, their liberties,
and their happiness. And when they have achieved all
those purposes their work will be yet incomplete. They
must penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the light
of reason and the love of liberty. Then, and not till
then, when universal darkness and despair prevail, can
you perpetuate slavery and repress all sympathy and all
humane and benevolent efforts among free men in be-
half of the unhappy portion of our race doomed to
bondage.
The American Colonization Society was organ-
ised in 1816. Mr. Clay, though not its projector,
was one of its earliest members ; and he died, as
for many preceding years he had been, its presi-
dent. It was one of the most cherished objects
of his direct care and consideration, and the as-
sociation of his name with it has probably been
its very greatest collateral support. He consid-
i8 5 2] EULOGY OF CLAY 213
ered it no demerit in the society that it tended to
relieve the slaveholders from the troublesome
presence of the free negroes; but this was far
from being its whole merit in his estimation. In
the same speech from which we have quoted he
says :
There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to
Africa her children, whose ancestors have been torn
from her by the ruthless hand of fraud and violence.
Transplanted in a foreign land, they will carry back
to their native soil the rich fruits of religion, civilization,
law, and liberty. May it not be one of the great designs
of the Ruler of the universe, whose ways are often in-
scrutable by short-sighted mortals, thus to transform
an original crime into a signal blessing to that most un-
fortunate portion of the globe?
This suggestion of the possible ultimate re-
demption of the African race and African con-
tinent was made twenty-five years ago. Every
succeeding year has added strength to the hope
of its realization. May it indeed be realized.
Pharaoh's country was cursed with plagues, and
his hosts were lost in the Red Sea, for striving
to retain a captive people who had already served
them more than four hundred years. May like
disasters never befall us ! If, as the friends of
colonization hope, the present and coming gener-
ations of our countrymen shall by any means suc-
ceed in freeing our land from the dangerous
presence of slavery, and at the same time in re-
storing a captive people to their long-lost father-
land with bright prospects for the future, and
this too so gradually that neither races nor in-
dividuals shall have suffered by the change, it
will indeed be a glorious consummation. And if
to such a consummation the efforts of Mr. Clay
2i 4 EARLY SPEECHES [July i
shall have contributed, it will be what he most
ardently wished, and none of his labors will have
been more valuable to his country and his kind.
But Henry Clay is dead. His long and event-
ful life is closed. Our country is prosperous and
powerful ; but could it have been quite all it has
been, and is, and is to be, without Henry Clay?
Such a man the times have demanded, and such
in the Providence of God was given us. But he
is gone. Let us strive to deserve, as far as
mortals may, the continued care of Divine
Providence, trusting that in future national
emergencies, He will not fail to provide us
the instruments of safety and security.
The Nature and Objects of Government, with
Special Reference to Slavery.
Fragmentary Notes. About July i, 1854.
Government is a combination of the people of
a country to effect certain objects by joint effort.
The best framed and best administered govern-
ments are necessarily expensive; while by errors
in frame and maladministration most of them are
more onerous than they need be, and some of
them very oppressive. Why, then, should we
have government ? Why not each individual take
to himself the whole fruit of his labor, without
having any of it taxed away, in services, corn, or
money? Why not take just so much land as he
can cultivate with his own hands, without buying
it of any one ?
The legitimate object of government is "to do
for the people what needs to be done, but which
they can not, by individual effort, do at all, or do
1854] NOTES ON GOVERNMENT 215
so well, for themselves." There are many such
things — some of them exist independently of the
injustice in the world. Making and maintaining
roads, bridges, and the like ; providing for the
helpless young and afflicted ; common schools ;
and disposing of deceased men's property, are in-
stances.
But a far larger class of objects springs from
the injustice of men. If one people will make
war upon another, it is a necessity with, that other
to unite and cooperate for defense. Hence the
military department. If some men will kill, or
beat, or constrain others, or despoil them of prop-
erty, by force, fraud, or non-compliance with con-
tracts, it is a common object with peaceful and
just men to prevent it. Hence the criminal and
civil departments.
The legitimate object of government is to do
for a community of people whatever they need to
have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well
do, for themselves, in their separate and indi-
vidual capacities. In all that the people can indi-
vidually do as well for themselves, government
ought not to interfere. The desirable things
which the individuals of a people cannot do, or
cannot well do, for themselves, fall into two
classes : those which have relation to wrongs, and
those which have not. Each of these branches
off into an infinite variety of subdivisions.
The first — that in relation to wrongs — em-
braces all crimes, misdemeanors, and non-per-
formance of contracts. The other embraces all
which, in its nature, and without wrong, requires
combined action, as public roads and highways,
public schools, charities, pauperism, orphanage,
216 EARLY SPEECHES [July i
estates of the deceased, and the machinery of
government itself.
From this it appears that if all men were just,
there still would be some, though not so much,
need of government.
• • • • •
Equality in society alike beats inequality,
whether the latter be of the British aristocratic
sort or of the domestic slavery sort. We know
Southern men declare that their slaves are better
off than hired laborers among us. How little
they know whereof they speak ! There is no per-
manent class of hired laborers amongst us.
Twenty-five years ago I was a hired laborer. The
hired laborer of yesterday labors on his own ac-
count to-day, and will hire others to labor for
him to-morrow. Advancement — improvement in
condition — is the order of things in a society of
equals. As labor is the common burden of our
race, so the effort of some to shift their share of
the burden onto the shoulders of others is the
great durable curse of the race. Originally a
curse for transgression upon the whole race,
when, as by slavery, it is concentrated on a part
only, it becomes the double-refined curse of God
upon his creatures.
Free labor has the inspiration of hope ; pure
slavery has no hope. The power of hope upon
human exertion and happiness is wonderful. The
slave-master himself has a conception of it, and
hence the system of tasks among slaves. The
slave whom you cannot drive with the lash to
break seventy-five pounds of hemp in a day, if
you will task him to break a hundred, and prom-
ise him pay for all he does over, he will break
you a hundred and fifty. You have substituted
i854] NOTES ON GOVERNMENT 217
hope for the rod. And yet perhaps it does not
occur to you that to the extent of your gain in the
case, you have given up the slave system and
adopted the free system of labor.
If A can prove, however conclusively, that he
may of right enslave B, why may not B snatch
the same argument and prove equally that he
may enslave A? You say A is white and B is
black. It is color, then ; the lighter having the
right to enslave the darker? Take care. By
this rule you are to be slave to the first man you
meet with a fairer skin than your own. You do
not mean color exactly? You mean the whites
are intellectually the superiors of the blacks, and
therefore have the right to enslave them? Take
care again. By this rule you are to be slave to
the first man you meet with an intellect superior
to your own. But, say you, it is a question of
interest, and if you make it your interest you
have the right to enslave another. Very well.
And if he can make it his interest he has the
right to enslave you.
The ant who has toiled and dragged a crumb
to his nest will furiously defend the fruit of his
labor against whatever robber assails him. So
plain that the most dumb and stupid slave that
ever toiled for a master does constantly know
that he is wronged. So plain that no one, high
or low, ever does mistake it, except in a plainly
selfish way ; for although volume upon volume is
written to prove slavery a very good thing, we
never hear of the man who wishes to take the
good of it by being a slave himself.
Most governments have been based, practi-
218 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
cally, on the denial of the equal rights of men, as
I have, in part, stated them; ours began by af-
firming those rights. They said, some men are
too ignorant and vicious to share in government.
Possibly so, said we ; and, by your system, you
would always keep them ignorant and vicious.
We proposed to give all a chance ; and we ex-
pected the weak to grow stronger, the ignorant
wiser, and all better and happier together.
We made the experiment, and the fruit is be-
fore us. Look at it, think of it. Look at it in its
aggregate grandeur, of extent of country, and
numbers of population — of ship, and steamboat,
and railroad.
The Missouri Compromise: the Iniquity of Its
Repeal, and the Propriety of Its Restora-
tion.
Speech at Peoria, III., in Reply to Senator
Douglas. October 16, 1854.
On Monday, October 16, Senator Douglas, by appoint-
ment, addressed a large audience at Peoria. When he
closed he was greeted with six hearty cheers, and the
band in attendance played a stirring air. The crowd
then began to call for Lincoln, who, as Judge Douglas
had announced, was by agreement to answer him. Mr.
Lincoln took the stand and said :
I do not rise to speak now, if I can stipulate
with the audience to meet me here at half-past
six or at seven o'clock. It is now several minutes
past five, and Judge Douglas has spoken over
three hours. If you hear me at all, I wish you to
hear me through. It will take me as long as it
has taken him. That will carry us beyond eight
o'clock at night. Now, every one of you who can .
i8s4l MISSOURI COMPROMISE 219
remain that long can just as well get his supper,
meet me at seven, and remain an hour or two
later. The judge has already informed you that
he is to have an hour to reply to me. I doubt
not but you have been a little surprised to learn
that I have consented to give one of his high
reputation and known ability this advantage of
me. Indeed, my consenting to it, though reluc-
tant, was not wholly unselfish, for I suspected,
if it were understood that the judge was entirely
done, you Democrats would leave and not hear
me ; but by giving him the close, I felt confident
you would stay for the fun of hearing him skin
me.
The audience signified their assent to the arrange-
ment, and adjourned to seven o'clock p. m., at which
time they reassembled, and Mr. Lincoln spoke sub-
stantially as follows :
The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and
the propriety of its restoration, constitute the
subject of what I am about to say. As I desire to
present my own connected view of this subject,
my remarks will not be specifically an answer to
Judge Douglas ; yet, as I proceed, the main points
he has presented will arise, and will receive such
respectful attention as I may be able to give them.
I wish further to say that I do not propose to
question the patriotism or to assail the motives
of any man or class of men, but rather to confine
myself strictly to the naked merits of the ques-
tion. I also wish to be no less than national in
all the positions I may take, and whenever I take
ground which others have thought, or may think,
narrow, sectional, and dangerous to the Union,
I hope to give a reason which will appear suf-
ficient, at least to some, why I think differently.
220 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
'And as this subject is no other than part and
parcel of the larger general question of domestic
slavery, I wish to make and keep the distinction
between the existing institution and the extension
of it, so broad and so clear that no honest man
can misunderstand me, and no dishonest one suc-
cessfully misrepresent me.
In order to a clear understanding- of what the
Missouri Compromise is, a short history of the
preceding kindred subjects will perhaps be
proper.
When we established our independence, we did
not own or claim the country to which this com-
promise applies. Indeed, strictly speaking, the
Confederacy then owned no country at all ; the
States respectively owned the country within
their limits, and some of them owned territory
beyond their strict State limits. Virginia thus
owned the Northwestern Territory — the country
out of which the principal part of Ohio, all Indi-
ana, all Illinois, all Michigan, and all Wisconsin
have since been formed. She also owned (per-
haps within her then limits) what has since been
formed into the State of Kentucky. North Caro-
lina thus owned what is now the State of Ten-
nessee ; and South Carolina and Georgia owned,
in separate parts, what are now Mississippi and
Alabama. Connecticut, I think, owned the little
remaining part of Ohio, being the same where
they now send Giddings to Congress, and beat
all creation in making cheese.
These territories, together with the States •
themselves, constitute all the country over which
the Confederacy then claimed any sort of juris-
diction. We were then living under the Articles
of Confederation, which were superseded by the
1854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 221
Constitution several years afterward. The ques-
tion of ceding the territories to the General Gov-
ernment was set on foot. Mr. Jefferson, the au-
thor of the Declaration of Independence, and
otherwise a chief actor in the Revolution ; then
a delegate in Congress ; afterward, twice Presi-
dent ; who was, is, and perhaps will continue to
be, the most distinguished politician of our his-
tory,; a Virginian by birth and continued resi-
dence, and withal a slaveholder, — conceived the
idea of taking that occasion to prevent slavery
ever going into the Northwestern Territory. He
prevailed on the Virginia legislature to adopt his
views, and to cede the Territory, making the pro-
hibition of slavery therein a condition of the
deed.* Congress accepted the cession with the
condition; and the first ordinance (which the acts
of Congress were then called) for the govern-
ment of the Territory provided that slavery
should never be permitted therein. This is the
famed "Ordinance of '87," so often spoken of.
Thenceforward for sixty-one years, and until,
in 1848, the last scrap of this Territory came
into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all
parties acted in quiet obedience to this ordinance.
It is now what Jefferson foresaw and intended —
the happy home of teeming millions of free,
white, prosperous people, and no slave among
them.
Thus, with the author of the Declaration of
Independence, the policy of prohibiting slavery
in new territory originated. Thus, away back
* Mr. Lincoln afterward authorized the correction of
the error into which the report here falls, with regard
to the prohibition being made a condition of the deed.
It was not a condition (Nicolay and Hay).
2 2 2 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
to the Constitution, in the pure, fresh, free breath
of the Revolution, the State of Virginia and the
National Congress put that policy into practice.
Thus, through more than sixty of the best years
of the republic, did that policy steadily work to
its great and beneficent end. And thus, in those
five States, and in five millions of free, enter-
prising people, we have before us the rich fruits
of this policy.
But now new light breaks upon us. Now Con-
gress declares this ought never to have been, and
the like of it must never be again. The sacred
right of self-government is grossly violated by it.
We even find some men who drew their first
breath — and every other breath of their lives —
under this very restriction, now live in dread of
absolute suffocation if they should be restricted
in the "sacred right" of taking slaves to Ne-
braska. That perfect liberty they sigh for— the
liberty of making slaves of other people — Jeffer-
son never thought of, their own fathers never
thought of, they never thought of themselves, a
year ago. How fortunate for them they did not
sooner become sensible of their great misery!
Oh, how difficult it is to treat with respect such
assaults upon all we have ever really held sacred !
But to return to history. In 1803 we pur-
chased what was then called Louisiana, of
France. It included the present States of Loui-
siana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa; also the
Territory of Minnesota, and the present bone of
contention, Kansas and Nebraska. Slavery al-
ready existed among the French at New Orleans,,
and to some extent at St. Louis. In 1812 Loui-
siana came into the Union as a slave State with-
out controversy. In 1818 or '19, Missouri
i8 S 4] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 223
showed signs of a wish to come in with slavery.
This was resisted by Northern members of Con-
gress ; and thus began the first great slavery agi-
tation in the nation. This controversy lasted sev-
eral months, and became very angry and exciting,
— the House of Representatives voting steadily
for the prohibition of slavery in Missouri, and
the Senate voting as steadily against it. Threats
of the breaking up of the Union were freely made,
and the ablest public men of the day became seri-
ously alarmed. At length a compromise was
made, in which, as in all compromises, both sides
yielded something. It was a law, passed on the
6th of March, 1820, providing that Missouri might
come into the Union with slavery, but that in all
the remaining part of the territory purchased of
France, which lies north of thirty-six degrees and
thirty minutes north latitude, slavery should
never be permitted. This provision of law is the
"Missouri Compromise." In excluding slavery
north of the line, the same language is employed
as in the ordinance of 1787. It directly applied
to Iowa, Minnesota, and to the present bone of
contention, Kansas and Nebraska. Whether
there should or should not be slavery south of
that line, nothing was said in the law. But
Arkansas constituted the principal remaining
part south of the line; and it has since been ad-
mitted as a slave State, without serious contro-
versy. More recently, Iowa, north of the line,
came in as a free State without controversy. Still
later, Minnesota, north of the line, had a terri-
torial organization without controversy. Texas,
principally south of the line, and west of Arkan-
sas, though originally within the purchase from
France, had, in 18 19, been traded off to Spain in
224 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
our treaty for the acquisition of Florida. It had
thus become a part of Mexico. Mexico revolu-
tionized and became independent of Spain.
American citizens began settling" rapidly with
their slaves in the southern part of Texas. Soon
they revolutionized against Mexico, and estab-
lished an independent government of their own,
adopting a constitution with slavery, strongly re-
sembling the constitutions of our slave States.
By still another rapid move, Texas, claiming a
boundary much further west than when we
parted with her in 1819, was brought back to
the United States, and admitted into the Union
as a slave State. Then there was little or no
settlement in the northern part of Texas, a con-
siderable portion of which lay north of the Mis-
souri line ; and in the resolutions admitting her
into the Union, the Missouri restriction was ex-
pressly extended westward across her territory.
This was in 1845, on ^y n ^ ne years ago.
Thus originated the Missouri Compromise;
and thus has it been respected down to 1845.
And even four years later, in 1849, our distin-
guished senator, in a public address, held the
following language in relation to it :
The Missouri Compromise has been in practical
operation for about a quarter of a century, and has re-
ceived the sanction and approbation of men of all par-
ties in every section of the Union. It has allayed all
sectional jealousies and irritations growing out of this
vexed question, and harmonized and tranquilized the
whole country. It has given to Henry Clay, ^as its (
prominent champion, the proud sobriquet of the "Great
Pacificator," and by that title, and for that service, his
political friends had repeatedly appealed to the people
to rally under his standard as a presidential candidate,
as the man who had exhibited the patriotism and power
i8s4l MISSOURI COMPROMISE 225
to suppress an unholy and treasonable agitation, and
preserve the Union. He was not aware that any man
or any party, from any section of the Union, had ever
urged as an objection to Mr. Clay that he was the great
champion of the Missouri Compromise. On the con-
trary, the effort was made by the opponents of Mr.
Clay to prove that he was not entitled to the exclusive
merit of that great patriotic measure ; and that the
honor was equally due to others, as well as to him, for
securing its adoption — that it had its origin in the
hearts of all patriotic men, who desired to preserve and
perpetuate the blessings of our glorious Union — an
origin akin to that of the Constitution of the United
States, conceived in the same spirit of fraternal affec-
tion, and calculated to remove forever the only danger
which seemed to threaten, at some distant day, to sever
the social bond of union. All the evidences of public
opinion at that day seemed to indicate that this Com-
promise had been canonized in the hearts of the Ameri-
can people, as a sacred thing which no ruthless hand
would ever be reckless enough to disturb.
I do not read this extract to involve Judge
Douglas in an inconsistency. If he afterward
thought he had been wrong, it was right for him
to change. I bring this forward merely to show
the high estimate placed on the Missouri Com-
promise by all parties up to so late as the year
1849.
But going back a little in point of time. Our
war with Mexico broke out in 1846. When Con-
gress was about adjourning that session, Presi-
dent Polk asked them to place two millions of
dollars under his control, to be used by him in
the recess, if found practicable and expedient, in
negotiating a treaty of peace with Mexico, and
acquiring some part of her territory. A bill was
duly gotten up for the purpose, and was pro-
gressing swimmingly in the House of Repre-
sentatives, when a member by the name of David
226 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
Wilmot, a Democrat from Pennsylvania, moved
as an amendment, "Provided, that in any
territory thus acquired there shall never be
slavery."
This is the origin of the far-famed Wilmot
proviso. It created a great flutter; but it stuck
like wax, was voted into the bill, and the bill
passed with it through the House. The Senate,
however, adjourned without final action on it,
and so both appropriation and proviso were lost
for the time. The war continued, and at the next
session the President renewed his request for the
appropriation, enlarging the amount, I think, to
three millions. Again came the proviso, and de-
feated the measure. Congress adjourned again,
and the war went on. In December, 1847, the
new Congress assembled. I was in the lower
House that term. The Wilmot proviso, or the
principle of it, was constantly coming up in some
shape or other, and I think I may venture to say
I voted for it at least forty times during the short
time I was there. The Senate, however, held it
in check, and it never became a law. In the
spring of 1848 a treaty of peace was made with
Mexico, by which we obtained that portion of
her country which now constitutes the Territories
of New Mexico and Utah, and the present State
of California. By this treaty the Wilmot proviso
was defeated, in so far as it was intended to be
a condition of the acquisition of territory. Its
friends, however, were still determined to find
some way to restrain slavery from getting into
the new country. This new acquisition lay
directly west of our old purchase from France,
and extended west to the Pacific Ocean, and was
so situated that if the Missouri line should be ex-
1854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 227
tended straight west, the new country would be
divided by such extended line, leaving some
north and some south of it. On Judge Douglas's
motion, a bill, or provision of a bill, passed the
Senate to so extend the Missouri line. The pro-
viso men in the House, including myself, voted
it down, because, by implication, it gave up the
southern part to slavery, while we were bent on
having it all free.
In the fall of 1848 the gold-mines were dis-
covered in California. This attracted people to
it with unprecedented rapidity, so that on, or
soon after, the meeting of the new Congress in
December, 1849, sne already had a population of
nearly a hundred thousand, had called a con-
vention, formed a State Constitution excluding
slavery, and was knocking for admission into the
Union. The proviso men, of course, were for
letting her in, but the Senate, always true to the
other side, would not consent to her admission,
and there California stood, kept out of the Union
because she would not let slavery into her bor-
ders. Under all the circumstances, perhaps, this
was not wrong. There were other points of dis-
pute connected with the general question of
slavery, which equally needed adjustment. The
South clamored for a more efficient fugitive-slave
law. The North clamored for the abolition of
a peculiar species of slave-trade in the District of
Columbia, in connection with which, in view from
the windows of the Capitol, a sort of negro
livery-stable, where droves of negroes were col-
lected, temporarily kept, and finally taken to
Southern markets, precisely like droves of horses,
had been openly maintained for fifty years. Utah
and New Mexico needed territorial governments ;
22 3 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
and whether slavery should or should not be pro-
hibited within them was another question. The
indefinite western boundary of Texas was to be
settled. She was a slave State, and consequently
the farther west the slavery men could push her
boundary, the more slave country they secured ;
and the farther east the slavery opponents could
thrust the boundary back, the less slave ground
was secured. Thus this was just as clearly a
slavery question as any of the others.
These points all needed adjustment, and they
were held up, perhaps wisely, to make them help
adjust one another. The Union now, as in 1820,
was thought to be in danger, and devotion to the
Union rightfully inclined men to yield somewhat
in points, where nothing else could have so in-
clined them. A compromise was finally effected.
The South got their new fugitive-slave law, and
the North got California (by far the best part of
our acquisition from Mexico) as a free State.
The South got a provision that New Mexico and
Utah, when admitted as States, may come in
with or without slavery as they may then choose ;
and the North got the slave-trade abolished in the
District of Columbia. The North got the west-
ern boundary of Texas thrown farther back east-
ward than the South desired ; but, in turn, they
gave Texas ten millions of dollars with which to
pay her old debts. This is the compromise of
1850.
Preceding the presidential election of 1852,
each of the great political parties, Democrats and
Whigs, met in convention and adopted resolu-
tions indorsing the compromise of '50, as a "final-
ity," a final settlement, so far as these parties
could make it so, of all slavery agitation. Pre-
i8s4] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 229
vious to this, in 185 1, the Illinois legislature had
indorsed it.
During this long period of time, Nebraska had
remained substantially an uninhabited country,
but now emigration to and settlement within it
began to take place. It is about one third as large
as the present United States, and its importance,
so long overlooked, begins to come to view. The
restriction of slavery by the Missouri Compro-
mise directly applies to it — in fact was first made,
and has since been maintained, expressly for it.
In 1853, a bill to give it a territorial government
passed the House of Representatives, and, in the
hands of Judge Douglas, failed of passing only
for want of time. This bill contained no repeal
of the Missouri Compromise. Indeed, when it
was assailed because it did not contain such re-
peal, Judge Douglas defended it in its existing
form. On January 4, 1854, Judge Douglas in-
troduces a new bill to give Nebraska territorial
government. He accompanies this bill with a
report, in which last he expressly recommends
that the Missouri Compromise shall neither be af-
firmed nor repealed. Before long the bill is so
modified as to make two territories instead of
one, calling the southern one Kansas.
Also, about a month after the introduction of
the bill on the judge's own motion it is so
amended as to declare the Missouri Compromise
inoperative and void ; and, substantially, that the
people who go and settle there may establish
slavery, or exclude it, as they may see fit. In
this shape the bill passed both branches of Con-
gress and became a law.
This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
The foregoing history may not be precisely ac-
23 o EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
curate in every particular, but I am sure it is suf-
ficiently so for all the use I shall attempt to make
of it, and in it we have before us the chief ma-
terial enabling us to judge correctly whether the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise is right or
wrong. I think, and shall try to show, that it is
wrong — wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery
into Kansas and Nebraska, and wrong in its
prospective principle, allowing it to spread to
every other part of the wide world where men can
be found inclined to take it.
This declared indifference, but, as I must
think, covert real zeal, for the spread of slavery,
I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the mon-
strous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because
it deprives our republican example of its just in-
fluence in the world ; enables the enemies of free
institutions with plausibility to taunt us as hypo-
crites ; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt
our sincerity; and especially because it forces so
many good men among ourselves into an open
war with the very fundamental principles of civil
liberty, criticising the Declaration of Independ-
ence, and insisting that there is no right principle
of action but self-interest.
Before proceeding let me say that I think I
have no prejudice against the Southern people.
They are just what we would be in their situa-
tion. If slavery did not now exist among them,
they would not introduce it. If it did now exist
among us, we should not instantly give it up.
This I believe of the masses North and South.
Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who
would not hold slaves under any circumstances,
and others who would gladly introduce slavery
anew if it were out of existence. We know that
i8s4] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 231
some Southern men do free their slaves, go
North and become tip-top abolitionists, while
some Northern ones go South and become most
cruel slave-masters.
When Southern people tell us they are no more
responsible for the origin of slavery than we are,
I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the
institution exists, and that it is very difficult to
get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can un-
derstand and appreciate the saying. I surely will
not blame them for not doing what I should not
know how to do myself. If all earthly power
were given me, I should not know what to do as
to the existing institution. My first impulse
would be to free all the slaves, and send them to
Liberia, to their own native land. But a moment's
reflection would convince me that whatever of
high hope (as I think there is) there may be in
this in the long run, its sudden execution is im-
possible. If they were all landed there in a day,
they would all perish in the next ten days ; and
there are not surplus shipping and surplus money
enough to carry them there in many times ten
days. What then ? Free them all, and keep them
among us as underlings ? Is it quite certain that
this betters their condition? I think I would not
hold one in slavery at any rate, yet the point is
not clear enough for me to denounce people
upon. What next? Free them, and make them
politically and socially our equals. My own feel-
ings will not admit of this, and if mine would,
we well know that those of the great mass of
whites will not. Whether this feeling accords
with justice and sound judgment is not the sole
question, if indeed it is any part of it. A uni-.
versal feeling, whether well or ill founded, can-
232 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
not be safely disregarded. We cannot then make
them equals. It does seem to me that systems of
gradual emancipation might be adopted, but for
their tardiness in this I will not undertake to
judge our brethren of the South.
When they remind us of their constitutional
rights, I acknowledge them — not grudgingly, but
fully and fairly ; and T would give them any legis-
lation for the reclaiming of their fugitives which
should not in its stringency be more likely to carry
a free man into slavery than our ordinary crimi-
nal laws are to hang an innocent one.
But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no
more excuse for permitting slavery to go into our
own free territory than it would for reviving the
African slave-trade by law. The law which for-
bids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that
which has so long forbidden the taking of them
into Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on
any moral principle, and the repeal of the former
could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the
latter.
The arguments by which the repeal of the Mis-
souri Compromise is sought to be justified are
these : First. That the Nebraska country needed
a territorial government. Second. That in vari-
ous ways the public had repudiated that compro-
mise and demanded the repeal, and therefore
should not now complain of it. And, lastly, That
the repeal establishes a principle which is intrin-
sically right.
I will attempt an answer to each of them in its
turn. First then. If that country was in need of
a territorial organization, could it not have had it
as well without as with a repeal ? Iowa and Min-
nesota, to both of which the Missouri restriction
i8s 4 ] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 233
applied, had, without its repeal, each in succes-
sion, territorial organizations. And even the
year before, a bill for Nebraska itself was within
an ace of passing without the repealing clause,
and this in the hands of the same men who are
now the champions of repeal. Why no necessity
then for repeal? But still later, when this very
bill was first brought in, it contained no repeal.
But, say they, because the people had demanded,
or rather commanded, the repeal, the repeal was
to accompany the organization whenever that
should occur.
Now, I deny that the public ever demanded
any such thing — ever repudiated the Missouri
Compromise, ever commanded its repeal. I deny
it, and call for the proof. It is not contended, I
believe, that any such command has ever been
given in express terms. It is only said that it
was done in principle. The support of the Wil-
mot proviso is the first fact mentioned to prove
that the Missouri restriction was repudiated in
principle, and the second is the refusal to extend
the Missouri line over the country acquired from
Mexico. These are near enough alike to be treated
together. The one was to exclude the chances of
slavery from the whole new acquisition by the
lump, and the other was to reject a division of
it, by which one half was to be given up to those
chances. Now, whether this was a repudiation
of the Missouri line in principle depends upon
whether the Missouri law contained any principle
requiring the line to be extended over the coun-
try acquired from Mexico. I contend it did not.
I insist that it contained no general principle, but
that it was, in every sense, specific. That its
terms limit it to the country purchased from
234
EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
France is undenied and undeniable. It could
have no principle beyond the intention of those
who made it. They did not intend to extend the
line to country which they did not own. If they
intended to extend it in the event of acquiring
additional territory, why did they not say so?
It was just as easy to say that "in all the country
west of the Mississippi which we now own, or
may hereafter acquire, there shall never be
slavery," as to say what they did say; and they
would have said it if they had meant it. An in-
tention to extend the law is not only not men-
tioned in the law, but is not mentioned in any con-
temporaneous history. Both the law itself, and
the history of the times, are a blank as to any
principle of extension ; and by neither the known
rules of construing statutes and contracts, nor
by common sense, can any such principle be in-
ferred.
Another fact showing the specific character
of the Missouri law — showing that it intended no
more than it expressed, showing that the line was
not intended as a universal dividing line between
free and slave territory, present and prospective,
north of which slavery could never go — is the
fact that by that very law Missouri came in as a
slave State, north of the line. If that law con-
tained any prospective principle, the whole law
must be looked to in order to ascertain what the
principle was. And by this rule the South could
fairly contend that inasmuch as they got one slave
State north of the line at the inception of the'
law, they have the right to have another given
them north of it occasionally, now and then, in
the indefinite westward extension of the line.
This demonstrates the absurdity of attempting to
1854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 235
deduce a prospective principle from the Missouri
Compromise line.
When we voted for the Wilmot proviso we
were voting to keep slavery out of the whole
Mexican acquisition, and little did we think we
were thereby voting to let it into Nebraska, lying
several hundred miles distant. When we voted
against extending the Missouri line, little did we
think we were voting to destroy the old line, then
of near thirty years' standing.
To argue that we thus repudiated the Missouri
Compromise is no less absurd than it would be
to argue that because we have so far forborne to
acquire Cuba, we have thereby, in principle, re-
pudiated our former acquisitions and determined
to throw them out of the Union. No less absurd
than it would be to say that because I may have
refused to build an addition to my house, I there-
by have decided to destroy the existing house !
And if I catch you setting fire to my house, you
will turn upon me and say I instructed you to do
it!
The most conclusive argument, however, that
while for the Wilmot proviso, and while voting
against the extension of the Missouri line, we
never thought of disturbing the original Mis-
souri Compromise, is found in the fact that there
was then, and still is, an unorganized tract of fine
country, nearly as large as the State of Missouri,
lying immediately west of Arkansas and south of
the Missouri Compromise line, and that we never
attempted to prohibit slavery as to it. I wish
particular attention to this. It adjoins the origi-
nal Missouri Compromise line by its northern
boundary, and consequently is part of the coun-
try into which by implication slavery was per-
236 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
mitted to go by that compromise. There it has
lain open ever since, and there it still lies, and
yet no effort has been made at any time to wrest
it from the South. In all our struggles to pro-
hibit slavery within our Mexican acquisitions, we
never so much as lifted a finger to prohibit it as
to this tract. Is not this entirely conclusive that
at all times we have held the Missouri Compro-
mise as a sacred thing, even when against our-
selves as well as when for us?
Senator Douglas sometimes says the Missouri
line itself was in principle only an extension of
the line of the ordinance of '87 — that is to say,
an extension of the Ohio River. I think this is
weak enough on its face. I will remark, how-
ever, that, as a glance at the map will show, the
Missouri line is a long way farther south than the
Ohio, and that if our senator in proposing his ex-
tension had stuck to the principle of jogging
southward, perhaps it might not have been voted
down so readily.
But next it is said that the compromises of '50,
and the ratification of them by both political
parties in '52, established a new principle which
required the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
This again I deny. I deny it, and demand the
proof. I have already stated fully what the com-
promises of '50 are. That particular part of
those measures from which the virtual repeal of
the Missouri Compromise is sought to be in-
ferred (for it is admitted they contain nothing
about it in express terms) is the provision in the'
Utah and New Mexico laws which permits them
when they seek admission into the Union as
States to come in with or without slavery, as they
shall then see fit. Now I insist this provision
1854J MISSOURI COMPROMISE 237
was made for Utah and New Mexico, and for no
other place whatever. It had no more direct
reference to Nebraska than it had to the terri-
tories of the moon. But, say they, it had refer-
ence to Nebraska in principle. Let us see. The
North consented to this provision, not because
they considered it right in itself, but because they
were compensated — paid for it.
They at the same time got California into the
Union as a free State. This was far the best
part of all they had struggled for by the Wilmot
proviso. They also got the area of slavery some-
what narrowed in the settlement of the boundary
of Texas. Also they got the slave-trade abol-
ished in the District of Columbia.
For all these desirable objects the North could
afford to yield something; and they did yield to
the South the Utah and New Mexico provision.
I do not mean that the whole North, or even a
majority, yielded, when the law passed; but
enough yielded, when added to the vote of the
South, to carry the measure. Nor can it be pre-
tended that the principle of this arrangement
requires us to permit the same provision to be
applied to Nebraska, without any equivalent at
all. Give us another free State ; press the
boundary of Texas still further back ; give us
another step toward the destruction of slavery
in the District, and you present us a similar case.
But ask us not to repeat, for nothing, what you
paid for in the first instance. If you wish the
thing again, pay again. That is the principle of
the compromises of '50, if, indeed, they had any
principles beyond their specific terms — it was the
system of equivalents.
Again, if Congress, at that time, intended that
238 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
all future Territories should, when admitted as
States, come in with or without slavery, at their
own option, why did it not say so? With such a
universal provision, all know the bills could not
have passed. Did they, then — could they — estab-
lish a principle contrary to their own intention?
Still further, if they intended to establish the
principle that, whenever Congress had control,
it should be left to the people to do as they
thought fit with slavery, why did they not author-
ize the people of the District of Columbia,
at their option, to abolish slavery within their
limits ?
I personally know that this has not been left
undone because it was unthought of. It was
frequently spoken of by members of Congress,
and by citizens of Washington, six years ago;
and I heard no one express a doubt that a sys-
tem of gradual emancipation, with compensation
to owners, would meet the approbation of a large
majority of the white people of the District. But
without the action of Congress they could say
nothing; and Congress said "No." In the meas-
ures of 1850, Congress had the subject of slavery
in the District expressly on hand. If they were
then establishing the principle of allowing the
people to do as they please with slavery, why
did they not apply the principle to that people ?
Again, it is claimed that by the resolutions of
the Illinois legislature, passed in 185 1, the repeal
of the Missouri Compromise was demanded.
This I deny also. Whatever may be worked out
by a criticism of the language of those resolu-
tions, the people have never understood them as
being any more than an indorsement of the com-
promises of 1850, and a release of our senators
i8 S4 ] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 239
from voting for the Wilmot proviso. The whole
people are living witnesses that this only was
their view. Finally, it is asked, "If we did not
mean to apply the Utah and New Mexico pro-
vision to all future Territories, what did we mean
when we, in 1852, indorsed the compromises of
1850?"
For myself I can answer this question most
easily. I meant not to ask a repeal or modifica-
tion of the fugitive-slave law. I meant not to
ask for the abolition of slavery in the District of
Columbia. I meant not to resist the admission
of Utah and New Mexico, even should they ask
to come in as slave States. I meant nothing
about additional Territories, because, as I under-
stood, we then had no Territory whose character
as to slavery was not already settled. As to
Nebraska, I regarded its character as being fixed
by the Missouri Compromise for thirty years —
as unalterably fixed as that of my own home in
Illinois. As to new acquisitions, I said, "Suf-
ficient unto the day is the evil thereof." When
we make new acquisitions, we will, as heretofore,
try to manage them somehow. That is my an-
swer ; that is what I meant and said ; and I appeal
to the people to say each for himself, whether
that is not also the universal meaning of the free
States.
And now, in turn, let me ask a few questions.
If, by any or all these matters, the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise was commanded, why was
not the command sooner obeyed? Why was the
repeal omitted in the Nebraska bill of 1853?
Why was it omitted in the original bill of 1854?
Why in the accompanying report was such a re-
peal characterized as a departure from the course
240 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
pursued in 1850? and its continued omission
recommended ?
I am aware Judge Douglas now argues that
the subsequent express repeal is no substantial
alteration of the bill. This argument seems won-
derful to me. It is as if one should argue that
white and black are not different. He admits,
however, that there is a literal change in the bill,
and that he made the change in deference to other
senators who would not support the bill without.
This proves that those other senators thought
the change a substantial one, and that the judge
thought their opinions worth deferring to. His
own opinions, therefore, seem not to rest on a
very firm basis, even in his own mind ; and I sup-
pose the world believes, and will continue to be-
lieve, that precisely on the substance of that
change this whole agitation has arisen.
I conclude, then, that the public never de-
manded the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
I now come to consider whether the repeal,
with its avowed principles, is intrinsically right.
I insist that it is not. Take the particular case.
A controversy had arisen between the advocates
and opponents of slavery, in relation to its es-
tablishment within the country we had purchased
of France. The southern, and then best, part of
the purchase was already in as a slave State.
The controversy was settled by ako letting Mis-
souri in as a slave State ; but with the agreement
that within all the remaining part of the pur-
chase, north of a certain line, there should never
be slavery. As to what was to be done with the
remaining part south of the line, nothing was
said ; but perhaps the fair implication was, it
should come in with slavery if it should so choose.
i8 5 4] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 241
The southern part, except a portion heretofore
mentioned, afterward did come in with slavery,
as the State of Arkansas. All these many years,
since 1820, the northern part had remained a
wilderness. At length settlements began in it
also. In due course Iowa came in as a free State,
and Minnesota was given a territorial govern-
ment, without removing the slavery restriction.
Finally, the sole remaining part north of the line
— Kansas and Nebraska— was to be organized;
and it is proposed, and carried, to blot out the old
dividing line of thirty-four years' standing, and
to open the whole of that country to the introduc-
tion of slavery. Now this, to my mind, is mani-
festly unjust. After an angry and dangerous
controversy, the parties made friends by dividing
the bone of contention. The one party first ap-
propriates her own share, beyond all power to be
disturbed in the possession of it, and then seizes
the share of the other party. It is as if two starv-
ing men had divided their only loaf; the one had
hastily swallowed his half, and then grabbed the
other's half just as he was putting it to his mouth.
Let me here drop the main argument, to notice
what I consider rather an inferior matter. It is
argued that slavery will not go to Kansas and
Nebraska, in any event. This is a palliation, a
lullaby. I have some hope that it will not; but
let us not be too confident. As to climate, a
glance at the map shows that there are five slave
States — Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Ken-
tucky, and Missouri, and also the District of Co-
lumbia, all north of the Missouri Compromise
line. The census returns of 1850 show that with-
in these there are eight hundred and sixty-seven
thousand two hundred and seventy-six slaves, be-
242 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
ing more than one fourth of all the slaves in the
nation.
It is not climate, then, that will keep slavery
out of these Territories. Is there anything in the
peculiar nature of the country? Missouri ad-
joins these Territories by her entire western
boundary, and slavery is already within every
one of her western counties. I have even heard
it said that there are more slaves in proportion
to whites in the northwestern county of Missouri,
than within any other county in the State.
Slavery pressed entirely up to the old western
boundary of the State, and when rather recently
a part of that boundary at the northwest was
moved out a little farther west, slavery followed
on quite up to the new line. Now when the re-
striction is removed, what is to prevent it from
going still farther? Climate will not, no peculi-
arity of the country will, nothing in nature will.
Will the disposition of the people prevent it?
Those nearest the scene are all in favor of the
extension. The Yankees who are opposed to it
may be most numerous ; but, in military phrase,
the battle-field is too far from their base of oper-
ations.
But it is said, there now is no law in Nebraska
on the subject of slavery, and that, in such case,
taking a slave there operates his freedom. That
is good book-law, but is not the rule of actual
practice. Wherever slavery is it has been first
introduced without law. The oldest laws we find
concerning it are not laws introducing it, but
regulating it as an already existing thing. A
white man takes his slave to Nebraska now. Who
will inform the negro that he is free? Who will
take him before court to test the question of
1854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 243
his freedom? In ignorance of his legal emanci-
pation he is kept chopping, splitting, and plowing.
Others are brought, and move on in the same
track. At last, if ever the time for voting comes
on the question of slavery, the institution already,
in fact, exists in the country, and cannot well be
removed. The fact of its presence, and the diffi-
culty of its removal, will carry the vote in its
favor. Keep it out until a vote is taken, and a
vote in favor of it cannot be got in any popula-
tion of forty thousand on earth, who have been
drawn together by the ordinary motives of emi-
gration and settlement. To get slaves into the
Territory simultaneously with the whites in the
incipient stages of settlement is the precise stake
played for and won in this Nebraska measure.
The question is asked us : "If slaves will go in
notwithstanding the general principle of law
liberates them, why would they not equally go in
against positive statute law — go in, even if the
Missouri restriction were maintained?" I an-
swer, because it takes a much bolder man to ven-
ture in with his property in the latter case than
in the former; because the positive congressional
enactment is known to and respected by all, or
nearly all, whereas the negative principle that no
law is free law is not much known except among
lawyers. We have some experience of this prac-
tical difference. In spite of the ordinance of '87,
a few negroes were brought into Illinois, and
held in a state of quasi-slavery, not enough, how-
ever, to carry a vote of the people in favor of the
institution when they came to form a constitution.
But into the adjoining Missouri country, where
there was no ordinance of '87 — was no restric-
tion, they were carried ten times, nay, a hundred
244 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
times, as fast, and actually made a slave State.
.This is fact — naked fact.
Another lullaby argument is that taking slaves
to new countries does not increase their number,
does not make any one slave who would other-
wise be free. There is some truth in this, and I
am glad of it; but it is not wholly true. The
African slave-trade is not yet effectually sup-
pressed ; and if we make a reasonable deduction
for the white people among us who are
foreigners and the descendants of foreigners
arriving here since 1808, we shall find the in-
crease of the black population outrunning that of
the white to an extent unaccountable, except by
supposing that some of them, too, have been com-
ing from Africa. If this be so, the opening of
new countries to the institution increases the de-
mand for and augments the price of slaves, and
so does, in fact, make slaves of freemen, by caus-
ing them to be brought from Africa and sold into
bondage.
But however this may be, we know the open-
ing of new countries to slavery tends to the per-
petuation of the institution, and so does keep men
in slavery who would otherwise be free. This re-
sult we do not feel like favoring, and we are un-
der no legal obligation to suppress our feelings in
this respect.
Equal justice to the South, it is said, requires
us to consent to the extension of slavery to new
countries. That is to say, inasmuch as you do
not object to my taking my hog to Nebraska,
therefore I must not object to you taking your
slave. Now, I admit that this is perfectly logi-
cal, if there is no difference between hogs and
negroes. But while you thus require me to deny
1854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 245
the humanity of the negro, I wish to ask whether
you of the South, yourselves, have ever been will-
ing to do as much ? It is kindly provided that of
all those who come into the world only a small
percentage are natural tyrants. That percentage
is no larger in the slave States than in the free.
The great majority South, as well as North, have
human sympathies, of which they can no more
divest themselves than they can of their sensi-
bility to physical pain. These sympathies in the
bosoms of the Southern people manifest, in many
ways, their sense of the wrong of slavery, and
their consciousness that, after all, there is human-
ity in the negro. If they deny this, let me ad-
dress them a few plain questions. In 1820 you
joined the North, almost unanimously, in declar-
ing the African slave-trade piracy, and in annex-
ing to it the punishment of death. Why did you
do this ? If you did not feel that it was wrong,
why did you join in providing that men should be
hung for it? The practice was no more than
bringing wild negroes from Africa to such as
would buy them. But you never thought of
hanging men for catching and selling wild horses,
wild buffaloes, or wild bears.
Again, you have among you a sneaking indi-
vidual of the class of native tyrants known as the
"Slave-Dealer." He watches your necessities,
and crawls up to buy your slave, at a speculating
price. If you cannot help it, you sell to him;
but if you can help it, you drive him from your
door. You despise him utterly. You do not rec-
ognize him as a friend, or even as an honest man.
Your children must not play with his ; they may
rollick freely with the little negroes, but not with
the slave-dealer's children. If you are obliged to
24 6 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
deal with him, you try to get through the job
without so much as touching him. It is common
with you to join hands with the men you meet,
but with the slave-dealer you avoid the ceremony
— instinctively shrinking from the snaky contact.
If he grows rich and retires from business, you
still remember him, and still keep up the ban of
non-intercourse upon him and his family. Now
why is this? You do not so treat the man who
deals in corn, cotton, or tobacco.
And yet again. There are in the United States
and Territories, including the District of Colum-
bia, 433,643 free blacks. At five hundred dol-
lars per head they are worth over two hundred
millions of dollars. How comes this vast amount
of property to be running about without owners ?
We do not see free horses or free cattle running
at large. How is this? All these free blacks
are the descendants of slaves, or have been slaves
themselves ; and they would be slaves now but
for something which has operated on their white
owners, inducing them at vast pecuniary sacrifice
to liberate them. What is that something? Is
there any mistaking it? In all these cases it is
your sense of justice and human sympathy con-
tinually telling you that the poor negro has some
natural right to himself — that those who deny
it and make mere merchandise of him deserve
kickings, contempt, and death.
And now why will you ask us to deny the
humanity of the slave, and estimate him as only
the equal of the hog? Why ask us to do what '
you will not do yourselves? Why ask us to do
for nothing what two hundred millions of dollars
could not induce you to do ?
But one great argument in support of the re-
1 854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 247
peal of the Missouri Compromise is still to come.
That argument is "the sacred right of self-gov-
ernment." It seems our distinguished senator
has found great difficulty in getting his antago-
nists, even in the Senate, to meet him fairly on
this argument. Some poet* has said:
Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.
At the hazard of being thought one of the fools
of this quotation, I meet that argument — I rush
in — I take that bull by the horns. I trust I under-
stand and truly estimate the right of self-govern-
ment. My faith in the proposition that each man
should do precisely as he pleases with all which
is exclusively his own lies at the foundation of
the sense of justice there is in me. I extend the
principle to communities of men as well as to in-
dividuals. I so extend it because it is politically
wise, as well as naturally just: politically wise in
saving us from broils about matters which do not
concern us. Here, or at Washington, I would
not trouble myself with the oyster laws of Vir-
ginia, or the cranberry laws of Indiana. The
doctrine of self-government is right, — absolutely
and eternally right, — but it has no just applica-
tion as here attempted. Or perhaps I should
rather say that whether it has such application
depends upon whether a negro is not or is a man.
If he is not a man, in that case he who is a man
may as a matter of self-government do just what
he pleases with him. But if the negro is a man,
is it not to that extent a total destruction of self-
government to say that he too shall not govern
himself? When the white man governs himself,
.* Alexander Pope, in "Essay on Criticism."
248 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
that is self-government; but when he governs
himself and also governs another man, that is
more than self-government — that is despotism.
If the negro is a man, why then my ancient faith
teaches me that "all men are created equal," and
that there can be no moral right in connection
with one man's making a slave of another.
Judge Douglas frequently, with bitter irony
and sarcasm, paraphrases our argument by say-
ing: "The white people of Nebraska are good
enough to govern themselves, but they are not
good enough to govern a few miserable ne-
groes !"
Well ! I doubt not that the people of Nebraska
are and will continue to be as good as the average
of people elsewhere. I do not say the contrary.
What I do say is that no man is good enough to
govern another man without that other's consent.
I say this is the leading principle, the sheet-
anchor of American republicanism. Our Decla-
ration of Independence says :
We hold these truths to be self-evident : That all
men are created equal ; that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among
these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
That to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men, deriving their just powers from the
CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.
I have quoted so much at this time merely to
show that, according to our ancient faith, the just
powers of governments are derived from the con-
sent of the governed. Now the relation of master .
and slave is pro tanto a total violation of this
principle. The master not only governs the slave
without his consent, but he governs him by a set
of rules altogether different from those which he
i8s4l MISSOURI COMPROMISE 249
prescribes for himself. Allow all the governed
an equal voice in the government, and that, and
that only, is self-government.
Let it not be said I am contending for the es-
tablishment of political and social equality be-
tween the whites and blacks. I have already
said the contrary. I am not combating the argu-
ment of necessity, arising from the fact that the
blacks are already among us ; but I am combating
what is set up as moral argument for allowing
them to be taken where they have never yet been
— arguing against the extension of a bad thing,
which, where it already exists, we must of neces-
sity manage as we best can.
In support of his application of the doctrine of
self-government, Senator Douglas has sought to
bring to his aid the opinions and examples of our
Revolutionary fathers. I am glad he has done
this. I love the sentiments of those old-time men,
and shall be most happy to abide by their opin-
ions. He shows us that when it was in contem-
plation for the colonies to break off from Great
Britain, and set up a new government for them-
selves, several of the States instructed their dele-
gates to go for the measure, provided each State
should be allowed to regulate its domestic con-
cerns in its own way. I do not quote ; but this
in substance. This was right ; I see nothing ob-
jectionable in it. I also think it probable that it
had some reference to the existence of slavery
among them. I will not deny that it had. But
had it any reference to the carrying of slavery
into new countries ? That is the question, and we
will let the fathers, themselves answer it.
This same generation of men, and mostly the
same individuals of the generation who declared
2 5 o EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
this principle, who declared independence, who
fought the war of the Revolution through, who
afterward made the Constitution under which
we still live — these same men passed the ordi-
nance of '87, declaring that slavery should never
go to the Northwest Territory. I have no doubt
Judge Douglas thinks they were very inconsist-
ent in this. It is a question of discrimination be-
tween them and him. But there is not an inch of
ground left for his claiming that their opinions,
their example, their authority, are on his side in
the controversy.
Again, is not Nebraska, while a Territory, a
part of us? Do we not own the country? And
if we surrender the control of it, do we not sur-
render the right of self-government? It is part
of ourselves. If you say we shall not control it,
because it is only part, the same is true of every
other part; and when all the parts are gone,
what has become of the whole? What is then
left of us? What use for the General Govern-
ment, when there is nothing left for it to govern ?
But you say this question should be left to the
people of Nebraska, because they are more par-
ticularly interested. If this be the rule, you must
leave it to each individual to say for himself
whether he will have slaves. What better moral
right have thirty-one citizens of Nebraska to say
that the thirty-second shall not hold slaves than
the people of the thirty-one States have to say
that slavery shall not go into the thirty-second
State at all?
But if it is a sacred right for the people of
Nebraska to take and hold slaves there, it is
equally their sacred right to buy them where they
can buy them cheapest; and that, undoubtedly,
i8s 4 ] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 251
will be on the coast of Africa, provided you will
consent not to hang them for going there to buy
them.. You must remove this restriction, too,
from the sacred right of self-government. I am
aware, you say, that taking slaves from the States
to Nebraska does not make slaves of freemen;
but the African slave-trader can say just as much.
He does not catch free negroes and bring them
here. He finds them already slaves in the hands
of their black captors, and he honestly buys them
at the rate of a red cotton handkerchief a head.
This is very cheap, and it is a great abridgment
of the sacred right of self-government to hang
men for engaging in this profitable trade.
Another important objection to this application
of the right of self-government is that it enables
the first few to deprive the succeeding many of
a free exercise of the right of self-government.
The first few may get slavery in, and the subse-
quent many cannot easily get it out. How com-
mon is the remark now in the slave States, "If
we were only clear of our slaves, how much bet-
ter it would be for us." They are actually de-
prived of the privilege of governing themselves
as they would, by the action of a very few in
the beginning. The same thing was true of the
whole nation at the time our Constitution was
formed.
Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or
other new Territories, is not a matter of exclusive
concern to the people who may go there. The
whole nation is interested that the best use shall
be made of these Territories. We want them
for homes of free white people. This they can-
not be, to any considerable extent, if slavery shall
be planted within them. Slave States are places
252 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
for poor white people to remove from, not to re-
move to. New free States are the places for
poor people to go to, and better their condition.
For this use the nation needs these Territories.
Still further : there are constitutional relations
between the slave and free States which are de-
grading to the latter. We are under legal obliga-
tions to catch and return their runaway slaves
!to them : a sort of dirty, disagreeable job, which,
I believe, as a general rule, the slaveholders will
not perform for one another. Then again, in the
control of the government — the management of
the partnership affairs — they have greatly the
advantage of us. By the Constitution each State
has two senators, each has a number of repre-
sentatives in proportion to the number of its
people, and each has a number of presidential
electors equal to the whole number of its sena-
tors and representatives together. But in ascer-
taining the number of the people for this purpose,
five slaves are counted as being equal to three
whites. The slaves do not vote ; they are only
counted and so used as to swell the influence of
the white people's votes. The practical effect of
this is more aptly shown by a comparison of the
States of South Carolina and Maine. South
Carolina has six representatives, and so has
Maine; South Carolina has eight presidential
electors, and so has Maine. This is precise equal-
ity so far; and of course they are equal in sena-
tors, each having two. Thus in the control of
the government the two States are equals pre-
cisely. But how are they in the number of their
white people? Maine has 581,813, while South
Carolina has 274,567 ; Maine has twice as many
as South Carolina, and 32,679 over. Thus, each
i8s 4 ] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 253
white man in South Carolina is more than the
double of any man in Maine. This is all because
South Carolina, besides her free people, has 384,-
984 slaves. The South Carolinian has precisely
the same advantage over the white man in every
other free State as well as in Maine. He is more
than the double of any one of us in this crowd.
The same advantage, but not to the same extent,
is held by all the citizens of the slave States over
those of the free ; and it is an absolute truth, with-
out an exception, that there is no voter in any
slave State, but who has more legal power in the
government than any voter in any free State.
There is no instance of exact equality; and the
disadvantage is against us the whole chapter
through. This principle, in the aggregate, gives
the slave States in the present Congress twenty
additional representatives, being seven more than
the whole majority by which they passed the
Nebraska bill.
Now all this is manifestly unfair ; yet I do not
mention it to complain of it, in so far as it is al-
ready settled. It is in the Constitution, and I do
not for that cause, or any other cause, propose
to destroy, or alter, or disregard the Constitution.
I stand to it, fairly, fully, and firmly.
But when I am told I must leave it altogether
to other people to say whether new partners are
to be bred up and brought into the firm, on the
same degrading terms against me, I respectfully
demur. I insist that whether I shall be a whole
man, or only the half of one, in comparison with
others, is a question in which I am somewhat
concerned, and one which no other man can have
a sacred right of deciding for me. If I am wrong
in this — if it really be a sacred right of self-gov-
2 54 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
ernment in the man who shall go to Nebraska to
decide whether he will be the equal of me or the
double of me, then, after he shall have exercised
that right, and thereby shall have reduced me to
a still smaller fraction of a man than I already
am, I should like for some gentleman, deeply
skilled in the mysteries of sacred rights, to pro-
vide himself with a microscope, and peep about,
and find out, if he can, what has become of my
sacred rights. They will surely be too small for
detection with the naked eye.
Finally, I insist that if there is anything which
it is the duty of the whole people to never intrust
to any hands but their own, that thing is the
preservation and perpetuity of their own liberties
and institutions. And if they shall think, as I
do, that the extension of slavery endangers them
more than any or all other causes, how recreant
to themselves if they submit the question, and
with it the fate of their country, to a mere hand-
ful of men bent only on self-interest. If this
question of slavery extension were an insignifi-
cant one — one having no power to do harm — it
might be shuffled aside in this way ; but being, as
it is, the great Behemoth of danger, shall the
strong grip of the nation be loosened upon him,
to intrust him to the hands of such feeble
keepers?
I have done with this mighty argument of
self-government. Go, sacred thing! Go in
peace.
But Nebraska is urged as a great Union-sav-
ing measure. Well, I too go for saving the
Union. Much as I hate slavery, I would consent
to the extension of it rather than see the Union
dissolved, just as I would consent to any great evil
1854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 255
to avoid a greater one. But when I go to Union-
saving, I must believe, at least, that the means I
employ have some adaptation to the end. To my
mind, Nebraska has no such adaptation.
It hath no relish of salvation in it.
It is an aggravation, rather, of the only one thing
which ever endangers the Union. When it came
upon us, all was peace and quiet. The nation
was looking to the forming of new bonds of
union, and a long course of peace and prosperity
seemed to lie before us. In the whole range of
possibility, there scarcely appears to me to have
been anything out of which the slavery agitation
could have been revived, except the very project
of repealing the Missouri Compromise. Every
inch of territory we owned already had a definite
settlement of the slavery question, by which all
parties were pledged to abide. Indeed, there was
no uninhabited country on the continent which
we could acquire, if we except some extreme
northern regions which are wholly out of the
question.
In this state of affairs the Genius of Discord
himself could scarcely have invented a way of
again setting us by the ears but by turning back
and destroying the peace measures of the past.
The counsels of that Genius seem to have pre-
vailed. The Missouri Compromise was repealed ;
and here we are in the midst of a new slavery
agitation, such, I think, as we have never seen be-
fore. Who is responsible for this? Is it those
who resist the measure, or those who causelessly
brought it forward and pressed it through, hav-
ing reason to know, and in fact knowing, it must
and would be so resisted? It could not but be
256 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
expected by its author that it would be looked
upon as a measure for the extension of slavery,
aggravated by a gross breach of faith.
Argue as you will and long as you will, this is
the naked front and aspect of the measure. And
in this aspect it could not but produce agitation.
Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's
nature — opposition to it in his love of justice.
These principles are in eternal antagonism, and
when brought into collision so fiercely as slavery
extension brings them, shocks and throes and
convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the
Missouri Compromise, repeal all compromises,
repeal the Declaration of Independence, repeal
all past history, you still cannot repeal human
nature. It still will be the abundance of man's
heart that slavery extension is wrong, and out
of the abundance of his heart his mouth will con-
tinue to speak.
The structure, too, of the Nebraska bill is very
peculiar. The people are to decide the question
of slavery for themselves ; but when they are to
decide or how they are to decide, or whether,
when the question is once decided, it is to remain
so or is to be subject to an indefinite succession
of new trials, the law does not say. Is it to be
decided by the first dozen settlers who arrive
there, or is it to await the arrival of a hundred?
Is it to be decided by a vote of the people or a
vote of the legislature, or, indeed, by a vote of
any sort? To these questions the law gives no
answer. There is a mystery about this ; for when
a member proposed to give the legislature ex-
press authority to exclude slavery, it was hooted
down by the friends of the bill. This fact is worth
remembering. Some Yankees in the East are
i8s4] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 257
sending emigrants to Nebraska to exclude slav-
ery from it; and, so far as I can judge, they ex-
pect the question to be decided by voting in some
way or other. But the Missourians are awake,
too. They are within a stone's-throw of the con-
tested ground. They hold meetings and pass
resolutions, in which not the slightest allusion to
voting is made. They resolve that slavery al-
ready exists in the Territory; that more shall go
there ; that they, remaining in Missouri, will pro-
tect it, and that Abolitionists shall be hung or
driven away. Through all this bowie-knives and
six-shooters are seen plainly enough, but never a
glimpse of the ballot-box.
And, really, what is the result of all this ? Each
party within having numerous and determined
backers without, is it not probable that the con-
test will come to blows and bloodshed? Could
there be a more apt invention to bring about col-
lision and violence on the slavery question than
this Nebraska project is ? I do not charge or be-
lieve that such was intended by Congress ; but
if they had literally formed a ring and placed
champions within it to fight out the controversy,
the fight could be no more likely to come off than
it is. And if this fight should begin, is it likely
to take a very peaceful, Union-saving turn? Will
not the first drop of blood so shed be the real
knell of the Union?
The Missouri Compromise ought to be re-
stored. For the sake of the Union, it ought to
be restored. We ought to elect a House of Rep-
resentatives which will vote its restoration. If
by any means we omit to do this, what follows?
Slavery may or may not be established in Ne-
braska. But whether it be or not, we shall have
258 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
repudiated — discarded from the councils of the
nation — the spirit of compromise ; for who, after
this, will ever trust in a national compromise?
The spirit of mutual concession — that spirit
which first gave us the Constitution, and which
has thrice saved the Union — we shall have
strangled and cast from us forever. And what
shall we have in lieu of it? The South flushed
with triumph and tempted to excess ; the North,
betrayed as they believe, brooding on wrong and
burning for revenge. One side will provoke, the
other resent. The one will taunt, the other defy ;
one aggresses, the other retaliates. Already a
few in the North defy all constitutional restraints,
resist the execution of the fugitive-slave law, and
even menace the institution of slavery in the
States where it exists. Already a few in the
South claim the constitutional right to take and
to hold slaves in the free States — demand the re-
vival of the slave-trade — and demand a treaty
with Great Britain by which fugitive slaves may
be reclaimed from Canada. As yet they are but
few on either side. It is a grave question for
lovers of the Union, whether the final destruction
of the Missouri Compromise, and with it the
spirit of all compromise, will or will not embolden
and embitter each of these, and fatally increase
the number of both.
But restore the compromise, and what then?
We thereby restore the national faith, the na-
tional confidence, the national feeling of brother-
hood. We thereby reinstate the spirit of conces-
sion and compromise, that spirit which has never'
failed us in past perils, and which may be safely
trusted for all the future. The South ought to
join in doing this. The peace of the nation is as
1854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 259
dear to them as to us. In memories of the past
and hopes of the future, they share as largely as
we. It would be on their part a great act — great
in its spirit, and great in its effect. It would be
worth to the nation a hundred years' purchase of
peace and prosperity. And what of sacrifice
would they make? They only surrender to us
what they gave us for a consideration long, long
ago ; what they have not now asked for, struggled
or cared for ; what has been thrust upon them,
not less to their astonishment than to ours.
But it is said we cannot restore it ; that though
we elect every member of the lower House, the
Senate is still against us. It is quite true that of
the senators who passed the Nebraska bill, a ma-
jority of the whole Senate will retain their seats
in spite of the elections of this and the next year.
But if at these elections their several constitu-
encies shall clearly express their will against Ne-
braska, will these Senators disregard their will?
Will they neither obey nor make room for those
who will?
But even if we fail to technically restore the
compromise, it is still a great point to carry a
popular vote in favor of the restoration. The
moral weight of such a vote cannot be estimated
too highly. The authors of Nebraska are not at
all satisfied with the destruction of the compro-
mise — an indorsement of this principle they pro-
claim to be the great object. With them, Ne-
braska alone is a small matter — to establish a
principle for future use is what they particularly
desire.
The future use is to be the planting of slavery
wherever in the wide world local and unorgan-
ized opposition cannot prevent it. Now, if you
260 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
wish to give them this indorsement, if you wish
to establish this principle, do so. I shall regret
it, but it is your right. On the contrary, if you
are opposed to the principle, — intend to give it
no such indorsement, — let no wheedling, no
sophistry, divert you from throwing a direct vote
against it.
Some men, mostly Whigs, who condemn the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, nevertheless
hesitate to go for its restoration, lest they be
thrown in company with the Abolitionists. Will
they allow me, as an old Whig, to tell them,
good-humoredly, that I think this is very silly?
Stand with anybody that stands right. Stand
with him while he is right, and part with him
when he goes wrong. Stand with the Abolition-
ist in restoring the Missouri Compromise, and
stand against him when he attempts to repeal the
fugitive-slave law. In the latter case you stand
with the Southern disunionist. What of that?
you are still right. In both cases you are right.
In both cases you expose the dangerous extremes.
In both you stand on middle ground, and hold
the ship level and steady. In both you are na-
tional, and nothing less than national. This is
the good old Whig ground. To desert such
ground because of any company, is to be less than
a Whig — less than a man — less than an Ameri-
can.
I particularly object to the new position which
the avowed principle of this Nebraska law gives
to slavery in the body politic. I object to it be- ,
cause it assumes that there can be moral right
in the enslaving of one man by another. I object
to it as a dangerous dalliance for a free people —
a sad evidence that, feeling prosperity, we forget
i8 S4 ] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 261
right ; that liberty, as a principle, we have ceased
to revere. I object to it because the fathers of
the republic eschewed and rejected it. The argu-
ment of "necessity" was the only argument they
ever admitted in favor of slavery; and so far,
and so far only, as it carried them did it ever go.
They found the institution existing among us,
which they could not help, and they cast blame
upon the British king for having permitted its
introduction. Before the Constitution they pro-
hibited its introduction into the Northwestern
Territory, the only country we owned then free
from it. At the framing and adoption of the
Constitution, they forbore to so much as mention
the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instru-
ment. In the provision for the recovery of fugi-
tives, the slave is spoken of as a "person held in
service or labor." In that prohibiting the abolition
of the African slave-trade for twenty years, that
trade is spoken of as "the migration or importa-
tion of such persons as any of the States now ex-
isting shall think proper to admit," etc. These are
the only provisions alluding to slavery. Thus the
thing is hid away in the Constitution, just as an
afflicted man hides away a wen or cancer which
he dares not cut out at once, lest he bleed to
death, — with the promise, nevertheless, that the
cutting may begin at a certain time. Less than
this our fathers could not do, and more they
would not do. Necessity drove them so far, and
further they would not go. But this is not all.
The earliest Congress under the Constitution
took the same view of slavery. They hedged and
hemmed it in to the narrowest limits of necessity.
In 1794 they prohibited an outgoing slave-
trade — that is the taking of slaves from the
262 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
United States to sell. In 1798 they prohibited
the bringing of slaves from Africa into the Miss-
issippi Territory, this Territory then comprising
what are now the States of Mississippi and Ala-
bama. This was ten years before they had the
authority to do the same thing as to the States
existing at the adoption of the Constitution. In
1800 they prohibited American citizens from
trading in slaves between foreign countries, as,
for instance, from Africa to Brazil. In 1803 they
passed a law in aid of one or two slave-State
laws, in restraint of the internal slave-trade. In
1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law,
nearly a year in advance, — to take effect the first
day of 1808, the very first day the Constitution
would permit, — prohibiting the African slave-
trade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties.
In 1820, finding these provisions ineffectual, they
declared the slave-trade piracy, and affixed to
it the extreme penalty of death. While all this
was passing in the General Government, five or
six of the original slave States had adopted sys-
tems of gradual emancipation, by which the in-
stitution was rapidly becoming extinct within
their limits. Thus we see that the plain, unmis-
takable spirit of that age toward slavery was hos-
tility to the principle and toleration only by neces-
sity.
But now it is to be transformed into a "sacred
right." Nebraska brings it forth, places it on the
highroad to extension and perpetuity, and with a
pat on its back says to it, "Go, and God speed ,
you." Henceforth it is to be the chief jewel of
the nation — the very figurehead of the ship of
state. Little by little, but steadily as man's march
to the grave, we have been giving up the old for
1854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 263
the new faith. Near eighty years ago we began
by declaring that all men are created equal; but
now from that beginning we have run down to
the other declaration, that for some men to en-
slave others is a "sacred right of self-govern-
ment." These principles cannot stand together.
They are as opposite as God and Mammon ; and
whoever holds to the one must despise the other.
When Pettit, in connection with his support of
the Nebraska bill, called the Declaration of In-
dependence "a self-evident lie," he only did what
consistency and candor require all other Ne-
braska men to do. Of the forty-odd Nebraska
senators who sat present and heard him, no one
rebuked him. Nor am I apprised that any Ne-
braska newspaper, or any Nebraska orator, in
the whole nation has ever yet rebuked him. If
this had been said among Marion's men, South-
erners though they were, what would have be-
come of the man who said it? If this had been
said to the men who captured Andre, the man
who said it would probably have been hung
sooner than Andre was. If it had been said in
old Independence Hall seventy-eight years ago,
the very doorkeeper would have throttled the
man and thrust him into the street. Let no one
be deceived. The spirit of seventy-six and the
spirit of Nebraska are utter antagonisms ; and the
former is being rapidly displaced by the latter.
Fellow-countrymen, Americans, South as well
as North, shall we make no effort to arrest this?
Already the liberal party throughout the world
express the apprehension "that the one retro-
grade institution in America is undermining the
principles of progress, and fatally violating the
noblest political system the world ever saw." This
264 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
is not the taunt of enemies, but the warning of
friends. Is it quite safe to disregard it — to de-
spise it? Is there no danger to liberty itself in
discarding the earliest practice and first precept
of our ancient faith? In our greedy chase to
make profit of the negro, let us beware lest we
"cancel and tear in pieces" even the white man's
charter of freedom.
Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the
dust. Let us repurify it. Let us turn and wash
it white in the spirit, if not the blood, of the Revo-
lution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of
"moral right" back upon its existing legal rights
and its arguments of "necessity." Let us return
it to the position our fathers gave it, and there
let it rest in peace. Let us readopt the Declara-
tion of Independence, and with it the practices
and policy which harmonize with it. Let North
and South — let all Americans — let all lovers of
liberty everywhere join in the great and good
work. If we do this, we shall not only have
saved the Union, but we shall have so saved it
as to make and to keep it forever worthy of the
saving. We shall have so saved it that the suc-
ceeding millions of free happy people, the world
over, shall rise up and call us blessed to the latest
generations.
At Springfield, twelve days ago, where I had
spoken substantially as I have here, Judge Doug-
las replied to me ; and as he is to reply to me here,
I shall attempt to anticipate him by noticing some
of the points he made there. He commenced by
stating I had assumed all the way through that
the principle of the Nebraska bill would have the
effect of extending slavery. He denied that this
was intended, or that this effect would follow.
1854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 265
I will not reopen the argument upon this point.
That such was the intention the world believed
at the start, and will continue to believe. This
was the countenance of the thing, and both
friends and enemies instantly recognized it as
such. That countenance cannot now be changed
by argument. You can as easily argue the color
out of the negro's skin. Like the "bloody hand,"
though you may wash it and wash it, the red wit-
ness of guilt still sticks and stares horribly at
you.
Next he says that congressional intervention
never prevented slavery anywhere ; that it did not
prevent it in the Northwestern Territory, nor in
Illinois ; that, in fact, Illinois came into the Union
as a slave State; that the principle of the Ne-
braska bill expelled it from Illinois, from several
old States, from everywhere.
Now this is mere quibbling all the way
through. If the ordinance of '87 did not keep
slavery out of the Northwest Territory, how hap-
pens it that the northwest shore of the Ohio
River is entirely free from it, while the south-
east shore, less than a mile distant, along nearly
the whole length of the river, is entirely covered
with it?
If that ordinance did not keep it out of Illinois,
what was it that made the difference between
Illinois and Missouri ? They lie side by side, the
Mississippi River only dividing them, while their
early settlements were within the same latitude.
Between 1810 and 1820, the number of slaves in
Missouri increased 7,211, while in Illinois in the
same ten years they decreased 51. This appears
by the census returns. During nearly all of that
ten years both were Territories, not States.
266 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
During this time the ordinance forbade slavery
to go into Illinois, and nothing forbade it to go
into Missouri. It did go into Missouri, and
did not go into Illinois. That is the fact. Can
any one doubt as to the reason of it? But he says
Illinois came into the Union as a slave State.
Silence, perhaps, would be the best answer to
this flat contradiction of the known history of
the country. What are the facts upon which
this bold assertion is based? When we first ac-
quired the country, as far back as 1787, there
were some slaves within it held by the French
inhabitants of Kaskaskia. The territorial legisla-
tion admitted a few negroes from the slave States
as indentured servants. One year after the adop-
tion of the first State constitution, the whole
number of them was — what do you think? Just
one hundred and seventeen, while the aggregate
free population was 55,094, — about four hundred
and seventy to one. Upon this state of facts the
people framed their constitution prohibiting the
further introduction of slavery, with a sort of
guarantee to the owners of the few indentured
servants, giving freedom to their children to be
born thereafter, and making no mention what-
ever of any supposed slave for life. Out of this
small matter the judge manufactures his argu-
ment that Illinois came into the Union as a slave
State. Let the facts be the answer to the argu-
ment.
The principles of the Nebraska bill, he says,
expelled slavery from Illinois. The principle of'
that bill first planted it here — that is, it first came
because there was no law to prevent it, first came
before we owned the country ; and finding it here,
and having the ordinance of '87 to prevent its in-
i8s43 MISSOURI COMPROMISE 267
creasing, our people struggled along, and finally
got rid of it as best they could.
But the principle of the Nebraska bill abolished
slavery in several of the old States. Well, it is
true that several of the old States, in the last
quarter of the last century, did adopt systems of
gradual emancipation by which the institution has
finally become extinct within their limits; but it
may or may not be true that the principle of the
Nebraska bill was the cause that led to the adop-
tion of these measures. It is now more than fifty
years since the last of these States adopted its
system of emancipation.
If the Nebraska bill is the real author of these
benevolent works, it is rather deplorable that it
has for so long a time ceased working altogether.
Is there not some reason to suspect that it was the
principle of the Revolution, and not the principle
of the Nebraska bill, that led to emancipation in
these old States ? Leave it to the people of these
old emancipating States, and I am quite certain
they will decide that neither that nor any other
good thing ever did or ever will come of the Ne-
braska bill.
In the course of my main argument, Judge
Douglas interrupted me to say that the principle
of the Nebraska bill was very old ; that it origi-
nated when God made man, and placed good and
evil before him, allowing him to choose for him-
self, being responsible for the choice he should
make. At the time I thought this was merely
playful, and I answered it accordingly. But in
his reply to me he renewed it as a serious argu-
ment. In seriousness, then, the facts of this
proposition are not true as stated. God did not
place good and evil before man, telling him to
268 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
make his choice. On the contrary, he did tell him
there was one tree of the fruit of which he should
not eat, upon pain of certain death. I should
scarcely wish so strong a prohibition against
slavery in Nebraska.
But this argument strikes me as not a little re-
markable in another particular — in its strong re-
semblance to the old argument for the "divine
right of kings." By the latter, the king is to do
just as he pleases with his white subjects, being
responsible to God alone. By the former, the
white man is to do just as he pleases with his
black slaves, being responsible to God alone.
The two things are precisely alike, and it is but
natural that they should find similar arguments
to sustain them.
I had argued that the application of the prin-
ciple of self-government, as contended for, would
require the revival of the African slave-trade ;
that no argument could be made in favor of a
man's right to take slaves to Nebraska which
could not be equally well made in favor of his
right to bring them from the coast of Africa.
The judge replied that the Constitution requires
the suppression of the foreign slave-trade, but
does not require the prohibition of slavery in the
Territories. That is a mistake in point of fact.
The Constitution does not require the action of
Congress in either case, and it does authorize it
in both. And so there is still no difference be-
tween the cases.
In regard to what I have said of the advantage
the slave States have over the free in the matter
of representation, the judge replied that we in
the free States count five free negroes as five
white people, while in the slave States they count
1 854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 269
five slaves as three whites only ; and that the
advantage, at last, was on the side of the free
States.
Now, in the slave States they count free ne-
groes just as we do; and it so happens that, be-
sides their slaves, they have as many free negroes
as we have, and thirty thousand over. Thus,
their free negroes more than balance ours ; and
their advantage over us, in consequence of their
slaves, still remains as I stated it.
In reply to my argument that the compromise
measures of 1850 were a system of equivalents,
and that the provisions of no one of them could
fairly be carried to other subjects, without its
corresponding equivalent being carried with it,
the judge denied outright that these measures
had any connection with or dependence upon
each other. This is mere desperation. If they
had no connection, why are they always spoken
of in connection ? Why has he so spoken of them
a thousand times ? Why has he constantly called
them a series of measures? Why does every-
body call them a compromise? Why was Cali-
fornia kept out of the Union six or seven months,
if it was not because of its connection with the
other measures? Webster's leading definition of
the verb "to compromise" is "to adjust and settle
a difference, by mutual agreement, with conces-
sions of claims by the parties." This conveys
precisely the popular understanding of the word
"compromise."
We knew, before the judge told us, that these
measures passed separately, and in distinct bills,
and that no two of them were passed by the votes
of precisely the same members. But we also
know, and so does he know, that no one of them
270 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
could have passed both branches of Congress but
for the understanding that the others were to
pass also. Upon this understanding, each got
votes which it could have got in no other way.
It is this fact which gives to the measures their
true character ; and it is the universal knowledge
of this fact that has given them the name of
"compromises," so expressive of that true char-
acter.
I had asked "if, in carrying the Utah and New
Mexico laws to Nebraska, you could clear away
other objection, how could you leave Nebraska
'perfectly free' to introduce slavery before she
forms a constitution during her territorial govern-
ment, while the Utah and New Mexico laws only
authorize it when they form constitutions and are
admitted into the Union ?" To this Judge Doug-
las answered that the Utah and New Mexico
laws also authorized it before ; and to prove this
he read from one of their laws, as follows : "That
the legislative power of said territory shall ex-
tend to all rightful subjects of legislation, con-
sistent with the Constitution of the United States
and the provisions of this act."
Now it is perceived from the reading of this
that there is nothing express upon the subject,
but that the authority is sought to be implied
merely for the general provision of "all rightful
subjects of legislation." In reply to this I insist,
as a legal rule of construction, as well as the
plain, popular view of the matter, that the ex-
press provision for Utah and New Mexico com-
ing in with slavery, if they choose, when they
shall form constitutions, is an exclusion of all
implied authority on the same subject; that Con-
gress, having the subject distinctly in their minds
i854] MISSOURI COMPROMISE 271
when they made the express provision, they
therein expressed their whole meaning on that
subject.
The judge rather insinuated that I had found
it convenient to forget the Washington territorial
law passed in 1853. This was a division of Ore-
gon organizing the northern part as the Terri-
tory of Washington. He asserted that by this
act the ordinance of '87, theretofore existing in
Oregon, was repealed ; that nearly all the mem-
bers of Congress voted for it, beginning in the
House of Representatives with Charles Allen of
Massachusetts, and ending with Richard Yates
of Illinois ; and that he could not understand how
those who now oppose the Nebraska bill so voted
there, unless it was because it was then too soon
after both the great political parties had ratified
the compromises of 1850, and the ratification
therefore was too fresh to be then repudiated.
Now I had seen the Washington act before,
and I have carefully examined it since; and I
aver that there is no repeal of the ordinance of
'87, or of any prohibition of slavery, in it. In
express terms, there is absolutely nothing in the
whole law upon the subject — in fact, nothing to
lead a reader to think of the subject. To my
judgment it is equally free from everything from
which repeal can be legally implied; but how-
ever this may be, are men now to be entrapped
by a legal implication, extracted from covert
language, introduced perhaps for the very pur-
pose of entrapping them ? I sincerely wish every
man could read this law quite through, carefully
watching every sentence and every line for a re-
peal of the ordinance of '87, or anything equiva-
lent to it.
272 EARLY SPEECHES [Oct. 16
Another point on the Washington act. If it
was intended to be modeled after the Utah and
New Mexico acts, as Judge Douglas insists, why
was it not inserted in it, as in them, that Wash-
ington was to come in with or without slavery
as she may choose at the adoption of her constitu-
tion ? It has no such provision in it ; and I defy
the ingenuity of man to give a reason for the
omission, other than that it was not intended to
follow the Utah and New Mexico laws in regard
to the question of slavery.
The Washington act not only differs vitally
from the Utah and New Mexico acts, but the
Nebraska act differs vitally from both. By the
latter act the people are left "perfectly free" to
regulate their own domestic concerns, etc. ; but
in all the former, all their laws are to be submit-
ted to Congress, and if disapproved are to be
null. The Washington act goes even further;
it absolutely prohibits the territorial legislature,
by very strong and guarded language, from es-
tablishing banks or borrowing money on the faith
of the Territory. Is this the sacred right of self-
government we hear vaunted so much ? No, sir ;
the Nebraska bill finds no model in the acts of
'50 or the Washington act. It finds no model in
any law from Adam till to-day. As Phillips says
of Napoleon, the Nebraska act is grand, gloomy,
and peculiar, wrapped in the solitude of its own
originality, without a model and without a
shadow upon the earth.
In the course of his reply Senator Douglas re-
marked in substance that he had always consid- '
ered this government was made for the white
people and not for the negroes. Why, in point of
mere fact, I think so too. But in this remark of
i8s43 MISSOURI COMPROMISE 273
the judge there is a significance which I think is
the key to the great mistake (if there is any such
mistake) which he has made in this Nebraska
measure. It shows that the judge has no very
vivid impression that the negro is human, and
consequently has no idea that there can be any
moral question in legislating about him. In his
view the question of whether a new country shall
be slave or free, is a matter of as utter indiffer-
ence as it is whether his neighbor shall plant his
farm with tobacco or stock it with horned cattle.
Now, whether this view is right or wrong, it is
very certain that the great mass of mankind take
a totally different view. They consider slavery a
great moral wrong, and their feeling against it
is not evanescent, but eternal. It lies at the very
foundation of their sense of justice, and it cannot
be trifled with. It is a great and durable element
of popular action, and I think no statesman can
safely disregard it.
Our senator also objects that those who oppose
him in this matter do not entirely agree with one
another. He reminds me that in my firm ad-
herence to the constitutional rights of the slave
States, I differ widely from others who are co-
operating with me in opposing the Nebraska bill,
and he says it is not quite fair to oppose him in
this variety of ways. He should remember that
he took us by surprise — astounded us by this
measure. We were thunderstruck and stunned,
and we reeled and fell in utter confusion. But
we rose, each fighting, grasping whatever he
could first reach — a scythe, a pitchfork, a chop-
ping-ax, or a butcher's cleaver. We struck in the
direction of the sound, and we were rapidly clos-
ing in upon him. He must not think to divert us
274
EARLY SPEECHES [May 29
from our purpose by showing us that our drill,
our dress, and our weapons are not entirely per-
fect and uniform. When the storm shall be past
he shall find us still Americans, no less devoted
to the continued union and prosperity of the
country than heretofore.
Finally, the judge invokes against me the
memory of Clay and Webster. They were great
men, and men of great deeds. But where have
I assailed them? For what is it that their life-
long enemy shall now make profit by assuming
to defend them against me, their life-long friend ?
I go against the repeal of the Missouri Compro-
mise; did they ever go for it? They went for
the compromises of 1850; did I ever go against
them ? They were greatly devoted to the Union ;
to the small measure of my ability was I ever
less so? Clay and Webster were dead before this
question arose ; by what authority shall our sena-
tor say they would espouse his side of it if alive ?
Mr. Clay was the leading spirit in making the
Missouri Compromise; is it very credible that if
now alive he would take the lead in the breaking
of it? The truth is that some support from
Whigs is now a necessity with the judge, and for
this it is that the names of Clay and Webster are
invoked. His old friends have deserted him in
such numbers as to leave too few to live by. He
came to his own, and his own received him not ;
and lo ! he turns unto the Gentiles.
A word now as to the judge's desperate as-
sumption that the compromises of 1850 had no,
connection with one another; that Illinois came
into the Union as a slave State, and some other
similar ones. This is no other than a bold denial
of the history of the country. If we do not know
1S56] THE LOST SPEECH 275
that the compromises of 1850 were dependent on
each other ; if we do not know that Illinois came
into the Union as a free State, — we do not know
anything. If we do not know these things, we
do not know that we ever had a Revolutionary
war or such a chief as Washington. To deny
these things is to deny our national axioms, —
or dogmas, at least, — and it puts an end to all
argument. If a man will stand up and assert,
and repeat and reassert, that two and two do not
make four, I know nothing in the power of argu-
ment that can stop him. I think I can answer the
judge so long as he sticks to the premises; but
when he flies from them, I cannot work any argu-
ment into the consistency of a mental gag and
actually close his mouth with it. In such a case
I can only commend him to the seventy thousand
answers just in from Pennsylvania, Ohio, and
Indiana.
"You Shall Not Go Out of the Union."
Speech Delivered at the First Republican
State Convention of Illinois, Held at
Bloom ington. May 29, 1856.*
Mr. Chairman and Gentlemen: I was over at
[cries of "Platform!" "Take the Platform!"} —
I say, that while I was at Danville Court, some of
our friends of anti-Nebraska got together in
* This is the famous "Lost Speech" of Lincoln which
aroused such interest among the auditors that even the
news reporters sat spell-bound, and neglected to take
notes. However, Henry C. Whitney, a lawyer of
Chicago, who was present, made long-hand notes of
the address (see account in his "Lincoln the Citizen,"
which forms volume one of the present edition).
276 EARLY SPEECHES [May 29
Springfield and elected me as one delegate to rep-
resent old Sangamon with them in this conven-
tion, and I am here certainly as a sympathizer in
this movement and by virtue of that meeting and
selection. But we can hardly be called delegates
strictly, inasmuch as, properly speaking, we rep-
resent nobody but ourselves. I think it alto-
gether fair to say that we have no anti-Nebraska
party in Sangamon, although there is a good deal
of anti-Nebraska feeling there ; but I say for my-
self, and I think I may speak also for my col-
leagues, that we who are here fully approve of
the platform and of all that has been done [a
voice: "Yes!"] ; and even if we are not regularly
delegates, it will be right for me to answer your
call to speak. I suppose we truly stand for the
public sentiment of Sangamon on the great ques-
tion of the repeal, although we do not yet repre-
sent many numbers who have taken a distinct
position on the question.
We are in a trying time — it ranges above mere
party — and this movement to call a halt and turn
our steps backward needs all the help and good
counsels it can get; for unless popular opinion
makes itself very strongly felt, and a change is
made in our present course, blood will floiv on
account of Nebraska, and brother s hand zvill be
raised against brother! *
These notes he wrote out in 1896. According to Mr.
Whitney's claim he has followed the argument, and
in many cases, reproduced the very statements of Mr.
Lincoln. This report was copyrighted in 1896 by '
Sarah A. Whitney. The copyright is now owned by
William H. Lambert, Esq., of Philadelphia, from whom
permission has been obtained for the present repro-
duction of the report.
* The last sentence was uttered in such an earnest,
1856] THE LOST SPEECH 277
I have listened with great interest to the ear-
nest appeal made to Illinois men by the gentleman
from Lawrence [James S. Emery] who has just
addressed us so eloquently and forcibly. I was
deeply moved by his statement of the wrongs
done to free-State men out there. I think it just
to say that all true men North should sympathize
with them, and ought to be willing to do any pos-
sible and needful thing to right their wrongs.
But we must not promise what we ought not,
lest we be called on to perform what we cannot ;
we must be calm and moderate, and consider the
whole difficulty, and determine what is possible
and just. We must not be led by excitement and
passion to do that which our sober judgments
would not approve in our cooler moments. We
have higher aims ; we will have more serious
business than to dally with temporary measures.
We are here to stand firmly for a principle —
to stand firmly for a right. We know that great
political and moral wrongs are done, and out-
rages committed, and we denounce those wrongs
and outrages, although we cannot, at present, do
much more. But we desire to reach out beyond
those personal outrages and establish a rule that
will apply to all, and so prevent any future out-
rages.
We have seen to-day that every shade of popu-
lar opinion is represented here, with Freedom
or rather Free-Soil as the basis. We have
come together as in some sort representatives of
popular opinion against the extension of slavery
into territory now free in fact as well as by law,
impressive, if not, indeed, tragic manner, as to make
a cold chill creep over me. Others gave a similar
experience. — Henry C. Whitney.
278 EARLY SPEECHES [May 29
and the pledged word of the statesmen of the
nation who are now no more. We come — we
are here assembled together — to protest as well
as we can against a great wrong, and to take
measures, as well as we now can, to make that
wrong right ; to place the nation, as far as it may-
be possible now, as it was before the repeal of
the Missouri Compromise; and the plain way to
do this is to restore the Compromise, and to de-
mand and determine that Kansas shall be free!
[Immense applause.] While we affirm, and re-
affirm, if necessary, our devotion to the principles
of the Declaration of Independence, let our prac-
tical work here be limited to the above. We know
that there is not a perfect agreement of senti-
ment here on the public questions which might be
rightfully considered in this convention, and that
the indignation which we all must feel cannot be
helped ; but all of us must give up something for
the good of the cause. There is one desire which
is uppermost in the mind, one wish common to
us all — to which no dissent will be made; and I
counsel you earnestly to bury all resentment, to
sink all personal feeling, make all things work to
a common purpose in which we are united and
agreed about, and which all present will agree
is absolutely necessary — which must be done by
any rightful mode if there be such : Slavery must
be kept out of Kansas! [Applause.] The test —
the pinch — is right there. If we lose Kansas to
freedom, an example will be set which will prove
fatal to freedom in the end. We, therefore, in
the language of the Bible, must "lay the axe to
the root of the tree." Temporizing will not do
longer; now is the time for decision — for firm,
persistent, resolute action. [Applause.]
iS 5 6] THE LOST SPEECH 279
The Nebraska bill, or rather Nebraska law, is
not one of wholesome legislation, but was and is
an act of legislative usurpation, whose result, if
not indeed intention, is to make slavery national ;
and unless headed off in some effective way, we
are in a fair way to see this land of boasted free-
dom converted into a land of slavery in fact.
[Sensation.] Just open your two eyes, and see
if this be not so. I need do no more than state,
to command universal approval, that almost the
entire North, as well as a large following in the
border States, is radically opposed to the planting
of slavery in free territory. Probably in a popu-
lar vote throughout the nation nine-tenths of the
voters in the free States, and at least one-half in
the border States, if they could express their
sentiments freely, would vote NO on such an
issue ; and it is safe to say that two-thirds of the
votes of the entire nation would be opposed to it.
And yet, in spite of this overbalancing of senti-
ment in this free country, we are in a fair way to
see Kansas present itself for admission as a slave
State. Indeed, it is a felony, by the local law of
Kansas, to deny that slavery exists there even
now. By every principle of law, a negro in Kan-
sas is free ; yet the bogus legislature makes it an
infamous crime to tell him that he is free.*
The party lash and the fear of ridicule will
overawe justice and liberty; for it is a singular
* Statutes of Kansas, 1855, Chapter 151, Sec. 12. If
any free person, by speaking or by writing, assert or
maintain that persons have not the right to hold slaves
in this Territory, or shall introduce into this Territory,
print, publish, write, circulate . . . any book, paper,
magazine, pamphlet, or circular containing any denial
of the right of persons to hold slaves in this Territory,
such person shall be deemed guity of felony, and pun-
2 So EARLY SPEECHES [May 29
fact, but none the less a fact, and well known by
the most common experience, that men will do
things under the terror of the party lash that
they would not on any account or for any con-
sideration do otherwise ; while men who will
march up to the mouth of a loaded cannon with-
out shrinking, will run from the terrible name of
"Abolitionist," even when pronounced by a
worthless creature whom they, with good reason,
despise. For instance — to press this point a little
— Judge Douglas introduced his anti-Nebraska
bill in January; we had an extra session of our
Illinois Legislature in the succeeding February,
in which were seventy-five Democrats ; and at a
party caucus, fully attended, there were just three
votes out of the whole seventy-five, for the meas-
ure. But in a few days orders came on from
Washington, commanding them to approve the
measure ; the party lash was applied, and it was
brought up again in caucus, and passed by a
large majority. The masses were against it, but
party necessity carried it ; and it was passed
through the lower house of Congress against the
will of the people, for the same reason. Here is
where the greatest danger lies — that, while we
profess to be a government of law and reason,
law will give way to violence on demand of this
awful and crushing power. Like che Juggernaut,
the great Hindu idol, it crushes everything that
ished by imprisonment at hard labor for a term of not
less than two years.
Sec. 13. No person who is conscientiously opposed to
holding slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold
slaves in this Territory, shall sit as a juror on the trial
of any prosecution for any violation of any Sections of
this Act.
i8 5 6] THE LOST SPEECH 281
comes in its way, and transforms a man into a
chattel, for, as I read once, in a blackletter law
book, "a slave is a human being who is legally not
a person but a thing/' And if the safeguards to
liberty are broken down, as is now attempted,
when they have made things of all the free ne-
groes, how long, think you, before they will be-
gin to make things of poor white men? [Ap-
plause.] Be not deceived. Revolutions do not
go backward. The founder of the Democratic
party declared that all men were created equal.
His successor in the leadership has written the
word "white" before men, making it read "all
white men are created equal." Pray, will or may
not the Know-nothings, if they should get in
power, add the word "Protestant," making it
read "all Protestant white men"?
Meanwhile the hapless negro is the fruitful
subject of reprisals in other quarters. John Pet-
tit, whom Tom Benton paid his respects to, you
will recollect, calls the immortal Declaration "a
self-evident lie" ; while at the birthplace of free-
dom — in the shadow of Bunker Hill and of the
"cradle of liberty," at the home of the Adamses
and Warren and Otis — Rufus Choate, from our
side of the house, dares to fritter away the birth-
day promise of liberty by proclaiming the Decla-
ration to be "a string of glittering generalties" ;
and the Southern Whigs, working hand in hand
with pro-slavery Democrats, are making Choate's
theories practical. Thomas Jefferson, a slave-
holder, mindful of the moral element in slavery,
solemnly declared that he "trembled for his coun-
try when he remembered that God is just" ; while
Judge Douglas, with an insignificant wave of the
hand, "doesn't care whether slavery is voted up
282 EARLY SPEECHES [May 29
or voted down." Now, if slavery is right, or even
negative, he has a right to treat it in this trifling
manner. But if it is a moral and political wrong,
as all Christendom considers it to be, how can
he answer to God for this attempt to spread and
fortify it? [Applause.]
But no man, and Judge Douglas no more than
any other, can maintain a negative, or merely
neutral, position on this question ; and, accord-
ingly, he avows that the Union was made by
white men and for white men and their descend-
ants. As matter of fact, the first branch of the
proposition is historically true : the government
was made by white men, and they were and are
the superior race. This I admit. But the corner-
stone of the government, so to speak, was the
declaration that "all men are created equal," and
all entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness." [Applause.]
And not only so, but the framers of the Consti-
tution were particular to keep out of that instru-
ment the word "slave," the reason being that
slavery would ultimately come to an end, and
they did not wish to have any reminder that in
this free country human beings were ever prosti-
tuted to slavery. [Applause.] Nor is it any ar-
gument that we are superior and the negro in-
ferior — that he has but one talent while we have
ten. Let the negro possess the little he has in
independence ; if he has but one talent, he should
be permitted to keep the little he has. [Ap-
plause.] But slavery will endure no test of rea-
son or logic ; and yet its advocates, like Douglas,
use a sort of bastard logic, or noisy assumption,
it might better be termed, like the above, in order
to prepare the mind for the gradual, but none
i8s6] THE LOST SPEECH 283
the less certain, encroachments of the Moloch of
slavery upon the fair domain of freedom. But
however much you may argue upon it, or smother
it in soft phrase, slavery can be maintained only
by force — by violence. The repeal of the Mis-
souri Compromise was by violence. It was a
violation of both law and the sacred obligations
of honor, to overthrow and trample underfoot a
solemn compromise, obtained by the fearful loss
to freedom of one of the fairest of our Western
domains. Congress violated the will and confi-
dence of its constitutents in voting for the bill ;
and while public sentiment, as shown by the elec-
tions of 1854, demanded the restoration of this
compromise, Congress violated its trust by refus-
ing, simply because it had the force of numbers,
to hold on to it. And murderous violence is being
used now, in order to force slavery upon Kansas ;
for it can be done in no other way. [Sensation.]
The necessary result was to establish the rule
of violence — force — instead of the rule of law and
reason ; to perpetuate and spread slavery, and, in
time, to make it general. We see it at both ends
of the line. In Washington, on the very spot where
the outrage was started, the fearless Sumner was
beaten to insensibility, and is now slowly dying;
while senators who claim to be gentlemen and
Christians stood by, countenancing the act, and
even applauding it afterward in their places in
the Senate. Even Douglas, our man, saw it all
and was within helping distance, yet let the mur-
derous blov/s fall unopposed. Then, at the other
end of the line, at the very time Sumner the
man was being murdered, the city of Lawrence
was being destroyed for the crime of Freedom.
It was the most prominent stronghold of liberty
2 8 4 EARLY SPEECHES [May 29
in Kansas, and must give way to the all-
dominating power of slavery. Only two days
ago, Judge Trumbull found it necessary to pro-
pose a bill in the Senate to prevent a general
civil war and to restore peace in Kansas.
We live in the midst of alarms ; anxiety be-
clouds the future; we expect some new disaster
with each newspaper we read. Are we in a
healthful political state ? Are not the tendencies
plain? Do not the signs of the times point
plainly the way in which we are going? [Sensa-
tion.]
In the early days of the Constitution slavery
was recognized, by South and North alike, as
an evil, and the division of sentiment about it
was not controlled by geographical lines or con-
siderations of climate, but by moral and philan-
thropic views. Petitions for the abolition of
slavery were presented to the very first Congress
by Virginia and Massachusetts alike. To show
the harmony which prevailed, I will state that a
fugitive slave law was passed in 1793, with no
dissenting voice in the Senate, and but seven dis-
senting votes in the House. It was, however, a
wise law, a moderate, and, under the Constitution,
a just one. Twenty-five years later, a more strin-
gent law was proposed and defeated ; and thirty-
five years after that, the present law, drafted by
Mason of Virginia, was passed by Northern
votes. I am not, just now, complaining of this
law, but I am trying to show how the current
sets; for the proposed law of 1817 was far less
offensive than the present one. In 1774 the Con-
tinental Congress pledged itself, without a dis-
senting vote, wholly to discontinue the slave
trade, and neither to purchase nor import any
1856] THE LOST SPEECH 285
slave ; and less than three months before the pas-
sage of the Declaration of Independence, the
same Congress which adopted that declaration
unanimously resolved "that no slave be imported
into any of the thirteen United Colonies." [Great
applause.]
On the second day of July, 1776, the draft of a
Declaration of Independence was reported to
Congress by the committee, and in it the slave
trade was characterized as "an execrable com-
merce," as "a practical warfare," as the "oppro-
brium of infidel powers," and as "a cruel war
against human nature." [Applause.'] All agreed
on this except South Carolina and Georgia, and
in order to preserve harmony, and from the
necessity of the case, these expressions were
omitted. Indeed, abolition societies existed as
far south as Virginia ; and it is a well-known
fact that Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lee,
Henry, Mason, and Pendleton were qualified abo-
litionists, and much more radical on that subject
than we of the Whig and Democratic parties
claim to be to-day. On March 1, 1784, Virginia
ceded to the Confederation all its lands lying
northwest of the Ohio River. Jefferson of Vir-
ginia, Chase of Maryland, and Howell of Rhode
Island, as a congressional committee on territory
thereafter to be ceded, reported that no slavery
should exist therein after the year 1800. Had
this report been adopted, not only the Northwest,
but Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississ-
ippi also would have been free. But the report
failed to secure the assent of nine States that was
necessary to ratify it. North Carolina was
divided, and thus its vote was lost; and Dela-
ware, Georgia, and New Jersey refused to
286 EARLY SPEECHES [May 29
vote. However, as it was, the report was
assented to by six States. Three years later,
on a square vote to exclude slavery from
the Northwest, only one vote, and that from
New York, was against it. And yet, thirty-seven
years later, five thousand citizens of Illinois out
of a voting mass of less than twelve thousand,
deliberately, after a long and heated contest,
voted to introduce slavery in Illinois ; and, to-day,
a large party in the free State of Illinois are will-
ing to vote to fasten the shackles of slavery on
the fair domain of Kansas, notwithstanding it re-
ceived the dowry of freedom long before its birth
as a political community. I repeat, therefore,
the question : Is it not plain in what direction we
are tending? [Sensation.] In the colonial time,
Mason, Pendleton, and Jefferson were as hostile
to slavery in Virginia as Otis, Ames, and the
Adamses were in Massachusetts ; and Virginia
made as earnest an effort to get rid of it as old
Massachusetts did. But circumstances were
against them and they failed; but not that the
good will of its leading men was lacking. Yet
within less than fifty years Virginia changed its
tune, and made negro-breeding for the cotton and
sugar States one of its leading industries.
[Laughter and applause.]
In the Constitutional Convention, George Ma-
son of Virginia made a more violent abolition
speech than my friends Love joy or Codding
would desire to make here to-day — a speech
which could not be safely repeated anywhere on'
Southern soil in this enlightened year. But while
there were some differences of opinion on this
subject even then, discussion was allowed; but
as you see by the Kansas slave code, which, as
1856] THE LOST SPEECH 287
you know, is the Missouri slave code merely
ferried across the river, it is a felony even to ex-
press an opinion hostile to that foul blot in the
land of Washington and the Declaration of Inde-
pendence. [Sensation.]
In Kentucky — my native State — in 1849, on a
test vote, the mighty influence of Henry Clay and
many other good men there could not get a
symptom of expression in favor of gradual
emancipation on a plain issue of marching toward
the light of civilization with Ohio and Illinois;
but the State of Boone and Hardin and Henry
Clay, with a nigger under each arm, took the
black trail to the deadly swamps of barbarism.
Is there — can there be — any doubt about this
thing? And is there any doubt that we must all
lay aside our prejudices and march, shoulder to
shoulder, in the great army of Freedom? [Ap-
plause.]
Every Fourth of July our young orators all
proclaim this to be "the land of the free and the
home of the brave!" Well, now, when you ora-
tors get that off next year, and, may be, this
very year, how would you like some old grizzled
farmer to get up in the grove and deny it?
[Laughter.'] How would you like that? But
suppose Kansas comes in as a slave State, and all
the "border ruffians" have barbecues about it,
and free-State men come trailing back to the dis-
honored North, like whipped dogs with their tails
between their legs, is it not evident that
this is no more the "land of the free" ? and if we
let it go so, we won't dare to say "home of the
brave" out loud. [Sensation and confusion.]
Can any man doubt that, 
