Title: The Writings of Abraham Lincoln — Volume 5: 1858-1862
Author: Lincoln, Abraham, 1809-1865
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.


*** Start of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Writings of Abraham Lincoln — Volume 5: 1858-1862" ***


THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Volume Five

1858-1862


CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION



TO SYDNEY SPRING, GRAYVILLE, ILL.

SPRINGFIELD, June 19, 1858.

SYDNEY SPRING, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR:--Your letter introducing Mr. Faree was duly received. There
was no opening to nominate him for Superintendent of Public Instruction,
but through him Egypt made a most valuable contribution to the
convention. I think it may be fairly said that he came off the lion of
the day--or rather of the night. Can you not elect him to the
Legislature? It seems to me he would be hard to beat. What objection
could be made to him? What is your Senator Martin saying and doing? What
is Webb about?

Please write me. Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO H. C. WHITNEY.

SPRINGFIELD, June 24, 1858

H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ.

DEAR SIR:--Your letter enclosing the attack of the Times upon me was
received this morning. Give yourself no concern about my voting against
the supplies. Unless you are without faith that a lie can be successfully
contradicted, there is not a word of truth in the charge, and I am just
considering a little as to the best shape to put a contradiction in. Show
this to whomever you please, but do not publish it in the paper.

Your friend as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



TO J. W. SOMERS.

SPRINGFIELD, June 25, 1858.

JAMES W. SOMERS, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 22nd, inclosing a draft of two hundred
dollars, was duly received. I have paid it on the judgment, and herewith
you have the receipt. I do not wish to say anything as to who shall be
the Republican candidate for the Legislature in your district, further
than that I have full confidence in Dr. Hull. Have you ever got in the
way of consulting with McKinley in political matters? He is true as
steel, and his judgment is very good. The last I heard from him, he
rather thought Weldon, of De Witt, was our best timber for
representative, all things considered. But you there must settle it among
yourselves. It may well puzzle older heads than yours to understand how,
as the Dred Scott decision holds, Congress can authorize a Territorial
Legislature to do everything else, and cannot authorize them to prohibit
slavery. That is one of the things the court can decide, but can never
give an intelligible reason for.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO A. CAMPBELL.

SPRINGFIELD, June 28, 1858.

A. CAMPBELL, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR:--In 1856 you gave me authority to draw on you for any sum
not exceeding five hundred dollars. I see clearly that such a privilege
would be more available now than it was then. I am aware that times are
tighter now than they were then. Please write me at all events, and
whether you can now do anything or not I shall continue grateful for the
past.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO J. GILLESPIE.

SPRINGFIELD, July 16, 1858.

HON. JOSEPH GILLESPIE.

MY DEAR SIR:--I write this to say that from the specimens of Douglas
Democracy we occasionally see here from Madison, we learn that they are
making very confident calculation of beating you and your friends for the
lower house, in that county. They offer to bet upon it. Billings and Job,
respectively, have been up here, and were each as I learn, talking
largely about it. If they do so, it can only be done by carrying the
Fillmore men of 1856 very differently from what they seem to [be] going
in the other party. Below is the vote of 1856, in your district:

Counties.

     Counties.  Buchanan.   Fremont.   Fillmore.
   Bond ............ 607      153      659
   Madison ......... 1451     1111     1658
   Montgomery ...... 992      162      686
                     ----     ----     ----
                     3050     1426     3003

By this you will see, if you go through the calculation, that if they get
one quarter of the Fillmore votes, and you three quarters, they will beat
you 125 votes. If they get one fifth, and you four fifths, you beat them
179. In Madison, alone, if our friends get 1000 of the Fillmore votes,
and their opponents the remainder, 658, we win by just two votes.

This shows the whole field, on the basis of the election of 1856.

Whether, since then, any Buchanan, or Fremonters, have shifted ground,
and how the majority of new votes will go, you can judge better than I.

Of course you, on the ground, can better determine your line of tactics
than any one off the ground; but it behooves you to be wide awake and
actively working.

Don't neglect it; and write me at your first leisure. Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



TO JOHN MATHERS, JACKSONVILLE, ILL.

SPRINGFIELD, JULY 20, 1858.

JNO. MATHERS, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR:--Your kind and interesting letter of the 19th was duly
received. Your suggestions as to placing one's self on the offensive
rather than the defensive are certainly correct. That is a point which I
shall not disregard. I spoke here on Saturday night. The speech, not very
well reported, appears in the State journal of this morning. You
doubtless will see it; and I hope that you will perceive in it that I am
already improving. I would mail you a copy now, but have not one [at]
hand. I thank you for your letter and shall be pleased to hear from you
again.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO JOSEPH GILLESPIE.

SPRINGFIELD, JULY 25, 1858.

HON. J. GILLESPIE.

MY DEAR SIR:--Your doleful letter of the 8th was received on my return
from Chicago last night. I do hope you are worse scared than hurt, though
you ought to know best. We must not lose the district. We must make a job
of it, and save it. Lay hold of the proper agencies, and secure all the
Americans you can, at once. I do hope, on closer inspection, you will
find they are not half gone. Make a little test. Run down one of the
poll-books of the Edwardsville precinct, and take the first hundred known
American names. Then quietly ascertain how many of them are actually
going for Douglas. I think you will find less than fifty. But even if you
find fifty, make sure of the other fifty, that is, make sure of all you
can, at all events. We will set other agencies to work which shall
compensate for the loss of a good many Americans. Don't fail to check the
stampede at once. Trumbull, I think, will be with you before long.

There is much he cannot do, and some he can. I have reason to hope there
will be other help of an appropriate kind. Write me again.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



TO B. C. COOK.

SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 2, 1858.

Hon. B. C. COOK.

MY DEAR SIR:--I have a letter from a very true and intelligent man
insisting that there is a plan on foot in La Salle and Bureau to run
Douglas Republicans for Congress and for the Legislature in those
counties, if they can only get the encouragement of our folks nominating
pretty extreme abolitionists.

It is thought they will do nothing if our folks nominate men who are not
very obnoxious to the charge of abolitionism. Please have your eye upon
this. Signs are looking pretty fair.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO HON. J. M. PALMER.

SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 5, 1858.

HON. J. M. PALMER.

DEAR SIR:--Since we parted last evening no new thought has occurred to
[me] on the subject of which we talked most yesterday.

I have concluded, however, to speak at your town on Tuesday, August 31st,
and have promised to have it so appear in the papers of to-morrow. Judge
Trumbull has not yet reached here.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



TO ALEXANDER SYMPSON.

SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 11, 1858.

ALEXANDER SYMPSON, Esq.

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 6th received. If life and health continue I shall
pretty likely be at Augusta on the 25th.

Things look reasonably well. Will tell you more fully when I see you.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO J. O. CUNNINGHAM.

OTTAWA, August 22, 1858.

J. O. CUNNINGHAM, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 18th, signed as secretary of the Republican
club, is received. In the matter of making speeches I am a good deal
pressed by invitations from almost all quarters, and while I hope to be
at Urbana some time during the canvass, I cannot yet say when. Can you
not see me at Monticello on the 6th of September?

Douglas and I, for the first time this canvass, crossed swords here
yesterday; the fire flew some, and I am glad to know I am yet alive.
There was a vast concourse of people--more than could get near enough to
hear.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



ON SLAVERY IN A DEMOCRACY.

August ??, 1858

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expresses my
idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of the
difference, is no democracy.

A. LINCOLN.



TO B. C. COOK.

SPRINGFIELD, August 2, 1858

HON. B. C. COOK.

MY DEAR SIR:--I have a letter from a very true friend, and intelligent
man, writing that there is a plan on foot in La Salle and Bureau, to run
Douglas Republican for Congress and for the Legislature in those
counties, if they can only get the encouragement of our folks nominating
pretty extreme abolitionists. It is thought they will do nothing if our
folks nominate men who are not very [undecipherable word looks like
"obnoxious"] to the charge of abolitionism. Please have your eye upon
this. Signs are looking pretty fair.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO DR. WILLIAM FITHIAN, DANVILLE, ILL.

BLOOMINGTON, Sept. 3, 1858

DEAR DOCTOR:--Yours of the 1st was received this morning, as also one
from Mr. Harmon, and one from Hiram Beckwith on the same subject. You
will see by the Journal that I have been appointed to speak at Danville
on the 22d of Sept.,--the day after Douglas speaks there. My recent
experience shows that speaking at the same place the next day after D. is
the very thing,--it is, in fact, a concluding speech on him. Please show
this to Messrs. Harmon and Beckwith; and tell them they must excuse me
from writing separate letters to them.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN

P. S.--Give full notice to all surrounding country. A.L.



FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT PARIS, ILL.,

SEPT. 8, 1858.

Let us inquire what Judge Douglas really invented when he introduced the
Nebraska Bill? He called it Popular Sovereignty. What does that mean? It
means the sovereignty of the people over their own affairs--in other
words, the right of the people to govern themselves. Did Judge Douglas
invent this? Not quite. The idea of popular sovereignty was floating
about several ages before the author of the Nebraska Bill was
born--indeed, before Columbus set foot on this continent. In the year
1776 it took form in the noble words which you are all familiar with: "We
hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal,"
etc. Was not this the origin of popular sovereignty as applied to the
American people? Here we are told that governments are instituted among
men deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. If that
is not popular sovereignty, then I have no conception of the meaning of
words. If Judge Douglas did not invent this kind of popular sovereignty,
let us pursue the inquiry and find out what kind he did invent. Was it
the right of emigrants to Kansas and Nebraska to govern themselves, and a
lot of "niggers," too, if they wanted them? Clearly this was no invention
of his because General Cass put forth the same doctrine in 1848 in his so
called Nicholson letter, six years before Douglas thought of such a
thing. Then what was it that the "Little Giant" invented? It never
occurred to General Cass to call his discovery by the odd name of popular
sovereignty. He had not the face to say that the right of the people to
govern "niggers" was the right of the people to govern themselves. His
notions of the fitness of things were not moulded to the brazenness of
calling the right to put a hundred "niggers" through under the lash in
Nebraska a "sacred" right of self-government. And here I submit to you
was Judge Douglas's discovery, and the whole of it: He discovered that
the right to breed and flog negroes in Nebraska was popular sovereignty.



SPEECH AT CLINTON, ILLINOIS,

SEPTEMBER 8, 1858.

The questions are sometimes asked "What is all this fuss that is being
made about negroes? What does it amount to? And where will it end?" These
questions imply that those who ask them consider the slavery question a
very insignificant matter they think that it amounts to little or nothing
and that those who agitate it are extremely foolish. Now it must be
admitted that if the great question which has caused so much trouble is
insignificant, we are very foolish to have anything to do with it--if it
is of no importance we had better throw it aside and busy ourselves with
something else. But let us inquire a little into this insignificant
matter, as it is called by some, and see if it is not important enough to
demand the close attention of every well-wisher of the Union. In one of
Douglas's recent speeches, I find a reference to one which was made by me
in Springfield some time ago. The judge makes one quotation from that
speech that requires some little notice from me at this time. I regret
that I have not my Springfield speech before me, but the judge has quoted
one particular part of it so often that I think I can recollect it. It
runs I think as follows:

"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the
avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery
agitation. Under the operation of that policy that agitation has not only
not ceased but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not cease
until a crisis shall have been reached and passed.

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government
cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the
Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expect
it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all the
other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of
it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is
in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it
forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well
as new, North as well as South."

Judge Douglas makes use of the above quotation, and finds a great deal of
fault with it. He deals unfairly with me, and tries to make the people of
this State believe that I advocated dangerous doctrines in my Springfield
speech. Let us see if that portion of my Springfield speech of which
Judge Douglas complains so bitterly, is as objectionable to others as it
is to him. We are, certainly, far into the fifth year since a policy was
initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end
to slavery agitation. On the fourth day of January, 1854, Judge Douglas
introduced the Kansas-Nebraska bill. He initiated a new policy, and that
policy, so he says, was to put an end to the agitation of the slavery
question. Whether that was his object or not I will not stop to discuss,
but at all events some kind of a policy was initiated; and what has been
the result? Instead of the quiet and good feeling which were promised us
by the self-styled author of Popular Sovereignty, we have had nothing but
ill-feeling and agitation. According to Judge Douglas, the passage of the
Nebraska bill would tranquilize the whole country--there would be no more
slavery agitation in or out of Congress, and the vexed question would be
left entirely to the people of the Territories. Such was the opinion of
Judge Douglas, and such were the opinions of the leading men of the
Democratic Party. Even as late as the spring of 1856 Mr. Buchanan said, a
short time subsequent to his nomination by the Cincinnati convention,
that the territory of Kansas would be tranquil in less than six weeks.
Perhaps he thought so, but Kansas has not been and is not tranquil, and
it may be a long time before she may be so.

We all know how fierce the agitation was in Congress last winter, and
what a narrow escape Kansas had from being admitted into the Union with a
constitution that was detested by ninety-nine hundredths of her citizens.
Did the angry debates which took place at Washington during the last
season of Congress lead you to suppose that the slavery agitation was
settled?

An election was held in Kansas in the month of August, and the
constitution which was submitted to the people was voted down by a large
majority. So Kansas is still out of the Union, and there is a probability
that she will remain out for some time. But Judge Douglas says the
slavery question is settled. He says the bill he introduced into the
Senate of the United States on the 4th day of January, 1854, settled the
slavery question forever! Perhaps he can tell us how that bill settled
the slavery question, for if he is able to settle a question of such
great magnitude he ought to be able to explain the manner in which he
does it. He knows and you know that the question is not settled, and that
his ill-timed experiment to settle it has made it worse than it ever was
before.

And now let me say a few words in regard to Douglas's great hobby of
negro equality. He thinks--he says at least--that the Republican party is
in favor of allowing whites and blacks to intermarry, and that a man
can't be a good Republican unless he is willing to elevate black men to
office and to associate with them on terms of perfect equality. He knows
that we advocate no such doctrines as these, but he cares not how much he
misrepresents us if he can gain a few votes by so doing. To show you what
my opinion of negro equality was in times past, and to prove to you that
I stand on that question where I always stood, I will read you a few
extracts from a speech that was made by me in Peoria in 1854. It was made
in reply to one of Judge Douglas's speeches.

(Mr. Lincoln then read a number of extracts which had the ring of the
true metal. We have rarely heard anything with which we have been more
pleased. And the audience after hearing the extracts read, and comparing
their conservative sentiments with those now advocated by Mr. Lincoln,
testified their approval by loud applause. How any reasonable man can
hear one of Mr. Lincoln's speeches without being converted to
Republicanism is something that we can't account for. Ed.)

Slavery, continued Mr. Lincoln, is not a matter of little importance, it
overshadows every other question in which we are interested. It has
divided the Methodist and Presbyterian churches, and has sown discord in
the American Tract Society. The churches have split and the society will
follow their example before long. So it will be seen that slavery is
agitated in the religious as well as in the political world. Judge
Douglas is very much afraid in the triumph that the Republican party will
lead to a general mixture of the white and black races. Perhaps I am
wrong in saying that he is afraid, so I will correct myself by saying
that he pretends to fear that the success of our party will result in the
amalgamation of the blacks and whites. I think I can show plainly, from
documents now before me, that Judge Douglas's fears are groundless. The
census of 1800 tells us that in that year there were over four hundred
thousand mulattoes in the United States. Now let us take what is called
an Abolition State--the Republican, slavery-hating State of New
Hampshire--and see how many mulattoes we can find within her borders. The
number amounts to just one hundred and eighty-four. In the Old
Dominion--in the Democratic and aristocratic State of Virginia--there
were a few more mulattoes than the Census-takers found in New Hampshire.
How many do you suppose there were? Seventy-nine thousand, seven hundred
and seventy-five--twenty-three thousand more than there were in all the
free States! In the slave States there were in 1800, three hundred and
forty-eight thousand mulattoes all of home production; and in the free
States there were less than sixty thousand mulattoes--and a large number
of them were imported from the South.



FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT EDWARDSVILLE, ILL.,

SEPT. 13, 1858.

I have been requested to give a concise statement of the difference, as I
understand it, between the Democratic and Republican parties, on the
leading issues of the campaign. This question has been put to me by a
gentleman whom I do not know. I do not even know whether he is a friend
of mine or a supporter of Judge Douglas in this contest, nor does that
make any difference. His question is a proper one. Lest I should forget
it, I will give you my answer before proceeding with the line of argument
I have marked out for this discussion.

The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties on the
leading issues of this contest, as I understand it, is that the former
consider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latter do
not consider it either a moral, a social or a political wrong; and the
action of each, as respects the growth of the country and the expansion
of our population, is squared to meet these views. I will not affirm that
the Democratic party consider slavery morally, socially and politically
right, though their tendency to that view has, in my opinion, been
constant and unmistakable for the past five years. I prefer to take, as
the accepted maxim of the party, the idea put forth by Judge Douglas,
that he "don't care whether slavery is voted down or voted up." I am quite
willing to believe that many Democrats would prefer that slavery should
be always voted down, and I know that some prefer that it be always voted
up; but I have a right to insist that their action, especially if it be
their constant action, shall determine their ideas and preferences on
this subject. Every measure of the Democratic party of late years,
bearing directly or indirectly on the slavery question, has corresponded
with this notion of utter indifference whether slavery or freedom shall
outrun in the race of empire across to the Pacific--every measure, I say,
up to the Dred Scott decision, where, it seems to me, the idea is boldly
suggested that slavery is better than freedom. The Republican party, on
the contrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the
blessings of freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the
negro, to the white man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it as
an evil, they will not molest it in the States where it exists, they will
not overlook the constitutional guards which our fathers placed around
it; they will do nothing that can give proper offence to those who hold
slaves by legal sanction; but they will use every constitutional method
to prevent the evil from becoming larger and involving more negroes, more
white men, more soil, and more States in its deplorable consequences.
They will, if possible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the
belief that it is in course of ultimate peaceable extinction in God's own
good time. And to this end they will, if possible, restore the government
to the policy of the fathers, the policy of preserving the new
Territories from the baneful influence of human bondage, as the
Northwestern Territories were sought to be preserved by the Ordinance of
1787, and the Compromise Act of 1820. They will oppose, in all its length
and breadth, the modern Democratic idea, that slavery is as good as
freedom, and ought to have room for expansion all over the continent, if
people can be found to carry it. All, or nearly all, of Judge Douglas's
arguments are logical, if you admit that slavery is as good and as right
as freedom, and not one of them is worth a rush if you deny it. This is
the difference, as I understand it, between the Republican and Democratic
parties.

My friends, I have endeavored to show you the logical consequences of the
Dred Scott decision, which holds that the people of a Territory cannot
prevent the establishment of slavery in their midst. I have stated what
cannot be gainsaid, that the grounds upon which this decision is made are
equally applicable to the free States as to the free Territories, and
that the peculiar reasons put forth by Judge Douglas for indorsing this
decision commit him, in advance, to the next decision and to all other
decisions corning from the same source. And when, by all these means, you
have succeeded in dehumanizing the negro; when you have put him down and
made it impossible for him to be but as the beasts of the field; when you
have extinguished his soul in this world and placed him where the ray of
hope is blown out as in the darkness of the damned, are you quite sure
that the demon you have roused will not turn and rend you? What
constitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is not
our frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, our army and our
navy. These are not our reliance against tyranny All of those may be
turned against us without making us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance
is in the love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in
the spirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all lands
everywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds of
despotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains of
bondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to
trample on the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own
independence and become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who
rises among you. And let me tell you, that all these things are prepared
for you by the teachings of history, if the elections shall promise that
the next Dred Scott decision and all future decisions will be quietly
acquiesced in by the people.



VERSE TO "LINNIE"

September 30,? 1858.

TO "LINNIE":

A sweet plaintive song did I hear And I fancied that she was the singer.
May emotions as pure as that song set astir Be the wont that the future
shall bring her.



NEGROES ARE MEN

TO J. U. BROWN.

SPRINGFIELD, OCT 18, 1858

HON. J. U. BROWN.

MY DEAR SIR:--I do not perceive how I can express myself more plainly
than I have in the fore-going extracts. In four of them I have expressly
disclaimed all intention to bring about social and political equality
between the white and black races and in all the rest I have done the
same thing by clear implication.

I have made it equally plain that I think the negro is included in the
word "men" used in the Declaration of Independence.

I believe the declaration that "all men are created equal" is the great
fundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; that negro
slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame of
government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation;
that by our frame of government, States which have slavery are to retain
it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and that all
others--individuals, free States and national Government--are
constitutionally bound to leave them alone about it.

I believe our Government was thus framed because of the necessity
springing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed.

That such necessity does not exist in the Territories when slavery is not
present.

In his Mendenhall speech Mr. Clay says: "Now as an abstract principle
there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration (all men created
equal), and it is desirable, in the original construction of society, to
keep it in view as a great fundamental principle."

Again, in the same speech Mr. Clay says: "If a state of nature existed
and we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be more
strongly opposed than I should to incorporate the institution of slavery
among its elements."

Exactly so. In our new free Territories, a state of nature does exist. In
them Congress lays the foundations of society; and in laying those
foundations, I say, with Mr. Clay, it is desirable that the declaration
of the equality of all men shall be kept in view as a great fundamental
principle, and that Congress, which lays the foundations of society,
should, like Mr. Clay, be strongly opposed to the incorporation of
slavery and its elements.

But it does not follow that social and political equality between whites
and blacks must be incorporated because slavery must not. The declaration
does not so require.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN

[Newspaper cuttings of Lincoln's speeches at Peoria, in 1854, at
Springfield, Ottawa, Chicago, and Charleston, in 1858. They were pasted
in a little book in which the above letter was also written.]



TO A. SYMPSON.

BLANDINSVILLE, Oct 26, 1858

A. SYMPSON, Esq.

DEAR SIR:--Since parting with you this morning I heard some things which
make me believe that Edmunds and Morrill will spend this week among the
National Democrats, trying to induce them to content themselves by voting
for Jake Davis, and then to vote for the Douglas candidates for senator
and representative. Have this headed off, if you can. Call Wagley's
attention to it and have him and the National Democrat for Rep. to
counteract it as far as they can.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



SENATORIAL ELECTION LOST AND OUT OF MONEY

TO N. B. JUDD.

SPRINGFIELD, NOVEMBER 16, 1858

HON. N. B. JUDD

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 15th is just received. I wrote you the same day.
As to the pecuniary matter, I am willing to pay according to my ability;
but I am the poorest hand living to get others to pay. I have been on
expenses so long without earning anything that I am absolutely without
money now for even household purposes. Still, if you can put in two
hundred and fifty dollars for me toward discharging the debt of the
committee, I will allow it when you and I settle the private matter
between us. This, with what I have already paid, and with an outstanding
note of mine, will exceed my subscription of five hundred dollars. This,
too, is exclusive of my ordinary expenses during the campaign, all of
which, being added to my loss of time and business, bears pretty heavily
upon one no better off in [this] world's goods than I; but as I had the
post of honor, it is not for me to be over nice. You are feeling
badly,--"And this too shall pass away," never fear.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



THE FIGHT MUST GO ON

TO H. ASBURY.

SPRINGFIELD, November 19, 1858.

HENRY ASBURY, Esq.

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 13th was received some days ago. The fight must
go on. The cause of civil liberty must not be surrendered at the end of
one or even one hundred defeats. Douglas had the ingenuity to be
supported in the late contest both as the best means to break down and to
uphold the slave interest. No ingenuity can keep these antagonistic
elements in harmony long. Another explosion will soon come.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



REALIZATION THAT DEBATES MUST BE SAVED

TO C. H. RAY.

SPRINGFIELD, Nov.20, 1858

DR. C. H. RAY

MY DEAR SIR:--I wish to preserve a set of the late debates (if they may
be called so), between Douglas and myself. To enable me to do so, please
get two copies of each number of your paper containing the whole, and
send them to me by express; and I will pay you for the papers and for
your trouble. I wish the two sets in order to lay one away in the
[undecipherable word] and to put the other in a scrapbook. Remember, if
part of any debate is on both sides of the sheet it will take two sets to
make one scrap-book.

I believe, according to a letter of yours to Hatch, you are "feeling like
h-ll yet." Quit that--you will soon feel better. Another "blow up" is
coming; and we shall have fun again. Douglas managed to be supported both
as the best instrument to down and to uphold the slave power; but no
ingenuity can long keep the antagonism in harmony.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN



TO H. C. WHITNEY.

SPRINGFIELD, November 30, 1858

H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ.

MY DEAR SIR:--Being desirous of preserving in some permanent form the
late joint discussion between Douglas and myself, ten days ago I wrote to
Dr. Ray, requesting him to forward to me by express two sets of the
numbers of the Tribune which contain the reports of those discussions. Up
to date I have no word from him on the subject. Will you, if in your
power, procure them and forward them to me by express? If you will, I
will pay all charges, and be greatly obliged, to boot. Hoping to visit
you before long, I remain

As ever your friend,

A. LINCOLN.



TO H. D. SHARPE.

SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 8, 1858.

H. D. SHARPE, Esq.

DEAR SIR:--Your very kind letter of Nov. 9th was duly received. I do not
know that you expected or desired an answer; but glancing over the
contents of yours again, I am prompted to say that, while I desired the
result of the late canvass to have been different, I still regard it as
an exceeding small matter. I think we have fairly entered upon a durable
struggle as to whether this nation is to ultimately become all slave or
all free, and though I fall early in the contest, it is nothing if I
shall have contributed, in the least degree, to the final rightful
result.

Respectfully yours,

A. LINCOLN.



TO A. SYMPSON.

SPRINGFIELD, Dec.12, 1858.

ALEXANDER SYMPSON, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR:--I expect the result of the election went hard with you. So
it did with me, too, perhaps not quite so hard as you may have supposed.
I have an abiding faith that we shall beat them in the long run. Step by
step the objects of the leaders will become too plain for the people to
stand them. I write merely to let you know that I am neither dead nor
dying. Please give my respects to your good family, and all inquiring
friends.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



ON BANKRUPTCY


NOTES OF AN ARGUMENT.

December [?], 1858.

Legislation and adjudication must follow and conform to the progress of
society.

The progress of society now begins to produce cases of the transfer for
debts of the entire property of railroad corporations; and to enable
transferees to use and enjoy the transferred property, legislation and
adjudication begin to be necessary.

Shall this class of legislation just now beginning with us be general or
special?



Section Ten of our Constitution requires that it should be general,

if possible. (Read the section.)

Special legislation always trenches upon the judicial department; and in
so far violates Section Two of the Constitution. (Read it.)

Just reasoning--policy--is in favor of general legislation--else the
Legislature will be loaded down with the investigation of smaller
cases--a work which the courts ought to perform, and can perform much
more perfectly. How can the Legislature rightly decide the facts between
P. & B. and S.C.

It is said that under a general law, whenever a R. R. Co. gets tired of
its debts, it may transfer fraudulently to get rid of them. So they
may--so may individuals; and which--the Legislature or the courts--is
best suited to try the question of fraud in either case?

It is said, if a purchaser have acquired legal rights, let him not be
robbed of them, but if he needs legislation let him submit to just terms
to obtain it.

Let him, say we, have general law in advance (guarded in every possible
way against fraud), so that, when he acquires a legal right, he will have
no occasion to wait for additional legislation; and if he has practiced
fraud let the courts so decide.



A LEGAL OPINION BY ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

The 11th Section of the Act of Congress, approved Feb. 11, 1805,
prescribing rules for the subdivision of sections of land within the
United States system of surveys, standing unrepealed, in my opinion, is
binding on the respective purchasers of different parts of the same
section, and furnishes the true rule for surveyors in establishing lines
between them. That law, being in force at the time each became a
purchaser, becomes a condition of the purchase.

And, by that law, I think the true rule for dividing into quarters any
interior section or sections, which is not fractional, is to run straight
lines through the section from the opposite quarter section corners,
fixing the point where such straight lines cross, or intersect each
other, as the middle or centre of the section.

Nearly, perhaps quite, all the original surveys are to some extent
erroneous, and in some of the sections, greatly so. In each of the
latter, it is obvious that a more equitable mode of division than the
above might be adopted; but as error is infinitely various perhaps no
better single rules can be prescribed.

At all events I think the above has been prescribed by the competent
authority.

SPRINGFIELD, Jany. 6, 1859.

A. LINCOLN.



TO M. W. DELAHAY.

SPRINGFIELD, March 4, 1859.

M. W. DELAHAY, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR: Your second letter in relation to my being with you at your
Republican convention was duly received. It is not at hand just now, but
I have the impression from it that the convention was to be at
Leavenworth; but day before yesterday a friend handed me a letter from
Judge M. F. Caraway, in which he also expresses a wish for me to come,
and he fixes the place at Ossawatomie. This I believe is off of the
river, and will require more time and labor to get to it. It will push me
hard to get there without injury to my own business; but I shall try to
do it, though I am not yet quite certain I shall succeed.

I should like to know before coming, that while some of you wish me to
come, there may not be others who would quite as lief I would stay away.
Write me again.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



TO W. M. MORRIS.

SPRINGFIELD, March 28, 1859.

W. M. MORRIS, Esq.

DEAR SIR:--Your kind note inviting me to deliver a lecture at Galesburg
is received. I regret to say I cannot do so now; I must stick to the
courts awhile. I read a sort of lecture to three different audiences
during the last month and this; but I did so under circumstances which
made it a waste of no time whatever.

Yours very truly,



TO H. L. PIERCE AND OTHERS.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, April 6, 1859.

GENTLEMEN:--Your kind note inviting me to attend a festival in Boston, on
the 28th instant, in honor of the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, was duly
received. My engagements are such that I cannot attend.

Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago two great political parties
were first formed in this country, that Thomas Jefferson was the head of
one of them and Boston the headquarters of the other, it is both curious
and interesting that those supposed to descend politically from the party
opposed to Jefferson should now be celebrating his birthday in their own
original seat of empire, while those claiming political descent from him
have nearly ceased to breathe his name everywhere.

Remembering, too, that the Jefferson party was formed upon its supposed
superior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights of
property to be secondary only, and greatly inferior, and assuming that
the so-called Democracy of to-day are the Jefferson, and their opponents
the anti-Jefferson, party, it will be equally interesting to note how
completely the two have changed hands as to the principle upon which they
were originally supposed to be divided. The Democracy of to-day hold the
liberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with
another man's right of property; Republicans, on the contrary, are for
both the man and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the
dollar.

I remember being once much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated men
engaged in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a long
and rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out of
his own coat and into that of the other. If the two leading parties of
this day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson and
Adams, they have performed the same feat as the two drunken men.

But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of
Jefferson from total overthrow in this nation. One would state with great
confidence that he could convince any sane child that the simpler
propositions of Euclid are true; but nevertheless he would fail, utterly,
with one who should deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of
Jefferson are the definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they
are denied and evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls
them "glittering generalities." Another bluntly calls them "self-evident
lies." And others insidiously argue that they apply to "superior races."
These expressions, differing in form, are identical in object and
effect--the supplanting the principles of free government, and restoring
those of classification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a
convocation of crowned heads plotting against the people. They are the
vanguard, the miners and sappers, of returning despotism. We must repulse
them, or they will subjugate us. This is a world of compensation; and he
who would be no slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny
freedom to others deserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God,
cannot long retain it. All honor to Jefferson to the man who, in the
concrete pressure of a struggle for national independence by a single
people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a mere
revolutionary document an abstract truth, applicable to all men and all
times, and so to embalm it there that to-day and in all coming days it
shall be a rebuke and a stumbling-block to the very harbingers of
reappearing tyranny and oppression.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



TO T. CANISIUS.

SPRINGFIELD, May 17, 1859.

DR. THEODORE CANISIUS.

DEAR SIR:--Your note asking, in behalf of yourself and other German
citizens, whether I am for or against the constitutional provision in
regard to naturalized citizens, lately adopted by Massachusetts, and
whether I am for or against a fusion of the Republicans and other
opposition elements for the canvass of 1860, is received.

Massachusetts is a sovereign and independent State; and it is no
privilege of mine to scold her for what she does. Still, if from what she
has done an inference is sought to be drawn as to what I would do, I may
without impropriety speak out. I say, then, that, as I understand the
Massachusetts provision, I am against its adoption in Illinois, or in any
other place where I have a right to oppose it. Understanding the spirit
of our institutions to aim at the elevation of men, I am opposed to
whatever tends to degrade them. I have some little notoriety for
commiserating the oppressed negro; and I should be strangely inconsistent
if I could favor any project for curtailing the existing rights of white
men, even though born in different lands, and speaking different
languages from myself. As to the matter of fusion, I am for it if it can
be had on Republican grounds; and I am not for it on any other terms. A
fusion on any other terms would be as foolish as unprincipled. It would
lose the whole North, while the common enemy would still carry the whole
South. The question of men is a different one. There are good, patriotic
men and able statesmen in the South whom I would cheerfully support, if
they would now place themselves on Republican ground, but I am against
letting down the Republican standard a hairsbreadth.

I have written this hastily, but I believe it answers your questions
substantially.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO THE GOVERNOR, AUDITOR, AND TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS.

GENTLEMEN:

In reply to your inquiry; requesting our written opinion as to what your
duty requires you to do in executing the latter clause of the Seventh
Section of "An Act in relation to the payment of the principal and
interest of the State debt," approved Feb'y 22, 1859, we reply that said
last clause of said section is certainly indefinite, general, and
ambiguous in its description of the bonds to be issued by you; giving no
time at which the bonds are to be made payable, no place at which either
principal or interest are to be paid, and no rate of interest which the
bonds are to bear; nor any other description except that they are to be
coupon bonds, which in commercial usage means interest-paying bonds with
obligations or orders attached to them for the payment of annual or
semiannual interest; there is we suppose no difficulty in ascertaining,
if this act stood alone, what ought to be the construction of the terms
"coupon bonds" and that it, would mean bonds bearing interest from the
time of issuing the same. And under this act considered by itself the
creditors would have a right to require such bonds. But your inquiry in
regard to a class of bonds on which no interest is to be paid or shall
begin to run until January 1, 1860, is whether the Act of February 18,
1857, would not authorize you to refuse to give bonds with any coupons
attached payable before the first day of July, 1860. We have very
maturely considered this question and have arrived at the conclusion that
you have a right to use such measures as will secure the State against
the loss of six months' interest on these bonds by the indefiniteness of
the Act of 1859. While it cannot be denied that the letter of the laws
favor the construction claimed by some of the creditors that
interest-bearing bonds were required to be issued to them, inasmuch as
the restriction that no interest is to run on said bonds until 1st
January, 1860, relates solely to the bonds issued under the Act of 1857.
And the Act of 1859 directing you to issue new bonds does not contain
this restriction, but directs you to issue coupon bonds. Nevertheless the
very indefiniteness and generality of the Act of 1859, giving no rate of
interest, no time due, no place of payment, no postponement of the time
when interest commences, necessarily implies that the Legislature
intended to invest you with a discretion to impose such terms and
restrictions as would protect the interest of the State; and we think you
have a right and that it is your duty to see that the State Bonds are so
issued that the State shall not lose six months' interest. Two plans
present themselves either of which will secure the State. 1st. If in
literal compliance with the law you issue bonds bearing interest from 1st
July, 1859, you may deduct from the bonds presented three thousand from
every $100,000 of bonds and issue $97,000 of coupon bonds; by this plan
$3000 out of $100,000 of principal would be extinguished in consideration
of paying $2910 interest on the first of January, 1860--and the interest
on the $3000 would forever cease; this would be no doubt most
advantageous to the State. But if the Auditor will not consent to this,
then, 2nd. Cut off of each bond all the coupons payable before 1st July,
1860.

One of these plans would undoubtedly have been prescribed by the
Legislature if its attention had been directed to this question.

May 28, 1859.



ON LINCOLN'S SCRAP BOOK

TO H. C. WHITNEY.

SPRINGFIELD, December 25, 1858.

H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ.

MY DEAR SIR:--I have just received yours of the 23rd inquiring whether I
received the newspapers you sent me by express. I did receive them, and
am very much obliged. There is some probability that my scrap-book will
be reprinted, and if it shall, I will save you a copy.

Your friend as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



1859
FIRST SUGGESTION OF A PRESIDENTIAL OFFER.
TO S. GALLOWAY.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., July 28, 1859.

HON. SAMUEL GALLOWAY.

MY DEAR SIR:--Your very complimentary, not to say flattering, letter of
the 23d inst. is received. Dr. Reynolds had induced me to expect you
here; and I was disappointed not a little by your failure to come. And
yet I fear you have formed an estimate of me which can scarcely be
sustained on a personal acquaintance.

Two things done by the Ohio Republican convention--the repudiation of
Judge Swan, and the "plank" for a repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law--I
very much regretted. These two things are of a piece; and they are viewed
by many good men, sincerely opposed to slavery, as a struggle against,
and in disregard of, the Constitution itself. And it is the very thing
that will greatly endanger our cause, if it be not kept out of our
national convention. There is another thing our friends are doing which
gives me some uneasiness. It is their leaning toward "popular
sovereignty." There are three substantial objections to this: First, no
party can command respect which sustains this year what it opposed last.
Secondly, Douglas (who is the most dangerous enemy of liberty, because
the most insidious one) would have little support in the North, and by
consequence, no capital to trade on in the South, if it were not for his
friends thus magnifying him and his humbug. But lastly, and chiefly,
Douglas's popular sovereignty, accepted by the public mind as a just
principle, nationalizes slavery, and revives the African slave trade
inevitably.

Taking slaves into new Territories, and buying slaves in Africa, are
identical things, identical rights or identical wrongs, and the argument
which establishes one will establish the other. Try a thousand years for
a sound reason why Congress shall not hinder the people of Kansas from
having slaves, and, when you have found it, it will be an equally good
one why Congress should not hinder the people of Georgia from importing
slaves from Africa.

As to Governor Chase, I have a kind side for him. He was one of the few
distinguished men of the nation who gave us, in Illinois, their sympathy
last year. I never saw him, but suppose him to be able and right-minded;
but still he may not be the most suitable as a candidate for the
Presidency.

I must say I do not think myself fit for the Presidency. As you propose a
correspondence with me, I shall look for your letters anxiously.

I have not met Dr. Reynolds since receiving your letter; but when I
shall, I will present your respects as requested.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



IT IS BAD TO BE POOR.

TO HAWKINS TAYLOR

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. Sept. 6, 1859.

HAWKINS TAYLOR, Esq.

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 3d is just received. There is some mistake about
my expected attendance of the U.S. Court in your city on the 3d Tuesday
of this month. I have had no thought of being there.

It is bad to be poor. I shall go to the wall for bread and meat if I
neglect my business this year as well as last. It would please me much to
see the city and good people of Keokuk, but for this year it is little
less than an impossibility. I am constantly receiving invitations which I
am compelled to decline. I was pressingly urged to go to Minnesota; and I
now have two invitations to go to Ohio. These last are prompted by
Douglas going there; and I am really tempted to make a flying trip to
Columbus and Cincinnati.

I do hope you will have no serious trouble in Iowa. What thinks Grimes
about it? I have not known him to be mistaken about an election in Iowa.
Present my respects to Col. Carter, and any other friends, and believe me

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



SPEECH AT COLUMBUS, OHIO.

SEPTEMBER 16, 1859.

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF OHIO: I cannot fail to remember that I
appear for the first time before an audience in this now great State,--an
audience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, and Chase,
and Wade, and many other renowned men; and, remembering this, I feel that
it will be well for you, as for me, that you should not raise your
expectations to that standard to which you would have been justified in
raising them had one of these distinguished men appeared before you. You
would perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, as
a consequence of your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope,
therefore, that you will commence with very moderate expectations; and
perhaps, if you will give me your attention, I shall be able to interest
you to a moderate degree.

Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been somewhat
embarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to my speech; but I have
been relieved from that embarrassment by an introduction which the Ohio
Statesman newspaper gave me this morning. In this paper I have read an
article, in which, among other statements, I find the following:

"In debating with Senator Douglas during the memorable contest of last
fall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and attempted to
defend that vile conception against the Little Giant."

I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the purpose of
making three comments upon it. The first I have already announced,--it
furnishes me an introductory topic; the second is to show that the
gentleman is mistaken; thirdly, to give him an opportunity to correct it.

In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I have
found that it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under his
very nose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted. I
therefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is a
misrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so; and you will
bear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very "memorable"
debate with Judge Douglas last year, to which this newspaper refers. In
the first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself had, at the
town of Ottawa, I used the language which I will now read. Having been
previously reading an extract, I continued as follows:

"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is
the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution
of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it; and anything that
argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the
negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a
man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here,
while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly to
interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.
I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to
do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality
between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference
between the two which, in my judgment, will probably forbid their ever
living together upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it
becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge
Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior
position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that,
notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro
is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration
of Independence,--the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man.
I agree with judge Douglas, he is not my equal in many respects,
--certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual
endowments. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody
else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal of Judge
Douglas, and the equal of every living man."

Upon a subsequent occasion, when the reason for making a statement like
this occurred, I said:

"While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me to
know whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality between
the negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on this
occasion to say much on that subject, yet, as the question was asked me,
I thought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in
regard to it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in
favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of
the white and black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of
making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold
office, or intermarry with the white people; and I will say in addition
to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black
races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together
on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they can not
so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of
superior and inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of
having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this
occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the
superior position, the negro should be denied everything. I do not
understand that because I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I must
necessarily want her for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let
her alone. I am now in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a
black woman for either a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite
possible for us to get along without making either slaves or wives of
negroes. I will add to this that I have never seen, to my knowledge, a
man, woman, or child, who was in favor of producing perfect equality,
social and political, between negroes and white men. I recollect of but
one distinguished instance that I ever heard of so frequently as to be
satisfied of its correctness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old
friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have
made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I
have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry
negroes, if there was no law to keep them from it; but as judge Douglas
and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if
there were no law to keep them from it, I give him the most solemn pledge
that I will to the very last stand by the law of the State which forbids
the marrying of white people with negroes."

There, my friends, you have briefly what I have, upon former occasions,
said upon this subject to which this newspaper, to the extent of its
ability, has drawn the public attention. In it you not only perceive, as
a probability, that in that contest I did not at any time say I was in
favor of negro suffrage, but the absolute proof that twice--once
substantially, and once expressly--I declared against it. Having shown
you this, there remains but a word of comment upon that newspaper
article. It is this, that I presume the editor of that paper is an honest
and truth-loving man, and that he will be greatly obliged to me for
furnishing him thus early an opportunity to correct the misrepresentation
he has made, before it has run so long that malicious people can call him
a liar.

The Giant himself has been here recently. I have seen a brief report of
his speech. If it were otherwise unpleasant to me to introduce the
subject of the negro as a topic for discussion, I might be somewhat
relieved by the fact that he dealt exclusively in that subject while he
was here. I shall, therefore, without much hesitation or diffidence,
enter upon this subject.

The American people, on the first day of January, 1854, found the African
slave trade prohibited by a law of Congress. In a majority of the States
of this Union, they found African slavery, or any other sort of slavery,
prohibited by State constitutions. They also found a law existing,
supposed to be valid, by which slavery was excluded from almost all the
territory the United States then owned. This was the condition of the
country, with reference to the institution of slavery, on the first of
January, 1854. A few days after that, a bill was introduced into
Congress, which ran through its regular course in the two branches of the
national legislature, and finally passed into a law in the month of May,
by which the Act of Congress prohibiting slavery from going into the
Territories of the United States was repealed. In connection with the law
itself, and, in fact, in the terms of the law, the then existing
prohibition was not only repealed, but there was a declaration of a
purpose on the part of Congress never thereafter to exercise any power
that they might have, real or supposed, to prohibit the extension or
spread of slavery. This was a very great change; for the law thus
repealed was of more than thirty years' standing. Following rapidly upon
the heels of this action of Congress, a decision of the Supreme Court is
made, by which it is declared that Congress, if it desires to prohibit
the spread of slavery into the Territories, has no constitutional power
to do so. Not only so, but that decision lays down principles which, if
pushed to their logical conclusion,--I say pushed to their logical
conclusion,--would decide that the constitutions of free States,
forbidding slavery, are themselves unconstitutional. Mark me, I do not
say the judges said this, and let no man say I affirm the judges used
these words; but I only say it is my opinion that what they did say, if
pressed to its logical conclusion, will inevitably result thus.

Looking at these things, the Republican party, as I understand its
principles and policy, believes that there is great danger of the
institution of slavery being spread out and extended until it is
ultimately made alike lawful in all the States of this Union; so
believing, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation is the
original and chief purpose of the Republican organization. I say "chief
purpose" of the Republican organization; for it is certainly true that if
the National House shall fall into the hands of the Republicans, they
will have to attend to all the other matters of national house-keeping,
as well as this. The chief and real purpose of the Republican party is
eminently conservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore
this government to its original tone in regard to this element of
slavery, and there to maintain it, looking for no further change in
reference to it than that which the original framers of the Government
themselves expected and looked forward to.

The chief danger to this purpose of the Republican party is not just now
the revival of the African slave trade, or the passage of a Congressional
slave code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott decision, making
slavery lawful in all the States. These are not pressing us just now.
They are not quite ready yet. The authors of these measures know that we
are too strong for them; but they will be upon us in due time, and we
will be grappling with them hand to hand, if they are not now headed off.
They are not now the chief danger to the purpose of the Republican
organization; but the most imminent danger that now threatens that
purpose is that insidious Douglas popular sovereignty. This is the miner
and sapper. While it does not propose to revive the African slave trade,
nor to pass a slave code, nor to make a second Dred Scott decision, it is
preparing us for the onslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when
they shall be ready to come on, and the word of command for them to
advance shall be given. I say this "Douglas popular sovereignty"; for
there is a broad distinction, as I now understand it, between that
article and a genuine popular sovereignty.

I believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty. I think a definition of
"genuine popular sovereignty," in the abstract, would be about this: That
each man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with all
those things which exclusively concern him. Applied to government, this
principle would be, that a general government shall do all those things
which pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do precisely as
they please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. I
understand that this government of the United States, under which we
live, is based upon this principle; and I am misunderstood if it is
supposed that I have any war to make upon that principle.

Now, what is judge Douglas's popular sovereignty? It is, as a principle,
no other than that if one man chooses to make a slave of another man
neither that other man nor anybody else has a right to object. Applied in
government, as he seeks to apply it, it is this: If, in a new Territory
into which a few people are beginning to enter for the purpose of making
their homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits or
to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to
be enslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons who are
afterwards to inhabit that Territory, or the other members of the
families of communities, of which they are but an incipient member, or
the general head of the family of States as parent of all, however their
action may affect one or the other of these, there is no power or right
to interfere. That is Douglas's popular sovereignty applied.

He has a good deal of trouble with popular sovereignty. His explanations
explanatory of explanations explained are interminable. The most lengthy,
and, as I suppose, the most maturely considered of this long series of
explanations is his great essay in Harper's Magazine. I will not attempt
to enter on any very thorough investigation of his argument as there made
and presented. I will nevertheless occupy a good portion of your time
here in drawing your attention to certain points in it. Such of you as
may have read this document will have perceived that the judge early in
the document quotes from two persons as belonging to the Republican
party, without naming them, but who can readily be recognized as being
Governor Seward of New York and myself. It is true that exactly fifteen
months ago this day, I believe, I for the first time expressed a
sentiment upon this subject, and in such a manner that it should get into
print, that the public might see it beyond the circle of my hearers; and
my expression of it at that time is the quotation that Judge Douglas
makes. He has not made the quotation with accuracy, but justice to him
requires me to say that it is sufficiently accurate not to change the
sense.

The sense of that quotation condensed is this: that this slavery element
is a durable element of discord among us, and that we shall probably not
have perfect peace in this country with it until it either masters the
free principle in our government, or is so far mastered by the free
principle as for the public mind to rest in the belief that it is going
to its end. This sentiment, which I now express in this way, was, at no
great distance of time, perhaps in different language, and in connection
with some collateral ideas, expressed by Governor Seward. Judge Douglas
has been so much annoyed by the expression of that sentiment that he has
constantly, I believe, in almost all his speeches since it was uttered,
been referring to it. I find he alluded to it in his speech here, as well
as in the copyright essay. I do not now enter upon this for the purpose
of making an elaborate argument to show that we were right in the
expression of that sentiment. In other words, I shall not stop to say all
that might properly be said upon this point, but I only ask your
attention to it for the purpose of making one or two points upon it.

If you will read the copyright essay, you will discover that judge
Douglas himself says a controversy between the American Colonies and the
Government of Great Britain began on the slavery question in 1699, and
continued from that time until the Revolution; and, while he did not say
so, we all know that it has continued with more or less violence ever
since the Revolution.

Then we need not appeal to history, to the declarations of the framers of
the government, but we know from judge Douglas himself that slavery began
to be an element of discord among the white people of this country as far
back as 1699, or one hundred and sixty years ago, or five generations of
men,--counting thirty years to a generation. Now, it would seem to me
that it might have occurred to Judge Douglas, or anybody who had turned
his attention to these facts, that there was something in the nature of
that thing, slavery, somewhat durable for mischief and discord.

There is another point I desire to make in regard to this matter, before
I leave it. From the adoption of the Constitution down to 1820 is the
precise period of our history when we had comparative peace upon this
question,--the precise period of time when we came nearer to having peace
about it than any other time of that entire one hundred and sixty years
in which he says it began, or of the eighty years of our own
Constitution. Then it would be worth our while to stop and examine into
the probable reason of our coming nearer to having peace then than at any
other time. This was the precise period of time in which our fathers
adopted, and during which they followed, a policy restricting the spread
of slavery, and the whole Union was acquiescing in it. The whole country
looked forward to the ultimate extinction of the institution. It was when
a policy had been adopted, and was prevailing, which led all just and
right-minded men to suppose that slavery was gradually coming to an end,
and that they might be quiet about it, watching it as it expired. I think
Judge Douglas might have perceived that too; and whether he did or not,
it is worth the attention of fair-minded men, here and elsewhere, to
consider whether that is not the truth of the case. If he had looked at
these two facts,--that this matter has been an element of discord for one
hundred and sixty years among this people, and that the only comparative
peace we have had about it was when that policy prevailed in this
government which he now wars upon, he might then, perhaps, have been
brought to a more just appreciation of what I said fifteen months
ago,--that "a house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe that
this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free. I do
not expect the house to fall, I do not expect the Union to dissolve; but
I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or
all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further
spread of it, and place it where the public mind will rest in the belief
that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will
push it forward until it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old
as well as new, North as well as South." That was my sentiment at that
time. In connection with it, I said: "We are now far into the fifth year
since a policy was inaugurated with the avowed object and confident
promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of
the policy that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly
augmented." I now say to you here that we are advanced still farther into
the sixth year since that policy of Judge Douglas--that popular
sovereignty of his--for quieting the slavery question was made the
national policy. Fifteen months more have been added since I uttered that
sentiment; and I call upon you and all other right-minded men to say
whether that fifteen months have belied or corroborated my words.

While I am here upon this subject, I cannot but express gratitude that
this true view of this element of discord among us--as I believe it
is--is attracting more and more attention. I do not believe that Governor
Seward uttered that sentiment because I had done so before, but because
he reflected upon this subject and saw the truth of it. Nor do I believe
because Governor Seward or I uttered it that Mr. Hickman of Pennsylvania,
in, different language, since that time, has declared his belief in the
utter antagonism which exists between the principles of liberty and
slavery. You see we are multiplying. Now, while I am speaking of Hickman,
let me say, I know but little about him. I have never seen him, and know
scarcely anything about the man; but I will say this much of him: Of all
the anti-Lecompton Democracy that have been brought to my notice, he
alone has the true, genuine ring of the metal. And now, without indorsing
anything else he has said, I will ask this audience to give three cheers
for Hickman. [The audience responded with three rousing cheers for
Hickman.]

Another point in the copyright essay to which I would ask your attention
is rather a feature to be extracted from the whole thing, than from any
express declaration of it at any point. It is a general feature of that
document, and, indeed, of all of Judge Douglas's discussions of this
question, that the Territories of the United States and the States of
this Union are exactly alike; that there is no difference between them at
all; that the Constitution applies to the Territories precisely as it
does to the States; and that the United States Government, under the
Constitution, may not do in a State what it may not do in a Territory,
and what it must do in a State it must do in a Territory. Gentlemen, is
that a true view of the case? It is necessary for this squatter
sovereignty, but is it true?

Let us consider. What does it depend upon? It depends altogether upon the
proposition that the States must, without the interference of the General
Government, do all those things that pertain exclusively to
themselves,--that are local in their nature, that have no connection with
the General Government. After Judge Douglas has established this
proposition, which nobody disputes or ever has disputed, he proceeds to
assume, without proving it, that slavery is one of those little,
unimportant, trivial matters which are of just about as much consequence
as the question would be to me whether my neighbor should raise horned
cattle or plant tobacco; that there is no moral question about it, but
that it is altogether a matter of dollars and cents; that when a new
Territory is opened for settlement, the first man who goes into it may
plant there a thing which, like the Canada thistle or some other of those
pests of the soil, cannot be dug out by the millions of men who will come
thereafter; that it is one of those little things that is so trivial in
its nature that it has nor effect upon anybody save the few men who first
plant upon the soil; that it is not a thing which in any way affects the
family of communities composing these States, nor any way endangers the
General Government. Judge Douglas ignores altogether the very well known
fact that we have never had a serious menace to our political existence,
except it sprang from this thing, which he chooses to regard as only upon
a par with onions and potatoes.

Turn it, and contemplate it in another view. He says that, according to
his popular sovereignty, the General Government may give to the
Territories governors, judges, marshals, secretaries, and all the other
chief men to govern them, but they, must not touch upon this other
question. Why? The question of who shall be governor of a Territory for a
year or two, and pass away, without his track being left upon the soil,
or an act which he did for good or for evil being left behind, is a
question of vast national magnitude; it is so much opposed in its nature
to locality that the nation itself must decide it: while this other
matter of planting slavery upon a soil,--a thing which, once planted,
cannot be eradicated by the succeeding millions who have as much right
there as the first comers, or, if eradicated, not without infinite
difficulty and a long struggle, he considers the power to prohibit it as
one of these little local, trivial things that the nation ought not to
say a word about; that it affects nobody save the few men who are there.

Take these two things and consider them together, present the question of
planting a State with the institution of slavery by the side of a
question who shall be Governor of Kansas for a year or two, and is there
a man here, is there a man on earth, who would not say the governor
question is the little one, and the slavery question is the great one? I
ask any honest Democrat if the small, the local, and the trivial and
temporary question is not, Who shall be governor? while the durable, the
important, and the mischievous one is, Shall this soil be planted with
slavery?

This is an idea, I suppose, which has arisen in Judge Douglas's mind from
his peculiar structure. I suppose the institution of slavery really looks
small to him. He is so put up by nature that a lash upon his back would
hurt him, but a lash upon anybody else's back does not hurt him. That is
the build of the man, and consequently he looks upon the matter of
slavery in this unimportant light.

Judge Douglas ought to remember, when he is endeavoring to force this
policy upon the American people, that while he is put up in that way, a
good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once in this
country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be a
Democrat,--a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalent
amongst Democrats to-day, it is true; but that man did not take exactly
this view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our
friend judge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing, we all know he
was led to exclaim, "I tremble for my country when I remember that God is
just!" We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself.
There was danger to this country,--danger of the avenging justice of God,
in that little unimportant popular sovereignty question of judge Douglas.
He supposed there was a question of God's eternal justice wrapped up in
the enslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so
braved the arm of Jehovah; that when a nation thus dared the Almighty,
every friend of that nation had cause to dread his wrath. Choose ye
between Jefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element
among us.

There is another little difficulty about this matter of treating the
Territories and States alike in all things, to which I ask your
attention, and I shall leave this branch of the case. If there is no
difference between them, why not make the Territories States at once?
What is the reason that Kansas was not fit to come into the Union when it
was organized into a Territory, in Judge Douglas's view? Can any of you
tell any reason why it should not have come into the Union at once? They
are fit, as he thinks, to decide upon the slavery question,--the largest
and most important with which they could possibly deal: what could they
do by coming into the Union that they are not fit to do, according to his
view, by staying out of it? Oh, they are not fit to sit in Congress and
decide upon the rates of postage, or questions of ad valorem or specific
duties on foreign goods, or live-oak timber contracts, they are not fit
to decide these vastly important matters, which are national in their
import, but they are fit, "from the jump," to decide this little negro
question. But, gentlemen, the case is too plain; I occupy too much time
on this head, and I pass on.

Near the close of the copyright essay, the judge, I think, comes very
near kicking his own fat into the fire. I did not think, when I commenced
these remarks, that I would read that article, but I now believe I will:

"This exposition of the history of these measures shows conclusively that
the authors of the Compromise measures of 1850 and of the Kansas-Nebraska
Act of 1854, as well as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774.,
and the founders of our system of government subsequent to the
Revolution, regarded the people of the Territories and Colonies as
political communities which were entitled to a free and exclusive power
of legislation in their provisional legislatures, where their
representation could alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and
internal polity."

When the judge saw that putting in the word "slavery" would contradict
his own history, he put in what he knew would pass synonymous with it,
"internal polity." Whenever we find that in one of his speeches, the
substitute is used in this manner; and I can tell you the reason. It
would be too bald a contradiction to say slavery; but "internal polity"
is a general phrase, which would pass in some quarters, and which he
hopes will pass with the reading community for the same thing.

"This right pertains to the people collectively, as a law-abiding and
peaceful community, and not in the isolated individuals who may wander
upon the public domain in violation of the law. It can only be exercised
where there are inhabitants sufficient to constitute a government, and
capable of performing its various functions and duties,--a fact to be
ascertained and determined by" who do you think? Judge Douglas says "by
Congress!" "Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen or twenty
thousand inhabitants, does not affect the principle."

Now, I have only a few comments to make. Popular sovereignty, by his own
words, does not pertain to the few persons who wander upon the public
domain in violation of law. We have his words for that. When it does
pertain to them, is when they are sufficient to be formed into an
organized political community, and he fixes the minimum for that at ten
thousand, and the maximum at twenty thousand. Now, I would like to know
what is to be done with the nine thousand? Are they all to be treated,
until they are large enough to be organized into a political community,
as wanderers upon the public land, in violation of law? And if so treated
and driven out, at what point of time would there ever be ten thousand?
If they were not driven out, but remained there as trespassers upon the
public land in violation of the law, can they establish slavery there?
No; the judge says popular sovereignty don't pertain to them then. Can
they exclude it then? No; popular sovereignty don't pertain to them then.
I would like to know, in the case covered by the essay, what condition
the people of the Territory are in before they reach the number of ten
thousand?

But the main point I wish to ask attention to is, that the question as to
when they shall have reached a sufficient number to be formed into a
regular organized community is to be decided "by Congress." Judge Douglas
says so. Well, gentlemen, that is about all we want. No, that is all the
Southerners want. That is what all those who are for slavery want. They
do not want Congress to prohibit slavery from coming into the new
Territories, and they do not want popular sovereignty to hinder it; and
as Congress is to say when they are ready to be organized, all that the
South has to do is to get Congress to hold off. Let Congress hold off
until they are ready to be admitted as a State, and the South has all it
wants in taking slavery into and planting it in all the Territories that
we now have or hereafter may have. In a word, the whole thing, at a dash
of the pen, is at last put in the power of Congress; for if they do not
have this popular sovereignty until Congress organizes them, I ask if it
at last does not come from Congress? If, at last, it amounts to anything
at all, Congress gives it to them. I submit this rather for your
reflection than for comment. After all that is said, at last, by a dash
of the pen, everything that has gone before is undone, and he puts the
whole question under the control of Congress. After fighting through more
than three hours, if you undertake to read it, he at last places the
whole matter under the control of that power which he has been contending
against, and arrives at a result directly contrary to what he had been
laboring to do. He at last leaves the whole matter to the control of
Congress.

There are two main objects, as I understand it, of this Harper's Magazine
essay. One was to show, if possible, that the men of our Revolutionary
times were in favor of his popular sovereignty, and the other was to show
that the Dred Scott decision had not entirely squelched out this popular
sovereignty. I do not propose, in regard to this argument drawn from the
history of former times, to enter into a detailed examination of the
historical statements he has made. I have the impression that they are
inaccurate in a great many instances,--sometimes in positive statement,
but very much more inaccurate by the suppression of statements that
really belong to the history. But I do not propose to affirm that this is
so to any very great extent, or to enter into a very minute examination
of his historical statements. I avoid doing so upon this principle,--that
if it were important for me to pass out of this lot in the least period
of time possible, and I came to that fence, and saw by a calculation of
my known strength and agility that I could clear it at a bound, it would
be folly for me to stop and consider whether I could or not crawl through
a crack. So I say of the whole history contained in his essay where he
endeavored to link the men of the Revolution to popular sovereignty. It
only requires an effort to leap out of it, a single bound to be entirely
successful. If you read it over, you will find that he quotes here and
there from documents of the Revolutionary times, tending to show that the
people of the colonies were desirous of regulating their own concerns in
their own way, that the British Government should not interfere; that at
one time they struggled with the British Government to be permitted to
exclude the African slave trade,--if not directly, to be permitted to
exclude it indirectly, by taxation sufficient to discourage and destroy
it. From these and many things of this sort, judge Douglas argues that
they were in favor of the people of our own Territories excluding slavery
if they wanted to, or planting it there if they wanted to, doing just as
they pleased from the time they settled upon the Territory. Now, however
his history may apply and whatever of his argument there may be that is
sound and accurate or unsound and inaccurate, if we can find out what
these men did themselves do upon this very question of slavery in the
Territories, does it not end the whole thing? If, after all this labor
and effort to show that the men of the Revolution were in favor of his
popular sovereignty and his mode of dealing with slavery in the
Territories, we can show that these very men took hold of that subject,
and dealt with it, we can see for ourselves how they dealt with it. It is
not a matter of argument or inference, but we know what they thought
about it.

It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country that one
important omission is made by Judge Douglas. He selects parts of the
history of the United States upon the subject of slavery, and treats it
as the whole, omitting from his historical sketch the legislation of
Congress in regard to the admission of Missouri, by which the Missouri
Compromise was established and slavery excluded from a country half as
large as the present United States. All this is left out of his history,
and in nowise alluded to by him, so far as I can remember, save once,
when he makes a remark, that upon his principle the Supreme Court were
authorized to pronounce a decision that the act called the Missouri
Compromise was unconstitutional. All that history has been left out. But
this part of the history of the country was not made by the men of the
Revolution.

There was another part of our political history, made by the very men who
were the actors in the Revolution, which has taken the name of the
Ordinance of '87. Let me bring that history to your attention. In 1784, I
believe, this same Mr. Jefferson drew up an ordinance for the government
of the country upon which we now stand, or, rather, a frame or draft of
an ordinance for the government of this country, here in Ohio, our
neighbors in Indiana, us who live in Illinois, our neighbors in Wisconsin
and Michigan. In that ordinance, drawn up not only for the government of
that Territory, but for the Territories south of the Ohio River, Mr.
Jefferson expressly provided for the prohibition of slavery. Judge
Douglas says, and perhaps is right, that that provision was lost from
that ordinance. I believe that is true. When the vote was taken upon it,
a majority of all present in the Congress of the Confederation voted for
it; but there were so many absentees that those voting for it did not
make the clear majority necessary, and it was lost. But three years after
that, the Congress of the Confederation were together again, and they
adopted a new ordinance for the government of this Northwest Territory,
not contemplating territory south of the river, for the States owning
that territory had hitherto refrained from giving it to the General
Government; hence they made the ordinance to apply only to what the
Government owned. In fact, the provision excluding slavery was inserted
aside, passed unanimously, or at any rate it passed and became a part of
the law of the land. Under that ordinance we live. First here in Ohio you
were a Territory; then an enabling act was passed, authorizing you to
form a constitution and State Government, provided it was republican and
not in conflict with the Ordinance of '87. When you framed your
constitution and presented it for admission, I think you will find the
legislation upon the subject will show that, whereas you had formed a
constitution that was republican, and not in conflict with the Ordinance
of '87, therefore you were admitted upon equal footing with the original
States. The same process in a few years was gone through with in Indiana,
and so with Illinois, and the same substantially with Michigan and
Wisconsin.

Not only did that Ordinance prevail, but it was constantly looked to
whenever a step was taken by a new Territory to become a State. Congress
always turned their attention to it, and in all their movements upon this
subject they traced their course by that Ordinance of '87. When they
admitted new States, they advertised them of this Ordinance, as a part of
the legislation of the country. They did so because they had traced the
Ordinance of '87 throughout the history of this country. Begin with the
men of the Revolution, and go down for sixty entire years, and until the
last scrap of that Territory comes into the Union in the form of the
State of Wisconsin, everything was made to conform with the Ordinance of
'87, excluding slavery from that vast extent of country.

I omitted to mention in the right place that the Constitution of the
United States was in process of being framed when that Ordinance was made
by the Congress of the Confederation; and one of the first Acts of
Congress itself, under the new Constitution itself, was to give force to
that Ordinance by putting power to carry it out in the hands of the new
officers under the Constitution, in the place of the old ones, who had
been legislated out of existence by the change in the Government from the
Confederation to the Constitution. Not only so, but I believe Indiana
once or twice, if not Ohio, petitioned the General Government for the
privilege of suspending that provision and allowing them to have slaves.
A report made by Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was
directly against it, and the action was to refuse them the privilege of
violating the Ordinance of '87.

This period of history, which I have run over briefly, is, I presume, as
familiar to most of this assembly as any other part of the history of our
country. I suppose that few of my hearers are not as familiar with that
part of history as I am, and I only mention it to recall your attention
to it at this time. And hence I ask how extraordinary a thing it is that
a man who has occupied a position upon the floor of the Senate of the
United States, who is now in his third term, and who looks to see the
government of this whole country fall into his own hands, pretending to
give a truthful and accurate history o the slavery question in this
country, should so entirely ignore the whole of that portion of our
history--the most important of all. Is it not a most extraordinary
spectacle that a man should stand up and ask for any confidence in his
statements who sets out as he does with portions of history, calling upon
the people to believe that it is a true and fair representation, when the
leading part and controlling feature of the whole history is carefully
suppressed?

But the mere leaving out is not the most remarkable feature of this most
remarkable essay. His proposition is to establish that the leading men of
the Revolution were for his great principle of nonintervention by the
government in the question of slavery in the Territories, while history
shows that they decided, in the cases actually brought before them, in
exactly the contrary way, and he knows it. Not only did they so decide at
that time, but they stuck to it during sixty years, through thick and
thin, as long as there was one of the Revolutionary heroes upon the stage
of political action. Through their whole course, from first to last, they
clung to freedom. And now he asks the community to believe that the men
of the Revolution were in favor of his great principle, when we have the
naked history that they themselves dealt with this very subject matter of
his principle, and utterly repudiated his principle, acting upon a
precisely contrary ground. It is as impudent and absurd as if a
prosecuting attorney should stand up before a jury and ask them to
convict A as the murderer of B, while B was walking alive before them.

I say, again, if judge Douglas asserts that the men of the Revolution
acted upon principles by which, to be consistent with themselves, they
ought to have adopted his popular sovereignty, then, upon a consideration
of his own argument, he had a right to make you believe that they
understood the principles of government, but misapplied them, that he has
arisen to enlighten the world as to the just application of this
principle. He has a right to try to persuade you that he understands
their principles better than they did, and, therefore, he will apply them
now, not as they did, but as they ought to have done. He has a right to
go before the community and try to convince them of this, but he has no
right to attempt to impose upon any one the belief that these men
themselves approved of his great principle. There are two ways of
establishing a proposition. One is by trying to demonstrate it upon
reason, and the other is, to show that great men in former times have
thought so and so, and thus to pass it by the weight of pure authority.
Now, if Judge Douglas will demonstrate somehow that this is popular
sovereignty,--the right of one man to make a slave of another, without
any right in that other or any one else to object,--demonstrate it as
Euclid demonstrated propositions,--there is no objection. But when he
comes forward, seeking to carry a principle by bringing to it the
authority of men who themselves utterly repudiate that principle, I ask
that he shall not be permitted to do it.

I see, in the judge's speech here, a short sentence in these words: "Our
fathers, when they formed this government under which we live, understood
this question just as well, and even better than, we do now." That is
true; I stick to that. I will stand by Judge Douglas in that to the
bitter end. And now, Judge Douglas, come and stand by me, and truthfully
show how they acted, understanding it better than we do. All I ask of
you, Judge Douglas, is to stick to the proposition that the men of the
Revolution understood this subject better than we do now, and with that
better understanding they acted better than you are trying to act now.

I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott decision, as
dealt with by Judge Douglas. In that "memorable debate" between Judge
Douglas and myself, last year, the judge thought fit to commence a
process of catechising me, and at Freeport I answered his questions, and
propounded some to him. Among others propounded to him was one that I
have here now. The substance, as I remember it, is, "Can the people of a
United States Territory, under the Dred Scott decision, in any lawful
way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude
slavery from its limits, prior to the formation of a State constitution?"
He answered that they could lawfully exclude slavery from the United
States Territories, notwithstanding the Dred Scot decision. There was
something about that answer that has probably been a trouble to the judge
ever since.

The Dred Scott decision expressly gives every citizen of the United
States a right to carry his slaves into the United States Territories.
And now there was some inconsistency in saying that the decision was
right, and saying, too, that the people of the Territory could lawfully
drive slavery out again. When all the trash, the words, the collateral
matter, was cleared away from it, all the chaff was fanned out of it, it
was a bare absurdity,--no less than that a thing may be lawfully driven
away from where it has a lawful right to be. Clear it of all the
verbiage, and that is the naked truth of his proposition,--that a thing
may be lawfully driven from the place where it has a lawful right to
stay. Well, it was because the judge could n't help seeing this that he
has had so much trouble with it; and what I want to ask your especial
attention to, just now, is to remind you, if you have not noticed the
fact, that the judge does not any longer say that the people can exclude
slavery. He does not say so in the copyright essay; he did not say so in
the speech that he made here; and, so far as I know, since his
re-election to the Senate he has never said, as he did at Freeport, that
the people of the Territories can exclude slavery. He desires that you,
who wish the Territories to remain free, should believe that he stands by
that position; but he does not say it himself. He escapes to some extent
the absurd position I have stated, by changing his language entirely.
What he says now is something different in language, and we will consider
whether it is not different in sense too. It is now that the Dred Scott
decision, or rather the Constitution under that decision, does not carry
slavery into the Territories beyond the power of the people of the
Territories to control it as other property. He does not say the people
can drive it out, but they can control it as other property. The language
is different; we should consider whether the sense is different. Driving
a horse out of this lot is too plain a proposition to be mistaken about;
it is putting him on the other side of the fence. Or it might be a sort
of exclusion of him from the lot if you were to kill him and let the
worms devour him; but neither of these things is the same as "controlling
him as other property." That would be to feed him, to pamper him, to ride
him, to use and abuse him, to make the most money out of him, "as other
property"; but, please you, what do the men who are in favor of slavery
want more than this? What do they really want, other than that slavery,
being in the Territories, shall be controlled as other property? If they
want anything else, I do not comprehend it. I ask your attention to this,
first, for the purpose of pointing out the change of ground the judge has
made; and, in the second place, the importance of the change,--that that
change is not such as to give you gentlemen who want his popular
sovereignty the power to exclude the institution or drive it out at all.
I know the judge sometimes squints at the argument that in controlling it
as other property by unfriendly legislation they may control it to death;
as you might, in the case of a horse, perhaps, feed him so lightly and
ride him so much that he would die. But when you come to legislative
control, there is something more to be attended to. I have no doubt,
myself, that if the Territories should undertake to control slave
property as other property that is, control it in such a way that it
would be the most valuable as property, and make it bear its just
proportion in the way of burdens as property, really deal with it as
property,--the Supreme Court of the United States will say, "God speed
you, and amen." But I undertake to give the opinion, at least, that if
the Territories attempt by any direct legislation to drive the man with
his slave out of the Territory, or to decide that his slave is free
because of his being taken in there, or to tax him to such an extent that
he cannot keep him there, the Supreme Court will unhesitatingly decide
all such legislation unconstitutional, as long as that Supreme Court is
constructed as the Dred Scott Supreme Court is. The first two things they
have already decided, except that there is a little quibble among lawyers
between the words "dicta" and "decision." They have already decided a
negro cannot be made free by Territorial legislation.

What is the Dred Scott decision? Judge Douglas labors to show that it is
one thing, while I think it is altogether different. It is a long
opinion, but it is all embodied in this short statement: "The
Constitution of the United States forbids Congress to deprive a man of
his property, without due process of law; the right of property in slaves
is distinctly and expressly affirmed in that Constitution: therefore, if
Congress shall undertake to say that a man's slave is no longer his slave
when he crosses a certain line into a Territory, that is depriving him of
his property without due process of law, and is unconstitutional." There
is the whole Dred Scott decision. They add that if Congress cannot do so
itself, Congress cannot confer any power to do so; and hence any effort
by the Territorial Legislature to do either of these things is absolutely
decided against. It is a foregone conclusion by that court.

Now, as to this indirect mode by "unfriendly legislation," all lawyers
here will readily understand that such a proposition cannot be tolerated
for a moment, because a legislature cannot indirectly do that which it
cannot accomplish directly. Then I say any legislation to control this
property, as property, for its benefit as property, would be hailed by
this Dred Scott Supreme Court, and fully sustained; but any legislation
driving slave property out, or destroying it as property, directly or
indirectly, will most assuredly, by that court, be held unconstitutional.

Judge Douglas says if the Constitution carries slavery into the
Territories, beyond the power of the people of the Territories to control
it as other property; then it follows logically that every one who swears
to support the Constitution of the United States must give that support
to that property which it needs. And, if the Constitution carries slavery
into the Territories, beyond the power of the people, to control it as
other property, then it also carries it into the States, because the
Constitution is the supreme law of the land. Now, gentlemen, if it were
not for my excessive modesty, I would say that I told that very thing to
Judge Douglas quite a year ago. This argument is here in print, and if it
were not for my modesty, as I said, I might call your attention to it. If
you read it, you will find that I not only made that argument, but made
it better than he has made it since.

There is, however, this difference: I say now, and said then, there is no
sort of question that the Supreme Court has decided that it is the right
of the slave holder to take his slave and hold him in the Territory; and
saying this, judge Douglas himself admits the conclusion. He says if that
is so, this consequence will follow; and because this consequence would
follow, his argument is, the decision cannot, therefore, be that way,--
"that would spoil my popular sovereignty; and it cannot be possible that
this great principle has been squelched out in this extraordinary way. It
might be, if it were not for the extraordinary consequences of spoiling
my humbug."

Another feature of the judge's argument about the Dred Scott case is, an
effort to show that that decision deals altogether in declarations of
negatives; that the Constitution does not affirm anything as expounded by
the Dred Scott decision, but it only declares a want of power a total
absence of power, in reference to the Territories. It seems to be his
purpose to make the whole of that decision to result in a mere negative
declaration of a want of power in Congress to do anything in relation to
this matter in the Territories. I know the opinion of the Judges states
that there is a total absence of power; but that is, unfortunately; not
all it states: for the judges add that the right of property in a slave
is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. It does not
stop at saying that the right of property in a slave is recognized in the
Constitution, is declared to exist somewhere in the Constitution, but
says it is affirmed in the Constitution. Its language is equivalent to
saying that it is embodied and so woven in that instrument that it cannot
be detached without breaking the Constitution itself. In a word, it is
part of the Constitution.

Douglas is singularly unfortunate in his effort to make out that decision
to be altogether negative, when the express language at the vital part is
that this is distinctly affirmed in the Constitution. I think myself, and
I repeat it here, that this decision does not merely carry slavery into
the Territories, but by its logical conclusion it carries it into the
States in which we live. One provision of that Constitution is, that it
shall be the supreme law of the land,--I do not quote the language,--any
constitution or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. This
Dred Scott decision says that the right of property in a slave is
affirmed in that Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, any
State constitution or law notwithstanding. Then I say that to destroy a
thing which is distinctly affirmed and supported by the supreme law of
the land, even by a State constitution or law, is a violation of that
supreme law, and there is no escape from it. In my judgment there is no
avoiding that result, save that the American people shall see that
constitutions are better construed than our Constitution is construed in
that decision. They must take care that it is more faithfully and truly
carried out than it is there expounded.

I must hasten to a conclusion. Near the beginning of my remarks I said
that this insidious Douglas popular sovereignty is the measure that now
threatens the purpose of the Republican party to prevent slavery from
being nationalized in the United States. I propose to ask your attention
for a little while to some propositions in affirmance of that statement.
Take it just as it stands, and apply it as a principle; extend and apply
that principle elsewhere; and consider where it will lead you. I now put
this proposition, that Judge Douglas's popular sovereignty applied will
reopen the African slave trade; and I will demonstrate it by any variety
of ways in which you can turn the subject or look at it.

The Judge says that the people of the Territories have the right, by his
principle, to have slaves, if they want them. Then I say that the people
in Georgia have the right to buy slaves in Africa, if they want them; and
I defy any man on earth to show any distinction between the two
things,--to show that the one is either more wicked or more unlawful; to
show, on original principles, that one is better or worse than the other;
or to show, by the Constitution, that one differs a whit from the other.
He will tell me, doubtless, that there is no constitutional provision
against people taking slaves into the new Territories, and I tell him
that there is equally no constitutional provision against buying slaves
in Africa. He will tell you that a people, in the exercise of popular
sovereignty, ought to do as they please about that thing, and have slaves
if they want them; and I tell you that the people of Georgia are as much
entitled to popular sovereignty and to buy slaves in Africa, if they want
them, as the people of the Territory are to have slaves if they want
them. I ask any man, dealing honestly with himself, to point out a
distinction.

I have recently seen a letter of Judge Douglas's in which, without
stating that to be the object, he doubtless endeavors to make a
distinction between the two. He says he is unalterably opposed to the
repeal of the laws against the African slave trade. And why? He then
seeks to give a reason that would not apply to his popular sovereignty in
the Territories. What is that reason? "The abolition of the African slave
trade is a compromise of the Constitution!" I deny it. There is no truth
in the proposition that the abolition of the African slave trade is a
compromise of the Constitution. No man can put his finger on anything in
the Constitution, or on the line of history, which shows it. It is a mere
barren assertion, made simply for the purpose of getting up a distinction
between the revival of the African slave trade and his "great principle."

At the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted, it was
expected that the slave trade would be abolished. I should assert and
insist upon that, if judge Douglas denied it. But I know that it was
equally expected that slavery would be excluded from the Territories, and
I can show by history that in regard to these two things public opinion
was exactly alike, while in regard to positive action, there was more
done in the Ordinance of '87 to resist the spread of slavery than was
ever done to abolish the foreign slave trade. Lest I be misunderstood, I
say again that at the time of the formation of the Constitution, public
expectation was that the slave trade would be abolished, but no more so
than the spread of slavery in the Territories should be restrained. They
stand alike, except that in the Ordinance of '87 there was a mark left by
public opinion, showing that it was more committed against the spread of
slavery in the Territories than against the foreign slave trade.

Compromise! What word of compromise was there about it? Why, the public
sense was then in favor of the abolition of the slave trade; but there
was at the time a very great commercial interest involved in it, and
extensive capital in that branch of trade. There were doubtless the
incipient stages of improvement in the South in the way of farming,
dependent on the slave trade, and they made a proposition to Congress to
abolish the trade after allowing it twenty years,--a sufficient time for
the capital and commerce engaged in it to be transferred to other
channel. They made no provision that it should be abolished in twenty
years; I do not doubt that they expected it would be, but they made no
bargain about it. The public sentiment left no doubt in the minds of any
that it would be done away. I repeat, there is nothing in the history of
those times in favor of that matter being a compromise of the
constitution. It was the public expectation at the time, manifested in a
thousand ways, that the spread of slavery should also be restricted.

Then I say, if this principle is established, that there is no wrong in
slavery, and whoever wants it has a right to have it, is a matter of
dollars and cents, a sort of question as to how they shall deal with
brutes, that between us and the negro here there is no sort of question,
but that at the South the question is between the negro and the
crocodile, that is all, it is a mere matter of policy, there is a perfect
right, according to interest, to do just as you please,--when this is
done, where this doctrine prevails, the miners and sappers will have
formed public opinion for the slave trade. They will be ready for Jeff.
Davis and Stephens and other leaders of that company to sound the bugle
for the revival of the slave trade, for the second Dred Scott decision,
for the flood of slavery to be poured over the free States, while we
shall be here tied down and helpless and run over like sheep.

It is to be a part and parcel of this same idea to say to men who want to
adhere to the Democratic party, who have always belonged to that party,
and are only looking about for some excuse to stick to it, but
nevertheless hate slavery, that Douglas's popular sovereignty is as good
a way as any to oppose slavery. They allow themselves to be persuaded
easily, in accordance with their previous dispositions, into this belief,
that it is about as good a way of opposing slavery as any, and we can do
that without straining our old party ties or breaking up old political
associations. We can do so without being called negro-worshipers. We can
do that without being subjected to the jibes and sneers that are so
readily thrown out in place of argument where no argument can be found.
So let us stick to this popular sovereignty,--this insidious popular
sovereignty.

Now let me call your attention to one thing that has really happened,
which shows this gradual and steady debauching of public opinion, this
course of preparation for the revival of the slave trade, for the
Territorial slave code, and the new Dred Scott decision that is to carry
slavery into the Free States. Did you ever, five years ago, hear of
anybody in the world saying that the negro had no share in the
Declaration of National Independence; that it does not mean negroes at
all; and when "all men" were spoken of, negroes were not included?

I am satisfied that five years ago that proposition was not put upon
paper by any living being anywhere. I have been unable at any time to
find a man in an audience who would declare that he had ever known of
anybody saying so five years ago. But last year there was not a Douglas
popular sovereign in Illinois who did not say it. Is there one in Ohio
but declares his firm belief that the Declaration of Independence did not
mean negroes at all? I do not know how this is; I have not been here
much; but I presume you are very much alike everywhere. Then I suppose
that all now express the belief that the Declaration of Independence
never did mean negroes. I call upon one of them to say that he said it
five years ago.

If you think that now, and did not think it then, the next thing that
strikes me is to remark that there has been a change wrought in you,--and
a very significant change it is, being no less than changing the negro,
in your estimation, from the rank of a man to that of a brute. They are
taking him down and placing him, when spoken of, among reptiles and
crocodiles, as Judge Douglas himself expresses it.

Is not this change wrought in your minds a very important change? Public
opinion in this country is everything. In a nation like ours, this
popular sovereignty and squatter sovereignty have already wrought a
change in the public mind to the extent I have stated. There is no man in
this crowd who can contradict it.

Now, if you are opposed to slavery honestly, as much as anybody, I ask
you to note that fact, and the like of which is to follow, to be
plastered on, layer after layer, until very soon you are prepared to deal
with the negro every where as with the brute. If public sentiment has not
been debauched already to this point, a new turn of the screw in that
direction is all that is wanting; and this is constantly being done by
the teachers of this insidious popular sovereignty. You need but one or
two turns further, until your minds, now ripening under these teachings,
will be ready for all these things, and you will receive and support, or
submit to, the slave trade, revived with all its horrors, a slave code
enforced in our Territories, and a new Dred Scott decision to bring
slavery up into the very heart of the free North. This, I must say, is
but carrying out those words prophetically spoken by Mr. Clay,--many,
many years ago,--I believe more than thirty years, when he told an
audience that if they would repress all tendencies to liberty and
ultimate emancipation they must go back to the era of our independence,
and muzzle the cannon which thundered its annual joyous return on the
Fourth of July; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must
penetrate the human soul, and eradicate the love of liberty: but until
they did these things, and others eloquently enumerated by him, they
could not repress all tendencies to ultimate emancipation.

I ask attention to the fact that in a pre-eminent degree these popular
sovereigns are at this work: blowing out the moral lights around us;
teaching that the negro is no longer a man, but a brute; that the
Declaration has nothing to do with him; that he ranks with the crocodile
and the reptile; that man, with body and soul, is a matter of dollars and
cents. I suggest to this portion of the Ohio Republicans, or Democrats,
if there be any present, the serious consideration of this fact that
there is now going on among you a steady process of debauching public
opinion on this subject. With this, my friends, I bid you adieu.



SPEECH AT CINCINNATI OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, 1859

My Fellow-Citizens of the State of Ohio: This is the first time in my
life that I have appeared before an audience in so great a city as this:
I therefore--though I am no longer a young man--make this appearance
under some degree of embarrassment. But I have found that when one is
embarrassed, usually the shortest way to get through with it is to quit
talking or thinking about it, and go at something else.

I understand that you have had recently with you my very distinguished
friend Judge Douglas, of Illinois; and I understand, without having had
an opportunity (not greatly sought, to be sure) of seeing a report of the
speech that he made here, that he did me the honor to mention my humble
name. I suppose that he did so for the purpose of making some objection
to some sentiment at some time expressed by me. I should expect, it is
true, that judge Douglas had reminded you, or informed you, if you had
never before heard it, that I had once in my life declared it as my
opinion that this government cannot endure permanently, half slave and
half free; that a house divided against itself cannot stand, and, as I
had expressed it, I did not expect the house to fall, that I did not
expect the Union to be dissolved, but that I did expect that it would
cease to be divided, that it would become all one thing, or all the
other; that either the opponents of slavery would arrest the further
spread of it, and place it where the public mind would rest in the belief
that it was in the course of ultimate extinction, or the friends of
slavery will push it forward until it becomes alike lawful in all the
States, old or new, free as well as slave. I did, fifteen months ago,
express that opinion, and upon many occasions Judge Douglas has denounced
it, and has greatly, intentionally or unintentionally, misrepresented my
purpose in the expression of that opinion.

I presume, without having seen a report of his speech, that he did so
here. I presume that he alluded also to that opinion, in different
language, having been expressed at a subsequent time by Governor Seward
of New York, and that he took the two in a lump and denounced them; that
he tried to point out that there was something couched in this opinion
which led to the making of an entire uniformity of the local institutions
of the various States of the Union, in utter disregard of the different
States, which in their nature would seem to require a variety of
institutions and a variety of laws, conforming to the differences in the
nature of the different States.

Not only so: I presume he insisted that this was a declaration of war
between the free and slave States, that it was the sounding to the onset
of continual war between the different States, the slave and free States.

This charge, in this form, was made by Judge Douglas on, I believe, the
9th of July, 1858, in Chicago, in my hearing. On the next evening, I made
some reply to it. I informed him that many of the inferences he drew from
that expression of mine were altogether foreign to any purpose
entertained by me, and in so far as he should ascribe these inferences to
me, as my purpose, he was entirely mistaken; and in so far as he might
argue that, whatever might be my purpose, actions conforming to my views
would lead to these results, he might argue and establish if he could;
but, so far as purposes were concerned, he was totally mistaken as to me.

When I made that reply to him, I told him, on the question of declaring
war between the different States of the Union, that I had not said that I
did not expect any peace upon this question until slavery was
exterminated; that I had only said I expected peace when that institution
was put where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was in
course of ultimate extinction; that I believed, from the organization of
our government until a very recent period of time, the institution had
been placed and continued upon such a basis; that we had had comparative
peace upon that question through a portion of that period of time, only
because the public mind rested in that belief in regard to it, and that
when we returned to that position in relation to that matter, I supposed
we should again have peace as we previously had. I assured him, as I now,
assure you, that I neither then had, nor have, or ever had, any purpose
in any way of interfering with the institution of slavery, where it
exists. I believe we have no power, under the Constitution of the United
States, or rather under the form of government under which we live, to
interfere with the institution of slavery, or any other of the
institutions of our sister States, be they free or slave States. I
declared then, and I now re-declare, that I have as little inclination to
interfere with the institution of slavery where it now exists, through
the instrumentality of the General Government, or any other
instrumentality, as I believe we have no power to do so. I accidentally
used this expression: I had no purpose of entering into the slave States
to disturb the institution of slavery. So, upon the first occasion that
Judge Douglas got an opportunity to reply to me, he passed by the whole
body of what I had said upon that subject, and seized upon the particular
expression of mine that I had no purpose of entering into the slave
States to disturb the institution of slavery. "Oh, no," said he, "he
[Lincoln] won't enter into the slave States to disturb the institution of
slavery, he is too prudent a man to do such a thing as that; he only
means that he will go on to the line between the free and slave States,
and shoot over at them. This is all he means to do. He means to do them
all the harm he can, to disturb them all he can, in such a way as to keep
his own hide in perfect safety."

Well, now, I did not think, at that time, that that was either a very
dignified or very logical argument but so it was, I had to get along with
it as well as I could.

It has occurred to-me here to-night that if I ever do shoot over the line
at the people on the other side of the line into a slave State, and
purpose to do so, keeping my skin safe, that I have now about the best
chance I shall ever have. I should not wonder if there are some
Kentuckians about this audience--we are close to Kentucky; and whether
that be so or not, we are on elevated ground, and, by speaking
distinctly, I should not wonder if some of the Kentuckians would hear me
on the other side of the river. For that reason I propose to address a
portion of what I have to say to the Kentuckians.

I say, then, in the first place, to the Kentuckians, that I am what they
call, as I understand it, a "Black Republican." I think slavery is wrong,
morally and politically. I desire that it should be no further spread
in--these United States, and I should not object if it should gradually
terminate in the whole Union. While I say this for myself, I say to you
Kentuckians that I understand you differ radically with me upon this
proposition; that you believe slavery is a good thing; that slavery is
right; that it ought to be extended and perpetuated in this Union. Now,
there being this broad difference between us, I do not pretend, in
addressing myself to you Kentuckians, to attempt proselyting you; that
would be a vain effort. I do not enter upon it. I only propose to try to
show you that you ought to nominate for the next Presidency, at
Charleston, my distinguished friend Judge Douglas. In all that there is a
difference between you and him, I understand he is sincerely for you, and
more wisely for you than you are for yourselves. I will try to
demonstrate that proposition. Understand, now, I say that I believe he is
as sincerely for you, and more wisely for you, than you are for
yourselves.

What do you want more than anything else to make successful your views of
slavery,--to advance the outspread of it, and to secure and perpetuate
the nationality of it? What do you want more than anything else? What--is
needed absolutely? What is indispensable to you? Why, if I may, be
allowed to answer the question, it is to retain a hold upon the North, it
is to retain support and strength from the free States. If you can get
this support and strength from the free States, you can succeed. If you
do not get this support and this strength from the free States, you are
in the minority, and you are beaten at once.

If that proposition be admitted,--and it is undeniable,--then the next
thing I say to you is, that Douglas, of all the men in this nation, is
the only man that affords you any hold upon the free States; that no
other man can give you any strength in the free States. This being so, if
you doubt the other branch of the proposition, whether he is for
you--whether he is really for you, as I have expressed it,--I propose
asking your attention for a while to a few facts.

The issue between you and me, understand, is, that I think slavery is
wrong, and ought not to be outspread; and you think it is right, and
ought to be extended and perpetuated. [A voice, "Oh, Lord!"] That is my
Kentuckian I am talking to now.

I now proceed to try to show you that Douglas is as sincerely for you and
more wisely for you than you are for yourselves.

In the first place, we know that in a government like this, in a
government of the people, where the voice of all the men of the country,
substantially, enters into the execution--or administration, rather--of
the government, in such a government, what lies at the bottom of all of
it is public opinion. I lay down the proposition, that Judge Douglas is
not only the man that promises you in advance a hold upon the North, and
support in the North, but he constantly moulds public opinion to your
ends; that in every possible way he can he constantly moulds the public
opinion of the North to your ends; and if there are a few things in which
he seems to be against you,--a few things which he says that appear to
be against you, and a few that he forbears to say which you would like to
have him say you ought to remember that the saying of the one, or the
forbearing to say the other, would lose his hold upon the North, and, by
consequence, would lose his capacity to serve you.

Upon this subject of moulding public opinion I call your attention to the
fact--for a well established fact it is--that the Judge never says your
institution of slavery is wrong. There is not a public man in the United
States, I believe, with the exception of Senator Douglas, who has not, at
some time in his life, declared his opinion whether the thing is right or
wrong; but Senator Douglas never declares it is wrong. He leaves himself
at perfect liberty to do all in your favor which he would be hindered
from doing if he were to declare the thing to be wrong. On the contrary,
he takes all the chances that he has for inveigling the sentiment of the
North, opposed to slavery, into your support, by never saying it is
right. This you ought to set down to his credit: You ought to give him
full credit for this much; little though it be, in comparison to the
whole which he does for you.

Some other, things I will ask your attention to. He said upon the floor
of the United States Senate, and he has repeated it, as I understand, a
great many times, that he does not care whether slavery is "voted up or
voted down." This again shows you, or ought to show you, if you would
reason upon it, that he does not believe it to be wrong; for a man may
say when he sees nothing wrong in a thing; that he, dues not care whether
it be voted up or voted down but no man can logically say that he cares
not whether a thing goes up or goes down which to him appears to be
wrong. You therefore have a demonstration in this that to Judge Douglas's
mind your favorite institution, which you would have spread out and made
perpetual, is no wrong.

Another thing he tells you, in a speech made at Memphis in Tennessee,
shortly after the canvass in Illinois, last year. He there distinctly
told the people that there was a "line drawn by the Almighty across this
continent, on the one side of which the soil must always be cultivated by
slaves"; that he did not pretend to know exactly where that line was, but
that there was such a line. I want to ask your attention to that
proposition again; that there is one portion of this continent where the
Almighty has signed the soil shall always be cultivated by slaves; that
its being cultivated by slaves at that place is right; that it has the
direct sympathy and authority of the Almighty. Whenever you can get these
Northern audiences to adopt the opinion that slavery is right on the
other side of the Ohio, whenever you can get them, in pursuance of
Douglas's views, to adopt that sentiment, they will very readily make the
other argument, which is perfectly logical, that that which is right on
that side of the Ohio cannot be wrong on this, and that if you have that
property on that side of the Ohio, under the seal and stamp of the
Almighty, when by any means it escapes over here it is wrong to have
constitutions and laws "to devil" you about it. So Douglas is moulding
the public opinion of the North, first to say that the thing is right in
your State over the Ohio River, and hence to say that that which is right
there is not wrong here, and that all laws and constitutions here
recognizing it as being wrong are themselves wrong, and ought to be
repealed and abrogated. He will tell you, men of Ohio, that if you choose
here to have laws against slavery, it is in conformity to the idea that
your climate is not suited to it, that your climate is not suited to
slave labor, and therefore you have constitutions and laws against it.

Let us attend to that argument for a little while and see if it be sound.
You do not raise sugar-cane (except the new-fashioned sugar-cane, and you
won't raise that long), but they do raise it in Louisiana. You don't
raise it in Ohio, because you can't raise it profitably, because the
climate don't suit it. They do raise it in Louisiana, because there it is
profitable. Now, Douglas will tell you that is precisely the slavery
question: that they do have slaves there because they are profitable, and
you don't have them here because they are not profitable. If that is so,
then it leads to dealing with the one precisely as with the other. Is
there, then, anything in the constitution or laws of Ohio against raising
sugar-cane? Have you found it necessary to put any such provision in your
law? Surely not! No man desires to raise sugar-cane in Ohio, but if any
man did desire to do so, you would say it was a tyrannical law that
forbids his doing so; and whenever you shall agree with Douglas, whenever
your minds are brought to adopt his argument, as surely you will have
reached the conclusion that although it is not profitable in Ohio, if any
man wants it, is wrong to him not to let him have it.

In this matter Judge Douglas is preparing the public mind for you of
Kentucky to make perpetual that good thing in your estimation, about
which you and I differ.

In this connection, let me ask your attention to another thing. I believe
it is safe to assert that five years ago no living man had expressed the
opinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration of Independence.
Let me state that again: five years ago no living man had expressed the
opinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration of Independence.
If there is in this large audience any man who ever knew of that opinion
being put upon paper as much as five years ago, I will be obliged to him
now or at a subsequent time to show it.

If that be true I wish you then to note the next fact: that within the
space of five years Senator Douglas, in the argument of this question,
has got his entire party, so far as I know, without exception, in saying
that the negro has no share in the Declaration of Independence. If there
be now in all these United States one Douglas man that does not say this,
I have been unable upon any occasion to scare him up. Now, if none of you
said this five years ago, and all of you say it now, that is a matter
that you Kentuckians ought to note. That is a vast change in the Northern
public sentiment upon that question.

Of what tendency is that change? The tendency of that change is to bring
the public mind to the conclusion that when men are spoken of, the negro
is not meant; that when negroes are spoken of, brutes alone are
contemplated. That change in public sentiment has already degraded the
black man in the estimation of Douglas and his followers from the
condition of a man of some sort, and assigned him to the condition of a
brute. Now, you Kentuckians ought to give Douglas credit for this. That
is the largest possible stride that can be made in regard to the
perpetuation of your thing of slavery.

A voice: Speak to Ohio men, and not to Kentuckians!

Mr. LINCOLN: I beg permission to speak as I please.

In Kentucky perhaps, in many of the slave States certainly, you are
trying to establish the rightfulness of slavery by reference to the
Bible. You are trying to show that slavery existed in the Bible times by
divine ordinance. Now, Douglas is wiser than you, for your own benefit,
upon that subject. Douglas knows that whenever you establish that slavery
was--right by the Bible, it will occur that that slavery was the slavery
of the white man, of men without reference to color; and he knows very
well that you may entertain that idea in Kentucky as much as you please,
but you will never win any Northern support upon it. He makes a wiser
argument for you: he makes the argument that the slavery of the black
man; the slavery of the man who has a skin of a different color from your
own, is right. He thereby brings to your support Northern voters who
could not for a moment be brought by your own argument of the Bible right
of slavery. Will you give him credit for that? Will you not say that in
this matter he is more wisely for you than you are for yourselves?

Now, having established with his entire party this doctrine, having been
entirely successful in that branch of his efforts in your behalf, he is
ready for another.

At this same meeting at Memphis he declared that in all contests between
the negro and the white man he was for the white man, but that in all
questions between the negro and the crocodile he was for the negro. He
did not make that declaration accidentally at Memphis. He made it a great
many times in the canvass in Illinois last year (though I don't know that
it was reported in any of his speeches there, but he frequently made it).
I believe he repeated it at Columbus, and I should not wonder if he
repeated it here. It is, then, a deliberate way of expressing himself
upon that subject. It is a matter of mature deliberation with him thus to
express himself upon that point of his case. It therefore requires
deliberate attention.

The first inference seems to be that if you do not enslave the negro, you
are wronging the white man in some way or other, and that whoever is
opposed to the negro being enslaved, is, in some way or other, against
the white man. Is not that a falsehood? If there was a necessary conflict
between the white man and the negro, I should be for the white man as
much as Judge Douglas; but I say there is no such necessary conflict. I
say that there is room enough for us all to be free, and that it not only
does not wrong the white man that the negro should be free, but it
positively wrongs the mass of the white men that the negro should be
enslaved; that the mass of white men are really injured by the effects of
slave labor in the vicinity of the fields of their own labor.

But I do not desire to dwell upon this branch of the question more than
to say that this assumption of his is false, and I do hope that that
fallacy will not long prevail in the minds of intelligent white men. At
all events, you ought to thank Judge Douglas for it; it is for your
benefit it is made.

The other branch of it is, that in the struggle between the negro and the
crocodile; he is for the negro. Well, I don't know that there is any
struggle between the negro and the crocodile, either. I suppose that if a
crocodile (or, as we old Ohio River boatmen used to call them,
alligators) should come across a white man, he would kill him if he
could; and so he would a negro. But what, at last, is this proposition? I
believe it is a sort of proposition in proportion, which may be stated
thus: "As the negro is to the white man, so is the crocodile to the
negro; and as the negro may rightfully treat the crocodile as a beast or
reptile, so the white man may rightfully treat the negro as a beast or a
reptile." That is really the "knip" of all that argument of his.

Now, my brother Kentuckians, who believe in this, you ought to thank
Judge Douglas for having put that in a much more taking way than any of
yourselves have done.

Again, Douglas's great principle, "popular sovereignty," as he calls it,
gives you, by natural consequence, the revival of the slave trade
whenever you want it. If you question this, listen awhile, consider
awhile what I shall advance in support of that proposition.

He says that it is the sacred right of the man who goes into the
Territories to have slavery if he wants it. Grant that for argument's
sake. Is it not the sacred right of the man who don't go there equally to
buy slaves in Africa, if he wants them? Can you point out the difference?
The man who goes into the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, or any
other new Territory, with the sacred right of taking a slave there which
belongs to him, would certainly have no more right to take one there than
I would, who own no slave, but who would desire to buy one and take him
there. You will not say you, the friends of Judge Douglas but that the
man who does not own a slave has an equal right to buy one and take him
to the Territory as the other does.

A voice: I want to ask a question. Don't foreign nations interfere with
the slave trade?

Mr. LINCOLN: Well! I understand it to be a principle of Democracy to whip
foreign nations whenever, they interfere with us.

Voice: I only asked for information. I am a Republican myself.

Mr. LINCOLN: You and I will be on the best terms in the world, but I do
not wish to be diverted from the point I was trying to press.

I say that Douglas's popular sovereignty, establishing his sacred right
in the people, if you please, if carried to its logical conclusion gives
equally the sacred right to the people of the States or the Territories
themselves to buy slaves wherever they can buy them cheapest; and if any
man can show a distinction, I should like to hear him try it. If any man
can show how the people of Kansas have a better right to slaves, because
they want them, than the people of Georgia have to buy them in Africa, I
want him to do it. I think it cannot be done. If it is "popular
sovereignty" for the people to have slaves because they want them, it is
popular sovereignty for them to buy them in Africa because they desire to
do so.

I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort, not seeming to
notice that he had a different theory, has made an effort to get rid of
that. He has written a letter, addressed to somebody, I believe, who
resides in Iowa, declaring his opposition to the repeal of the laws that
prohibit the Africa slave trade. He bases his opposition to such repeal
upon the ground that these laws are themselves one of the compromises of
the Constitution of the United States. Now, it would be very interesting
to see Judge Douglas or any of his friends turn, to the Constitution of
the United States and point out that compromise, to show where there is
any compromise in the Constitution, or provision in the Constitution;
express or implied, by which the administrators of that Constitution are
under any obligation to repeal the African slave trade. I know, or at
least I think I know, that the framers of that Constitution did expect
the African slave trade would be abolished at the end of twenty years, to
which time their prohibition against its being abolished extended there
is abundant contemporaneous history to show that the framers of the
Constitution expected it to be abolished. But while they so expected,
they gave nothing for that expectation, and they put no provision in the
Constitution requiring it should be so abolished. The migration or
importation of such persons as the States shall see fit to admit shall
not be prohibited, but a certain tax might be levied upon such
importation. But what was to be done after that time? The Constitution is
as silent about that as it is silent, personally, about myself. There is
absolutely nothing in it about that subject; there is only the
expectation of the framers of the Constitution that the slave trade would
be abolished at the end of that time; and they expected it would be
abolished, owing to public sentiment, before that time; and the put that
provision in, in order that it should not be abolished before that time,
for reasons which I suppose they thought to be sound ones, but which I
will not now try to enumerate before you.

But while, they expected the slave trade would be abolished at that time,
they expected that the spread of slavery into the new Territories should
also be restricted. It is as easy to prove that the framers of the
Constitution of the United States expected that slavery should be
prohibited from extending into the new Territories, as it is to prove
that it was expected that the slave trade should be abolished. Both these
things were expected. One was no more expected than the other, and one
was no more a compromise of the Constitution than the other. There was
nothing said in the Constitution in regard to the spread of slavery into
the Territory. I grant that; but there was something very important said
about it by the same generation of men in the adoption of the old
Ordinance of '87, through the influence of which you here in Ohio, our
neighbors in Indiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Michigan and
Wisconsin, are happy, prosperous, teeming millions of free men. That
generation of men, though not to the full extent members of the
convention that framed the Constitution, were to some extent members of
that convention, holding seats at the same time in one body and the
other, so that if there was any compromise on either of these subjects,
the strong evidence is that that compromise was in favor of the
restriction of slavery from the new Territories.

But Douglas says that he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of those
laws because, in his view, it is a compromise of the Constitution. You
Kentuckians, no doubt, are somewhat offended with that. You ought not to
be! You ought to be patient! You ought to know that if he said less than
that, he would lose the power of "lugging" the Northern States to your
support. Really, what you would push him to do would take from him his
entire power to serve you. And you ought to remember how long, by
precedent, Judge Douglas holds himself obliged to stick by compromises.
You ought to remember that by the time you yourselves think you are ready
to inaugurate measures for the revival of the African slave trade, that
sufficient time will have arrived, by precedent, for Judge Douglas to
break through, that compromise. He says now nothing more strong than he
said in 1849 when he declared in favor of Missouri Compromise,--and
precisely four years and a quarter after he declared that Compromise to
be a sacred thing, which "no ruthless hand would ever daze to touch," he
himself brought forward the measure ruthlessly to destroy it. By a mere
calculation of time it will only be four years more until he is ready to
take back his profession about the sacredness of the Compromise
abolishing the slave trade. Precisely as soon as you are ready to have
his services in that direction, by fair calculation, you may be sure of
having them.

But you remember and set down to Judge Douglas's debt, or discredit, that
he, last year, said the people of Territories can, in spite of the Dred
Scott decision, exclude your slaves from those Territories; that he
declared, by "unfriendly legislation" the extension of your property into
the new Territories may be cut off, in the teeth of the decision of the
Supreme Court of the United States.

He assumed that position at Freeport on the 27th of August, 1858. He said
that the people of the Territories can exclude slavery, in so many words:
You ought, however, to bear in mind that he has never said it since. You
may hunt in every speech that he has since made, and he has never used
that expression once. He has never seemed to notice that he is stating
his views differently from what he did then; but by some sort of
accident, he has always really stated it differently. He has always since
then declared that "the Constitution does not carry slavery into the
Territories of the United States beyond the power of the people legally
to control it, as other property." Now, there is a difference in the
language used upon that former occasion and in this latter day. There may
or may not be a difference in the meaning, but it is worth while
considering whether there is not also a difference in meaning.

What is it to exclude? Why, it is to drive it out. It is in some way to
put it out of the Territory. It is to force it across the line, or change
its character so that, as property, it is out of existence. But what is
the controlling of it "as other property"? Is controlling it as other
property the same thing as destroying it, or driving it away? I should
think not. I should think the controlling of it as other property would
be just about what you in Kentucky should want. I understand the
controlling of property means the controlling of it for the benefit of
the owner of it. While I have no doubt the Supreme Court of the United
States would say "God speed" to any of the Territorial Legislatures that
should thus control slave property, they would sing quite a different
tune if, by the pretence of controlling it, they were to undertake to
pass laws which virtually excluded it,--and that upon a very well known
principle to all lawyers, that what a Legislature cannot directly do, it
cannot do by indirection; that as the Legislature has not the power to
drive slaves out, they have no power, by indirection, by tax, or by
imposing burdens in any way on that property, to effect the same end, and
that any attempt to do so would be held by the Dred Scott court
unconstitutional.

Douglas is not willing to stand by his first proposition that they can
exclude it, because we have seen that that proposition amounts to nothing
more nor less than the naked absurdity that you may lawfully drive out
that which has a lawful right to remain. He admitted at first that the
slave might be lawfully taken into the Territories under the Constitution
of the United States, and yet asserted that he might be lawfully driven
out. That being the proposition, it is the absurdity I have stated. He is
not willing to stand in the face of that direct, naked, and impudent
absurdity; he has, therefore, modified his language into that of being
"controlled as other property."

The Kentuckians don't like this in Douglas! I will tell you where it will
go. He now swears by the court. He was once a leading man in Illinois to
break down a court, because it had made a decision he did not like. But
he now not only swears by the court, the courts having got to working for
you, but he denounces all men that do not swear by the courts, as
unpatriotic, as bad citizens. When one of these acts of unfriendly
legislation shall impose such heavy burdens as to, in effect, destroy
property in slaves in a Territory, and show plainly enough that there can
be no mistake in the purpose of the Legislature to make them so
burdensome, this same Supreme Court will decide that law to be
unconstitutional, and he will be ready to say for your benefit "I swear
by the court; I give it up"; and while that is going on he has been
getting all his men to swear by the courts, and to give it up with him.
In this again he serves you faithfully, and, as I say, more wisely than
you serve yourselves.

Again: I have alluded in the beginning of these remarks to the fact that
Judge Douglas has made great complaint of my having expressed the opinion
that this government "cannot endure permanently, half slave and half
free." He has complained of Seward for using different language, and
declaring that there is an "irrepressible conflict" between the
principles of free and slave labor. [A voice: "He says it is not
original with Seward. That it is original with Lincoln."] I will attend
to that immediately, sir. Since that time, Hickman of Pennsylvania
expressed the same sentiment. He has never denounced Mr. Hickman: why?
There is a little chance, notwithstanding that opinion in the mouth of
Hickman, that he may yet be a Douglas man. That is the difference! It is
not unpatriotic to hold that opinion if a man is a Douglas man.

But neither I, nor Seward, nor Hickman is entitled to the enviable or
unenviable distinction of having first expressed that idea. That same
idea was expressed by the Richmond Enquirer, in Virginia, in 1856,--quite
two years before it was expressed by the first of us. And while Douglas
was pluming himself that in his conflict with my humble self, last year,
he had "squelched out" that fatal heresy, as he delighted to call it, and
had suggested that if he only had had a chance to be in New York and meet
Seward he would have "squelched" it there also, it never occurred to him
to breathe a word against Pryor. I don't think that you can discover that
Douglas ever talked of going to Virginia to "squelch" out that idea
there. No. More than that. That same Roger A. Pryor was brought to
Washington City and made the editor of the par excellence Douglas paper,
after making use of that expression, which, in us, is so unpatriotic and
heretical. From all this, my Kentucky friends may see that this opinion
is heretical in his view only when it is expressed by men suspected of a
desire that the country shall all become free, and not when expressed by
those fairly known to entertain the desire that the whole country shall
become slave. When expressed by that class of men, it is in nowise
offensive to him. In this again, my friends of Kentucky, you have Judge
Douglas with you.

There is another reason why you Southern people ought to nominate Douglas
at your convention at Charleston. That reason is the wonderful capacity
of the man,--the power he has of doing what would seem to be impossible.
Let me call your attention to one of these apparently impossible things:

Douglas had three or four very distinguished men of the most extreme
anti-slavery views of any men in the Republican party expressing their
desire for his re-election to the Senate last year. That would, of
itself, have seemed to be a little wonderful; but that wonder is
heightened when we see that Wise of Virginia, a man exactly opposed to
them, a man who believes in the divine right of slavery, was also
expressing his desire that Douglas should be reelected; that another man
that may be said to be kindred to Wise, Mr. Breckinridge, the
Vice-President, and of your own State, was also agreeing with the
anti-slavery men in the North that Douglas ought to be re-elected. Still
to heighten the wonder, a senator from Kentucky, whom I have always loved
with an affection as tender and endearing as I have ever loved any man,
who was opposed to the anti-slavery men for reasons which seemed
sufficient to him, and equally opposed to Wise and Breckinridge, was
writing letters into Illinois to secure the reelection of Douglas. Now,
that all these conflicting elements should be brought, while at daggers'
points with one another, to support him, is a feat that is worthy for you
to note and consider. It is quite probable that each of these classes of
men thought, by the re-election of Douglas, their peculiar views would
gain something: it is probable that the anti-slavery men thought their
views would gain something; that Wise and Breckinridge thought so too, as
regards their opinions; that Mr. Crittenden thought that his views would
gain something, although he was opposed to both these other men. It is
probable that each and all of them thought that they were using Douglas;
and it is yet an unsolved problem whether he was not using them all. If
he was, then it is for you to consider whether that power to perform
wonders is one for you lightly to throw away.

There is one other thing that I will say to you, in this relation. It is
but my opinion, I give it to you without a fee. It is my opinion that it
is for you to take him or be defeated; and that if you do take him you
may be beaten. You will surely be beaten if you do not take him. We, the
Republicans and others forming the opposition of the country, intend to
"stand by our guns," to be patient and firm, and in the long run to beat
you, whether you take him or not. We know that before we fairly beat you
we have to beat you both together. We know that you are "all of a
feather," and that we have to beat you all together, and we expect to do
it. We don't intend to be very impatient about it. We mean to be as
deliberate and calm about it as it is possible to be, but as firm and
resolved as it is possible for men to be. When we do as we say,--beat
you,--you perhaps want to know what we will do with you.

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

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

But perhaps I have addressed myself as long, or longer, to the
Kentuckians than I ought to have done, inasmuch as I have said that
whatever course you take we intend in the end to beat you. I propose to
address a few remarks to our friends, by way of discussing with them the
best means of keeping that promise that I have in good faith made.

It may appear a little episodical for me to mention the topic of which I
will speak now. It is a favorite position of Douglas's that the
interference of the General Government, through the Ordinance of '87, or
through any other act of the General Government never has made or ever
can make a free State; the Ordinance of '87 did not make free States of
Ohio, Indiana, or Illinois; that these States are free upon his "great
principle" of popular sovereignty, because the people of those several
States have chosen to make them so. At Columbus, and probably here, he
undertook to compliment the people that they themselves have made the
State of Ohio free, and that the Ordinance of '87 was not entitled in any
degree to divide the honor with them. I have no doubt that the people of
the State of Ohio did make her free according to their own will and
judgment, but let the facts be remembered.

In 1802, I believe, it was you who made your first constitution, with the
clause prohibiting slavery, and you did it, I suppose, very nearly
unanimously; but you should bear in mind that you--speaking of you as one
people--that you did so unembarrassed by the actual presence of the
institution amongst you; that you made it a free State not with the
embarrassment upon you of already having among you many slaves, which if
they had been here, and you had sought to make a free State, you would
not know what to do with. If they had been among you, embarrassing
difficulties, most probably, would have induced you to tolerate a slave
constitution instead of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties
have constrained every people on this continent who have adopted slavery.

Pray what was it that made you free? What kept you free? Did you not find
your country free when you came to decide that Ohio should be a free
State? It is important to inquire by what reason you found it so. Let us
take an illustration between the States of Ohio and Kentucky. Kentucky is
separated by this River Ohio, not a mile wide. A portion of Kentucky, by
reason of the course of the Ohio, is farther north than this portion of
Ohio, in which we now stand. Kentucky is entirely covered with slavery;
Ohio is entirely free from it: What made that difference? Was it climate?
No. A portion of Kentucky was farther north than this portion of Ohio.
Was it soil? No. There is nothing in the soil of the one more favorable
to slave than the other. It was not climate or soil that mused one side
of the line to be entirely covered with slavery, and the other side free
of it. What was it? Study over it. Tell us, if you can, in all the range
of conjecture, if there be anything you can conceive of that made that
difference, other than that there was no law of any sort keeping it out
of Kentucky, while the Ordinance of '87 kept it out of Ohio. If there is
any other reason than this, I confess that it is wholly beyond my power
to conceive of it. This, then, I offer to combat the idea that that
Ordinance has never made any State free.

I don't stop at this illustration. I come to the State of Indiana; and
what I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio, I repeat as between
Indiana and Kentucky: it is equally applicable. One additional argument
is applicable also to Indiana. In her Territorial condition she more than
once petitioned Congress to abrogate the Ordinance entirely, or at least
so far as to suspend its operation for a time, in order that they should
exercise the "popular sovereignty" of having slaves if they wanted them.
The men then controlling the General Government, imitating the men of the
Revolution, refused Indiana that privilege. And so we have the evidence
that Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it were not for that
Ordinance; that she besought Congress to put that barrier out of the way;
that Congress refused to do so; and it all ended at last in Indiana being
a free State. Tell me not then that the Ordinance of '87 had nothing to
do with making Indiana a free State, when we find some men chafing
against, and only restrained by, that barrier.

Come down again to our State of Illinois. The great Northwest Territory,
including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, was acquired
first, I believe, by the British Government, in part at least, from the
French. Before the establishment of our independence it became a part of
Virginia, enabling Virginia afterward to transfer it to the General
Government. There were French settlements in what is now Illinois, and at
the same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri, in
the tract of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In these
French settlements negro slavery had existed for many years, perhaps more
than a hundred; if not as much as two hundred years,--at Kaskaskia, in
Illinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in Missouri.
The number of slaves was not very great, but there was about the same
number in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory.
There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave,
and even the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that
slavery in Illinois; nor did the Ordinance apply to Missouri at all.

What I want to ask your attention to; at this point, is that Illinois and
Missouri came into the Union about the same time, Illinois in the latter
part of 1818, and Missouri, after a struggle, I believe sometime in 1820.
They had been filling up with American people about the same period of
time; their progress enabling them to come into the Union about the same
time. At the end of that ten years, in which they had been so preparing
(for it was about that period of time), the number of slaves in Illinois
had actually decreased; while in Missouri, beginning with very few, at
the end of that ten years there were about ten thousand. This being so,
and it being remembered that Missouri and Illinois are, to a certain
extent, in the same parallel of latitude, that the northern half of
Missouri and the southern half of Illinois are in the same parallel of
latitude, so that climate would have the same effect upon one as upon the
other, and that in the soil there is no material difference so far as
bears upon the question of slavery being settled upon one or the
other,--there being none of those natural causes to produce a difference
in filling them, and yet there being a broad difference to their filling
up, we are led again to inquire what was the cause of that difference.

It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law to keep that
country from filling up with slaves, while in Illinois there was the
Ordinance of The Ordinance being there, slavery decreased during that ten
years; the Ordinance not being in the other, it increased from a few to
ten thousand. Can anybody doubt the reason of the difference?

I think all these facts most abundantly prove that my friend Judge
Douglas's proposition, that the Ordinance of '87, or the national
restriction of slavery, never had a tendency to make a free State, is a
fallacy,--a proposition without the shadow or substance of truth about
it.

Douglas sometimes says that all the States (and it is part of this same
proposition I have been discussing) that have become free have become so
upon his "great principle"; that the State of Illinois itself came into
the Union as a slave State, and that the people, upon the "great
principle" of popular sovereignty, have since made it a free State. Allow
me but a little while to state to you what facts there are to justify him
in saying that Illinois came into the Union as a slave State.

I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French slaves there.
They numbered, I think, one or two hundred. Besides that, there had been
a Territorial law for indenturing black persons. Under that law, in
violation of the Ordinance of '87, but without any enforcement of the
Ordinance to overthrow the system, there had been a small number of
slaves introduced as indentured persons. Owing to this, the clause for
the prohibition of slavery was slightly modified. Instead of running like
yours, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime,
of which the party shall have been duly convicted, should exist in the
State, they said that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude should
thereafter be introduced; and that the children of indentured servants
should be born free; and nothing was said about the few old French
slaves. Out of this fact, that the clause for prohibiting slavery was
modified because of the actual presence of it, Douglas asserts again and
again that Illinois came into the Union as a slave State. How far the
facts sustain the conclusion that he draws, it is for intelligent and
impartial men to decide. I leave it with you, with these remarks, worthy
of being remembered, that that little thing, those few indentured
servants being there, was of itself sufficient to modify a constitution
made by a people ardently desiring to have a free constitution; showing
the power of the actual presence of the institution of slavery to prevent
any people, however anxious to make a free State, from making it
perfectly so.

I have been detaining you longer, perhaps, than I ought to do.

I am in some doubt whether to introduce another topic upon which I could
talk a while. [Cries of "Go on," and "Give us it."] It is this, then:
Douglas's Popular sovereignty, as a principle, is simply this: If one man
chooses to make a slave of another man, neither that man nor anybody else
has a right to object. Apply it to government, as he seeks to apply it,
and it is this: If, in a new Territory into which a few people are
beginning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they choose to
either exclude slavery from their limits, or to establish it there,
however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or the
infinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit that
Territory, or the other members of the family of communities of which
they are but an incipient member, or the general head of the family of
States as parent of all, however their action may affect one or the other
of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's
popular sovereignty applied. Now, I think that there is a real popular
sovereignty in the world. I think the definition of popular sovereignty,
in the abstract, would be about this: that each man shall do precisely as
he pleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively
concern him. Applied in government, this principle would be that a
general government shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all
the local governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to
those matters which exclusively concern them.

Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the people must
decide that question for themselves; and yet they are not fit to decide
who shall be their governor, judge, or secretary, or who shall be any of
their officers. These are vast national matters in his estimation; but
the little matter in his estimation is that of planting slavery there.
That is purely of local interest, which nobody should be allowed to say a
word about.

Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, human
comforts and necessities are drawn. There is a difference in opinion
about the elements of labor in society. Some men assume that there is
necessary connection between capital and labor, and that connection draws
within it the whole of the labor of the community. They assume that
nobody works unless capital excites them to work. They begin next to
consider what is the best way. They say there are but two ways: one is to
hire men, and to allure them to labor by their consent; the other is to
buy the men, and drive them, to it, and that is slavery. Having assumed
that, they proceed to discuss the question of whether the laborers
themselves are better off in the condition of slaves or of hired
laborers, and they usually decide that they are better off in the
condition of slaves.

In the first place, I say that the whole thing is a mistake. That there
is a certain relation between capital and labor, I admit. That it does
exist, and rightfully exists, I think is true. That men who are
industrious, and sober, and honest in the pursuit of their own interests
should after a while accumulate capital, and after that should be allowed
to enjoy it in peace, and also, if they should choose, when they have
accumulated it, to use it to save themselves from actual labor, and hire
other people to labor for them, is right. In doing so they do not wrong
the man they employ, for they find men who have not of their own land to
work upon, or shops to work in, and who are benefited by working for
others, hired laborers, receiving their capital for it. Thus a few men,
that own capital, hire a few others, and these establish the relation of
capital and labor rightfully, a relation of which I make no complaint.
But I insist that that relation, after all, does not embrace more than
one eighth of the labor of the country.

[The speaker proceeded to argue that the hired laborer, with his ability
to become an employer, must have every precedence over him who labors
under the inducement of force. He continued:]

I have taken upon myself in the name of some of you to say that we expect
upon these principles to ultimately beat them. In order to do so, I think
we want and must have a national policy in regard to the institution of
slavery that acknowledges and deals with that institution as being wrong.
Whoever desires the prevention of the spread of slavery and the
nationalization of that institution yields all when he yields to any
policy that either recognizes slavery as being right or as being an
indifferent thing. Nothing will make you successful but setting up a
policy which shall treat the thing as being wrong: When I say this, I do
not mean to say that this General Government is charged with the duty of
redressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world, but I do think that
it is charged with preventing and redressing all wrongs which are wrongs
to itself. This Government is expressly charged with the duty of
providing for the general welfare. We believe that the spreading out and
perpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We
believe--nay, we know--that that is the only thing that has ever
threatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. The only thing which has
ever menaced the destruction of the government under which we live is
this very thing. To repress this thing, we think, is, Providing for the
general welfare. Our friends in Kentucky differ from us. We need not make
our argument for them, but we who think it is wrong in all its relations,
or in some of them at least, must decide as to our own actions and our
own course, upon our own judgment.

I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in the
States where it exists, because the Constitution forbids it, and the
general welfare does not require us to do so. We must not withhold an
efficient Fugitive Slave law, because the Constitution requires us, as I
understand it, not to withhold such a law. But we must prevent the
outspreading of the institution, because neither the Constitution nor
general welfare requires us to extend it. We must prevent the revival of
the African slave trade, and the enacting by Congress of a Territorial
slave code. We must prevent each of these things being done by either
Congresses or courts. The people of these United States are the rightful
masters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution,
but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution.

To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We must hold
conventions; we must adopt platforms, if we conform to ordinary custom;
we must nominate candidates; and we must carry elections. In all these
things, I think that we ought to keep in view our real purpose, and in
none do anything that stands adverse to our purpose. If we shall adopt a
platform that fails to recognize or express our purpose, or elect a man
that declares himself inimical to our purpose, we not only take nothing
by our success, but we tacitly admit that we act upon no other principle
than a desire to have "the loaves and fishes," by which, in the end, our
apparent success is really an injury to us.

I know that this is very desirable with me, as with everybody else, that
all the elements of the opposition shall unite in the next Presidential
election and in all future time. I am anxious that that should be; but
there are things seriously to be considered in relation to that matter.
If the terms can be arranged, I am in favor of the union. But suppose we
shall take up some man, and put him upon one end or the other of the
ticket, who declares himself against us in regard to the prevention of
the spread of slavery, who turns up his nose and says he is tired of
hearing anything more about it, who is more against us than against the
enemy, what will be the issue? Why, he will get no slave States, after
all,--he has tried that already until being beat is the rule for him. If
we nominate him upon that ground, he will not carry a slave State; and
not only so, but that portion of our men who are high-strung upon the
principle we really fight for will not go for him, and he won't get a
single electoral vote anywhere, except, perhaps, in the State of
Maryland. There is no use in saying to us that we are stubborn and
obstinate because we won't do some such thing as this. We cannot do it.
We cannot get our men to vote it. I speak by the card, that we cannot
give the State of Illinois in such case by fifty thousand. We would be
flatter down than the "Negro Democracy" themselves have the heart to wish
to see us.

After saying this much let me say a little on the other side. There are
plenty of men in the slave States that are altogether good enough for me
to be either President or Vice-President, provided they will profess
their sympathy with our purpose, and will place themselves on the ground
that our men, upon principle, can vote for them. There are scores of
them, good men in their character for intelligence and talent and
integrity. If such a one will place himself upon the right ground, I am
for his occupying one place upon the next Republican or opposition
ticket. I will heartily go for him. But unless he does so place himself,
I think it a matter of perfect nonsense to attempt to bring about a union
upon any other basis; that if a union be made, the elements will scatter
so that there can be no success for such a ticket, nor anything like
success. The good old maxims of the Bible axe applicable, and truly
applicable, to human affairs, and in this, as in other things, we may say
here that he who is not for us is against us; he who gathereth not with
us, scattereth. I should be glad to have some of the many good and able
and noble men of the South to place themselves where we can confer upon
them the high honor of an election upon one or the other end of our
ticket. It would do my soul good to do that thing. It would enable us to
teach them that, inasmuch as we select one of their own number to carry
out our principles, we are free from the charge that we mean more than we
say.

But, my friends, I have detained you much longer than I expected to do. I
believe I may do myself the compliment to say that you have stayed and
heard me with great patience, for which I return you my most sincere
thanks.



ON PROTECTIVE TARIFFS

TO EDWARD WALLACE.

CLINTON, October 11, 1859

Dr. EDWARD WALLACE.

MY DEAR SIR:--I am here just now attending court. Yesterday, before I
left Springfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a
letter of yours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquiring for my
tariff views, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the
subject. I was an old Henry-Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more
speeches on that subject than any other.

I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have a
moderate, carefully adjusted protective tariff, so far acquiesced in as
not to be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles changes, and
uncertainties, it would be better for us. Still it is my opinion that
just now the revival of that question will not advance the cause itself,
or the man who revives it.

I have not thought much on the subject recently, but my general
impression is that the necessity for a protective tariff will ere long
force its old opponents to take it up; and then its old friends can join
in and establish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the Old Whigs,
have been entirely beaten out on the tariff question, and we shall not be
able to re-establish the policy until the absence of it shall have
demonstrated the necessity for it in the minds of men heretofore opposed
to it. With this view, I should prefer to not now write a public letter
on the subject. I therefore wish this to be considered confidential.  I
shall be very glad to receive a letter from you.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



ON MORTGAGES

TO W. DUNGY.

SPRINGFIELD, November, 2, 1859.

WM. DUNGY, Esq.

DEAR SIR:--Yours of October 27 is received. When a mortgage is given to
secure two notes, and one of the notes is sold and assigned, if the
mortgaged premises are only sufficient to pay one note, the one assigned
will take it all. Also, an execution from a judgment on the assigned note
may take it all; it being the same thing in substance. There is
redemption on execution sales from the United States Court just as from
any other court.

You did not mention the name of the plaintiff or defendant in the suit,
and so I can tell nothing about it as to sales, bids, etc. Write again.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS,

DECEMBER, 1859.

............. But you Democrats are for the Union; and you greatly fear
the success of the Republicans would destroy the Union. Why? Do the
Republicans declare against the Union? Nothing like it. Your own
statement of it is that if the Black Republicans elect a President, you
"won't stand it." You will break up the Union. If we shall
constitutionally elect a President, it will be our duty to see that you
submit. Old John Brown has been executed for treason against a State. We
cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong.
That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed and treason. It could avail him
nothing that he might think himself right. So, if we constitutionally
elect a President, and therefore you undertake to destroy the Union, it
will be our duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been dealt with.
We shall try to do our duty. We hope and believe that in no section will
a majority so act as to render such extreme measures necessary.



TO G. W. DOLE, G. S. HUBBARD, AND W. H. BROWN.

SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 14, 1859

MESSRS. DOLE, HUBBARD & BROWN.

GENT.:--Your favor of the 12th is at hand, and it gives me pleasure to be
able to answer it. It is not my intention to take part in any of the
rivalries for the gubernatorial nomination; but the fear of being
misunderstood upon that subject ought not to deter me from doing justice
to Mr. Judd, and preventing a wrong being done to him by the use of nay
name in connection with alleged wrongs to me.

In answer to your first question, as to whether Mr. Judd was guilty of
any unfairness to me at the time of Senator Trumbull's election, I answer
unhesitatingly in the negative; Mr. Judd owed no political allegiance to
any party whose candidate I was. He was in the Senate, holding over,
having been elected by a Democratic Constituency. He never was in any
caucus of the friends who sought to make me U. S. Senator, never gave me
any promises or pledges to support me, and subsequent events have greatly
tended to prove the wisdom, politically, of Mr. Judd's course. The
election of Judge Trumbull strongly tended to sustain and preserve the
position of that lion of the Democrats who condemned the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise, and left them in a position of joining with us in
forming the Republican party, as was done at the Bloomington convention
in 1856.

During the canvass of 1858 for the senatorship my belief was, and still
is, that I had no more sincere and faithful friend than Mr.
Judd--certainly none whom I trusted more. His position as chairman of the
State Central Committee led to my greater intercourse with him, and to my
giving him a larger share of my confidence, than with or to almost any
other friend; and I have never suspected that that confidence was, to any
degree, misplaced.

My relations with Mr. Judo since the organization of the Republican
party, in, our State, in 1856, and especially since the adjournment of
the Legislature in Feb., 1857, have been so very intimate that I deem it
an impossibility that he could have been dealing treacherously with me.
He has also, at all times, appeared equally true and faithful to the
party. In his position as chairman of the committee, I believe he did all
that any man could have done. The best of us are liable to commit errors,
which become apparent by subsequent developments; but I do not know of a
single error, even, committed by Mr. Judd, since he and I have acted
together politically.

I, had occasionally heard these insinuations against Mr. Judd, before the
receipt of your letter; and in no instance have I hesitated to pronounce
them wholly unjust, to the full extent of my knowledge and belief. I have
been, and still am, very anxious to take no part between the many
friends, all good and true, who are mentioned as candidates for a
Republican gubernatorial nomination; but I can not feel that my own honor
is quite clear if I remain silent when I hear any one of them assailed
about matters of which I believe I know more than his assailants.

I take pleasure in adding that, of all the avowed friends I had in the
canvass of last year, I do not suspect any of having acted treacherously
to me, or to our cause; and that there is not one of them in whose
honesty, honor, and integrity I, today, have greater confidence than I
have in those of Mr. Judd.

I dislike to appear before the public in this matter; but you are at
liberty to make such use of this letter as you may think justice
requires.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO G. M. PARSONS AND OTHERS.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 19, 1859.

MESSRS. G. M. PARSONS AND OTHERS, CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ETC.

GENTLEMEN:--Your letter of the 7th instant, accompanied by a similar one
from the governor-elect, the Republican State officers, and the
Republican members of the State Board of Equalization of Ohio, both
requesting of me, for publication in permanent form, copies of the
political debates between Senator Douglas and myself last year, has been
received. With my grateful acknowledgments to both you and them for the
very flattering terms in which the request is communicated, I transmit
you the copies. The copies I send you are as reported and printed by the
respective friends of Senator Douglas and myself, at the time--that is,
his by his friends, and mine by mine. It would be an unwarrantable
liberty for us to change a word or a letter in his, and the changes I
have made in mine, you perceive, are verbal only, and very few in number.
I wish the reprint to be precisely as the copies I send, without any
comment whatever.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

TO J. W. FELL,

SPRINGFIELD, December 20, 1859.

J. W. FELL, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is a little sketch, as you requested. There is not
much of it, for the reason, I suppose, that there is not much of me. If
anything be made out of it, I wish it to be modest, and not to go beyond
the material. If it were thought necessary to incorporate anything from
any of my speeches I suppose there would be no objection. Of course it
must not appear to have been written by myself.

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN

-----------------------

I was born February 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. My parents were
both born in Virginia, of undistinguished families--second families,
perhaps I should say. My mother, who died in my tenth year, was of a
family of the name of Hanks, some of whom now reside in Adams, and others
in Macon County, Illinois. My paternal grandfather, Abraham Lincoln,
emigrated from Rockingham County, Virginia, to Kentucky about 1781 or
1782, where a year or two later he was killed by the Indians, not in
battle, but by stealth, when he was laboring to open a farm in the
forest. His ancestors, who were Quakers, went to Virginia from Berks
County, Pennsylvania. An effort to identify them with the New England
family of the same name ended in nothing more definite than a similarity
of Christian names in both families, such as Enoch, Levi, Mordecai,
Solomon, Abraham, and the like.

My father, at the death of his father, was but six years of age, and he
grew up literally without education. He removed from Kentucky to what is
now Spencer County, Indiana, in my eighth year. We reached our new home
about the time that State came into the Union. It was a wild region, with
many bears and other wild animals still in the woods. There I grew up.
There were some schools, so called, but no qualification was ever
required of a teacher beyond "readin', writin', and cipherin"' to the
Rule of Three. If a straggler supposed to understand Latin happened to
sojourn in the neighborhood he was looked upon as a wizard. There was
absolutely nothing to excite ambition for education. Of course, when I
came of age I did not know much. Still, somehow, I could read, write, and
cipher to the Rule of Three, but that was all. I have not been to school
since. The little advance I now have upon this store of education I have
picked up from time to time under the pressure of necessity.

I was raised to farm work, which I continued till I was twenty-two. At
twenty-one I came to Illinois, Macon County. Then I got to New Salem, at
that time in Sangamon, now in Menard County, where I remained a year as a
sort of clerk in a store. Then came the Black Hawk war; and I was elected
a captain of volunteers, a success which gave me more pleasure than any I
have had since. I went the campaign, was elected, ran for the Legislature
the same year (1832), and was beaten--the only time I ever have been
beaten by the people. The next and three succeeding biennial elections I
was elected to the Legislature. I was not a candidate afterward. During
this legislative period I had studied law, and removed to Springfield to
practice it. In 1846 I was once elected to the lower House of Congress.
Was not a candidate for re-election. From 1849 to 1854, both inclusive,
practiced law more assiduously than ever before. Always a Whig in
politics; and generally on the Whig electoral tickets, making active
canvasses. I was losing interest in politics when the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise aroused me again. What I have done since then is
pretty well known.

If any personal description of me is thought desirable, it may be said I
am, in height, six feet four inches, nearly; lean in flesh, weighing on
an average one hundred and eighty pounds; dark complexion, with coarse
black hair and gray eyes. No other marks or brands recollected.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



ON NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL TICKET

To N. B. JUDD.

SPRINGFIELD, FEBRUARY 9, 1859

HON. N. B. JUDD.

DEAR Sir:--I am not in a position where it would hurt much for me to not
be nominated on the national ticket; but I am where it would hurt some
for me to not get the Illinois delegates. What I expected when I wrote
the letter to Messrs. Dole and others is now happening. Your discomfited
assailants are most bitter against me; and they will, for revenge upon
me, lay to the Bates egg in the South, and to the Seward egg in the
North, and go far toward squeezing me out in the middle with nothing.
Can you help me a little in this matter in your end of the vineyard.  I
mean this to be private.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN



1860


SPEECH AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK FEBRUARY 27, 1860

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW YORK:--The facts with which I
shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there
anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be
any novelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the
inferences and observations following that presentation.

In his speech last autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New York
Times, Senator Douglas said:

"Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live,
understood this question just as well, and even better than we do now."

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so
adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting-point for
a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by
Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: What was the understanding
those fathers had of the question mentioned?

What is the frame of Government under which we live?

The answer must be--the Constitution of the United States. That
Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787 (and under which
the present Government first went into operation), and twelve
subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in
1789.

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the
"thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly called our
fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almost
exactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say they
fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that
time.

Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all,
need not now be repeated.

I take these "thirty-nine," for the present, as being our "fathers who
framed the Government under which we live."

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathers
understood "just as well, and even better than we do now"?

It is this: Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as
to slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans the
negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue, and this issue--this
question is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood
"better than we."

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine," or any of them, acted upon
this question; and if they did, how they acted upon it--how they
expressed that better understanding.

In 1784, three years before the Constitution--the United States then
owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other--the Congress of the
Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that
Territory; and four of the "thirty nine" who afterward framed the
Constitution were in that Congress and voted on that question. Of these,
Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the
prohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing
local from Federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. The
other of the four--James McHenry voted against the prohibition, showing
that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.

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

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

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act
was passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of
slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported
by one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the
House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its
stages without a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches
without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In
this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed
the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm.
S. Johnnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William
Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Claimer,
Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James
Madison.

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from
Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade
Congress to prohibit slavery in the Federal territory; else both their
fidelity to correct principles and their oath to support the Constitution
would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.

Again: George Washington, another of the "thirty nine," was then
President of the United States, and, as such, approved and signed the
bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in
his understanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor
anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in Federal territory.

No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, North
Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting the
State of Tennessee; and, a few years later, Georgia ceded that which now
constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of
cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal
Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides
this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these
circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not
absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with
it--take control of it--even there, to a certain extent. In 1798,
Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi: In the act of
organization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory
from any place without the United States, by fine and giving freedom to
slaves so brought. This act passed both branches of Congress without yeas
and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who framed the
original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read, and Abraham
Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for it. Certainly they would have
placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding,
any line dividing local from Federal authority, or anything in the
Constitution, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to
slavery in Federal territory.

In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our
former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but
this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804,
Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now
constitutes the State of Lousiana. New Orleans, lying within that part,
was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable
towns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughly
intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act,
prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it take control of it--in a
more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi.
The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was:

First. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreign
parts.

Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported
into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.

Third. That no slave should be carried into it except by the owner, and
for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine
upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.

This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress which
passed it there were two of the "thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin
and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable
they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without
recording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violated
either the line properly dividing local from Federal authority, or any
provision of the Constitution.

In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken,
by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phases
of the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"--Rufus King and Charles
Pinckney were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for
slavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as
steadily voted against slavery prohibition, and against all compromises.
By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividing
local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was
violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory; while Mr.
Pinckney, by his vote, showed that in his understanding there was some
sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of
any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in
1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in
1819-20--there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting, John
Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, each
twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the
"thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which, by
the text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving
sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who
framed the Government under which we live," who have, upon their official
responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question
which the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better
than we do now"; and twenty-one of them--a clear majority of the whole
"thirty-nine"--so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross
political impropriety and wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any
proper division between local and Federal authority, or anything in the
Constitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories.
Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, so
actions under such responsibilities speak still louder.

Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of
slavery in the Federal Territories, in the instances in which they acted
upon the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They
may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from
Federal authority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution,
stood in the way; or they may, without any such question, have voted
against the prohibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds
of expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution can
conscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutional
measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to vote
against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, he
deems it inexpedient. It therefore would be unsafe to set down even the
two who voted against the prohibition as having done so because, in their
understanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control
as to slavery in Federal territory.

The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as I have discovered,
have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of
Federal control on slavery in the Federal Territories. But there is much
reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not
have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it
been manifested at all.

For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omitted
whatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, however
distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original
Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever
understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty tine" even
on any other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look
into their acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign
slave trade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would
appear to us that on the direct question of Federal control of slavery in
Federal Territories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would
probably have acted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were
several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times--as Dr.
Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris while there was not
one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of
South Carolina.

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framed the
original Constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of the
whole--certainly understood that no proper division of local from Federal
authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control slavery in the Federal Territories; whilst all the
rest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the
understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and
the text affirms that they understood the question "better than we."

But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the question
manifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by the
original instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I have
already stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live"
consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed and
adopted since. Those who now insist that Federal control of slavery in
Federal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions
which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix
upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original
instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves
upon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived
of "life, liberty, or property without due process of law"; while Senator
Douglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth
amendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United States
by the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the
people."

Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first
Congress which sat under the Constitution--the identical Congress which
passed the act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in
the Northwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they
were the identical same individual men who, at the same session, and at
the same time within the session, had under consideration, and in
progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act
prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The
Constitutional amendments were introduced before and passed after the act
enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the
act to enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also
pending.

The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the
framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were
pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of "the Government under
which we live," which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government
to control slavery in the Federal Territories.

Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm that the
two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried to
maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other?
And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with
the other affirmation from the same mouth, that those who did the two
things alleged to be inconsistent understood whether they really were
inconsistent better than we--better than he who affirms that they are
inconsistent?

It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original
Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed
the amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who
may be fairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which
we live." And, so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them
ever, in his whole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper
division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
the Federal Territories. I go a step further. I defy any one to show that
any living man in the world ever did, prior to the beginning of the
present century (and I might almost say prior to the beginning of the
last half of the present century), declare that, in his understanding,
any proper division of local from Federal authority, or any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
the Federal Territories. To those who now so declare, I give not only
"our fathers who framed the Government under which we live," but with
them all other living men within the century in which it was framed,
among whom to search, and they shall not be able to find the evidence of
a single man agreeing with them.

Now and here let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do not
mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers
did. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience to
reject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is that, if we would
supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do
so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their
great authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most
surely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood the
question better than we.

If any man at this day sincerely believes that proper division of local
from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the
Federal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories,
he is right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful
evidence and fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead
others who have less access to history, and less leisure to study it,
into the false belief that "our fathers who framed the Government under
which we live" were of the same opinion thus substituting falsehood and
deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day
sincerely believes "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we
live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have
led them to understand that a proper division of local from Federal
authority, or some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal
Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is
right to say so. But he should, at the same time, brave the
responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their
principles better than they did themselves; and especially should he not
shirk that responsibility by asserting that they "understood the question
just as well, and even better than we do now."

But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the
Government under which we live, understood this question just as well,
and even better than we do now," speak as they spoke, and act as they
acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask--all Republicans desire--in
relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again
marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected
only because of, and so far as, its actual presence among us makes that
toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those
fathers gave it be not grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. For
this Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe,
they will be content.

And now, if they would listen--as I suppose they will not--I would
address a few words to the Southern people.

I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just
people; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and
justice you are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak
of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at the
best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or
murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your
contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional
condemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended
to. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable
prerequisite license, so to speak among you, to be admitted or permitted
to speak at all: Now; can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause, and to
consider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bring
forward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enough
to hear us deny or justify.

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden
of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that
our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes in your
section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If
it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to
get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You
cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it?
If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be
sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You
will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof,
does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section
is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that
fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that
we repel you by, some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by
any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you
to where you ought to have started to a discussion of the right or wrong
of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your
section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our
principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and
denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our
principle, put in practice, would wrong your section; and so meet us as
if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Do you accept
the challenge? No! Then you really believe that the principle which "our
fathers who framed the Government under which we live" thought so clearly
right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official
oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand your condemnation without
a moment's consideration.

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional
parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight
years before Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the
United States, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the
prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied
the policy of the Government upon that subject up to, and at, the very
moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it, he
wrote La Fayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure,
expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time
have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon
this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or
in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast
the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon
you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we
commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right
application of it.

But you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while we are
revolutionary, destructive, or something, of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against a new and
untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point
in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live"; while you with one accord reject, and
scout, and spit upon that old policy and insist upon substituting
something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that
substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but
you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the
fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a
Congressional slave code for the Territories; some for Congress
forbidding the Territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some
for maintaining slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some
for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another,
no third man should object," fantastically called "popular sovereignty";
but never a man among you in favor of Federal prohibition of slavery in
Federal Territories, according to the practice of "our fathers who framed
the Government under which we live." Not one of all your various plans
can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our
Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism
for yourselves, and your charge of destructiveness against us, are based
on the most clear and stable foundations.

Again: You say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it
formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny
that we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy
of the fathers. We resisted and still resist your innovation; and thence
comes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that
question reduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy.
What has been will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have
the peace of the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old
times.

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it;
and what is your proof'? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no
Republican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his
Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in that
matter you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you are
inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you do
not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for
persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the
proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does
not know to be true is simply malicious slander.

Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the
Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines and
declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. We
know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not held
to and made by our fathers who framed the Government under which we live.
You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it
occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were
in evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you
could get an advantage of us in those elections.  The elections came, and
your expectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew
that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not
much inclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrines
and declarations are accompanied with a continued protest against any
interference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves.
Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in common
with "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live,"
declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us
declare even this. For any thing we say or do, the slaves would scarcely
know there is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact,
generally know it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing.
In your political contests among yourselves, each faction charges the
other with sympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to
the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood,
and thunder among the slaves.

Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the
Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton
insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least, three times as
many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your
very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was "got up by
Black Republicanism." In the present state of things in the United
States, I do not think a general or even a very extensive slave
insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be
attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can
incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials
are everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied the
indispensable connecting trains.

Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their
masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for
an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty
individuals before some one of them, to save the life of a favorite
master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave
revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring
under peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history,
though not connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only
about twenty were admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his
anxiety to save a friend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by
consequence, averted the calamity. Occasional poisonings from the
kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in the field, and local
revolts, extending to a score or so, will continue to occur as the
natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I
think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears or
much hopes for such an event will be alike disappointed.

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in
our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation
peaceably, and in such slow degrees as that the evil will wear off
insensibly, and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white
laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human
nature must shudder at the prospect held up."

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of
emancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as
to the power of emancipation, I speak of the slave holding States only.
The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of
restraining the extension of the institution--the power to insure that a
slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now
free from slavery.

John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was
an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which the
slaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves,
with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. That
affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts related in
history at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broods
over the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned by
Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in little
else than his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon and John
Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely
the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and
on New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two
things.

And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown,
Helper's Book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human
action can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be
changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this
nation, which cast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot
destroy that judgment and feeling--that sentiment--by breaking up the
political organization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter
and disperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of your
heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing the
sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box,
into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Would
the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your
constitutional rights.

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if not
fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to
deprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution. But
we are proposing no such thing.

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understood
allusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves into
the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such
right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is
literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that
such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication.

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy the
Government unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution
as you please on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule
or ruin, in all events.

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme
Court has decided the disputed constitutional question in your favor. Not
quite so. But, waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and
decision, the court have decided the question for you in a sort of way.
The court have substantially said it is your constitutional right to take
slaves into the Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property.
When I say, the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in
a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and they not quite
agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so
made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its
meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of
fact--the statement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave
is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution."

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in
a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. Bear in mind,
the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is
impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity
that it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there--"distinctly," that
is, not mingled with anything else; "expressly," that is, in words
meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of
no other meaning.

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is
affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to
show that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the
Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection with
language alluding to the things slave or slavery; and that wherever in
that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person"; and
wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is
spoken of as "service or labor which may be due," as a debt payable in
service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous
history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of
speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the
Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.

To show all this, is easy and certain.

When this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice,
is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken
statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers; who framed the
Government under which we live",--the men who made the Constitution
--decided this same constitutional question in our favor, long ago;
decided it without division among themselves, when making the decision,
without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was
made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any
mistaken statement of facts.

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to
break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is shall
be at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political
action? But you will not abide the election of a Republican President! In
that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you
say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us! That is
cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his
teeth, "stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you'll be a
murderer!"

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me-my money was my own, and I had
a clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is my
own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat of
destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be
distinguished in principle.

A few words now to Republicans: It is exceedingly desirable that all
parts of this great confederacy shall be at peace and in harmony one with
another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much
provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though
the Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly
consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of
our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the
subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we
can, what will satisfy them.

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered
to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against
us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections
are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing
to do with invasions and, insurrections? We know it will not. We so know
because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and
insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the
charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not
only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let
them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so
trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but
with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly
protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to
convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they
have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will
convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join
them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly--done in acts
as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated--we must place
ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas's new sedition law must be
enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong,
whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits; or in private. We must
arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must
pull down our free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be
disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will
cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most
of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and
say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone have never
disturbed them--so that after all it is what we say which dissatisfies
them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.

I am also aware they have not as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of
our free State constitutions. Yet those constitutions declare the wrong
of slavery, with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings against
it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the
overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to
resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand
the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason
they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation.
Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially
elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it,
as a legal right and a social blessing.

Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our conviction
that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and
constitutions against it are themselves wrong, and should be silenced and
swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality
its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its
extension--its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant if we
thought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if they
thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking it wrong is
the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it
right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full
recognition, as being right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we
yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our
own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we
do this? Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone
where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its
actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent
it, allow it to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us
here in these free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us
stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none
of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied
and belabored-contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between
the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be
neither a living man nor a dead man-such as a policy of "don't care" on a
question about which all true men do care--such as Union appeals
beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine
rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance--such
as invocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington
said, and undo what Washington did.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against
us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government
nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT,
AND IN THAT FAITH LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE
UNDERSTAND IT.



SPEECH AT NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, MARCH 6, 1860

MR. PRESIDENT, AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW HAVEN:--If the Republican party
of this nation shall ever have the national House entrusted to its
keeping, it will be the duty of that party to attend to all the affairs
of national housekeeping. Whatever matters of importance may come up,
whatever difficulties may arise in its way of administration of the
Government, that party will then have to attend to. It will then be
compelled to attend to other questions, besides this question which now
assumes an overwhelming importance--the question of slavery. It is true
that in the organization of the Republican party this question of slavery
was more important than any other: indeed, so much more important has it
become that no more national question can even get a hearing just at
present. The old question of tariff--a matter that will remain one of the
chief affairs of national house-keeping to all time; the question of the
management of financial affairs; the question of the disposition of the
public domain how shall it be managed for the purpose of getting it well
settled, and of making there the homes of a free and happy people? these
will remain open and require attention for a great while yet, and these
questions will have to be attended to by whatever party has the control
of the Government. Yet, just now, they cannot even obtain a hearing, and
I do not propose to detain you upon these topics or what sort of hearing
they should have when opportunity shall come.

For, whether we will or not, the question of slavery is the question, the
all-absorbing topic of the day. It is true that all of us--and by that I
mean, not the Republican party alone, but the whole American people, here
and elsewhere--all of us wish this question settled, wish it out of the
way. It stands in the way, and prevents the adjustment, and the giving of
necessary attention to other questions of national house-keeping. The
people of the whole nation agree that this question ought to be settled,
and yet it is not settled. And the reason is that they are not yet agreed
how it shall be settled. All wish it done, but some wish one way and some
another, and some a third, or fourth, or fifth; different bodies are
pulling in different directions, and none of them, having a decided
majority, are able to accomplish the common object.

In the beginning of the year 1854, a new policy was inaugurated with the
avowed object and confident promise that it would entirely and forever
put an end to the slavery agitation. It was again and again declared that
under this policy, when once successfully established, the country would
be forever rid of this whole question. Yet under the operation of that
policy this agitation has not only not ceased, but it has been constantly
augmented. And this too, although, from the day of its introduction, its
friends, who promised that it would wholly end all agitation, constantly
insisted, down to the time that the Lecompton Bill was introduced, that
it was working admirably, and that its inevitable tendency was to remove
the question forever from the politics of the country. Can you call to
mind any Democratic speech, made after the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise, down to the time of the Lecompton Bill, in which it was not
predicted that the slavery agitation was just at an end, that "the
abolition excitement was played out," "the Kansas question was dead,"
"they have made the most they can out of this question and it is now
forever settled"? But since the Lecompton Bill no Democrat, within my
experience, has ever pretended that he could see the end. That cry has
been dropped. They themselves do not pretend, now, that the agitation of
this subject has come to an end yet.

The truth is that this question is one of national importance, and we
cannot help dealing with it; we must do something about it, whether we
will or not. We cannot avoid it; the subject is one we cannot avoid
considering; we can no more avoid it than a man can live without eating.
It is upon us; it attaches to the body politic as much and closely as the
natural wants attach to our natural bodies. Now I think it important that
this matter should be taken up in earnest, and really settled: And one
way to bring about a true settlement of the question is to understand its
true magnitude.

There have been many efforts made to settle it. Again and again it has
been fondly hoped that it was settled; but every time it breaks out
afresh, and more violently than ever. It was settled, our fathers hoped,
by the Missouri Compromise, but it did not stay settled. Then the
compromises of 1850 were declared to be a full and final settlement of
the question. The two great parties, each in national convention, adopted
resolutions declaring that the settlement made by the Compromise of 1850
was a finality that it would last forever. Yet how long before it was
unsettled again? It broke out again in 1854, and blazed higher and raged
more furiously than ever before, and the agitation has not rested since.

These repeated settlements must have some faults about them. There must
be some inadequacy in their very nature to the purpose to which they were
designed. We can only speculate as to where that fault, that inadequacy,
is, but we may perhaps profit by past experiences.

I think that one of the causes of these repeated failures is that our
best and greatest men have greatly underestimated the size of this
question. They have constantly brought forward small cures for great
sores--plasters too small to cover the wound. That is one reason that all
settlements have proved temporary--so evanescent.

Look at the magnitude of this subject: One sixth of our population, in
round numbers--not quite one sixth, and yet more than a seventh,--about
one sixth of the whole population of the United States are slaves. The
owners of these slaves consider them property. The effect upon the minds
of the owners is that of property, and nothing else it induces them to
insist upon all that will favorably affect its value as property, to
demand laws and institutions and a public policy that shall increase and
secure its value, and make it durable, lasting, and universal. The effect
on the minds of the owners is to persuade them that there is no wrong in
it. The slaveholder does not like to be considered a mean fellow for
holding that species of property, and hence, he has to struggle within
himself and sets about arguing himself into the belief that slavery is
right. The property influences his mind. The dissenting minister who
argued some theological point with one of the established church was
always met with the reply, "I can't see it so." He opened a Bible and
pointed him a passage, but the orthodox minister replied, "I can't see it
so." Then he showed him a single word--"Can you see that?" "Yes, I see
it," was the reply. The dissenter laid a guinea over the word and asked,
"Do you see it now?" So here. Whether the owners of this species of
property do really see it as it is, it is not for me to say, but if they
do, they see it as it is through two thousand millions of dollars, and
that is a pretty thick coating. Certain it is that they do not see it as
we see it. Certain it is that this two thousand millions of dollars,
invested in this species of property, all so concentrated that the mind
can grasp it at once--this immense pecuniary interest--has its influence
upon their minds.

But here in Connecticut and at the North slavery does not exist, and we
see it through no such medium.

To us it appears natural to think that slaves are human beings; men, not
property; that some of the things, at least, stated about men in the
Declaration of Independence apply to them as well as to us. I say we
think, most of us, that this charter of freedom applies to the slaves as
well as to ourselves; that the class of arguments put forward to batter
down that idea are also calculated to break down the very idea of a free
government, even for white men, and to undermine the very foundations of
free society. We think slavery a great moral wrong, and, while we do not
claim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as a
wrong in the Territories, where our votes will reach it. We think that a
respect for ourselves, a regard for future generations and for the God
that made us, require that we put down this wrong where our votes will
properly reach it. We think that species of labor an injury to free white
men--in short, we think slavery a great moral, social, and political
evil, tolerable only because, and so far as, its actual existence makes
it necessary to tolerate it, and that beyond that it ought to be treated
as a wrong.

Now these two ideas, the property idea that slavery is right, and the
idea that it is wrong, come into collision, and do actually produce that
irrepressible conflict which Mr. Seward has been so roundly abused for
mentioning. The two ideas conflict, and must conflict.

Again, in its political aspect, does anything in any way endanger the
perpetuity of this Union but that single thing, slavery? Many of our
adversaries are anxious to claim that they are specially devoted to the
Union, and take pains to charge upon us hostility to the Union. Now we
claim that we are the only true Union men, and we put to them this one
proposition: Whatever endangers this Union, save and except slavery? Did
any other thing ever cause a moment's fear? All men must agree that this
thing alone has ever endangered the perpetuity of the Union. But if it
was threatened by any other influence, would not all men say that the
best thing that could be done, if we could not or ought not to destroy
it, would be at least to keep it from growing any larger? Can any man
believe, that the way to save the Union is to extend and increase the
only thing that threatens the Union, and to suffer it to grow bigger and
bigger?

Whenever this question shall be settled, it must be settled on some
philosophical basis. No policy that does not rest upon some philosophical
opinion can be permanently maintained. And hence there are but two
policies in regard to slavery that can be at all maintained. The first,
based on the property view that slavery is right, conforms to that idea
throughout, and demands that we shall do everything for it that we ought
to do if it were right. We must sweep away all opposition, for opposition
to the right is wrong; we must agree that slavery is right, and we must
adopt the idea that property has persuaded the owner to believe that
slavery is morally right and socially elevating. This gives a
philosophical basis for a permanent policy of encouragement.

The other policy is one that squares with the idea that slavery is wrong,
and it consists in doing everything that we ought to do if it is wrong.
Now, I don't wish to be misunderstood, nor to leave a gap down to be
misrepresented, even. I don't mean that we ought to attack it where it
exists. To me it seems that if we were to form a government anew, in view
of the actual presence of slavery we should find it necessary to frame
just such a government as our fathers did--giving to the slaveholder the
entire control where the system was established, while we possessed the
power to restrain it from going outside those limits. From the
necessities of the case we should be compelled to form just such a
government as our blessed fathers gave us; and, surely, if they have so
made it, that adds another reason why we should let slavery alone where
it exists.

If I saw a venomous snake crawling in the road, any man would say I might
seize the nearest stick and kill it; but if I found that snake in bed
with my children, that would be another question. I might hurt the
children more than the snake, and it might bite them. Much more if I
found it in bed with my neighbor's children, and I had bound myself by a
solemn compact not to meddle with his children under any circumstances,
it would become me to let that particular mode of getting rid of the
gentleman alone. But if there was a bed newly made up, to which the
children were to be taken, and it was proposed to take a batch of young
snakes and put them there with them, I take it no man would say there was
any question how I ought to decide!

That is just the case. The new Territories are the newly made bed to
which our children are to go, and it lies with the nation to say whether
they shall have snakes mixed up with them or not. It does not seem as if
there could be much hesitation what our policy should be!

Now I have spoken of a policy based on the idea that slavery is wrong,
and a policy based on the idea that it is right. But an effort has been
made for a policy that shall treat it as neither right nor wrong. It is
based upon utter indifference. Its leading advocate [Douglas] has said,
"I don't care whether it be voted up or down." "It is merely a matter of
dollars and cents." "The Almighty has drawn a line across this continent,
on one side of which all soil must forever be cultivated by slave labor,
and on the other by free." "When the struggle is between the white man
and the negro, I am for the white man; when it is between the negro and
the crocodile, I am for the negro." Its central idea is indifference.  It
holds that it makes no more difference to us whether the Territories
become free or slave States than whether my neighbor stocks his farm with
horned cattle or puts in tobacco. All recognize this policy, the
plausible sugar-coated name of which is "popular sovereignty."

This policy chiefly stands in the way of a permanent settlement of the
question. I believe there is no danger of its becoming the permanent
policy of the country, for it is based on a public indifference. There is
nobody that "don't care." All the people do care one way or the other! I
do not charge that its author, when he says he "don't care," states his
individual opinion; he only expresses his policy for the government. I
understand that he has never said as an individual whether he thought
slavery right or wrong--and he is the only man in the nation that has
not! Now such a policy may have a temporary run; it may spring up as
necessary to the political prospects of some gentleman; but it is utterly
baseless: the people are not indifferent, and it can therefore have no
durability or permanence.

But suppose it could: Then it could be maintained only by a public
opinion that shall say, "We don't care." There must be a change in public
opinion; the public mind must be so far debauched as to square with this
policy of caring not at all. The people must come to consider this as
"merely a question of dollars and cents," and to believe that in some
places the Almighty has made slavery necessarily eternal. This policy can
be brought to prevail if the people can be brought round to say honestly,
"We don't care"; if not, it can never be maintained. It is for you to say
whether that can be done.

You are ready to say it cannot, but be not too fast! Remember what a long
stride has been taken since the repeal of the Missouri Compromise! Do you
know of any Democrat, of either branch of the party--do you know one who
declares that he believes that the Declaration of Independence has any
application to the negro? Judge Taney declares that it has not, and Judge
Douglas even vilifies me personally and scolds me roundly for saying that
the Declaration applies to all men, and that negroes are men.  Is there a
Democrat here who does not deny that the Declaration applies to the
negro? Do any of you know of one? Well, I have tried before perhaps fifty
audiences, some larger and some smaller than this, to find one such
Democrat, and never yet have I found one who said I did not place him
right in that. I must assume that Democrats hold that, and now, not one
of these Democrats can show that he said that five years ago! I venture
to defy the whole party to produce one man that ever uttered the belief
that the Declaration did not apply to negroes, before the repeal of the
Missouri Compromise! Four or five years ago we all thought negroes were
men, and that when "all men" were named, negroes were included. But the
whole Democratic party has deliberately taken negroes from the class of
men and put them in the class of brutes. Turn it as you will it is simply
the truth! Don't be too hasty, then, in saying that the people cannot be
brought to this new doctrine, but note that long stride. One more as long
completes the journey from where negroes are estimated as men to where
they are estimated as mere brutes--as rightful property!

That saying "In the struggle between white men and the negro," etc.,
which I know came from the same source as this policy--that saying marks
another step. There is a falsehood wrapped up in that statement. "In the
struggle between the white man and the negro" assumes that there is a
struggle, in which either the white man must enslave the negro or the
negro must enslave the white. There is no such struggle! It is merely the
ingenious falsehood to degrade and brutalize the negro. Let each let the
other alone, and there is no struggle about it. If it was like two
wrecked seamen on a narrow plank, when each must push the other off or
drown himself, I would push the negro off or a white man either, but it
is not; the plank is large enough for both. This good earth is plenty
broad enough for white man and negro both, and there is no need of either
pushing the other off.

So that saying, "In the struggle between the negro and the crocodile,"
etc., is made up from the idea that down where the crocodile inhabits, a
white man can't labor; it must be nothing else but crocodile or negro; if
the negro does not the crocodile must possess the earth; in that case he
declares for the negro. The meaning of the whole is just this: As a white
man is to a negro, so is a negro to a crocodile; and as the negro may
rightfully treat the crocodile, so may the white man rightfully treat the
negro.  This very dear phrase coined by its author, and so dear that he
deliberately repeats it in many speeches, has a tendency to still further
brutalize the negro, and to bring public opinion to the point of utter
indifference whether men so brutalized are enslaved or not. When that
time shall come, if ever, I think that policy to which I refer may
prevail. But I hope the good freemen of this country will never allow it
to come, and until then the policy can never be maintained.

Now consider the effect of this policy. We in the States are not to care
whether freedom or slavery gets the better, but the people in the
Territories may care. They are to decide, and they may think what they
please; it is a matter of dollars and cents! But are not the people of
the Territories detailed from the States? If this feeling of indifference
this absence of moral sense about the question prevails in the States,
will it not be carried into the Territories? Will not every man say, "I
don't care, it is nothing to me"? If any one comes that wants slavery,
must they not say, "I don't care whether freedom or slavery be voted up
or voted down"? It results at last in nationalizing the institution of
slavery. Even if fairly carried out, that policy is just as certain to
nationalize slavery as the doctrine of Jeff Davis himself. These are only
two roads to the same goal, and "popular sovereignty" is just as sure and
almost as short as the other.

What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who think
slavery wrong. But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed to
it, but yet act with the Democratic party--where are they? Let us apply a
few tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce all
attempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong that
you are not willing to deal with as wrong? Why are you so careful, so
tender, of this one wrong and no other? You will not let us do a single
thing as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will even allow it
to be called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the free States, because
it is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the slave States,
because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because that
is bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in the
pulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bring
it into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are such
unsuitable places--and there is no single place, according to you, where
this wrong thing can properly be called wrong!

Perhaps you will plead that if the people of the slave States should
themselves set on foot an effort for emancipation, you would wish them
success, and bid them God-speed. Let us test that: In 1858 the
emancipation party of Missouri, with Frank Blair at their head, tried to
get up a movement for that purpose, and having started a party contested
the State. Blair was beaten, apparently if not truly, and when the news
came to Connecticut, you, who knew that Frank Blair was taking hold of
this thing by the right end, and doing the only thing that you say can
properly be done to remove this wrong--did you bow your heads in sorrow
because of that defeat? Do you, any of you, know one single Democrat that
showed sorrow over that result? Not one! On the contrary every man threw
up his hat, and hallooed at the top of his lungs, "Hooray for Democracy!"

Now, gentlemen, the Republicans desire to place this great question of
slavery on the very basis on which our fathers placed it, and no other.
It is easy to demonstrate that "our fathers, who framed this Government
under which we live," looked on slavery as wrong, and so framed it and
everything about it as to square with the idea that it was wrong, so far
as the necessities arising from its existence permitted. In forming the
Constitution they found the slave trade existing, capital invested in it,
fields depending upon it for labor, and the whole system resting upon the
importation of slave labor. They therefore did not prohibit the slave
trade at once, but they gave the power to prohibit it after twenty years.
Why was this? What other foreign trade did they treat in that way? Would
they have done this if they had not thought slavery wrong?

Another thing was done by some of the same men who framed the
Constitution, and afterwards adopted as their own the act by the first
Congress held under that Constitution, of which many of the framers were
members, that prohibited the spread of slavery into Territories. Thus the
same men, the framers of the Constitution, cut off the supply and
prohibited the spread of slavery, and both acts show conclusively that
they considered that the thing was wrong.

If additional proof is wanted it can be found in the phraseology of the
Constitution. When men are framing a supreme law and chart of government,
to secure blessings and prosperity to untold generations yet to come,
they use language as short and direct and plain as can be found, to
express their meaning In all matters but this of slavery the framers of
the Constitution used the very clearest, shortest, and most direct
language. But the Constitution alludes to slavery three times without
mentioning it once The language used becomes ambiguous, roundabout, and
mystical. They speak of the "immigration of persons," and mean the
importation of slaves, but do not say so. In establishing a basis of
representation they say "all other persons," when they mean to say
slaves--why did they not use the shortest phrase? In providing for the
return of fugitives they say "persons held to service or labor." If they
had said slaves it would have been plainer, and less liable to
misconstruction. Why did n't they do it? We cannot doubt that it was done
on purpose. Only one reason is possible, and that is supplied us by one
of the framers of the Constitution--and it is not possible for man to
conceive of any other--they expected and desired that the system would
come to an end, and meant that when it did, the Constitution should not
show that there ever had been a slave in this good free country of ours.

I will dwell on that no longer. I see the signs of approaching triumph of
the Republicans in the bearing of their political adversaries.  A great
deal of their war with us nowadays is mere bushwhacking. At the battle of
Waterloo, when Napoleon's cavalry had charged again and again upon the
unbroken squares of British infantry, at last they were giving up the
attempt, and going off in disorder, when some of the officers in mere
vexation and complete despair fired their pistols at those solid squares.
The Democrats are in that sort of extreme desperation; it is nothing
else. I will take up a few of these arguments.

There is "the irrepressible conflict." How they rail at Seward for that
saying! They repeat it constantly; and, although the proof has been
thrust under their noses again and again that almost every good man since
the formation of our Government has uttered that same sentiment, from
General Washington, who "trusted that we should yet have a confederacy of
free States," with Jefferson, Jay, Monroe, down to the latest days, yet
they refuse to notice that at all, and persist in railing at Seward for
saying it. Even Roger A. Pryor, editor of the Richmond Enquirer, uttered
the same sentiment in almost the same language, and yet so little offence
did it give the Democrats that he was sent for to Washington to edit the
States--the Douglas organ there--while Douglas goes into hydrophobia and
spasms of rage because Seward dared to repeat it. This is what I call
bushwhacking, a sort of argument that they must know any child can see
through.

Another is John Brown: "You stir up insurrections, you invade the South;
John Brown! Harper's Ferry!" Why, John Brown was not a Republican! You
have never implicated a single Republican in that Harper's Ferry
enterprise. We tell you that if any member of the Republican party is
guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do know
it, you are inexcusable not to designate the man and prove the fact. If
you do not know it, you are inexcusable to assert it, and especially to
persist in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the
proof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does
not know to be true is simply malicious slander. Some of you admit that
no Republican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair,
but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to
such results. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrines, and
make no declarations, which were not held to and made by our fathers who
framed the Government 'under which we live, and we cannot see how
declarations that were patriotic when they made them are villainous when
we make them. You never dealt fairly by us in relation to that
affair--and I will say frankly that I know of nothing in your character
that should lead us to suppose that you would. You had just been soundly
thrashed in elections in several States, and others were soon to come.
You rejoiced at the occasion, and only were troubled that there were not
three times as many killed in the affair. You were in evident glee; there
was no sorrow for the killed nor for the peace of Virginia disturbed; you
were rejoicing that by charging Republicans with this thing you might get
an advantage of us in New York, and the other States. You pulled that
string as tightly as you could, but your very generous and worthy
expectations were not quite fulfilled. Each Republican knew that the
charge was a slander as to himself at least, and was not inclined by it
to cast his vote in your favor. It was mere bushwhacking, because you had
nothing else to do. You are still on that track, and I say, go on! If you
think you can slander a woman into loving you or a man into voting for
you, try it till you are satisfied!

Another specimen of this bushwhacking, that "shoe strike." Now be it
understood that I do not pretend to know all about the matter. I am
merely going to speculate a little about some of its phases. And at the
outset, I am glad to see that a system of labor prevails in New England
under which laborers can strike when they want to, where they are not
obliged to work under all circumstances, and are not tied down and
obliged to labor whether you pay them or not! I like the system which
lets a man quit when he wants to, and wish it might prevail everywhere.
One of the reasons why I am opposed to slavery is just here. What is the
true condition of the laborer? I take it that it is best for all to leave
each man free to acquire property as fast as he can. Some will get
wealthy. I don't believe in a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it
would do more harm than good. So, while we do not propose any war upon
capital, we do wish to allow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich
with everybody else. When one starts poor, as most do in the race of
life, free society is such that he knows he can better his condition; he
knows that there is no fixed condition of labor for his whole life. I am
not ashamed to confess that twenty-five years ago I was a hired laborer,
mauling rails, at work on a flatboat--just what might happen to any poor
man's son! I want every man to have a chance--and I believe a Black man
is entitled to it--in which he can better his condition; when he may look
forward and hope to be a hired laborer this year and the next, work for
himself afterward, and finally to hire men to work for him! That is the
system. Up here in New England, you have a soil that scarcely sprouts
black-eyed beans, and yet where will you find wealthy men so wealthy, and
poverty so rarely in extremity? There is not another such place on earth!
I desire that if you get too thick here, and find it hard to better your
condition on this soil, you may have a chance to strike and go somewhere
else, where you may not be degraded, nor have your families corrupted, by
forced rivalry with negro slaves. I want you to have a clean bed and no
snakes in it! Then you can better your condition, and so it may go on and
on in one endless round so long as man exists on the face of the earth!

Now, to come back to this shoe strike,--if, as the senator from Illinois
asserts, this is caused by withdrawal of Southern votes, consider briefly
how you will meet the difficulty. You have done nothing, and have
protested that you have done nothing, to injure the South. And yet, to
get back the shoe trade, you must leave off doing something which you are
now doing. What is it? You must stop thinking slavery wrong! Let your
institutions be wholly changed; let your State constitutions be
subverted; glorify slavery, and so you will get back the shoe trade--for
what? You have brought owned labor with it, to compete with your own
labor, to underwork you, and to degrade you! Are you ready to get back
the trade on those terms?

But the statement is not correct. You have not lost that trade; orders
were never better than now! Senator Mason, a Democrat, comes into the
Senate in homespun, a proof that the dissolution of the Union has
actually begun! but orders are the same. Your factories have not struck
work, neither those where they make anything for coats, nor for pants nor
for shirts, nor for ladies' dresses. Mr. Mason has not reached the
manufacturers who ought to have made him a coat and pants! To make his
proof good for anything he should have come into the Senate barefoot!

Another bushwhacking contrivance; simply that, nothing else! I find a
good many people who are very much concerned about the loss of Southern
trade. Now either these people are sincere or they are not. I will
speculate a little about that.  If they are sincere, and are moved by any
real danger of the loss of Southern trade, they will simply get their
names on the white list, and then, instead of persuading Republicans to
do likewise, they will be glad to keep you away! Don't you see that they
cut off competition? They would not be whispering around to Republicans
to come in and share the profits with them. But if they are not sincere,
and are merely trying to fool Republicans out of their votes, they will
grow very anxious about your pecuniary prospects; they are afraid you are
going to get broken up and ruined; they do not care about Democratic
votes, oh, no, no, no! You must judge which class those belong to whom
you meet: I leave it to you to determine from the facts.

Let us notice some more of the stale charges against Republicans.
You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the
burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it?
Why, that our party has no existence in your section--gets no votes
in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove
the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of
principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby
cease to be sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet,
are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you will probably soon
find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall get votes in
your section this very year. The fact that we get no votes in your
section is a fact of your making and not of ours. And if there be
fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so
until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice.
 If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is
ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started--to a
discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle,
put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or
for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, are
sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us,
then, on the question of whether our principle put in practice would
wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that
something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No?
Then you really believe that the principle which our fathers who
framed the Government under which we live thought so clearly right as
to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon their official
oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand our condemnation
without a moment's consideration. Some of you delight to flaunt in
our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington
in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington
gave that warning, he had, as President of the United States,
approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of
slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy
of government upon that subject, up to and at the very moment he
penned that warning; and about one year after he penned it he wrote
La Fayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure,
expressing in the same connection his hope that we should sometime
have a confederacy of free States.

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen upon
this same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, or
in our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he cast
the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or upon
you, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and we
commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right
application of it.

But you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while we are
revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is
conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new
and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the
point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live; while you with one accord reject and
scout and spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting
something new.

True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be.
You have considerable variety of new propositions and plans, but you are
unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some
of you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a congressional
slave code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the
Territories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining
slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat
pur-rinciple" that if one man would enslave another, no third man should
object--fantastically called "popular sovereignty." But never a man among
you in favor of prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, according
to the practice of our fathers who framed the Government under which we
live. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an
advocate in the century within which our Government originated.  And yet
you draw yourselves up and say, "We are eminently conservative."

It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great confederacy
shall be at peace, and in harmony one with another. Let us Republicans do
our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing
through passion and ill-temper. Even though the Southern people will not
so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield
to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging
by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their
controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered
to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against
us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections
are the rage now. Will it satisfy them, in the future, if we have nothing
to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know
because we know we never had anything to do with invasions and
insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the
charge and the denunciation.

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: we must not
only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let
them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so
trying to convince them, from the very beginning of our organization, but
with no success. In all our platforms and speeches, we have constantly
protested our purpose to let them alone; but this had no tendency to
convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they
have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.

These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what will
convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join
them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly--done in acts
as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated--we must place
ourselves avowedly with them. Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted
and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether
made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private.  We must arrest
and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down
our free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected of
all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe
that all their troubles proceed from us. So long as we call slavery
wrong, whenever a slave runs away they will overlook the obvious fact
that he ran away because he was oppressed, and declare he was stolen off.
Whenever a master cuts his slaves with a lash, and they cry out under it,
he will overlook the obvious fact that the negroes cry out because they
are hurt, and insist that they were put up to it by some rascally
abolitionist.

I am quite aware that they do not state their case precisely in this way.
Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us,
and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone--have
never disturbed them--so that, after all, it is what we say which
dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we
cease saying.

I am also aware that they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrow
of our free-State constitutions. Yet those constitutions declare the
wrong of slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings
against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced,
the overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded. It is nothing to
the contrary that they do not demand the whole of this just now.
Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily
stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding as they do that slavery
is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a
full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.

Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our conviction
that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and
constitutions against it are themselves wrong and should be silenced and
swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its
nationality--its universality: if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist
upon its extension--its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily
grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily
grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking
it wrong is the precise fact on which depends the whole controversy.
Thinking it right as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full
recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we
yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our
own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we
do this?

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone where it
is because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual
presence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow
it to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us here in
these free States?

If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty,
fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those
sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and
belabored--contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between
the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who would be
neither a living man nor a dead man--such as a policy of "don't care" on
a question about which all free men do care--such as Union appeals
beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine
rule, and caning, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance--such
as invocations of Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington did.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against
us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government,
nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might;
and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we
understand it.

[As Mr. Lincoln concluded his address, there was witnessed the wildest
scene of enthusiasm and excitement that has been in New Haven for years.
The Palladium editorially says: "We give up most of our space to-day to a
very full report of the eloquent speech of the HON. Abraham Lincoln, of
Illinois, delivered last night at Union Hall."]



RESPONSE TO AN ELECTOR'S REQUEST FOR MONEY

TO ________________ March 16, 1860

As to your kind wishes for myself, allow me to say I cannot enter the
ring on the money basis--first, because in the main it is wrong; and
secondly, I have not and cannot get the money.

I say, in the main, the use of money is wrong; but for certain objects in
a political contest, the use of some is both right and indispensable.
With me, as with yourself, the long struggle has been one of great
pecuniary loss.

I now distinctly say this--if you shall be appointed a delegate to
Chicago, I will furnish one hundred dollars to bear the expenses of the
trip.

Your friend as ever,

A. LINCOLN.

[Extract from a letter to a Kansas delegate.]



TO J. W. SOMERS.

SPRINGFIELD, March 17, 1860

JAMES W. SOMERS, Esq.

DEAR SIR:--Reaching home three days ago, I found your letter of February
26th.  Considering your difficulty of hearing, I think you had better
settle in Chicago, if, as you say, a good man already in fair practice
there will take you into partnership. If you had not that difficulty, I
still should think it an even balance whether you would not better remain
in Chicago, with such a chance for copartnership.

If I went west, I think I would go to Kansas, to Leavenworth or Atchison.
Both of them are and will continue to be fine growing places.

I believe I have said all I can, and I have said it with the deepest
interest for your welfare.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



ACCUSATION OF HAVING BEEN PAID FOR A
POLITICAL SPEECH

TO C. F. McNEIL.

SPRINGFIELD, April 6, 1860

C. F. MCNEIL, Esq.

DEAR SIR:--Reaching home yesterday, I found yours of the 23d March,
inclosing a slip from The Middleport Press. It is not true that I ever
charged anything for a political speech in my life; but this much is
true: Last October I was requested by letter to deliver some sort of
speech in Mr. Beecher's church, in Brooklyn--two hundred dollars being
offered in the first letter. I wrote that I could do it in February,
provided they would take a political speech if I could find time to get
up no other. They agreed; and subsequently I informed them the speech
would have to be a political one. When I reached New York, I for the
first time learned that the place was changed to "Cooper Institute." I
made the speech, and left for New Hampshire, where I have a son at
school, neither asking for pay nor having any offered me. Three days
after a check for two hundred dollars was sent to me at New Hampshire;
and I took it, and did not know it was wrong. My understanding now
is--though I knew nothing of it at the time--that they did charge for
admittance to the Cooper Institute, and that they took in more than twice
two hundred dollars.

I have made this explanation to you as a friend; but I wish no
explanation made to our enemies. What they want is a squabble and a fuss,
and that they can have if we explain; and they cannot have it if we
don't.

When I returned through New York from New England, I was told by the
gentlemen who sent me the Check that a drunken vagabond in the club,
having learned something about the two hundred dollars, made the
exhibition out of which The Herald manufactured the article quoted by The
Press of your town.

My judgment is, and therefore my request is, that you give no denial and
no explanation.

Thanking you for your kind interest in the matter, I remain, Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO H. TAYLOR.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., April 21, 1860.

HAWKINS TAYLOR, Esq.

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 15th is just received. It surprises me that you
have written twice, without receiving an answer. I have answered all I
ever received from you; and certainly one since my return from the East.

Opinions here, as to the prospect of Douglas being nominated, are quite
conflicting--some very confident he will, and others that he will not be.
I think his nomination possible, but that the chances are against him.

I am glad there is a prospect of your party passing this way to Chicago.
Wishing to make your visit here as pleasant as we can, we wish you to
notify us as soon as possible whether you come this way, how many, and
when you will arrive.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN



TELEGRAM TO A MEMBER OF THE ILLINOIS DELEGATION

AT THE CHICAGO CONVENTION. SPRINGFIELD, May 17? 1860.

I authorize no bargains and will be bound by none.

A. LINCOLN.



REPLY TO THE COMMITTEE SENT BY THE CHICAGO CONVENTION TO INFORM

LINCOLN OF HIS NOMINATION,

MAY 19, 1860.

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE:--I tender to you, and
through you to the Republican National Convention, and all the people
represented in it, my profoundest thanks for the high honor done me,
which you now formally announce. Deeply and even painfully sensible of
the great responsibility which is inseparable from this high honor--a
responsibility which I could almost wish had fallen upon some one of the
far more eminent men and experienced statesmen whose distinguished names
were before the convention--I shall, by your leave, consider more fully
the resolutions of the convention, denominated their platform, and
without any unnecessary or unreasonable delay respond to you, Mr.
Chairman, in writing--not doubting that the platform will be found
satisfactory, and the nomination gratefully accepted.

And now I will not longer defer the pleasure of taking you, and each of
you, by the hand.



ACCEPTANCE OF NOMINATION AS REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE
 FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

TO GEORGE ASHMUN AND OTHERS.

SPRINGFIELD ILLINOIS, May 23, 1860

HON. GEORGE ASHMUN, President of Republican National Convention.

SIR:--I accept the nomination tendered me by the convention over which
you presided, and of which I am formally apprised in the letter of
yourself and others, acting as a committee of the convention for that
purpose.

The declaration of principles and sentiments which accompanies your
letter meets my approval; and it shall be my care not to violate or
disregard it in any part.

Imploring the assistance of Divine Providence, and with due regard to the
views and feelings of all who were represented in the convention, to the
rights of all the States and Territories and people of the nation, to the
inviolability of the Constitution, and the perpetual union, harmony, and
prosperity of all--I am most happy to co-operate for the practical
success of the principles declared by the convention.

Your obliged friend and fellow-citizen,

A. LINCOLN.



To C. B. SMITH.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., May 26, 1860.

HON. C. B. SMITH.

MY DEAR SIR:-Yours of the 21st was duly received, but have found no time
until now to say a word in the way of answer. I am indeed much indebted
to Indiana; and, as my home friends tell me, much to you personally. Your
saying, you no longer consider it a doubtful State is very gratifying.
The thing starts well everywhere--too well, I almost fear, to last. But
we are in, and stick or go through must be the word.

Let me hear from Indiana occasionally.

Your friend, as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



FORM OF REPLY PREPARED BY MR. LINCOLN, WITH WHICH HIS PRIVATE

SECRETARY WAS INSTRUCTED TO ANSWER A NUMEROUS CLASS OF LETTERS IN THE
CAMPAIGN OF 1860.

(Doctrine.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, ______, 1860

DEAR SIR:--Your letter to Mr. Lincoln of and by which you seek to obtain
his opinions on certain political points, has been received by him. He
has received others of a similar character, but he also has a greater
number of the exactly opposite character. The latter class beseech him to
write nothing whatever upon any point of political doctrine. They say his
positions were well known when he was nominated, and that he must not now
embarrass the canvass by undertaking to shift or modify them. He regrets
that he cannot oblige all, but you perceive it is impossible for him to
do so.

Yours, etc.,

JNO. J. NICOLAY.



TO E. B. WASHBURNE.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, MAY 26, 1860
HON. E. B. WASHBURNE.

MY DEAR SIR:--I have several letters from you written since the
nomination, but till now have found no moment to say a word by way of
answer. Of course I am glad that the nomination is well received by our
friends, and I sincerely thank you for so informing me. So far as I can
learn, the nominations start well everywhere; and, if they get no
back-set, it would seem as if they are going through. I hope you will
write often; and as you write more rapidly than I do, don't make your
letters so short as mine.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO S. HAYCRAFT.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., June 4, 1860.

HON. SAMUEL HAYCRAFT.

MY DEAR SIR:--Like yourself I belonged to the old Whig party from its
origin to its close. I never belonged to the American party organization,
nor ever to a party called a Union party; though I hope I neither am or
ever have been less devoted to the Union than yourself or any other
patriotic man.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



ABRAHAM OR "ABRAM"

TO G. ASHMUN.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL.  June 4, 1860
HON. GEORGE ASHMUN.

MY DEAR SIR:--It seems as if the question whether my first name is
"Abraham" or "Abram" will never be settled. It is "Abraham," and if the
letter of acceptance is not yet in print, you may, if you think fit, have
my signature thereto printed "Abraham Lincoln." Exercise your judgment
about this.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY

TO S. GALLOWAY.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., June 19, 1860

HON. SAM'L GALLOWAY.

MY DEAR SIR:--Your very kind letter of the 15th is received. Messrs.
Follett, Foster, & Co.'s Life of me is not by my authority; and I have
scarcely been so much astounded by anything, as by their public
announcement that it is authorized by me. They have fallen into some
strange misunderstanding. I certainly knew they contemplated publishing a
biography, and I certainly did not object to their doing so, upon their
own responsibility. I even took pains to facilitate them. But, at the
same time, I made myself tiresome, if not hoarse, with repeating to Mr.
Howard, their only agent seen by me, my protest that I authorized
nothing--would be responsible for nothing.  How they could so
misunderstand me, passes comprehension.  As a matter wholly my own, I
would authorize no biography, without time and opportunity [sic] to
carefully examine and consider every word of it and, in this case, in the
nature of things, I can have no such time and Opportunity [sic]. But, in
my present position, when, by the lessons of the past, and the united
voice of all discreet friends, I can neither write nor speak a word for
the public, how dare I to send forth, by my authority, a volume of
hundreds of pages, for adversaries to make points upon without end? Were
I to do so, the convention would have a right to re-assemble and
substitute another name for mine.

For these reasons, I would not look at the proof sheets--I am determined
to maintain the position of [sic] truly saying I never saw the proof
sheets, or any part of their work, before its publication.

Now, do not mistake me--I feel great kindness for Messrs. F., F., &
Co.--do not think they have intentionally done wrong. There may be
nothing wrong in their proposed book--I sincerely hope there will not. I
barely suggest that you, or any of the friends there, on the party
account, look it over, and exclude what you may think would embarrass the
party bearing in mind, at all times, that I authorize nothing--will be
responsible for nothing.

Your friend, as ever,

A. LINCOLN.


[The custom then, and it may have been a good one, was for the
Presidential candidate to do no personal canvassing or speaking--or as we
have it now "running for election." He stayed at home and kept his mouth
shut. Ed.]



TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, July 18, 1860.

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN. MY DEAR SIR:--It appears to me that you and I ought
to be acquainted, and accordingly I write this as a sort of introduction
of myself to you. You first entered the Senate during the single term I
was a member of the House of Representatives, but I have no recollection
that we were introduced. I shall be pleased to receive a line from you.

The prospect of Republican success now appears very flattering, so far as
I can perceive. Do you see anything to the contrary?

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO A. JONAS.

(Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, JULY 21, 1860.

HON. A. JONAS.

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 20th is received. I suppose as good or even
better men than I may have been in American or Know-Nothing lodges; but
in point of fact, I never was in one at Quincy or elsewhere. I was never
in Quincy but one day and two nights while Know-Nothing lodges were in
existence, and you were with me that day and both those nights. I had
never been there before in my life, and never afterward, till the joint
debate with Douglas in 1858. It was in 1854 when I spoke in some hall
there, and after the speaking, you, with others, took me to an
oyster-saloon, passed an hour there, and you walked with me to, and
parted with me at, the Quincy House, quite late at night. I left by stage
for Naples before daylight in the morning, having come in by the same
route after dark the evening, previous to the speaking, when I found you
waiting at the Quincy House to meet me. A few days after I was there,
Richardson, as I understood, started this same story about my having been
in a Know-Nothing lodge. When I heard of the charge, as I did soon after;
I taxed my recollection for some incident which could have suggested it;
and I remembered that on parting with you the last night I went to the
office of the hotel to take my stage-passage for the morning, was told
that no stage-office for that line was kept there, and that I must see
the driver before retiring, to insure his calling for me in the morning;
and a servant was sent with me to find the driver, who, after taking me a
square or two, stopped me, and stepped perhaps a dozen steps farther, and
in my hearing called to some one, who answered him, apparently from the
upper part of a building, and promised to call with the stage for me at
the Quincy House. I returned, and went to bed, and before day the stage
called and took me. This is all.

That I never was in a Know-Nothing lodge in Quincy, I should expect could
be easily proved by respectable men who were always in the lodges and
never saw me there. An affidavit of one or two such would put the matter
at rest.

And now a word of caution. Our adversaries think they can gain a point if
they could force me to openly deny the charge, by which some degree of
offence would be given to the Americans. For this reason it must not
publicly appear that I am paying any attention to the charge.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO JOHN B. FRY.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, August 15, 1860.

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 9th, inclosing the letter of HON. John Minor
Botts, was duly received. The latter is herewith returned according to
your request. It contains one of the many assurances I receive from the
South, that in no probable event will there be any very formidable effort
to break up the Union. The people of the South have too much of good
sense and good temper to attempt the ruin of the government rather than
see it administered as it was administered by the men who made it. At
least so I hope and believe. I thank you both for your own letter and a
sight of that of Mr. Botts.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO THURLOW WEED

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. August 17 1860.

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 13th was received this morning. Douglas is
managing the Bell element with great adroitness. He had his men in
Kentucky to vote for the Bell candidate, producing a result which has
badly alarmed and damaged Breckenridge, and at the same time has induced
the Bell men to suppose that Bell will certainly be President, if they
can keep a few of the Northern States away from us by throwing them to
Douglas. But you, better than I, understand all this.

I think there will be the most extraordinary effort ever made to carry
New York for Douglas. You and all others who write me from your State
think the effort cannot succeed, and I hope you are right. Still, it will
require close watching and great efforts on the other side.

Herewith I send you a copy of a letter written at New York, which
sufficiently explains itself, and which may or may not give you a
valuable hint. You have seen that Bell tickets have been put on the track
both here and in Indiana. In both cases the object has been, I think, the
same as the Hunt movement in New York--to throw States to Douglas. In our
State, we know the thing is engineered by Douglas men, and we do not
believe they can make a great deal out of it.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



SLOW TO LISTEN TO CRIMINATIONS

TO HON. JOHN ______________

(Private.)

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Aug. 31, 1860

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 27th is duly received. It consists almost
exclusively of a historical detail of some local troubles, among some of
our friends in Pennsylvania; and I suppose its object is to guard me
against forming a prejudice against Mr. McC__________, I have not heard
near so much upon that subject as you probably suppose; and I am slow to
listen to criminations among friends, and never expose their quarrels on
either side. My sincere wish is that both sides will allow bygones to be
bygones, and look to the present and future only.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, September 4, 1860

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN.

MY DEAR SIR:--I am annoyed some by a letter from a friend in Chicago, in
which the following passage occurs: "Hamlin has written Colfax that two
members of Congress will, he fears, be lost in Maine, the first and sixth
districts; and that Washburne's majority for governor will not exceed six
thousand."

I had heard something like this six weeks ago, but had been assured since
that it was not so. Your secretary of state,--Mr. Smith, I think,--whom
you introduced to me by letter, gave this assurance; more recently, Mr.
Fessenden, our candidate for Congress in one of those districts, wrote a
relative here that his election was sure by at least five thousand, and
that Washburne's majority would be from 14,000 to 17,000; and still
later, Mr. Fogg, of New Hampshire, now at New York serving on a national
committee, wrote me that we were having a desperate fight in Maine, which
would end in a splendid victory for us.

Such a result as you seem to have predicted in Maine, in your letter to
Colfax, would, I fear, put us on the down-hill track, lose us the State
elections in Pennsylvania and Indiana, and probably ruin us on the main
turn in November.

You must not allow it.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO E. B. WASHBURNE.

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, September 9, 1860

HON. E. B. WASHBURNE.

MY DEAR SIR: Yours of the 5th was received last evening. I was right glad
to see it. It contains the freshest "posting" which I now have. It
relieved me some from a little anxiety I had about Maine. Jo Medill, on
August 30th, wrote me that Colfax had a letter from Mr. Hamlin saying we
were in great danger of losing two members of Congress in Maine, and that
your brother would not have exceeding six thousand majority for Governor.
I addressed you at once, at Galena, asking for your latest information.
As you are at Washington, that letter you will receive some time after
the Maine election.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO W. H. HERNDON.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., OCTOBER 10, 1860

DEAR WILLIAM:--I cannot give you details, but it is entirely certain that
Pennsylvania and Indiana have gone Republican very largely. Pennsylvania
25,000, and Indiana 5000 to 10,000. Ohio of course is safe.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



TO L. M. BOND.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., October 15, 1860

L. MONTGOMERY BOND, Esq.

MY DEAR SIR:   I certainly am in no temper and have no purpose to
embitter the feelings of the South, but whether I am inclined to such a
course as would in fact embitter their feelings you can better judge by
my published speeches than by anything I would say in a short letter if I
were inclined now, as I am not, to define my position anew.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



LETTER SUGGESTING A BEARD

TO MISS GRACE BEDELL, RIPLEY N.Y.

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., October 19, 1860

MISS GRACE BEDELL.

MY DEAR LITTLE MISS:--Your very agreeable letter of the 15th is received.
I regret the necessity of saying I have no daughter. I have three
sons--one seventeen, one nine, and one seven. They with their mother
constitute my whole family. As to the whiskers, as I have never worn any,
do you not think that people would call it a piece of silly affectation
were I to begin wearing them now?

I am your true friend and sincere well-wisher,

A. LINCOLN.



EARLY INFORMATION ON ARMY DEFECTION IN SOUTH

TO D. HUNTER.

(Private and Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, October 26, 1860

MAJOR DAVID HUNTER

MY DEAR SIR:--Your very kind letter of the 20th was duly received, for
which please accept my thanks. I have another letter, from a writer
unknown to me, saying the officers of the army at Fort Kearny have
determined in case of Republican success at the approaching Presidential
election, to take themselves, and the arms at that point, south, for the
purpose of resistance to the government. While I think there are many
chances to one that this is a humbug, it occurs to me that any real
movement of this sort in the Army would leak out and become known to you.
In such case, if it would not be unprofessional or dishonorable (of which
you are to be judge), I shall be much obliged if you will apprise me of
it.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN

(Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD. ILLINOIS, November 8, 1860

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN.

MY DEAR SIR:--I am anxious for a personal interview with you at as early
a day as possible. Can you, without much inconvenience, meet me at
Chicago? If you can, please name as early a day as you conveniently can,
and telegraph me, unless there be sufficient time before the day named to
communicate by mail.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO SAMUEL HAYCRAFT.

(Private and Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Nov.13, 1860

HON. SAMUEL HAYCRAFT.

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 9th is just received. I can only answer
briefly. Rest fully assured that the good people of the South who will
put themselves in the same temper and mood towards me which you do will
find no cause to complain of me.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



REMARKS AT THE MEETING AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS
TO CELEBRATE LINCOLN'S ELECTION,

NOVEMBER 20, 1860

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--Please excuse me on this occasion from
making a speech. I thank you in common with all those who have thought
fit by their votes to indorse the Republican cause. I rejoice with you in
the success which has thus far attended that cause. Yet in all our
rejoicings let us neither express nor cherish any hard feelings toward
any citizen who by his vote has differed with us. Let us at all times
remember that all American citizens are brothers of a common country, and
should dwell together in the bonds of fraternal feeling. Let me again beg
you to accept my thanks, and to excuse me from further speaking at this
time.



TO ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. NOV. 30, 1860

HON. A. H. STEPHENS.

MY DEAR SIR:--I have read in the newspapers your speech recently
delivered (I think) before the Georgia Legislature, or its assembled
members. If you have revised it, as is probable, I shall be much obliged
if you will send me a copy.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN

(Private)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 8, 1860

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN.

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 4th was duly received. The inclosed to Governor
Seward covers two notes to him, copies of which you find open for your
inspection. Consult with Judge Trumbull; and if you and he see no reason
to the contrary, deliver the letter to Governor Seward at once. If you
see reason to the contrary write me at once.

I have an intimation that Governor Banks would yet accept a place in the
Cabinet. Please ascertain and write me how this is,

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



BLOCKING "COMPROMISE" ON SLAVERY ISSUE

TO E. B. WASHBURNE

(Private and Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., December 13, 1860

HON. E. B. WASHBURNE.

MY DEAR SIR:--Your long letter received. Prevent, as far as possible, any
of our friends from demoralizing themselves and our cause by entertaining
propositions for compromise of any sort on "slavery extension." There is
no possible compromise upon it but which puts us under again, and leaves
all our work to do over again. Whether it be a Missouri line or Eli
Thayer's popular sovereignty, it is all the same. Let either be done, and
immediately filibustering and extending slavery recommences. On that
point hold firm, as with a chain of steel.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



OPINION ON SECESSION

TO THURLOW WEED

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, DECEMBER 17, 1860

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 11th was received two days ago. Should the
convocation of governors of which you speak seem desirous to know my
views on the present aspect of things, tell them you judge from my
speeches that I will be inflexible on the territorial question; but I
probably think either the Missouri line extended, or Douglas's and Eli
Thayer's popular sovereignty would lose us everything we gain by the
election; that filibustering for all south of us and making slave States
of it would follow in spite of us, in either case; also that I probably
think all opposition, real and apparent, to the fugitive slave clause of
the Constitution ought to be withdrawn.

I believe you can pretend to find but little, if anything, in my
speeches, about secession. But my opinion is that no State can in any way
lawfully get out of the Union without the consent of the others; and that
it is the duty of the President and other government functionaries to run
the machine as it is.

Truly yours,

A. LINCOLN.



SOME FORTS SURRENDERED TO THE SOUTH

TO E. B. WASHBURNE

(Confidential)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 21, 1860

HON. E. B. WASHBURNE.

MY DEAR SIR:--Last night I received your letter giving an account of your
interview with General Scott, and for which I thank you. Please present
my respects to the General, and tell him, confidentially, I shall be
obliged to him to be as well prepared as he can to either hold or retake
the forts, as the case may require, at and after the inauguration.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



TO A. H. STEPHENS.

(For your own eye only)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, DECEMBER 22, 1860

HON. ALEXANDER STEVENS

MY DEAR SIR:--Your obliging answer to my short note is just received, and
for which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present peril
the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me. Do the people
of the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration
would, directly or indirectly, interfere with the slaves, or with them
about the slaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and
still, I hope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The
South would be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days
of Washington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You think
slavery is right and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong and
ought to be restricted. That, I suppose, is the rub. It certainly is the
only substantial difference between us.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



SUPPORT OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE

MEMORANDUM

December [22?], 1860

Resolved: That the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution ought to be
enforced by a law of Congress, with efficient provisions for that object,
not obliging private persons to assist in its execution, but punishing
all who resist it, and with the usual safeguards to liberty, securing
free men against being surrendered as slaves.

That all State laws, if there be such, really or apparently in conflict
with such law of Congress, ought to be repealed; and no opposition to the
execution of such law of Congress ought to be made.

That the Federal Union must be preserved.

Prepared for the consideration of the Republican members of the Senate
Committee of Thirteen.



TO D. HUNTER.

(Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS December 22, 1860

MAJOR DAVID HUNTER.

MY DEAR SIR:--I am much obliged by the receipt of yours of the 18th. The
most we can do now is to watch events, and be as well prepared as
possible for any turn things may take. If the forts fall, my judgment is
that they are to be retaken. When I shall determine definitely my time of
starting to Washington, I will notify you.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO I. N. MORRIS

(Confidential.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., Dec 24, 1860

HON. I. N. MORRIS.

MY DEAR SIR:--Without supposing that you and I are any nearer together,
politically, than heretofore, allow me to tender you my sincere thanks
for your Union resolution, expressive of views upon which we never were,
and, I trust, never will be at variance.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



ATTEMPT TO FORM A COALITION CABINET

TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 14, 1860.

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN.

MY DEAR SIR:--I need a man of Democratic antecedents from New England. I
cannot get a fair share of that element in without. This stands in the
way of Mr. Adams. I think of Governor Banks, Mr. Welles, and Mr. Tuck.
Which of them do the New England delegation prefer? Or shall I decide for
myself?

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



1861


TO WILLIAM H. SEWARD.

(Private.)
SPRINGFIELD. ILL., January 3, 1861.

HON. W. H. SEWARD.

DEAR SIR:--Yours without signature was received last night. I have been
considering your suggestions as to my reaching Washington somewhat
earlier than is usual. It seems to me the inauguration is not the most
dangerous point for us. Our adversaries have us now clearly at
disadvantage on the second Wednesday of February, when the votes should
be officially counted. If the two houses refuse to meet at all, or meet
without a quorum of each, where shall we be? I do not think that this
counting is constitutionally essential to the election, but how are we to
proceed in the absence of it? In view of this, I think it is best for me
not to attempt appearing in Washington till the result of that ceremony
is known.

It certainly would be of some advantage if you could know who are to be
at the heads of the War and Navy departments, but until I can ascertain
definitely whether I can get any suitable men from the South, and who,
and how many, I can not well decide. As yet, I have no word from Mr.
Gilmer in answer to my request for an interview with him. I look for
something on the subject, through you, before long.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO W. H. SEWARD.

(Private.)
SPRINGFIELD, ILL., January 12, 1861

HON. W. H. SEWARD.

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 8th received. I still hope Mr. Gilmer will, on
a fair understanding with us, consent to take a place in the Cabinet. The
preference for him over Mr. Hunt or Mr. Gentry is that, up to date--he
has a living position in the South, while they have not. He is only
better than Winter Davis in that he is farther south.  I fear, if we
could get, we could not safely take more than one such man--that is, not
more than one who opposed us in the election--the danger being to lose
the confidence of our own friends. Your selection for the State
Department having become public, I am happy to find scarcely any
objection to it. I shall have trouble with every other Northern Cabinet
appointment--so much so that I shall have to defer them as long as
possible to avoid being teased into insanity, to make changes.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN



TO E. D. MORGAN

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. FEB. 4, 1861

SIR:--Your letter of the 30th ult. inviting me, on behalf of the
Legislature of New York, to pass through that State on my way to
Washington, and tendering me the hospitalities of her authorities and
people, has been duly received. With the feelings of deep gratitude to
you and them for this testimonial of regard and esteem I beg you to
notify them that I accept the invitation so kindly tendered.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN

P.S.--Please let the ceremonies be only such as to take the least time
possible.     A. L.



PATRONAGE CLAIMS

TO THURLOW WEED

SPRINGFIELD, ILL., February 4, 1861

DEAR SIR:--I have both your letter to myself and that to Judge Davis, in
relation to a certain gentleman in your State claiming to dispense
patronage in my name, and also to be authorized to use my name to advance
the chances of Mr. Greeley for an election to the United States Senate.

It is very strange that such things should be said by any one. The
gentleman you mention did speak to me of Mr. Greeley in connection with
the senatorial election, and I replied in terms of kindness toward Mr.
Greeley, which I really feel, but always with an expressed protest that
my name must not be used in the senatorial election in favor of or
against any one. Any other representation of me is a misrepresentation.

As to the matter of dispensing patronage, it perhaps will surprise you to
learn that I have information that you claim to have my authority to
arrange that matter in New York. I do not believe you have so claimed;
but still so some men say. On that subject you know all I have said to
you is "justice to all," and I have said nothing more particular to any
one. I say this to reassure you that I have not changed my position.

In the hope, however, that you will not use my name in the matter, I am,

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



FAREWELL ADDRESS AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS,

FEBRUARY 11, 1861

MY FRIENDS:--One who has never been placed in a like position cannot
understand my feelings at this hour, nor the oppressive sadness I feel at
this parting. For more than twenty-five years I have lived among you, and
during all that time I have received nothing but kindness at your hands.
Here the most cherished ties of earth were assumed. Here my children were
born, and here one of them lies buried. To you, my friends, I owe all
that I have, all that I am. All the strange checkered past seems to crowd
upon my mind. To-day I leave you. I go to assume a task more difficult
than that which devolved upon General Washington. Unless the great God
who assisted him shall be with and aid me I cannot prevail; but if the
same almighty arm that directed and protected him shall guide and support
me I shall not fail; I shall succeed. Let us pray that the God of our
fathers may not forsake us now. To Him I commend you all. Permit me to
ask that with equal sincerity and faith you will all invoke His wisdom
and goodness for me.

With these words I must leave you; for how long I know not. Friends, one
and all, I must now wish you an affectionate farewell.



REMARKS AT TOLONO, ILLINOIS, FEBRUARY 11, 1861

I am leaving you on an errand of national importance, attended, as you
are aware, with considerable difficulties.  Let us believe, as some poet
has expressed it, "Behind the cloud the sun is still shining." I bid you
an affectionate farewell.



REPLY TO ADDRESS OF WELCOME, INDIANAPOLIS,

INDIANA, FEBRUARY 11, 1861

GOVERNOR MORTON AND FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA:

Most heartily do I thank you for this magnificent reception, and while I
cannot take to myself any share of the compliment thus paid, more than
that which pertains to a mere instrument, an accidental instrument,
perhaps I should say, of a great cause, I yet must look upon it as a most
magnificent reception, and as such most heartily do thank you for it. You
have been pleased to address yourself to me chiefly in behalf of this
glorious Union in which we live, in all of which you have my hearty
sympathy, and, as far as may be within my power, will have, one and
inseparable, my hearty consideration. While I do not expect, upon this
occasion, or until I get to Washington, to attempt any lengthy speech, I
will only say to the salvation of the Union there needs but one single
thing--the hearts of a people like yours.

The people--when they rise in mass in behalf of the Union and the
liberties of their country, truly may it be said, "The gates of hell
cannot prevail against them." In all trying positions in which I shall be
placed--and, doubtless, I shall be placed in many such--my reliance will
be placed upon you and the people of the United States; and I wish you to
remember, now and forever, that it is your business, and not mine; that
if the union of these States and the liberties of this people shall be
lost, it is but little to any one man of fifty-two years of age, but a
great deal to the thirty millions of people who inhabit these United
States, and to their posterity in all coming time. It is your business to
rise up and preserve the Union and liberty for yourselves, and not for
me.

I desire they should be constitutionally performed. I, as already
intimated, am but an accidental instrument, temporary, and to serve but
for a limited time; and I appeal to you again to constantly bear in mind
that with you, and not with politicians, not with Presidents, not with
office-seekers, but with you is the question, Shall the Union and shall
the liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generations?



ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF INDIANA, AT INDIANAPOLIS,

FEBRUARY 12, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA:--I am here to thank you much for
this magnificent welcome, and still more for the generous support given
by your State to that political cause which I think is the true and just
cause of the whole country and the whole world.

Solomon says there is "a time to keep silence," and when men wrangle by
the mouth with no certainty that they mean the same thing while using the
same word, it perhaps were as well if they would keep silence.

The words "coercion" and "invasion" are much used in these days, and
often with some temper and hot blood. Let us make sure, if we can, the
meaning of those who use them. Let us get the exact definitions of these
words, not from dictionaries, but from the men themselves, who certainly
deprecate the things they would represent by the use of the words.

What, then, is coercion? What is invasion? Would the marching of an army
into South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with hostile
intent toward them, be invasion? I certainly think it would, and it would
be coercion also, if the South Carolinians were forced to submit. But if
the United States should merely hold and retake its own forts and other
property, and collect the duties on foreign importations, or even
withhold the mails from places where they were habitually violated, would
any or all of these things be invasion or coercion? Do our professed
lovers of the Union, who spitefully resolve that they will resist
coercion and invasion, understand that such things as these, on the part
of the United States, would be coercion or invasion of a State? If so,
their idea of means to preserve the object of their great affection would
seem to be exceedingly thin and airy. If sick, the little pills of the
homoeopathist would be much too large for it to swallow. In their view,
the Union, as a family relation, would seem to be no regular marriage,
but rather a sort of "free-love" arrangement, to be maintained on
passional attraction.

By the way, in what consists the special sacredness of a State? I speak
not of the position assigned to a State in the Union by the Constitution,
for that is a bond we all recognize. That position, however, a State
cannot carry out of the Union with it. I speak of that assumed primary
right of a State to rule all which is less than itself, and to ruin all
which is larger than itself. If a State and a county, in a given case,
should be equal in number of inhabitants, in what, as a matter of
principle, is the State better than the county? Would an exchange of name
be an exchange of rights? Upon what principle, upon what rightful
principle, may a State, being no more than one fiftieth part of the
nation in soil and population, break up the nation, and then coerce a
proportionably large subdivision of itself in the most arbitrary way?
What mysterious right to play tyrant is conferred on a district of
country, with its people, by merely calling it a State? Fellow-citizens,
I am not asserting anything. I am merely asking questions for you to
consider. And now allow me to bid you farewell.



INTENTIONS TOWARD THE SOUTH

ADDRESS TO THE MAYOR AND CITIZENS OF
CINCINNATI, OHIO, FEBRUARY 12, 1861

Mr. MAYOR, AND GENTLEMEN:--Twenty-four hours ago, at the capital of
Indiana, I said to myself, "I have never seen so many people assembled
together in winter weather." I am no longer able to say that. But it is
what might reasonably have been expected--that this great city of
Cincinnati would thus acquit herself on such an occasion. My friends, I
am entirely overwhelmed by the magnificence of the reception which has
been given, I will not say to me, but to the President-elect of the
United States of America. Most heartily do I thank you, one and all, for
it.

I have spoken but once before this in Cincinnati. That was a year
previous to the late Presidential election. On that occasion, in a
playful manner, but with sincere words, I addressed much of what I said
to the Kentuckians. I gave my opinion that we, as Republicans, would
ultimately beat them as Democrats, but that they could postpone that
result longer by nominating Senator Douglas for the Presidency than they
could by any other way. They did not, in any true sense of the word,
nominate Mr. Douglas, and the result has come certainly as soon as ever I
expected. I also told them how I expected they would be treated after
they should have been beaten, and I now wish to call their attention to
what I then said upon that subject. I then said:

"When we do as we say, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we will do
with you. I will tell you, as far as I am authorized to speak for the
Opposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as near as
we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison treated you. We
mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with your
institutions; to abide by all and every compromise of the Constitution,
and, in a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat you so
far as degenerate men, if we have degenerated, may, according to the
example of those noble fathers, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison.

"We mean to remember that you are as good as we; that there is no
difference between us other than the difference of circumstances. We mean
to recognize and bear in mind always that you have as good hearts in your
bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have, and treat you
accordingly."

Fellow-citizens of Kentucky--friends and brethren, may I call you in my
new position?--I see no occasion and feel no inclination to retract a
word of this. If it shall not be made good, be assured the fault shall
not be mine.



ADDRESS TO THE GERMAN CLUB OF CINCINNATI, OHIO,

FEBRUARY 12, 1861

Mr. CHAIRMAN:--I thank you and those whom you represent for the
compliment you have paid me by tendering me this address. In so far as
there is an allusion to our present national difficulties, which
expresses, as you have said, the views of the gentlemen present, I shall
have to beg pardon for not entering fully upon the questions which the
address you have now read suggests.

I deem it my duty--a duty which I owe to my constituents--to you,
gentlemen, that I should wait until the last moment for a development of
the present national difficulties before I express myself decidedly as to
what course I shall pursue. I hope, then, not to be false to anything
that you have expected of me.

I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that the working men are the basis of all
governments, for the plain reason that they are all the more numerous,
and as you added that those were the sentiments of the gentlemen present,
representing not only the working class, but citizens of other callings
than those of the mechanic, I am happy to concur with you in these
sentiments, not only of the native-born citizens, but also of the Germans
and foreigners from other countries.

Mr. Chairman, I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve not
only his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating the condition of
mankind; and therefore, without entering upon the details of the
question, I will simply say that I am for those means which will give the
greatest good to the greatest number.

In regard to the Homestead law, I have to say that, in so far as the
government lands can be disposed of, I am in favor of cutting up the wild
lands into parcels, so that every poor man may have a home.

In regard to the Germans and foreigners, I esteem them no better than
other people, nor any worse. It is not my nature, when I see a people
borne down by the weight of their shackles--the oppression of tyranny--to
make their life more bitter by heaping upon them greater burdens; but
rather would I do all in my power to raise the yoke than to add anything
that would tend to crush them.

Inasmuch as our own country is extensive and new, and the countries of
Europe are densely populated, if there are any abroad who desire to make
this the land of their adoption, it is not in my heart to throw aught in
their way to prevent them from coming to the United States.

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will bid you an affectionate farewell.



ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF OHIO AT COLUMBUS

FEBRUARY 13, 1861

Mr. PRESIDENT AND Mr. SPEAKER, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF
OHIO:--It is true, as has been said by the president of the Senate, that
very great responsibility rests upon me in the position to which the
votes of the American people have called me. I am deeply sensible of that
weighty responsibility. I cannot but know what you all know, that without
a name, perhaps without a reason why I should have a name, there has
fallen upon me a task such as did not rest even upon the Father of his
Country; and so feeling, I can turn and look for that support without
which it will be impossible for me to perform that great task. I turn,
then, and look to the American people and to that God who has never
forsaken them. Allusion has been made to the interest felt in relation to
the policy of the new administration. In this I have received from some a
degree of credit for having kept silence, and from others some
deprecation. I still think that I was right.

In the varying and repeatedly shifting scenes of the present, and without
a precedent which could enable me to judge by the past, it has seemed
fitting that before speaking upon the difficulties of the country I
should have gained a view of the whole field, being at liberty to modify
and change the course of policy as future events may make a change
necessary.

I have not maintained silence from any want of real anxiety. It is a good
thing that there is no more than anxiety, for there is nothing going
wrong. It is a consoling circumstance that when we look out there is
nothing that really hurts anybody. We entertain different views upon
political questions, but nobody is suffering anything. This is a most
consoling circumstance, and from it we may conclude that all we want is
time, patience, and a reliance on that God who has never forsaken this
people.

Fellow-citizens, what I have said I have said altogether
extemporaneously, and I will now come to a close.



ADDRESS AT STEUBENVILLE, OHIO,

FEBRUARY 14, 1861

I fear that the great confidence placed in my ability is unfounded.
Indeed, I am sure it is. Encompassed by vast difficulties as I am,
nothing shall be wanting on my part, if sustained by God and the American
people. I believe the devotion to the Constitution is equally great on
both sides of the river. It is only the different understanding of that
instrument that causes difficulty. The only dispute on both sides is,
"What are their rights?" If the majority should not rule, who would be
the judge? Where is such a judge to be found? We should all be bound by
the majority of the American people; if not, then the minority must
control. Would that be right? Would it be just or generous? Assuredly
not. I reiterate that the majority should rule. If I adopt a wrong
policy, the opportunity for condemnation will occur in four years' time.
Then I can be turned out, and a better man with better views put in my
place.



ADDRESS AT PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

FEBRUARY 15, 1861

I most cordially thank his Honor Mayor Wilson, and the citizens of
Pittsburg generally, for their flattering reception. I am the more
grateful because I know that it is not given to me alone, but to the
cause I represent, which clearly proves to me their good-will, and that
sincere feeling is at the bottom of it. And here I may remark that in
every short address I have made to the people, in every crowd through
which I have passed of late, some allusion has been made to the present
distracted condition of the country. It is natural to expect that I
should say something on this subject; but to touch upon it at all would
involve an elaborate discussion of a great many questions and
circumstances, requiring more time than I can at present command, and
would, perhaps, unnecessarily commit me upon matters which have not yet
fully developed themselves. The condition of the country is an
extraordinary one, and fills the mind of every patriot with anxiety. It
is my intention to give this subject all the consideration I possibly can
before specially deciding in regard to it, so that when I do speak it may
be as nearly right as possible. When I do speak I hope I may say nothing
in opposition to the spirit of the Constitution, contrary to the
integrity of the Union, or which will prove inimical to the liberties of
the people, or to the peace of the whole country. And furthermore, when
the time arrives for me to speak on this great subject, I hope I may say
nothing to disappoint the people generally throughout the country,
especially if the expectation has been based upon anything which I may
have heretofore said. Notwithstanding the troubles across the river [the
speaker pointing southwardly across the Monongahela, and smiling], there
is no crisis but an artificial one. What is there now to warrant the
condition of affairs presented by our friends over the river? Take even
their own view of the questions involved, and there is nothing to justify
the course they are pursuing. I repeat, then, there is no crisis,
excepting such a one as may be gotten up at any time by turbulent men
aided by designing politicians, My advice to them, under such
circumstances, is to keep cool. If the great American people only keep
their temper on both sides of the line, the troubles will come to an end,
and the question which now distracts the country will be settled, just as
surely as all other difficulties of a like character which have
originated in this government have been adjusted. Let the people on both
sides keep their self-possession, and just as other clouds have cleared
away in due time, so will this great nation continue to prosper as
heretofore. But, fellow-citizens, I have spoken longer on this subject
than I intended at the outset.

It is often said that the tariff is the specialty of Pennsylvania.
Assuming that direct taxation is not to be adopted, the tariff question
must be as durable as the government itself.  It is a question of
national housekeeping.  It is to the government what replenishing the
meal-tub is to the family. Every varying circumstances will require
frequent modifications as to the amount needed and the sources of supply.
So far there is little difference of opinion among the people. It is as
to whether, and how far, duties on imports shall be adjusted to favor
home production in the home market, that controversy begins. One party
insists that such adjustment oppresses one class for the advantage of
another; while the other party argues that, with all its incidents, in
the long run all classes are benefited. In the Chicago platform there is
a plank upon this subject which should be a general law to the incoming
administration. We should do neither more nor less than we gave the
people reason to believe we would when they gave us their votes. Permit
me, fellow-citizens, to read the tariff plank of the Chicago platform, or
rather have it read in your hearing by one who has younger eyes.

[Mr. Lincoln's private secretary then read Section 12 of the Chicago
platform, as follows:]

"That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Government
by duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of these
imposts as will encourage the development of the industrial interest of
the whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges which
secures to working-men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices,
to mechanics and manufacturers adequate return for their skill, labor,
and enterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and
independence."

As with all general propositions, doubtless, there will be shades of
difference in construing this. I have by no means a thoroughly matured
judgment upon this subject, especially as to details; some general ideas
are about all. I have long thought it would be to our advantage to
produce any necessary article at home which can be made of as good
quality and with as little labor at home as abroad, at least by the
difference of the carrying from abroad. In such case the carrying is
demonstrably a dead loss of labor. For instance, labor being the true
standard of value, is it not plain that if equal labor get a bar of
railroad iron out of a mine in England and another out of a mine in
Pennsylvania, each can be laid down in a track at home cheaper than they
could exchange countries, at least by the carriage? If there be a present
cause why one can be both made and carried cheaper in money price than
the other can be made without carrying, that cause is an unnatural and
injurious one, and ought gradually, if not rapidly, to be removed. The
condition of the treasury at this time would seem to render an early
revision of the tariff indispensable. The Morrill [tariff] bill, now
pending before Congress, may or may not become a law. I am not posted as
to its particular provisions, but if they are generally satisfactory, and
the bill shall now pass, there will be an end for the present. If,
however, it shall not pass, I suppose the whole subject will be one of
the most pressing and important for the next Congress. By the
Constitution, the executive may recommend measures which he may think
proper, and he may veto those he thinks improper, and it is supposed that
he may add to these certain indirect influences to affect the action of
Congress. My political education strongly inclines me against a very free
use of any of these means by the executive to control the legislation of
the country. As a rule, I think it better that Congress should originate
as well as perfect its measures without external bias. I therefore would
rather recommend to every gentleman who knows he is to be a member of the
next Congress to take an enlarged view, and post himself thoroughly, so
as to contribute his part to such an adjustment of the tariff as shall
produce a sufficient revenue, and in its other bearings, so far as
possible, be just and equal to all sections of the country and classes of
the people.



ADDRESS AT CLEVELAND, OHIO,

FEBRUARY 15, 1861

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF CLEVELAND:--We have been marching
about two miles through snow, rain, and deep mud.  The large numbers that
have turned out under these circumstances testify that you are in earnest
about something or other. But do I think so meanly of you as to suppose
that that earnestness is about me personally? I would be doing you an
injustice to suppose you did. You have assembled to testify your respect
for the Union, the Constitution, and the laws; and here let me say that
it is with you, the people, to advance the great cause of the Union and
the Constitution, and not with any one man. It rests with you alone. This
fact is strongly impressed upon my mind at present. In a community like
this, whose appearance testifies to their intelligence, I am convinced
that the cause of liberty and the Union can never be in danger. Frequent
allusion is made to the excitement at present existing in our national
politics, and it is as well that I should also allude to it here. I think
that there is no occasion for any excitement. 'The crisis, as it is
called, is altogether an artificial crisis. In all parts of the nation
there are differences of opinion on politics. There are differences of
opinion even here. You did not all vote for the person who now addresses
you. What is happening now will not hurt those who are farther away from
here. Have they not all their rights now as they ever have had? Do they
not have their fugitive slaves returned now as ever? Have they not the
same Constitution that they have lived under for seventy-odd years? Have
they not a position as citizens of this common country, and have we any
power to change that position? What, then, is the matter with them? Why
all this excitement? Why all these complaints?

As I said before, this crisis is all artificial! It has no foundation in
facts. It is not argued up, as the saying is, and cannot, therefore, be
argued down. Let it alone and it will go down of itself.

[Mr. Lincoln then said that they must be content with a few words from
him, as he was tired, etc. Having been given to understand that the crowd
was not all Republican, but consisted of men of all parties, he
continued:]

This is as it should be. If Judge Douglas had been elected and had been
here on his way to Washington, as I am to-night, the Republicans should
have joined his supporters in welcoming him, just as his friends have
joined with mine tonight. If all do not join now to save the good old
ship of the Union this voyage, nobody will have a chance to pilot her on
another voyage.



ADDRESS AT BUFFALO, NEW YORK,

FEBRUARY 16, 1861

Mr. MAYOR AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF BUFFALO AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK:--I am
here to thank you briefly for this grand reception given to me, not
personally, but as the representative of our great and beloved country.
Your worthy mayor has been pleased to mention, in his address to me, the
fortunate and agreeable journey which I have had from home, on my rather
circuitous route to the Federal capital. I am very happy that he was
enabled in truth to congratulate myself and company on that fact. It is
true we have had nothing thus far to mar the pleasure of the trip. We
have not been met alone by those who assisted in giving the election to
me--I say not alone by them, but by the whole population of the country
through which we have passed. This is as it should be. Had the election
fallen to any other of the distinguished candidates instead of myself,
under the peculiar circumstances, to say the least, it would have been
proper for all citizens to have greeted him as you now greet me. It is an
evidence of the devotion of the whole people to the Constitution, the
Union, and the perpetuity of the liberties of this country. I am
unwilling on any occasion that I should be so meanly thought of as to
have it supposed for a moment that these demonstrations are tendered to
me personally. They are tendered to the country, to the institutions of
the country, and to the perpetuity of the liberties of the country, for
which these institutions were made and created.

Your worthy mayor has thought fit to express the hope that I may be able
to relieve the country from the present, or, I should say, the threatened
difficulties. I am sure I bring a heart true to the work. For the ability
to perform it, I must trust in that Supreme Being who has never forsaken
this favored land, through the instrumentality of this great and
intelligent people. Without that assistance I shall surely fail; with it,
I cannot fail. When we speak of threatened difficulties to the Country,
it is natural that it should be expected that something should be said by
myself with regard to particular measures. Upon more mature reflection,
however, others will agree with me that, when it is considered that these
difficulties are without precedent, and have never been acted upon by any
individual situated as I am, it is most proper I should wait and see the
developments, and get all the light possible, so that when I do speak
authoritatively, I may be as near right as possible. When I shall speak
authoritatively, I hope to say nothing inconsistent with the
Constitution, the Union, the rights of all the States, of each State, and
of each section of the country, and not to disappoint the reasonable
expectations of those who have confided to me their votes. In this
connection allow me to say that you, as a portion of the great American
people, need only to maintain your composure, stand up to your sober
convictions of right, to your obligations to the Constitution, and act in
accordance with those sober convictions, and the clouds now on the
horizon will be dispelled, and we shall have a bright and glorious
future; and when this generation has passed away, tens of thousands will
inhabit this country where only thousands inhabit it now. I do not
propose to address you at length; I have no voice for it. Allow me again
to thank you for this magnificent reception, and bid you farewell.



ADDRESS AT ROCHESTER, NEW YORK,

FEBRUARY 18, 1861

I confess myself, after having seen many large audiences since leaving
home, overwhelmed with this vast number of faces at this hour of the
morning. I am not vain enough to believe that you are here from any wish
to see me as an individual, but because I am for the time being the
representative of the American people. I could not, if I would, address
you at any length. I have not the strength, even if I had the time, for a
speech at each of these many interviews that are afforded me on my way to
Washington. I appear merely to see you, and to let you see me, and to bid
you farewell. I hope it will be understood that it is from no
disinclination to oblige anybody that I do not address you at greater
length.



ADDRESS AT SYRACUSE, NEW YORK,

FEBRUARY 18, 1861.

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I See you have erected a very fine and handsome
platform here for me, and I presume you expected me to speak from it. If
I should go upon it, you would imagine that I was about to deliver you a
much longer speech than I am. I wish you to understand that I mean no
discourtesy to you by thus declining. I intend discourtesy to no one. But
I wish you to understand that, though I am unwilling to go upon this
platform, you are not at liberty to draw inferences concerning any other
platform with which my name has been or is connected. I wish you long
life and prosperity individually, and pray that with the perpetuity of
those institutions under which we have all so long lived and prospered,
our happiness may be secured, our future made brilliant, and the glorious
destiny of our country established forever. I bid you a kind farewell.



ADDRESS AT UTICA, NEW YORK,

FEBRUARY 18, 1860

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have no speech to make to you; and no time to
speak in. I appear before you that I may see you, and that you may see
me; and I am willing to admit that so far as the ladies are concerned I
have the best of the bargain, though I wish it to be understood that I do
not make the same acknowledgment concerning the men.



REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF ALBANY, NEW YORK

FEBRUARY 18, 1861.

MR. MAYOR:--I can hardly appropriate to myself the flattering terms in
which you communicate the tender of this reception, as personal to
myself. I most gratefully accept the hospitalities tendered to me, and
will not detain you or the audience with any extended remarks at this
time. I presume that in the two or three courses through which I shall
have to go, I shall have to repeat somewhat, and I will therefore only
express to you my thanks for this kind reception.



REPLY TO GOVERNOR MORGAN OF NEW YORK, AT ALBANY,

FEBRUARY 18, 1861.

GOVERNOR MORGAN:--I was pleased to receive an invitation to visit the
capital of the great Empire State of this nation while on my way to the
Federal capital. I now thank you, Mr. Governor, and you, the people of
the capital of the State of New York, for this most hearty and
magnificent welcome. If I am not at fault, the great Empire State at this
time contains a larger population than did the whole of the United States
of America at the time they achieved their national independence, and I
was proud--to be invited to visit its capital, to meet its citizens, as I
now have the honor to do. I am notified by your governor that this
reception is tendered by citizens without distinction of party. Because
of this I accept it the more gladly. In this country, and in any country
where freedom of thought is tolerated, citizens attach themselves to
political parties. It is but an ordinary degree of charity to attribute
this act to the supposition that, in thus attaching themselves to the
various parties, each man in his own judgment supposes he thereby best
advances the interests of the whole country. And when an election is past
it is altogether befitting a free people, as I suppose, that, until the
next election, they should be one people. The reception you have extended
me to-day is not given to me personally,--it should not be so,--but as
the representative, for the time being, of the majority of the nation. If
the election had fallen to any of the more distinguished citizens who
received the support of the people, this same honor should have greeted
him that greets me this day, in testimony of the universal, unanimous
devotion of the whole people to the Constitution, the Union, and to the
perpetual liberties of succeeding generations in this country.

I have neither the voice nor the strength to address you at any greater
length. I beg you will therefore accept my most grateful thanks for this
manifest devotion--not to me, but the institutions of this great and
glorious country.



ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF NEW YORK, AT ALBANY,

FEBRUARY 18, 1861.

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEW
YORK:--It is with feelings of great diffidence, and, I may say, with
feelings of awe, perhaps greater than I have recently experienced, that I
meet you here in this place. The history of this great State, the renown
of those great men who have stood here, and have spoken here, and have
been heard here, all crowd around my fancy, and incline me to shrink from
any attempt to address you. Yet I have some confidence given me by the
generous manner in which you have invited me, and by the still more
generous manner in which you have received me, to speak further. You have
invited and received me without distinction of party. I cannot for a
moment suppose that this has been done in any considerable degree with
reference to my personal services, but that it is done in so far as I am
regarded, at this time, as the representative of the majesty of this
great nation. I doubt not this is the truth, and the whole truth of the
case, and this is as it should be. It is much more gratifying to me that
this reception has been given to me as the elected representative of a
free people, than it could possibly be if tendered merely as an evidence
of devotion to me, or to any one man personally.

And now I think it were more fitting that I should close these hasty
remarks. It is true that, while I hold myself, without mock modesty, the
humblest of all individuals that have ever been elevated to the
Presidency, I have a more difficult task to perform than any one of them.

You have generously tendered me the support--the united support--of the
great Empire State. For this, in behalf of the nation--in behalf of the
present and future of the nation--in behalf of civil and religious
liberty for all time to come, most gratefully do I thank you. I do not
propose to enter into an explanation of any particular line of policy, as
to our present difficulties, to be adopted by the incoming
administration. I deem it just to you, to myself, to all, that I should
see everything, that I should hear everything, that I should have every
light that can be brought within my reach, in order that, when I do so
speak, I shall have enjoyed every opportunity to take correct and true
ground; and for this reason I do not propose to speak at this time of the
policy of the Government. But when the time comes, I shall speak, as well
as I am able, for the good of the present and future of this country for
the good both of the North and of the South--for the good of the one and
the other, and of all sections of the country. In the meantime, if we
have patience, if we restrain ourselves, if we allow ourselves not to run
off in a passion, I still have confidence that the Almighty, the Maker of
the universe, will, through the instrumentality of this great and
intelligent people, bring us through this as He has through all the other
difficulties of our country. Relying on this, I again thank you for this
generous reception.



ADDRESS AT TROY, NEW YORK,

FEBRUARY 19, 1861

MR. MAYOR AND CITIZENS OF TROY:--I thank you very kindly for this great
reception. Since I left my home it has not been my fortune to meet an
assemblage more numerous and more orderly than this. I am the more
gratified at this mark of your regard since you assure me it is tendered,
not to the individual but to the high office you have called me to fill.
I have neither strength nor time to make any extended remarks on this
occasion, and I can only repeat to you my sincere thanks for the kind
reception you have thought proper to extend to me.



ADDRESS AT POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK,

FEBRUARY 19, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--It is altogether impossible I should make myself heard
by any considerable portion of this vast assemblage; but, although I
appear before you mainly for the purpose of seeing you, and to let you
see rather than hear me, I cannot refrain from saying that I am highly
gratified--as much here, indeed, under the circumstances, as I have been
anywhere on my route--to witness this noble demonstration--made, not in
honor of an individual, but of the man who at this time humbly, but
earnestly, represents the majesty of the nation.

This reception, like all the others that have been tendered to me,
doubtless emanates from all the political parties, and not from one
alone. As such I accept it the more gratefully, since it indicates an
earnest desire on the part of the whole people, with out regard to
political differences, to save--not the country, because the country will
save itself but to save the institutions of the country, those
institutions under which, in the last three quarters of a century, we
have grown to a great, and intelligent, and a happy people--the greatest,
the most intelligent, and the happiest people in the world. These noble
manifestations indicate, with unerring certainty, that the whole people
are willing to make common cause for this object; that if, as it ever
must be, some have been successful in the recent election and some have
been beaten, if some are satisfied and some are dissatisfied, the
defeated party are not in favor of sinking the ship, but are desirous of
running it through the tempest in safety, and willing, if they think the
people have committed an error in their verdict now, to wait in the hope
of reversing it and setting it right next time. I do not say that in the
recent election the people did the wisest thing, that could have been
done--indeed, I do not think they did; but I do say that in accepting the
great trust committed to me, which I do with a determination to endeavor
to prove worthy of it, I must rely upon you, upon the people of the whole
country, for support; and with their sustaining aid, even I, humble as I
am, cannot fail to carry the ship of state safely through the storm.

I have now only to thank you warmly for your kind attendance, and bid you
all an affectionate farewell.



ADDRESS AT HUDSON, NEW YORK.

FEBRUARY 19, 1860

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I see that you are providing a platform for me. I shall
have to decline standing upon it, because the president of the company
tells me that I shall not have time to wait until it is brought to me. As
I said yesterday, under similar circumstances at another gathering, you
must not draw the inference that I have any intention of deserting any
platform with which I have a legitimate connection because I do not stand
on yours. Allow me to thank you for this splendid reception, and I now
bid you farewell.



ADDRESS AT PEEKSKILL, NEW YORK,

FEBRUARY 19, 1861

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have but a moment to stand before you to listen
to and return your kind greeting. I thank you for this reception, and for
the pleasant manner in which it is tendered to me by our mutual friends.
I will say in a single sentence, in regard to the difficulties that lie
before me and our beloved country, that if I can only be as generously
and unanimously sustained as the demonstrations I have witnessed indicate
I shall be, I shall not fail; but without your sustaining hands I am sure
that neither I nor any other man can hope to surmount these difficulties.
I trust that in the course I shall pursue I shall be sustained not only
by the party that elected me, but by the patriotic people of the whole
country.



ADDRESS AT FISHKILL LANDING

FEBRUARY 19, 1861

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I appear before you not to make a speech. I have
not sufficient time, if I had the strength, to repeat speeches at every
station where the people kindly gather to welcome me as we go along. If I
had the strength, and should take the time, I should not get to
Washington until after the inauguration, which you must be aware would
not fit exactly. That such an untoward event might not transpire, I know
you will readily forego any further remarks; and I close by bidding you
farewell.



REMARKS AT THE ASTOR HOUSE, NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 19, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I have stepped before you merely in compliance with
what appears to be your wish, and not with the purpose of making a
speech. I do not propose making a speech this afternoon. I could not be
heard by any but a small fraction of you, at best; but, what is still
worse than that, I have nothing just now to say that is worthy of your
hearing. I beg you to believe that I do not now refuse to address you
from any disposition to disoblige you, but to the contrary. But, at the
same time, I beg of you to excuse me for the present.



ADDRESS AT NEW YORK CITY,

FEBRUARY 19, 1861

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN:--I am rather an old man to avail myself of
such an excuse as I am now about to do. Yet the truth is so distinct, and
presses itself so distinctly upon me, that I cannot well avoid it--and
that is, that I did not understand when I was brought into this room that
I was to be brought here to make a speech. It was not intimated to me
that I was brought into the room where Daniel Webster and Henry Clay had
made speeches, and where one in my position might be expected to do
something like those men or say something worthy of myself or my
audience. I therefore beg you to make allowance for the circumstances in
which I have been by surprise brought before you. Now I have been in the
habit of thinking and sometimes speaking upon political questions that
have for some years past agitated the country; and, if I were disposed to
do so, and we could take up some one of the issues, as the lawyers call
them, and I were called upon to make an argument about it to the best of
my ability, I could do so without much preparation. But that is not what
you desire to have done here to-night.

I have been occupying a position, since the Presidential election, of
silence--of avoiding public speaking, of avoiding public writing. I have
been doing so because I thought, upon full consideration, that was the
proper course for me to take.  I am brought before you now, and required
to make a speech, when you all approve more than anything else of the
fact that I have been keeping silence. And now it seems to me that the
response you give to that remark ought to justify me in closing just
here. I have not kept silence since the Presidential election from any
party wantonness, or from any indifference to the anxiety that pervades
the minds of men about the aspect of the political affairs of this
country. I have kept silence for the reason that I supposed it was
peculiarly proper that I should do so until the time came when, according
to the custom of the country, I could speak officially.

I still suppose that, while the political drama being enacted in this
country at this time is rapidly shifting its scenes--forbidding an
anticipation with any degree of certainty to-day of what we shall see
to-morrow--it is peculiarly fitting that I should see it all, up to the
last minute, before I should take ground that I might be disposed, by the
shifting of the scenes afterward, also to shift. I have said several
times upon this journey, and I now repeat it to you, that when the time
does come, I shall then take the ground that I think is right--right for
the North, for the South, for the East, for the West, for the whole
country. And in doing so I hope to feel no necessity pressing upon me to
say anything in conflict with the Constitution, in conflict with the
continued union of these States, in conflict with the perpetuation of the
liberties of this people, or anything in conflict with anything whatever
that I have ever given you reason to expect from me. And now, my friends,
have I said enough? [Loud cries of "No, no!" and, "Three cheers for
LINCOLN!"] Now, my friends, there appears to be a difference of opinion
between you and me, and I really feel called upon to decide the question
myself.



REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY,

FEBRUARY 20, 1861

Mr. MAYOR:--It is with feelings of deep gratitude that I make my
acknowledgments for the reception that has been given me in the great
commercial city of New York. I cannot but remember that it is done by the
people who do not, by a large majority, agree with me in political
sentiment. It is the more grateful to me because in this I see that for
the great principles of our Government the people are pretty nearly or
quite unanimous. In regard to the difficulties that confront us at this
time, and of which you have seen fit to speak so becomingly and so
justly, I can only say I agree with the sentiments expressed. In my
devotion to the Union I hope I am behind no man in the nation. As to my
wisdom in conducting affairs so as to tend to the preservation of the
Union, I fear too great confidence may have been placed in me. I am sure
I bring a heart devoted to the work. There is nothing that could ever
bring me to consent--willingly to consent--to the destruction of this
Union (in which not only the great city of New York, but the whole
country, has acquired its greatness), unless it would be that thing for
which the Union itself was made. I understand that the ship is made for
the carrying and preservation of the cargo; and so long as the ship is
safe with the cargo, it shall not be abandoned. This Union shall never be
abandoned, unless the possibility of its existence shall cease to exist
without the necessity of throwing passengers and cargo overboard. So
long, then, as it is possible that the prosperity and liberties of this
people can be preserved within this Union, it shall be my purpose at all
tunes to preserve it. And now, Mr. Mayor, renewing my thanks for this
cordial reception, allow me to come to a close.



ADDRESS AT JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY

FEBRUARY 21, 1860

MR. DAYTON AND GENTLEMEN OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY:--I shall only thank
you briefly for this very kind reception given me, not personally, but as
the temporary representative of the majesty of the nation. To the
kindness of your hearts, and of the hearts of your brethren in your
State, I should be very proud to respond, but I shall not have strength
to address you or other assemblages at length, even if I had the time to
do so. I appear before you, therefore, for little else than to greet you,
and to briefly say farewell. You have done me the very high honor to
present your reception courtesies to me through your great man a man with
whom it is an honor to be associated anywhere, and in owning whom no
State can be poor. He has said enough, and by the saying of it suggested
enough, to require a response of an hour, well considered. I could not in
an hour make a worthy response to it. I therefore, ladies and gentlemen
of New Jersey, content myself with saying, most heartily do I indorse all
the sentiments he has expressed. Allow me, most gratefully, to bid you
farewell.



REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY,

FEBRUARY 21, 1861.

MR. MAYOR:--I thank you for this reception at the city of Newark. With
regard to the great work of which you speak, I will say that I bring to
it a heart filled with love for my country, and an honest desire to do
what is right. I am sure, however, that I have not the ability to do
anything unaided of God, and that without His support and that of this
free, happy, prosperous, and intelligent people, no man can succeed in
doing that the importance of which we all comprehend. Again thanking you
for the reception you have given me, I will now bid you farewell, and
proceed upon my journey.



ADDRESS IN TRENTON AT THE TRENTON HOUSE,

FEBRUARY 21, 1861

I have been invited by your representatives to the Legislature to visit
this the capital of your honored State, and in acknowledging their kind
invitation, compelled to respond to the welcome of the presiding officers
of each body, and I suppose they intended I should speak to you through
them, as they are the representatives of all of you; and if I were to
speak again here, I should only have to repeat in a great measure much
that I have said, which would be disgusting to my friends around me who
have met here. I have no speech to make, but merely appear to see you and
let you look at me; and as to the latter I think I have greatly the best
of the bargain. My friends, allow me to bid you farewell.



ADDRESS TO THE SENATE OF NEW JERSEY

FEBRUARY 21, 1861

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY:--I
am very grateful to you for the honorable reception of which I have been
the object. I cannot but remember the place that New Jersey holds in our
early history. In the Revolutionary struggle few of the States among the
Old Thirteen had more of the battle-fields of the country within their
limits than New Jersey. May I be pardoned if, upon this occasion, I
mention that away back in my childhood, the earliest days of my being
able to read, I got hold of a small book, such a one as few of the
younger members have ever seen Weems's Life of Washington. I remember all
the accounts there given of the battle-fields and struggles for the
liberties of the country; and none fixed themselves upon my imagination
so deeply as the struggle here at Trenton, New Jersey. The crossing of
the river, the contest with the Hessians, the great hardships endured at
that time, all fixed themselves on my memory more than any single
Revolutionary event; and you all know, for you have all been boys, how
these early impressions last longer than any others. I recollect thinking
then, boy even though I was, that there must have been something more
than common that these men struggled for. I am exceedingly anxious that
that thing that something even more than national independence, that
something that held out a great promise to all the people of the world to
all time to come--I am exceedingly anxious that this Union, the
Constitution, and the liberties of the people shall be perpetuated in
accordance with the original idea for which that struggle was made; and I
shall be most happy indeed if I shall be a humble instrument in the hands
of the Almighty, and of this his almost chosen people, for perpetuating
the object of that great struggle. You give me this reception, as I
understand, without distinction of party. I learn that this body is
composed of a majority of gentlemen who, in the exercise of their best
judgment in the choice of a chief magistrate, did not think I was the
man. I understand, nevertheless, that they come forward here to greet me
as the constitutionally elected President of the United States--as
citizens of the United States to meet the man who, for the time being, is
the representative of the majesty of the nation--united by the single
purpose to perpetuate the Constitution, the union, and the liberties of
the people. As such, I accept this reception more gratefully than I could
do did I believe it were tendered to me as an individual.



ADDRESS TO THE ASSEMBLY OF NEW JERSEY,

FEBRUARY 21, 1861

MR. SPEAKER AND GENTLEMEN: I have just enjoyed the honor of a reception
by the other branch of this Legislature, and I return to you and them my
thanks for the reception which the people of New Jersey have given
through their chosen representatives to me as the representative, for the
time being, of the majesty of the people of the United States. I
appropriate to myself very little of the demonstrations of respect with
which I have been greeted. I think little should be given to any man, but
that it should be a manifestation of adherence to the Union and the
Constitution. I understand myself to be received here by the
representatives of the people of New Jersey, a majority of whom differ in
opinion from those with whom I have acted. This manifestation is
therefore to be regarded by me as expressing their devotion to the Union,
the Constitution, and the liberties of the people.

You, Mr. Speaker, have well said that this is a time when the bravest and
wisest look with doubt and awe upon the aspect presented by our national
affairs. Under these circumstances you will readily see why I should not
speak in detail of the course I shall deem it best to pursue. It is
proper that I should avail myself of all the information and all the time
at my command, in order that when the time arrives in which I must speak
officially, I shall be able to take the ground which I deem best and
safest, and from which I may have no occasion to swerve. I shall endeavor
to take the ground I deem most just to the North, the East, the West, the
South, and the whole country. I shall take it, I hope, in good temper,
certainly with no malice toward any section. I shall do all that may be
in my power to promote a peaceful settlement of all our difficulties. The
man does not live who is more devoted to peace than I am, none who would
do more to preserve it, but it may be necessary to put the foot down
firmly. And if I do my duty and do right, you will sustain me, will you
not? [Loud cheers, and cries of "Yes, yes; we will."] Received as I am by
the members of a Legislature the majority of whom do not agree with me in
political sentiments, I trust that I may have their assistance in
piloting the ship of state through this voyage, surrounded by perils as
it is; for if it should suffer wreck now, there will be no pilot ever
needed for another voyage.

Gentlemen, I have already spoken longer than I intended, and must beg
leave to stop here.



REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA,

FEBRUARY 21, 1861

MR. MAYOR AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF PHILADELPHIA:--I appear before you to
make no lengthy speech, but to thank you for this reception. The
reception you have given me to-night is not to me, the man, the
individual, but to the man who temporarily represents, or should
represent, the majesty of the nation. It is true, as your worthy mayor
has said, that there is great anxiety amongst the citizens of the United
States at this time. I deem it a happy circumstance that this
dissatisfied portion of our fellow-citizens does not point us to anything
in which they are being injured or about to be injured; for which reason
I have felt all the while justified in concluding that the crisis, the
panic, the anxiety of the country at this time is artificial. If there be
those who differ with me upon this subject, they have not pointed out the
substantial difficulty that exists. I do not mean to say that an
artificial panic may not do considerable harm; that it has done such I do
not deny. The hope that has been expressed by your mayor, that I may be
able to restore peace, harmony, and prosperity to the country, is most
worthy of him; and most happy, indeed, will I be if I shall be able to
verify and fulfil that hope. I promise you that I bring to the work a
sincere heart. Whether I will bring a head equal to that heart will be
for future times to determine. It were useless for me to speak of details
of plans now; I shall speak officially next Monday week, if ever. If I
should not speak then, it were useless for me to do so now. If I do speak
then, it is useless for me to do so now. When I do speak, I shall take
such ground as I deem best calculated to restore peace, harmony, and
prosperity to the country, and tend to the perpetuity of the nation and
the liberty of these States and these people. Your worthy mayor has
expressed the wish, in which I join with him, that it were convenient for
me to remain in your city long enough to consult your merchants and
manufacturers; or, as it were, to listen to those breathings rising
within the consecrated walls wherein the Constitution of the United
States and, I will add, the Declaration of Independence, were originally
framed and adopted. I assure you and your mayor that I had hoped on this
occasion, and upon all occasions during my life, that I shall do nothing
inconsistent with the teachings of these holy and most sacred walls. I
have never asked anything that does not breathe from those walls. All my
political warfare has been in favor of the teachings that come forth from
these sacred walls. May my right hand forget its cunning and my tongue
cleave to the roof of my mouth if ever I prove false to those teachings.
Fellow-citizens, I have addressed you longer than I expected to do, and
now allow me to bid you goodnight.



ADDRESS IN THE HALL OF INDEPENDENCE, PHILADELPHIA,

FEBRUARY 22, 1861

MR. CUYLER:--I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standing
here, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, the
devotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under which we
live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task of
restoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. I can
say in return, sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain have
been drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentiments
which originated and were given to the world from this hall. I have never
had a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments
embodied in the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over
the dangers which were incurred by the men who assembled here and framed
and adopted that Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the
toils that were endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who
achieved that independence. I have often inquired of myself what great
principle or idea it was that kept the confederacy so long together. It
was not the mere matter of separation of the colonies from the
motherland, but that sentiment in the Declaration of Independence which
gave liberty, not alone to the people of this country, but, I hope, to
the world for all future time. It was that which gave promise that in due
time the weight would be lifted from the shoulders of all men. This is
the sentiment embodied in the Declaration of Independence. Now, my
friends, can the country be saved upon that basis? If it can, I will
consider myself one of the happiest men in the world if I can help to
save it. If it cannot be saved upon that principle, it will be truly
awful. But if this country cannot be saved without giving up that
principle, I was about to say I would rather be assassinated on this spot
than surrender it. Now, in my view of the present aspect of affairs,
there need be no bloodshed or war. There is no necessity for it. I am not
in favor of such a course, and I may say, in advance, that there will be
no bloodshed unless it is forced upon the Government, and then it will be
compelled to act in self-defence.

My friends; this is wholly an unexpected speech, and I did not expect to
be called upon to say a word when I came here. I supposed it was merely
to do something toward raising the flag. I may, therefore, have said
something indiscreet. I have said nothing but what I am willing to live
by and, if it be the pleasure of Almighty God, die by.



REPLY TO THE WILMINGTON DELEGATION,

FEBRUARY 22, 1861

MR. CHAIRMAN:--I feel highly flattered by the encomiums you have seen fit
to bestow upon me. Soon after the nomination of General Taylor, I
attended a political meeting in the city of Wilmington, and have since
carried with me a fond remembrance of the hospitalities of the city on
that occasion. The programme established provides for my presence in
Harrisburg in twenty-four hours from this time. I expect to be in
Washington on Saturday. It is, therefore, an impossibility that I should
accept your kind invitation. There are no people whom I would more gladly
accommodate than those of Delaware; but circumstances forbid, gentlemen.
With many regrets for the character of the reply I am compelled to give
you, I bid you adieu.



ADDRESS AT LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA,

FEBRUARY 22, 1860

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF OLD LANCASTER:--I appear not to make a speech. I
have not time to make a speech at length, and not strength to make them
on every occasion; and, worse than all, I have none to make. There is
plenty of matter to speak about in these times, but it is well known that
the more a man speaks the less he is understood--the more he says one
thing, the more his adversaries contend he meant something else. I shall
soon have occasion to speak officially, and then I will endeavor to put
my thoughts just as plain as I can express myself--true to the
Constitution and Union of all the States, and to the perpetual liberty of
all the people. Until I so speak, there is no need to enter upon details.
In conclusion, I greet you most heartily, and bid you an affectionate
farewell.



ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AT HARRISBURG,

FEBRUARY 22, 1861

MR. SPEAKER OF THE SENATE, AND ALSO MR. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OF
REPRESENTATIVES, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF
PENNSYLVANIA:--I appear before you only for a very few brief remarks in
response to what has been said to me. I thank you most sincerely for this
reception, and the generous words in which support has been promised me
upon this occasion. I thank your great commonwealth for the overwhelming
support it recently gave, not me personally, but the cause which I think
a just one, in the late election.

Allusion has been made to the fact--the interesting fact perhaps we
should say--that I for the first time appear at the capital of the great
commonwealth of Pennsylvania upon the birthday of the Father of his
Country. In connection with that beloved anniversary connected with the
history of this country, I have already gone through one exceedingly
interesting scene this morning in the ceremonies at Philadelphia. Under
the kind conduct of gentlemen there, I was for the first time allowed the
privilege of standing in old Independence Hall to have a few words
addressed to me there, and opening up to me an opportunity of manifesting
my deep regret that I had not more time to express something of my own
feelings excited by the occasion, that had been really the feelings of my
whole life.

Besides this, our friends there had provided a magnificent flag of the
country. They had arranged it so that I was given the honor of raising it
to the head of its staff, and when it went up I was pleased that it went
to its place by the strength of my own feeble arm. When, according to the
arrangement, the cord was pulled, and it floated gloriously to the wind,
without an accident, in the bright, glowing sunshine of the morning, I
could not help hoping that there was in the entire success of that
beautiful ceremony at least something of an omen of what is to come. Nor
could I help feeling then, as I have often felt, that in the whole of
that proceeding I was a very humbled instrument. I had not provided the
flag; I had not made the arrangements for elevating it to its place; I
had applied but a very small portion of even my feeble strength in
raising it. In the whole transaction I was in the hands of the people who
had arranged it, and if I can have the same generous co-operation of the
people of this nation, I think the flag of our country may yet be kept
flaunting gloriously.

I recur for a moment but to repeat some words uttered at the hotel in
regard to what has been said about the military support which the General
Government may expect from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in a proper
emergency. To guard against any possible mistake do I recur to this. It
is not with any pleasure that I contemplate the possibility that a
necessity may arise in this country for the use of the military arm.
While I am exceedingly gratified to see the manifestation upon your
streets of your military force here, and exceedingly gratified at your
promise to use that force upon a proper emergency--while I make these
acknowledgments I desire to repeat, in order to preclude any possible
misconstruction, that I do most sincerely hope that we shall have no use
for them; that it will never become their duty to shed blood, and most
especially never to shed fraternal blood. I promise that so far as I may
have wisdom to direct, if so painful a result shall in any wise be
brought about, it shall be through no fault of mine.

Allusion has also been made by one of your honored speakers to some
remarks recently made by myself at Pittsburg in regard to what is
supposed to be the especial interest of this great commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. I now wish only to say in regard to that matter, that the
few remarks which I uttered on that occasion were rather carefully
worded. I took pains that they should be so. I have seen no occasion
since to add to them or subtract from them. I leave them precisely as
they stand, adding only now that I am pleased to have an expression from
you, gentlemen of Pennsylvania, signifying that they are satisfactory to
you.

And now, gentlemen of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, allow me again to return to you my most sincere thanks.



REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF WASHINGTON, D.C.,

FEBRUARY 27, 1861

Mr. MAYOR:--I thank you, and through you the municipal authorities of
this city who accompany you, for this welcome. And as it is the first
time in my life, since the present phase of politics has presented itself
in this country, that I have said anything publicly within a region of
country where the institution of slavery exists, I will take this
occasion to say that I think very much of the ill feeling that has
existed and still exists between the people in the section from which I
came and the people here, is dependent upon a misunderstanding of one
another. I therefore avail myself of this opportunity to assure you, Mr.
Mayor, and all the gentlemen present, that I have not now, and never have
had, any other than as kindly feelings toward you as to the people of my
own section. I have not now, and never have had, any disposition to treat
you in any respect otherwise than as my own neighbors. I have not now any
purpose to withhold from you any of the benefits of the Constitution,
under any circumstances, that I would not feel myself constrained to
withhold from my own neighbors; and I hope, in a word, that when we shall
become better acquainted--and I say it with great confidence--we shall
like each other better. I thank you for the kindness of this reception.



REPLY TO A SERENADE AT WASHINGTON, D.C.,

FEBRUARY 28, 1861

MY FRIENDS:--I suppose that I may take this as a compliment paid to me,
and as such please accept my thanks for it. I have reached this city of
Washington under circumstances considerably differing from those under
which any other man has ever reached it. I am here for the purpose of
taking an official position amongst the people, almost all of whom were
politically opposed to me, and are yet opposed to me, as I suppose.

I propose no lengthy address to you. I only propose to say, as I did on
yesterday, when your worthy mayor and board of aldermen called upon me,
that I thought much of the ill feeling that has existed between you and
the people of your surroundings and that people from among whom I came,
has depended, and now depends, upon a misunderstanding.

I hope that, if things shall go along as prosperously as I believe we all
desire they may, I may have it in my power to remove something of this
misunderstanding; that I may be enabled to convince you, and the people
of your section of the country, that we regard you as in all things our
equals, and in all things entitled to the same respect and the same
treatment that we claim for ourselves; that we are in no wise disposed,
if it were in our power, to oppress you, to deprive you of any of your
rights under the Constitution of the United States, or even narrowly to
split hairs with you in regard to these rights, but are determined to
give you, as far as lies in our hands, all your rights under the
Constitution--not grudgingly, but fully and fairly. I hope that, by thus
dealing with you, we will become better acquainted, and be better
friends.

And now, my friends, with these few remarks, and again returning my
thanks for this compliment, and expressing my desire to hear a little
more of your good music, I bid you good-night.



WASHINGTON, SUNDAY, MARCH 3, 1861

[During the struggle over the appointments of LINCOLN's Cabinet, the
President-elect spoke as follows:]

Gentlemen, it is evident that some one must take the responsibility of
these appointments, and I will do it. My Cabinet is completed. The
positions are not definitely assigned, and will not be until I announce
them privately to the gentlemen whom I have selected as my Constitutional
advisers.



FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS,

MARCH 4, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES:--In compliance with a custom as old
as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and
to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the
United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the
execution of his office."

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters
of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that
by the accession of a Republican administration their property and their
peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been
any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample
evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their
inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who
now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I
declare that

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the
institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no
lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had
made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them.
And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and
as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which
I now read:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States,
and especially the right of each State to order and control its own
domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is
essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance
of our political fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by
armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what
pretext, as amongst the gravest of crimes."

I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon the
public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is
susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to
be in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too,
that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the
laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when
lawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to
another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from
service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the
Constitution as any other of its provisions:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof,
escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation
therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered
up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who
made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the
intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their
support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any
other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the
terms of this clause "shall be delivered up," their oaths are unanimous.
Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with
nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep
good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be
enforced by national or by State authority; but surely that difference is
not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of
but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done.
And should any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept
on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?

Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of
liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so
that a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it
not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of
that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of
each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens
in the several States"?

I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations, and with no
purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules.
And, while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as
proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all,
both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all
those acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trusting
to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under
our national Constitution. During that period fifteen different and
greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the
executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many
perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of
precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional
term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of
the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution,
the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not
expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe
to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic
law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express
provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure
forever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not
provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an
association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it as a
contract be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it?
One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does
it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in
legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of
the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was
formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured
and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further
matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted
and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation
in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordaining
and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."

But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the
States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the
Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can
lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that
effect are legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or
States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary
or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the
Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as
the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the
Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be
only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as
practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall
withhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct the
contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the
declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and
maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall
be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power
confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and
places belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties and
imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will
be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere.
Where hostility to the United States, in any interior locality, shall be
so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from
holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious
strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right
may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the
attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable
withal, that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such
offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of
the Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that
sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and
reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current
events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper,
and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised
according to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hope
of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of
fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the
Union at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither
affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To
those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national
fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not
be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate
a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you
fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly
to are greater than all the real ones you fly from--will you risk the
commission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can
be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in the
Constitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is so
constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think,
if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of
the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a
majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional
right, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainly
would if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the
vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to
them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the
Constitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But no
organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable
to every question which may occur in practical administration. No
foresight can anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain,
express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor
be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does
not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The
Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the
Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies,
and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority
will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease.
There is no other alternative; for continuing the Government is
acquiescence on one side or the other.

If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a
precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of
their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be
controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a
new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely
as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who
cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of
doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a
new Union as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A
majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and
always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and
sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects
it does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is
impossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly
inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or
despotism in some form is all that is left.

I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutional
questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such
decisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to
the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high
respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments
of the government. And, while it is obviously possible that such decision
may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it,
being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be
overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be
borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the
candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon
vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by
decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary
litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have
ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned
the government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in
this view any assault upon the court or the judges.  It is a duty from
which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them,
and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to
political purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to be
extended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to be
extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clause
of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave
trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a
community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the
law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal
obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think,
cannot be perfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the
separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now
imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction,
in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered,
would not be surrendered at all by the other.

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respective
sections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A
husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond
the reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do
this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either
amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to
make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after
separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can
make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than
laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always;
and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you cease
fighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are
again upon you.

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit
it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they can
exercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their
revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of
the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having
the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of
amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over
the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in
the instrument itself, and I should, under existing circumstances, favor
rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act
upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems
preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people
themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject
propositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose,
and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept
or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which
amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect
that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic
institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To
avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not
to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a
provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to
its being made express and irrevocable.

The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they
have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the
States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the
executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer
the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it,
unimpaired by him, to his successors.

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of
the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our
present differences is either party without faith of being in the right?
If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be
on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that
justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the
American people.

By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have
wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and
have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their
own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue
and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly,
can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four
years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole
subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an
object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never
take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no
good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied
still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point,
the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will
have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were
admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the
dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action.
Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who
has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust
in the best way all our present difficulty.

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the
momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can
have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no
oath registered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have
the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend" it.

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be
enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds
of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every
battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all
over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again
touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.



REFUSAL OF SEWARD RESIGNATION

TO WM. H. SEWARD.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 4, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:--Your note of the 2d instant, asking to withdraw your
acceptance of my invitation to take charge of the State Department, was
duly received. It is the subject of the most painful solicitude with me,
and I feel constrained to beg that you will countermand the withdrawal.
The public interest, I think, demands that you should; and my personal
feelings are deeply enlisted in the same direction. Please consider and
answer by 9 A.M. to-morrow.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



REPLY TO THE PENNSYLVANIA DELEGATION,

WASHINGTON, MARCH 5, 1861

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PENNSYLVANIAN DELEGATION:--As I have so
frequently said heretofore, when I have had occasion to address the
people of the Keystone, in my visits to that State, I can now but repeat
the assurance of my gratification at the support you gave me at the
election, and at the promise of a continuation of that support which is
now tendered to me.

Allusion has been made to the hope that you entertain that you have a
President and a government. In respect to that I wish to say to you that
in the position I have assumed I wish to do more than I have ever given
reason to believe I would do. I do not wish you to believe that I assume
to be any better than others who have gone before me. I prefer rather to
have it understood that if we ever have a government on the principles we
profess, we should remember, while we exercise our opinion, that others
have also rights to the exercise of their opinions, and that we should
endeavor to allow these rights, and act in such a manner as to create no
bad feeling. I hope we have a government and a President. I hope, and
wish it to be understood, that there may be no allusion to unpleasant
differences.

We must remember that the people of all the States are entitled to all
the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States. We
should bear this in mind, and act in such a way as to say nothing
insulting or irritating. I would inculcate this idea, so that we may not,
like Pharisees, set ourselves up to be better than other people.

Now, my friends, my public duties are pressing to-day, and will prevent
my giving more time to you. Indeed, I should not have left them now, but
I could not well deny myself to so large and respectable a body.



REPLY TO THE MASSACHUSETTS DELEGATION,

WASHINGTON, MARCH 5, 1861

I am thankful for this renewed assurance of kind feeling and confidence,
and the support of the old Bay State, in so far as you, Mr. Chairman,
have expressed, in behalf of those whom you represent, your sanction of
what I have enunciated in my inaugural address. This is very grateful to
my feelings. The object was one of great delicacy, in presenting views at
the opening of an administration under the peculiar circumstances
attending my entrance upon the official duties connected with the
Government. I studied all the points with great anxiety, and presented
them with whatever of ability and sense of justice I could bring to bear.
If it met the approbation of our good friends in Massachusetts, I shall
be exceedingly gratified, while I hope it will meet the approbation of
friends everywhere. I am thankful for the expressions of those who have
voted with us; and like every other man of you, I like them as certainly
as I do others. As the President in the administration of the Government,
I hope to be man enough not to know one citizen of the United States from
another, nor one section from another. I shall be gratified to have good
friends of Massachusetts and others who have thus far supported me in
these national views still to support me in carrying them out.



TO SECRETARY SEWARD

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, MARCH 7, 1861

MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is the diplomatic address and my reply. To whom
the reply should be addressed--that is, by what title or style--I do not
quite understand, and therefore I have left it blank.

Will you please bring with you to-day the message from the War
Department, with General Scott's note upon it, which we had here
yesterday? I wish to examine the General's opinion, which I have not yet
done.

Yours very truly

A. LINCOLN.



REPLY TO THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1861

Mr. FIGANIERE AND GENTLEMEN OF THE DIPLOMATIC BODY:--Please accept my
sincere thanks for your kind congratulations. It affords me pleasure to
confirm the confidence you so generously express in the friendly
disposition of the United States, through me, towards the sovereigns and
governments you respectively represent. With equal satisfaction I accept
the assurance you are pleased to give, that the same disposition is
reciprocated by your sovereigns, your governments, and yourselves.

Allow me to express the hope that these friendly relations may remain
undisturbed, and also my fervent wishes for the health and happiness of
yourselves personally.



TO SECRETARY SEWARD

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 11,1861

HON. SECRETARY OF STATE. DEAR SIR:--What think you of sending ministers
at once as follows: Dayton to England; Fremont to France; Clay to Spain;
Corwin to Mexico?

We need to have these points guarded as strongly and quickly as possible.
This is suggestion merely, and not dictation.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



TO J. COLLAMER

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 12, 1861

HON. JACOB COLLAMER. MY DEAR SIR:--God help me. It is said I have
offended you. I hope you will tell me how.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.


March 14, 1861. DEAR SIR:--I am entirely unconscious that you have any
way offended me. I cherish no sentiment towards you but that of kindness
and confidence. Your humble servant, J. COLLAMER.

 [Returned with indorsement:]

Very glad to know that I have n't.

A. LINCOLN.



TO THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 13, 1861

HON. P. M. G.

DEAR SIR:--The bearer of this, Mr. C. T. Hempstow, is a Virginian who
wishes to get, for his son, a small place in your Dept. I think Virginia
should be heard, in such cases.

LINCOLN.



NOTE ASKING CABINET OPINIONS ON FORT SUMTER.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 15, 1861

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF WAR.

MY DEAR SIR:--Assuming it to be possible to now provision Fort Sumter,
under all the circumstances is it wise to attempt it? Please give me your
opinion in writing on this question.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.

[Same to other members of the Cabinet.]



ON ROYAL ARBITRATION OF AMERICAN BOUNDARY LINE

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

The Senate has transmitted to me a copy of the message sent by my
predecessor to that body on the 21st of February last, proposing to take
its advice on the subject of a proposition made by the British Government
through its minister here to refer the matter in controversy between that
government and the Government of the United States to the arbitrament of
the King of Sweden and Norway, the King of the Netherlands, or the
Republic of the Swiss Confederation.

In that message my predecessor stated that he wished to present to the
Senate the precise questions following, namely:

"Will the Senate approve a treaty referring to either of the sovereign
powers above named the dispute now existing between the governments of
the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between
Vancouver's Island and the American continent? In case the referee shall
find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it
in the treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a
line according to the treaty as nearly as possible? Which of the three
powers named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United
States?"

I find no reason to disapprove of the course of my predecessor in this
important matter; but, on the contrary, I not only shall receive the
advice of the Senate thereon cheerfully, but I respectfully ask the
Senate for their advice on the three questions before recited.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

WASHINGTON, March 16, 1861



AMBASSADORIAL APPOINTMENTS

TO SECRETARY SEWARD.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 18, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF STATE.

MY DEAR SIR:--I believe it is a necessity with us to make the
appointments I mentioned last night--that is, Charles F. Adams to
England, William L. Dayton to France, George P. Marsh to Sardinia, and
Anson Burlingame to Austria. These gentlemen all have my highest esteem,
but no one of them is originally suggested by me except Mr. Dayton. Mr.
Adams I take because you suggested him, coupled with his eminent fitness
for the place. Mr. Marsh and Mr. Burlingame I take because of the intense
pressure of their respective States, and their fitness also.

The objection to this card is that locally they are so huddled up--three
being in New England and two from a single State. I have considered this,
and will not shrink from the responsibility. This, being done, leaves but
five full missions undisposed of--Rome, China, Brazil, Peru, and Chili.
And then what about Carl Schurz; or, in other words, what about our
German friends?

Shall we put the card through, and arrange the rest afterward? What say
you?

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



TO G. E. PATTEN.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 19, 1861.

TO MASTER GEO. EVANS PATTEN.

WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:--I did see and talk with Master Geo. Evans Patten
last May at Springfield, Ill.

Respectfully,

A. LINCOLN.

[Written because of a denial that any interview with young Patten, then a
schoolboy, had ever taken place.]



RESPONSE TO SENATE INQUIRY RE. FORT SUMTER

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:--I have received a copy of the
resolution of the Senate, passed on the 25th instant, requesting me, if
in my opinion not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate
to the Senate the despatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War
Department during the time he has been in command of Fort Sumter. On
examination of the correspondence thus called for, I have, with the
highest respect for the Senate, come to the conclusion that at the
present moment the publication of it would be inexpedient.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

WASHINGTON, MARCH 16, 1861



PREPARATION OF FIRST NAVAL ACTION

TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 29, 1861

HONORABLE SECRETARY OF WAR.

SIR:--I desire that an expedition to move by sea be got ready to sail as
early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum
attached, and that you cooperate with the Secretary of the Navy for that
object.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.

[Inclosure.]

Steamers Pocahontas at Norfolk, Paunee at Washington, Harriet Lane at New
York, to be under sailing orders for sea, with stores, etc., for one
month. Three hundred men to be kept ready for departure from on board the
receiving-ships at New York. Two hundred men to be ready to leave
Governor's Island in New York. Supplies for twelve months for one hundred
men to be put in portable shape, ready for instant shipping. A large
steamer and three tugs conditionally engaged.



TO ______ STUART.

WASHINGTON, March 30, 1861

DEAR STUART:

Cousin Lizzie shows me your letter of the 27th. The question of giving
her the Springfield post-office troubles me. You see I have already
appointed William Jayne a Territorial governor and Judge Trumbull's
brother to a land-office. Will it do for me to go on and justify the
declaration that Trumbull and I have divided out all the offices among
our relatives? Dr. Wallace, you know, is needy, and looks to me; and I
personally owe him much.

I see by the papers, a vote is to be taken as to the post-office. Could
you not set up Lizzie and beat them all? She, being here, need know
nothing of it, so therefore there would be no indelicacy on her part.

Yours as ever,



TO THE COMMANDANT OF THE NEW YORK NAVY-YARD.

NAVY DEPT., WASHINGTON, April 1, 1861

TO THE COMMANDANT OF THE NAVY-YARD, Brooklyn, N. Y.

Fit out the Powhatan to go to sea at the earnest possible moment under
sealed orders. Orders by a confidential messenger go forward to-morrow.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



TO LIEUTENANT D. D. PORTER

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1861

LIEUTENANT D. D. PORTER, United States Navy.

SIR:--You will proceed to New York, and with the least possible delay,
assuming command of any naval steamer available, proceed to Pensacola
Harbor, and at any cost or risk prevent any expedition from the mainland
reaching Fort Pickens or Santa Rosa Island.

You will exhibit this order to any naval officer at Pensacola, if you
deem it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor,
and will request co-operation by the entrance of at least one other
steamer.

This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no
person whatever until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

Recommended, WILLIAM H. SEWARD.



RELIEF EXPEDITION FOR FORT SUMTER

ORDER TO OFFICERS OF THE ARMY AND NAVY.

WASHINGTON, EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1861.

All officers of the army and navy to whom this order may be exhibited
will aid by every means in their power the expedition under the command
of Colonel Harvey Brown, supplying him with men and material, and
co-operating with him as he may desire.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



ORDER TO CAPTAIN SAMUEL MERCER.

(Confidential.)

WASHINGTON CITY, April 1, 1861

SIR:--Circumstances render it necessary to place in command of your ship
(and for a special purpose) an officer who is fully informed and
instructed in relation to the wishes of the Government, and you will
therefore consider yourself detached. But in taking this step the
Government does not in the least reflect upon your efficiency or
patriotism; on the contrary, have the fullest confidence in your ability
to perform any duty required of you. Hoping soon to be able to give you a
better command than the one you now enjoy, and trusting that you will
have full confidence in the disposition of the Government toward you, I
remain, etc.,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



SECRETARY SEWARD'S BID FOR POWER

MEMORANDUM FROM SECRETARY SEWARD, APRIL 1, 1861

Some thoughts for the President's Consideration,

First. We are at the end of a month's administration, and yet without a
policy either domestic or foreign.

Second. This, however, is not culpable, and it has even been unavoidable.
The presence of the Senate, with the need to meet applications for
patronage, have prevented attention to other and more grave matters.

Third. But further delay to adopt and prosecute our policies for both
domestic and foreign affairs would not only bring scandal on the
administration, but danger upon the country.

Fourth. To do this we must dismiss the applicants for office. But how? I
suggest that we make the local appointments forthwith, leaving foreign or
general ones for ulterior and occasional action.

Fifth. The policy at home. I am aware that my views are singular, and
perhaps not sufficiently explained. My system is built upon this idea as
a ruling one, namely, that we must CHANGE THE QUESTION BEFORE THE PUBLIC
FROM ONE UPON SLAVERY, OR ABOUT SLAVERY, for a question upon UNION OR
DISUNION: In other words, from what would be regarded as a party
question, to one of patriotism or union.

The occupation or evacuation of Fort Sumter, although not in fact a
slavery or a party question, is so regarded. Witness the temper
manifested by the Republicans in the free States, and even by the Union
men in the South.

I would therefore terminate it as a safe means for changing the issue. I
deem it fortunate that the last administration created the necessity.

For the rest, I would simultaneously defend and reinforce all the ports
in the gulf, and have the navy recalled from foreign stations to be
prepared for a blockade. Put the island of Key West under martial law.

This will raise distinctly the question of union or disunion. I would
maintain every fort and possession in the South.


FOR FOREIGN NATIONS,

I would demand explanations from Spain and France, categorically, at
once.

I would seek explanations from Great Britain and Russia, and send agents
into Canada, Mexico, and Central America to rouse a vigorous continental
spirit of independence on this continent against European intervention.

And, if satisfactory explanations are not received from Spain and France,

Would convene Congress and declare war against them.

But whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution of
it.

For this purpose it must be somebody's business to pursue and direct it
incessantly.

Either the President must do it himself, and be all the while active in
it, or Devolve it on some member of his Cabinet. Once adopted, debates on
it must end, and all agree and abide.

It is not in my especial province; But I neither seek to evade nor assume
responsibility.



REPLY TO SECRETARY SEWARD'S MEMORANDUM

EXECUTIVE MANSION, APRIL 1, 1861

HON. W. H. SEWARD.

MY DEAR SIR:--Since parting with you I have been considering your paper
dated this day, and entitled "Some Thoughts for the President's
Consideration." The first proposition in it is, "First, We are at the end
of a month's administration, and yet without a policy either domestic or
foreign."

At the beginning of that month, in the inaugural, I said: "The power
confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and
places belonging to the Government, and to Collect the duties and
imposts." This had your distinct approval at the time; and, taken in
connection with the order I immediately gave General Scott, directing him
to employ every means in his power to strengthen and hold the forts,
comprises the exact domestic policy you now urge, with the single
exception that it does not propose to abandon Fort Sumter.

Again, I do not perceive how the reinforcement of Fort Sumter would be
done on a slavery or a party issue, while that of Fort Pickens would be
on a more national and patriotic one.

The news received yesterday in regard to St. Domingo certainly brings a
new item within the range of our foreign policy; but up to that time we
have been preparing circulars and instructions to ministers and the like,
all in perfect harmony, without even a suggestion that we had no foreign
policy.

Upon your Closing propositions--that,

"Whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution of it.

"For this purpose it must be somebody's business to pursue and direct it
incessantly.

"Either the President must do it himself, and be all the while active in
it, or,

"Devolve it on some member of his Cabinet. Once adopted, debates on it
must end, and all agree and abide"--

I remark that if this must be done, I must do it. When a general line of
policy is adopted, I apprehend there is no danger of its being changed
without good reason, or continuing to be a subject of unnecessary debate;
still, upon points arising in its progress I wish, and suppose I am
entitled to have, the advice of all the Cabinet.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



REPLY TO A COMMITTEE FROM THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, APRIL 13, 1861

HON. WILLIAM BALLARD PRESTON, ALEXANDER H. H. STUART, GEORGE W. RANDOLPH,
Esq.

GENTLEMEN:--As a committee of the Virginia Convention now in Session, you
present me a preamble and resolution in these words:

"Whereas, in the opinion of this Convention, the uncertainty which
prevails in the public mind as to the policy which the Federal Executive
intends to pursue toward the seceded States is extremely injurious to the
industrial and commercial interests of the country, tends to keep up an
excitement which is unfavorable to the adjustment of pending
difficulties, and threatens a disturbance of the public peace: therefore

"Resolved, that a committee of three delegates be appointed by this
Convention to wait upon the President of the United States, present to
him this preamble and resolution, and respectfully ask him to communicate
to this Convention the policy which the Federal Executive intends to
pursue in regard to the Confederate States.

"Adopted by the Convention of the State of Virginia, Richmond, April 8,
1861."

In answer I have to say that, having at the beginning of my official term
expressed my intended policy as plainly as I was able, it is with deep
regret and some mortification I now learn that there is great and
injurious uncertainty in the public mind as to what that policy is, and
what course I intend to pursue. Not having as yet seen occasion to
change, it is now my purpose to pursue the course marked out in the
inaugural address.  I commend a careful consideration of the whole
document as the best expression I can give of my purposes.

As I then and therein said, I now repeat: "The power confided to me will
be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to
the Government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what is
necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force
against or among the people anywhere." By the words "property and places
belonging to the Government," I chiefly allude to the military posts and
property which were in the possession of the Government when it came to
my hands.

But if, as now appears to be true, in pursuit of a purpose to drive the
United States authority from these places, an unprovoked assault has been
made upon Fort Sumter, I shall hold myself at liberty to repossess, if I
can, like places which had been seized before the Government was devolved
upon me. And in every event I shall, to the extent of my ability, repel
force by force. In case it proves true that Fort Sumter has been
assaulted, as is reported, I shall perhaps cause the United States mails
to be withdrawn from all the States which claim to have seceded,
believing that the commencement of actual war against the Government
justifies and possibly demands this.

I scarcely need to say that I consider the military posts and property
situated within the States which claim to have seceded as yet belonging
to the Government of the United States as much as they did before the
supposed secession.

Whatever else I may do for the purpose, I shall not attempt to collect
the duties and imposts by any armed invasion of any part of the country;
not meaning by this, however, that I may not land a force deemed
necessary to relieve a fort upon a border of the country.

From the fact that I have quoted a part of the inaugural address, it must
not be inferred that I repudiate any other part, the whole of which I
reaffirm, except so far as what I now say of the mails may be regarded as
a modification.



PROCLAMATION CALLING FOR 75,000 MILITIA, AND CONVENING CONGRESS IN
EXTRA SESSION, APRIL 15, 1861.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation.

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and
now are opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of
South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and
Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary
course of judicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals
bylaw:

Now, therefore, I, ABRAHAM LINCOLN, President of the United States, in
virtue of the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have
thought fit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the
several States of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five
thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws
to be duly executed.

The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the State
authorities through the War Department.

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effort
to maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our National
Union, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongs
already long enough endured.

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forces
hereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, and
property which have been seized from the Union; and in every event the
utmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, to
avoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property,
or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country.

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid to
disperse and retire peacefully to their respective abodes within twenty
days from date.

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents an
extraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vested
by the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators and
Representatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respective
chambers, at twelve o'clock noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of July
next, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in their
wisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this fifteenth day of April, in the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the
independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN

By the President:
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



PROCLAMATION OF BLOCKADE, APRIL 19, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA:

A Proclamation.

Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States has
broken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United States for
the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed therein
conformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties
to be uniform throughout the United States:

And Whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection have
threatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearers
thereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of good
citizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas,
and in waters of the United States:

And Whereas an executive proclamation has been already issued requiring
the persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom,
calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, and
convening Congress in extraordinary session to deliberate and determine
thereon:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham LINCOLN, President of the United States, with
a view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection of
the public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly
citizens pursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have
assembled and deliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the
same shall have ceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a
blockade of the ports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the
laws of the United States, and of the law of nations in such case
provided. For this purpose a competent force will be posted so as to
prevent entrance and exit of vessels from the ports aforesaid. If,
therefore, with a view to violate such blockade, a vessel shall approach
or shall attempt to leave either of the said ports, she will be duly
warned by the commander of one of the blockading vessels, who will
indorse on her register the fact and date of such warning, and if the
same vessel shall again attempt to enter or leave the blockaded port, she
will be captured and sent to the nearest convenient port, for such
proceedings against her and her cargo, as prize, as may be deemed
advisable.

And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretended
authority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest a
vessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her,
such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for
the prevention and punishment of piracy.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this nineteenth day of April, in the year
of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the
independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



TO GOVERNOR HICKS AND MAYOR BROWN.

WASHINGTON, April 20, 1861
GOVERNOR HICKS AND MAYOR BROWN.

GENTLEMEN:--Your letter by Messrs. Bond, Dobbin, and Brune is received. I
tender you both my sincere thanks for your efforts to keep the peace in
the trying situation in which you are placed.

For the future troops must be brought here, but I make no point of
bringing them through Baltimore. Without any military knowledge myself,
of course I must leave details to General Scott. He hastily said this
morning in the presence of these gentlemen, "March them around Baltimore,
and not through it." I sincerely hope the General, on fuller reflection,
will consider this practical and proper, and that you will not object to
it. By this a collision of the people of Baltimore with the troops will
be avoided, unless they go out of their way to seek it. I hope you will
exert your influence to prevent this.

Now and ever I shall do all in my power for peace consistently with the
maintenance of the Government.

Your obedient servant,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



TO GOVERNOR HICKS.

WASHINGTON, April 20, 1861
GOVERNOR HICKS:

I desire to consult with you and the Mayor of Baltimore relative to
preserving the peace of Maryland. Please come immediately by special
train, which you can take at Baltimore; or, if necessary, one can be sent
from here. Answer forthwith.

LINCOLN.



ORDER TO DEFEND FROM A MARYLAND INSURRECTION

ORDER TO GENERAL SCOTT. WASHINGTON, April 25, 1861

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL SCOTT.

MY DEAR SIR--The Maryland Legislature assembles to-morrow at Annapolis,
and not improbably will take action to arm the people of that State
against the United States. The question has been submitted to and
considered by me whether it would not be justifiable, upon the ground of
necessary defense, for you, as General in Chief of the United States
Army, to arrest or disperse the members of that body. I think it would
not be justifiable nor efficient for the desired object.

First. They have a clearly legal right to assemble, and we cannot know in
advance that their action will not be lawful and peaceful, and if we wait
until they shall have acted their arrest or dispersion will not lessen
the effect of their action.

Secondly. We cannot permanently prevent their action.  If we arrest them,
we cannot long hold them as prisoners, and when liberated they will
immediately reassemble and take their action; and precisely the same if
we simply disperse them--they will immediately reassemble in some other
place.

I therefore conclude that it is only left to the Commanding General to
watch and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their people
against the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt and efficient
means to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of their
cities and, in the extremist necessity, the suspension of the writ of
habeas corpus.

Your obedient servant,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



PROCLAMATION OF BLOCKADE, APRIL 27, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, for the reasons assigned in my proclamation of the nineteenth
instant, a blockade of the ports of the States of South Carolina,
Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas was ordered
to be established:

And whereas, since that date, public property of the United States has
been seized, the collection of the revenue obstructed, and duly
commissioned officers of the United States, while engaged in executing
the orders of their superiors, have been arrested and held in custody as
prisoners, or have been impeded in the discharge of their official
duties, without due legal process, by persons claiming to act under
authorities of the States of Virginia and North Carolina:

An efficient blockade of the ports of those States will also be
established.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the
United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this twenty seventh day of April, in the
year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of the
independence of the United States the eighty-fifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



REMARKS TO A MILITARY COMPANY, WASHINGTON,
APRIL 27, 1861

I have desired as sincerely as any man, and I sometimes think more than
any other man, that our present difficulties might be settled without the
shedding of blood. I will not say that all hope has yet gone; but if the
alternative is presented whether the Union is to be broken in fragments
and the liberties of the people lost, or blood be shed, you will probably
make the choice with which I shall not be dissatisfied.



LOCALIZED REPEAL OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

TO GENERAL SCOTT.

TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL, ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES.

You are engaged in suppressing an insurrection against the laws of the
United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of any military line
which is now or which shall be used between the City of Philadelphia and
the city of Washington you find resistance which renders it necessary to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally,
or through the officer in command at the point at which resistance
occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

WASHINGTON, April 17, 1861



MILITARY ENROLLMENT OF ST. LOUIS CITIZENS

FROM THE SECRETARY OF WAR WAR DEPARTMENT, April 30, 1861

TO CAPTAIN NATHANIEL LYON.

CAPT. NATHANIEL LYON, Commanding Department of the West.

SIR:--The President of the United States directs that you enroll in the
military service of the United States the loyal citizens of Saint Louis
and vicinity, not exceeding, with those heretofore enlisted, ten thousand
in number, for the purpose of maintaining the authority of the United
States; for the protection of the peaceful inhabitants of Missouri; and
you will, if deemed necessary for that purpose by yourself, by Messrs.
Oliver F. Ferny, John How, James O. Broadhead, Samuel T. Glover, J.
Wilzie, Francis P. Blair, Jr., proclaim martial law in the city of Saint
Louis.

The additional force hereby authorized shall be discharged in part or in
whole, if enlisted. As soon as it appears to you and the gentlemen above
mentioned that there is no danger of an attempt on the part of the
enemies of the Government to take military possession of the city of
Saint Louis, or put the city in control of the combination against the
Government of the United States; and whilst such additional force remains
in the service the same shall be governed by the Rules and Articles of
War, and such special regulations as you may prescribe. I shall like the
force hereafter directed to be enrolled to be under your command.

The arms and other military stores in the Saint Louis Arsenal not needed
for the forces of the United States in Missouri must be removed to
Springfield, or some other safe place of deposit in the State of
Illinois, as speedily as practicable, by the ordnance officers in charge
at Saint Louis.

(Indorsement.)

It is revolutionary times, and therefore I do not object to the
irregularity of this. W. S.

Approved, April 30, 1861.

A. LINCOLN.

Colonel Thomas will make this order.
SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War.



CONDOLENCE OVER FAILURE OF FT. SUMTER RELIEF

TO GUSTAVUS V. FOX.

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 1, 1861

CAPTAIN G. V. Fox.

MY DEAR SIR:--I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt to
provision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you.

The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. By
reason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible and not
improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the
ground; while, by an accident for which you were in no wise responsible,
and possibly I to some extent was, you were deprived of a war vessel,
with her men, which you deemed of great importance to the enterprise.

I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the undertaking
has not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in the
effort have greatly heightened you in my estimation.

For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character you would
to-day be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and I
both anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by
making the attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and
it is no small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified
by the result.

Very truly your friend,

A. LINCOLN.



PROCLAMATION CALLING FOR 42,034 VOLUNTEERS,

MAY 3, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.

A Proclamation..

Whereas existing exigencies demand immediate and adequate measures for
the protection of the National Constitution and the preservation of the
National Union by the suppression of the insurrectionary combinations now
existing in several States for opposing the laws of the Union and
obstructing the execution thereof, to which end a military force in
addition to that called forth by my proclamation of the 15th day of April
in the present year appears to be indispensably necessary:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States and
Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy thereof and of the militia of the
several States when called into actual service, do hereby call into the
service of the United States 42,034 volunteers to serve for the period of
three years, unless sooner discharged, and to be mustered into service as
infantry and cavalry. The proportions of each arm and the details of
enrollment and organization will be made known through the Department of
War.

And I also direct that the Regular Army of the United States be increased
by the addition of eight regiments of infantry, one regiment of cavalry,
and one regiment of artillery, making altogether a maximum aggregate
increase of 22,714 officers and enlisted men, the details of which
increase will also be made known through the Department of War.

And I further direct the enlistment for not less than one or more than
three years of 18,000 seamen, in addition to the present force, for the
naval service of the United States. The details of the enlistment and
organization will be made known through the Department of the Navy.

The call for volunteers hereby made and the direction for the increase of
the Regular Army and for the enlistment of seamen hereby given, together
with the plan of organization adopted for the volunteer and for the
regular forces hereby authorized, will be submitted to Congress as soon
as assembled.

In the meantime I earnestly invoke the co-operation of all good citizens
in the measures hereby adopted for the effectual suppression of unlawful
violence, for the impartial enforcement of constitutional laws, and for
the speediest possible restoration of peace and order, and with these of
happiness and prosperity, throughout our country.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my band and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed................

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



COMMUNICATION WITH VICE-PRESIDENT

TO VICE-PRESIDENT HAMLIN.

WASHINGTON, D.C., May 6, 1861

HON. H. HAMLIN, New York.

MY DEAR SIR:-Please advise me at the close of each day what troops left
during the day, where going, and by what route; what remaining at New
York, and what expected in the next day. Give the numbers, as near as
convenient, and what corps they are. This information, reaching us daily,
will be very useful as well as satisfactory.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



ORDER TO COLONEL ANDERSON,

MAY 7, 1861

TO ALL WHO SHALL SEE THESE PRESENTS, GREETING:

Know ye that, reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism,
valor, fidelity, and ability of Colonel Robert Anderson, U. S. Army, I
have empowered him, and do hereby empower him, to receive into the army
of the United States as many regiments of volunteer troops from the State
of Kentucky and from the western part of the State of Virginia as shall
be willing to engage in the Service of the United States for the term of
three years, upon the terms and according to the plan proposed by the
proclamation of May 3, 1861, and General Orders No.  15, from the War
Department, of May 4, 1861.

The troops whom he receives shall be on the same footing in every respect
as those of the like kind called for in the proclamation above cited,
except that the officers shall be commissioned by the United States. He
is therefore carefully and diligently to discharge the duty hereby
devolved upon him by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto
belonging.

Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 7th day of May, A.
D. 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the independence of the United
States.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
 SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War,



PROCLAMATION SUSPENDING THE WRIT OF HABEAS
CORPUS IN FLORIDA, MAY 10, 1861.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA:

A Proclamation.

Whereas an insurrection exists in the State of Florida, by which the
lives, liberty, and property of loyal citizens of the United States are
endangered:

And whereas it is deemed proper that all needful measures should be taken
for the protection of such citizens and all officers of the United States
in the discharge of their public duties in the State aforesaid:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham LINCOLN, President of the
United States, do hereby direct the commander of the forces of the United
States on the Florida coast to permit no person to exercise any office or
authority upon the islands of Key West, the Tortugas, and Santa Rosa,
which may be inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of the United
States, authorizing him at the same time, if he shall find it necessary,
to suspend there the writ of habeas corpus, and to remove from the
vicinity of the United States fortresses all dangerous or suspected
persons.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.....................

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



TO SECRETARY WELLES.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 11, 1861

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY.

SIR:-Lieut. D. D. Porter was placed in command of the steamer Powhatan,
and Captain Samuel Mercer was detached therefrom, by my special order,
and neither of them is responsible for any apparent or real irregularity
on their part or in connection with that vessel.

Hereafter Captain Porter is relieved from that special service and placed
under the direction of the Navy Department, from which he will receive
instructions and to which he will report.

Very respectfully,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CORRECTIONS OF A DIPLOMATIC DESPATCH WRITTEN BY
THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO MINISTER ADAMS

NO. 10.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE. WASHINGTON, May 21, 1861

SIR:---Mr. Dallas, in a brief despatch of May 2d (No. 333), tells us that
Lord John Russell recently requested an interview with him on account of
the solicitude which his lordship felt concerning the effect of certain
measures represented as likely to be adopted by the President. In that
conversation the British secretary told Mr. Dallas that the three
representatives of the Southern Confederacy were then in London, that
Lord John Russell had not yet seen them, but that he was not unwilling to
see them unofficially. He further informed Mr. Dallas that an
understanding exists between the British and French governments which
would lead both to take one and the same course as to recognition. His
lordship then referred to the rumor of a meditated blockade by us of
Southern ports, and a discontinuance of them as ports of entry. Mr.
Dallas answered that he knew nothing on those topics, and therefore

   (The President's corrections, both in notes and text, are in
   caps. All matter between brackets was to be marked out.)

could say nothing. He added that you were expected to arrive in two
weeks. Upon this statement Lord John Russell acquiesced in the expediency
of waiting for the full knowledge you were expected to bring.

Mr. Dallas transmitted to us some newspaper reports of ministerial
explanations made in Parliament.

You will base no proceedings on parliamentary debates further than to
seek explanations when necessary and communicate them to this department.
[We intend to have a clear and simple record of whatever issue may arise
between us and Great Britain.]

The President [is surprised and grieved] regrets that Mr. Dallas did not
protest against the proposed unofficial intercourse between the British
Government and the missionaries of the insurgents [as well as against the
demand for explanations made by the British Government]. It is due,
however, to Mr. Dallas to say that our instructions had been given only
to you and not to him, and that his loyalty and fidelity, too rare in
these times [among our late representatives abroad, are confessed and]
are appreciated.

Intercourse of any kind with the so-called commissioners is liable to be
construed as a recognition of the authority which appointed them. Such
intercourse would be none the less [wrongful] hurtful to us for being
called unofficial, and it might be even more injurious, because we should
have no means of knowing what points might be resolved by it. Moreover,
unofficial intercourse is useless and meaningless if it is not expected
to ripen into official intercourse and direct recognition. It is left
doubtful here whether the proposed unofficial intercourse has yet
actually begun. Your own [present] antecedent instructions are deemed
explicit enough, and it is hoped that you have not misunderstood them.
You will in any event desist from all intercourse whatever, unofficial as
well as official, with the British Government, so long as it shall
continue intercourse of either kind with the domestic enemies of this
country [confining yourself to a delivery of a copy of this paper to the
Secretary of State. After doing this.] When intercourse shall have been
arrested for this cause, you will communicate with this department and
receive further directions.

Lord John Russell has informed us of an understanding between the British
and French governments that they will act together in regard to our
affairs. This communication, however, loses something of its value from
the circumstance that the communication was withheld until after
knowledge of the fact had been acquired by us from other sources. We know
also another fact that has not yet been officially communicated to
us--namely, that other European States are apprised by France and England
of their agreement, and are expected to concur with or follow them in
whatever measures they adopt on the subject of recognition. The United
States have been impartial and just in all their conduct toward the
several nations of Europe. They will not complain, however, of the
combination now announced by the two leading powers, although they think
they had a right to expect a more independent, if not a more friendly,
course from each of them. You will take no notice of that or any other
alliance. Whenever the European governments shall see fit to communicate
directly with us, we shall be, as heretofore, frank and explicit in our
reply.

As to the blockade, you will say that by [the] our own laws [of nature]
and the laws of nature and the laws of nations, this Government has a
clear right to suppress insurrection. An exclusion of commerce from
national ports which have been seized by the insurgents, in the equitable
form of blockade, is the proper means to that end. You will [admit] not
insist that our blockade is [not] to be respected if it be not maintained
by a competent force; but passing by that question as not now a
practical, or at least an urgent, one, you will add that [it] the
blockade is now, and it will continue to be so maintained, and therefore
we expect it to be respected by Great Britain. You will add that we have
already revoked the exequatur of a Russian consul who had enlisted in the
military service of the insurgents, and we shall dismiss or demand the
recall of every foreign agent, consular or diplomatic, who shall either
disobey the Federal laws or disown the Federal authority.

As to the recognition of the so-called Southern Confederacy, it is not to
be made a subject of technical definition. It is, of course, [quasi]
direct recognition to publish an acknowledgment of the sovereignty and
independence of a new power. It is [quasi] direct recognition to receive
its ambassadors, ministers, agents, or commissioners officially. A
concession of belligerent rights is liable to be construed as a
recognition of them. No one of these proceedings will [be borne] pass
[unnoticed] unquestioned by the United States in this case.

Hitherto recognition has been moved only on the assumption that the
so-called Confederate States are de facto a self-sustaining power. Now,
after long forbearance, designed to soothe discontent and avert the need
of civil war, the land and naval forces of the United States have been
put in motion to repress the insurrection. The true character of the
pretended new State is at once revealed. It is seen to be a power
existing in pronunciamento only, It has never won a field. It has
obtained no forts that were not virtually betrayed into its hands or
seized in breach of trust. It commands not a single port on the coast nor
any highway out from its pretended capital by land. Under these
circumstances Great Britain is called upon to intervene and give it body
and independence by resisting our measures of suppression. British
recognition would be British intervention to create within our own
territory a hostile state by overthrowing this republic itself. [When
this act of intervention is distinctly performed, we from that hour shall
cease to be friends, and become once more, as we have twice before been
forced to be, enemies of Great Britain.]

As to the treatment of privateers in the insurgent service, you will say
that this is a question exclusively our own. We treat them as pirates.
They are our own citizens, or persons employed by our citizens, preying
on the commerce of our country. If Great Britain shall choose to
recognize them as lawful belligerents, and give them shelter from our
pursuit and punishment, the laws of nations afford an adequate and proper
remedy [and we shall avail ourselves of it. And while you need not say
this in advance, be sure that you say nothing inconsistent with it.]

Happily, however, her Britannic Majesty's government can avoid all these
difficulties. It invited us in 1856 to accede to the declaration of the
Congress of Paris, of which body Great Britain was herself a member,
abolishing privateering everywhere in all cases and forever. You already
have our authority to propose to her our accession to that declaration.
If she refuse to receive it, it can only be because she is willing to
become the patron of privateering when aimed at our devastation.

These positions are not elaborately defended now, because to vindicate
them would imply a possibility of our waiving them.

1 We are not insensible of the grave importance of

1 (Drop all from this line to the end, and in lieu of it write, "This
paper is for your own guidance only, and not [sic] to be read or shown to
any one.")

(Secretary Seward, when the despatch was returned to him, added an
introductory paragraph stating that the document was strictly
confidential. For this reason these last two paragraphs remained as they
are here printed.)

this occasion. We see how, upon the result of the debate in which we are
engaged, a war may ensue between the United States and one, two, or even
more European nations. War in any case is as exceptionable from the
habits as it is revolting from the sentiments of the American people. But
if it come, it will be fully seen that it results from the action of
Great Britain, not our own; that Great Britain will have decided to
fraternize with our domestic enemy, either without waiting to hear from
you our remonstrances and our warnings, or after having heard them. War
in defense of national life is not immoral, and war in defense of
independence is an inevitable part of the discipline of nations.

The dispute will be between the European and the American branches of the
British race. All who belong to that race will especially deprecate it,
as they ought. It may well be believed that men of every race and kindred
will deplore it. A war not unlike it between the same parties occurred at
the close of the last century. Europe atoned by forty years of suffering
for the error that Great Britain committed in provoking that contest. If
that nation shall now repeat the same great error, the social convulsions
which will follow may not be so long, but they will be more general. When
they shall have ceased, it will, we think, be seen, whatever may have
been the fortunes of other nations, that it is not the United States that
will have come out of them with its precious Constitution altered or its
honestly obtained dominion in any degree abridged. Great Britain has but
to wait a few months and all her present inconveniences will cease with
all our own troubles. If she take a different course, she will calculate
for herself the ultimate as well as the immediate consequences, and will
consider what position she will hold when she shall have forever lost the
sympathies and the affections of the only nation on whose sympathies and
affections she has a natural claim. In making that calculation she will
do well to remember that in the controversy she proposes to open we shall
be actuated by neither pride, nor passion, nor cupidity, nor ambition;
but we shall stand simply on the principle of self-preservation, and that
our cause will involve the independence of nations and the rights of
human nature.

I am, Sir, respectfully your obedient servant, W. H. S.

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq., etc,



TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR,

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 21, 1861.

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. MY DEAR SIR:--Why cannot Colonel Small's
Philadelphia regiment be received? I sincerely wish it could. There is
something strange about it. Give these gentlemen an interview, and take
their regiment.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO GOVERNOR MORGAN.

WASHINGTON, May 12, 1861

GOVERNOR E. D. MORGAN, Albany, N.Y.

I wish to see you face to face to clear these difficulties about
forwarding troops from New York.

A. LINCOLN.



TO CAPTAIN DAHLGREEN.

EXECUTIVE, MANSION, May 23, 1863.

CAPT. DAHLGREEN.

MY DEAR SIR:--Allow me to introduce Col. J. A. McLernand, M.C. of my own
district in Illinois. If he should desire to visit Fortress Monroe,
please introduce him to the captain of one of the vessels in our service,
and pass him down and back.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



LETTER OF CONDOLENCE TO ONE OF FIRST CASUALTIES

TO COLONEL ELLSWORTH'S PARENTS, WASHINGTON, D.C., May 25, 1861

TO THE FATHER AND MOTHER OF COL. ELMER E. ELLSWORTH.

MY DEAR SIR AND MADAME:--In the untimely loss of your noble son, our
affliction here is scarcely less than your own. So much of promised
usefulness to one's country, and of bright hopes for one's self and
friends, have never been so suddenly dashed as in his fall. In size, in
years, and in youthful appearance a boy only, his power to command men
was surpassingly great.  This power, combined with a fine intellectual
and indomitable energy, and a taste altogether military, constituted in
him, as seemed to me, the best natural talent in that department I ever
knew. And yet he was singularly modest and deferential in social
intercourse. My acquaintance with him began less than two years ago; yet,
through the latter half of the intervening period, it was as intense as
the disparity of our ages and my engrossing engagements would permit. To
me he appeared to have no indulgences or pastimes, and I never heard him
utter a profane or an intemperate word. What was conclusive of his good
heart, he never forgot his parents. The honors he labored for so
laudably, and for which, in the sad end, he so gallantly gave his life,
he meant for them no less than for himself.

In the hope that it may be no intrusion upon the sacredness of your
sorrow, I have ventured to address you this tribute to the memory of my
young friend and your brave and early fallen son.

May God give you the consolation which is beyond all early power.

Sincerely your friend in common affliction,

A. LINCOLN.



TO COLONEL BARTLETT.

WASHINGTON, May 27, 1861

COL. W. A. BARTLETT, New York.

The Naval Brigade was to go to Fort Monroe without trouble to the
government, and must so go or not at all.

A. LINCOLN.



MEMORANDUM ABOUT INDIANA REGIMENTS.

WASHINGTON, JUNE 11, 1861

 The government has already accepted ten regiments from the State of
Indiana. I think at least six more ought to be received from that
State, two to be those of Colonel James W. McMillan and Colonel
William L. Brown, and the other four to be designated by the Governor
of the State of Indiana, and to be received into the volunteer
service of the United States according to the "Plan of Organization"
in the General Orders of the War Department, No.15. When they report
to Major-General McClellan in condition to pass muster according to
that order, and with the approval of the Secretary of War to be
indorsed hereon, and left in his department, I direct that the whole
six, or any smaller number of such regiments, be received.

A. LINCOLN.



TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, JUNE 13, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.

MY DEAR SIR:--There is, it seems, a regiment in Massachusetts commanded
by Fletcher Webster, and which HON. Daniel Webster's old friends very
much wish to get into the service. If it can be received with the
approval of your department and the consent of the Governor of
Massachusetts I shall indeed be much gratified. Give Mr. Ashmun a chance
to explain fully.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, JUNE 13, 1861
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.

MY DEAR SIR--I think it is entirely safe to accept a fifth regiment from
Michigan, and with your approbation I should say a regiment presented by
Col. T. B. W. Stockton, ready for service within two weeks from now, will
be received. Look at Colonel Stockton's testimonials.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 17, 1861

HON. SECRETARY Of WAR.

MY DEAR SIR:--With your concurrence, and that of the Governor of Indiana,
I am in favor of accepting into what we call the three years' service any
number not exceeding four additional regiments from that State. Probably
they should come from the triangular region between the Ohio and Wabash
Rivers, including my own old boyhood home. Please see HON. C. M. Allen,
Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives, and unless you perceive
good reason to the contrary, draw up an order for him according to the
above.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, JUNE 17,1861

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. MY DEAR SIR:--With your concurrence, and that of
the Governor of Ohio, I am in favor of receiving into what we call the
three years' service any number not exceeding six additional regiments
from that State, unless you perceive good reasons to the contrary. Please
see HON. John A. Gurley, who bears this, and make an order corresponding
with the above.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO N. W. EDWARDS

WASHINGTON, D. C., June 19, 1861

Hon. N. W. EDWARDS MY DEAR SIR: ............. ............. When you
wrote me some time ago in reference to looking up something in the
departments here, I thought I would inquire into the thing and write you,
but the extraordinary pressure upon me diverted me from it, and soon it
passed out of my mind. The thing you proposed, it seemed to me, I ought
to understand myself before it was set on foot by my direction or
permission; and I really had no time to make myself acquainted with it.
Nor have I yet. And yet I am unwilling, of course, that you should be
deprived of a chance to make something, if it can be done without
injustice to the Government, or to any individual. If you choose to come
here and point out to me how this can be done I shall not only not
object, but shall be gratified to be able to oblige you.

Your friend as ever

A. LINCOLN.



TO SECRETARY CAMERON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 20, 1861.

MY DEAR SIR:--Since you spoke to me yesterday about General J. H. Lane,
of Kansas, I have been reflecting upon the subject, and have concluded
that we need the service of such a man out there at once; that we had
better appoint him a brigadier-general of volunteers to-day, and send him
off with such authority to raise a force (I think two regiments better
than three, but as to this I am not particular) as you think will get him
into actual work quickest. Tell him, when he starts, to put it through
not to be writing or telegraphing back here, but put it through.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.

[Indorsement.]

General Lane has been authorized to raise two additional regiments of
volunteers.

SIMON CAMERON, Secretary o f War.



TO THE KENTUCKY DELEGATION.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 29, 1861.
GENTLEMEN OF THE KENTUCKY DELEGATION WHO ARE FOR THE UNION:

I somewhat wish to authorize my friend Jesse Bayles to raise a Kentucky
regiment, but I do not wish to do it without your consent. If you
consent, please write so at the bottom of this.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.

   We consent:
   R. MALLORY.
   H. GRIDER.
   G. W. DUNLAP.
   J. S. JACKSON.
   C. A. WICKLIFFE.



August 5, 1861.

I repeat, I would like for Col. Bayles to raise a regiment of cavalry
whenever the Union men of Kentucky desire or consent to it.

A. LINCOLN.



ORDER AUTHORIZING GENERAL SCOTT TO SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,
JULY 2, 1861

TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL, ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES:

You are engaged in suppressing an insurrection against the laws of the
United States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of any military line
which is now or which shall be used between the city of New York and the
city of Washington you find resistance which renders it necessary to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally,
or through the officer in command at the point where resistance occurs,
are authorized to suspend that writ.

Given under my hand and the seal of the United States at the city of
Washington, this second day of July, A.D. 1861, and of the independence
of the United States the eighty-fifth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
 WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



TO SECRETARY SEWARD.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, JULY 3, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF STATE.

MY DEAR SIR:--General Scott had sent me a copy of the despatch of which
you kindly sent one. Thanks to both him and you. Please assemble the
Cabinet at twelve to-day to look over the message and reports.

And now, suppose you step over at once and let us see General Scott (and)
General Cameron about assigning a position to General Fremont.

Yours as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IN SPECIAL SESSION,

JULY 4, 1861.

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:--Having been
convened on an extraordinary occasion, as authorized by the Constitution,
your attention is not called to any ordinary subject of legislation.

At the beginning of the present Presidential term, four months ago, the
functions of the Federal Government were found to be generally suspended
within the several States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, excepting only those of the
Post-Office Department.

Within these States all the forts, arsenals, dockyards, custom-houses,
and the like, including the movable and stationary property in and about
them, had been seized, and were held in open hostility to this
government, excepting only Forts Pickens, Taylor, and Jefferson, on and
near the Florida coast, and Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, South
Carolina. The forts thus seized had been put in improved condition, new
ones had been built, and armed forces had been organized and were
organizing, all avowedly with the same hostile purpose.

The forts remaining in the possession of the Federal Government in and
near these States were either besieged or menaced by warlike
preparations, and especially Fort Sumter was nearly surrounded by
well-protected hostile batteries, with guns equal in quality to the best
of its own, and outnumbering the latter as perhaps ten to one. A
disproportionate share of the Federal muskets and rifles had somehow
found their way into these States, and had been seized to be used against
the government. Accumulations of the public revenue lying within them had
been seized for the same object. The navy was scattered in distant seas,
leaving but a very small part of it within the immediate reach of the
government. Officers of the Federal army and navy had resigned in great
numbers; and of those resigning a large proportion had taken up arms
against the government. Simultaneously, and in connection with all this,
the purpose to sever the Federal Union was openly avowed. In accordance
with this purpose, an ordinance had been adopted in each of these States,
declaring the States respectively to be separated from the national
Union. A formula for instituting a combined government of these States
had been promulgated; and this illegal organization, in the character of
confederate States, was already invoking recognition, aid, and
intervention from foreign powers.

Finding this condition of things, and believing it to be an imperative
duty upon the incoming executive to prevent, if possible, the
consummation of such attempt to destroy the Federal Union, a choice of
means to that end became indispensable. This choice was made and was
declared in the inaugural address. The policy chosen looked to the
exhaustion of all peaceful measures before a resort to any stronger ones.
It sought only to hold the public places and property not already wrested
from the government, and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on
time, discussion, and the ballot-box. It promised a continuance of the
mails, at government expense, to the very people who were resisting the
government; and it gave repeated pledges against any disturbance to any
of the people, or any of their rights. Of all that which a President
might constitutionally and justifiably do in such a case, everything was
forborne without which it was believed possible to keep the government on
foot.

On the 5th of March (the present incumbent's first full day in office), a
letter of Major Anderson, commanding at Fort Sumter, written on the 28th
of February and received at the War Department on the 4th of March, was
by that department placed in his hands. This letter expressed the
professional opinion of the writer that reinforcements could not be
thrown into that fort within the time for his relief, rendered necessary
by the limited supply of provisions, and with a view of holding
possession of the same, with a force of less than twenty thousand good
and well-disciplined men. This opinion was concurred in by all the
officers of his command, and their memoranda on the subject were made
inclosures of Major Anderson's letter. The whole was immediately laid
before Lieutenant-General Scott, who at once concurred with Major
Anderson in opinion. On reflection, however, he took full time,
consulting with other officers, both of the army and the navy, and at the
end of four days came reluctantly but decidedly to the same conclusion as
before. He also stated at the same time that no such sufficient force was
then at the control of the government, or could be raised and brought to
the ground within the time when the provisions in the fort would be
exhausted. In a purely military point of view, this reduced the duty of
the administration in the case to the mere matter of getting the garrison
safely out of the fort.

It was believed, however, that to so abandon that position, under the
circumstances, would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity under which
it was to be done would not be fully understood; that by many it would be
construed as a part of a voluntary policy; that at home it would
discourage the friends of the Union, embolden its adversaries, and go far
to insure to the latter a recognition abroad; that in fact, it would be
our national destruction consummated. This could not be allowed.
Starvation was not yet upon the garrison, and ere it would be reached
Fort Pickens might be reinforced. This last would be a clear indication
of policy, and would better enable the country to accept the evacuation
of Fort Sumter as a military necessity. An order was at once directed to
be sent for the landing of the troops from the steamship Brooklyn into
Fort Pickens. This order could not go by land, but must take the longer
and slower route by sea. The first return news from the order was
received just one week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The news itself
was that the officer commanding the Sabine, to which vessel the troops
had been transferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi armistice
of the late administration (and of the existence of which the present
administration, up to the time the order was despatched, had only too
vague and uncertain rumors to fix attention), had refused to land the
troops. To now reinforce Fort Pickens before a crisis would be reached at
Fort Sumter was impossible--rendered so by the near exhaustion of
provisions in the latter-named fort. In precaution against such a
conjuncture, the government had, a few days before, commenced preparing
an expedition as well adapted as might be to relieve Fort Sumter, which
expedition was intended to be ultimately used, or not, according to
circumstances. The strongest anticipated case for using it was now
presented, and it was resolved to send it forward. As had been intended
in this contingency, it was also resolved to notify the governor of South
Carolina that he might expect an attempt would be made to provision the
fort; and that, if the attempt should not be resisted, there would be no
effort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, without further notice, or
in case of an attack upon the fort. This notice was accordingly given;
whereupon the fort was attacked and bombarded to its fall, without even
awaiting the arrival of the provisioning expedition.

It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter was in
no sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the assailants. They
well knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commit
aggression upon them. They knew--they were expressly notified--that the
giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was all
which would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by
resisting so much, should provoke more. They knew that this government
desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely
to maintain visible possession, and thus to preserve the Union from
actual and immediate dissolution--trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to
time, discussion, and the ballot-box for final adjustment; and they
assailed and reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object--to drive
out the visible authority of the Federal Union, and thus force it to
immediate dissolution. That this was their object the executive well
understood; and having said to them in the inaugural address, "You can
have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors," he took pains
not only to keep this declaration good, but also to keep the case so free
from the power of ingenious sophistry that the world should not be able
to misunderstand it. By the affair at Fort Sumter, with its surrounding
circumstances, that point was reached. Then and thereby the assailants of
the government began the conflict of arms, without a gun in sight or in
expectancy to return their fire, save only the few in the fort sent to
that harbor years before for their own protection, and still ready to
give that protection in whatever was lawful. In this act, discarding all
else, they have forced upon the country the distinct issue, "immediate
dissolution or blood."

And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. It
presents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutional
republic or democracy--a government of the people by the same people--can
or cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domestic
foes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too few
in numbers to control administration according to organic law in any
case, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any other
pretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their
government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the
earth. It forces us to ask: Is there in all republics this inherent and
fatal weakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the
liberties of its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?

So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power of
the government, and so to resist force employed for its destruction by
force for its preservation.

The call was made, and the response of the country was most gratifying,
surpassing in unanimity and spirit the most sanguine expectation. Yet
none of the States commonly called slave States, except Delaware, gave a
regiment through regular State organization. A few regiments have been
organized within some others of those States by individual enterprise,
and received into the government service. Of course the seceded States,
so called (and to which Texas had been joined about the time of the
inauguration), gave no troops to the cause of the Union.

The border States, so called, were not uniform in their action, some of
them being almost for the Union, while in others--as Virginia, North
Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas--the Union sentiment was nearly
repressed and silenced. The course taken in Virginia was the most
remarkable--perhaps the most important. A convention elected by the
people of that State to consider this very question of disrupting the
Federal Union was in session at the capital of Virginia when Fort Sumter
fell. To this body the people had chosen a large majority of professed
Union men. Almost immediately after the fall of Sumter, many members of
that majority went over to the original disunion minority, and with them
adopted an ordinance for withdrawing the State from the Union. Whether
this change was wrought by their great approval of the assault upon
Sumter, or their great resentment at the government's resistance to that
assault, is not definitely known. Although they submitted the ordinance
for ratification to a vote of the people, to be taken on a day then
somewhat more than a month distant, the convention and the Legislature
(which was also in session at the same time and place), with leading men
of the State not members of either, immediately commenced acting as if
the State were already out of the Union. They pushed military
preparations vigorously forward all over the State. They seized the
United States armory at Harper's Ferry, and the navy-yard at Gosport,
near Norfolk. They received perhaps invited--into their State large
bodies of troops, with their warlike appointments, from the so-called
seceded States. They formally entered into a treaty of temporary alliance
and co-operation with the so-called "Confederate States," and sent
members to their congress at Montgomery. And finally, they permitted the
insurrectionary government to be transferred to their capital at
Richmond.

The people of Virginia have thus allowed this giant insurrection to make
its nest within her borders; and this government has no choice left but
to deal with it where it finds it. And it has the less regret as the
loyal citizens have, in due form, claimed its protection. Those loyal
citizens this government is bound to recognize and protect, as being
Virginia.

In the border States, so called,--in fact, the middle States,--there are
those who favor a policy which they call "armed neutrality"; that is, an
arming of those States to prevent the Union forces passing one way, or
the disunion the other, over their soil. This would be disunion
completed. Figuratively speaking, it would be the building of an
impassable wall along the line of separation--and yet not quite an
impassable one, for under the guise of neutrality it would tie the hands
of Union men and freely pass supplies from among them to the
insurrectionists, which it could not do as an open enemy. At a stroke it
would take all the trouble off the hands of secession, except only what
proceeds from the external blockade. It would do for the disunionists
that which, of all things, they most desire--feed them well and give them
disunion without a struggle of their own. It recognizes no fidelity to
the Constitution, no obligation to maintain the Union; and while very
many who have favored it are doubtless loyal citizens, it is,
nevertheless, very injurious in effect.

Recurring to the action of the government, it may be stated that at first
a call was made for 75,000 militia; and, rapidly following this, a
proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insurrectionary
districts by proceedings in the nature of blockade. So far all was
believed to be strictly legal. At this point the insurrectionists
announced their purpose to enter upon the practice of privateering.

Other calls were made for volunteers to serve for three years, unless
sooner discharged, and also for large additions to the regular army and
navy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured upon,
under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity;
trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily ratify them. It is
believed that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional competency
of Congress.

Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty to
authorize the commanding general in proper cases, according to his
discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in
other words, to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary
processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous
to the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but
very sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been
done under it are questioned, and the attention of the country has been
called to the proposition that one who has sworn to "take care that the
laws be faithfully executed" should not himself violate them. Of course
some consideration was given to the questions of power and propriety
before this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were
required to be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of
execution in nearly one third of the States. Must they be allowed to
finally fail of execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the
use of the means necessary to their execution some single law, made in
such extreme tenderness of the citizen's liberty that, practically, it
relieves more of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very
limited extent be violated? To state the question more directly, are all
the laws but one to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces
lest that one be violated? Even in such a case, would not the official
oath be broken if the government should be overthrown when it was
believed that disregarding the single law would tend to preserve it? But
it was not believed that this question was presented. It was not believed
that any law was violated. The provision of the Constitution that "the
privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless
when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require
it," is equivalent to a provision--is a provision--that such privilege
may be suspended when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public
safety does require it. It was decided that we have a case of rebellion,
and that the public safety does require the qualified suspension of the
privilege of the writ which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted
that Congress, and not the executive, is vested with this power. But the
Constitution itself is silent as to which or who is to exercise the
power; and as the provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency,
it cannot be believed the framers of the instrument intended that in
every case the danger should run its course until Congress could be
called together, the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was
intended in this case, by the rebellion.

No more extended argument is now offered, as an opinion at some length
will probably be presented by the attorney-general. Whether there shall
be any legislation upon the subject, and if any, what, is submitted
entirely to the better judgment of Congress.

The forbearance of this government had been so extraordinary and so long
continued as to lead some foreign nations to shape their action as if
they supposed the early destruction of our national Union was probable.
While this, on discovery, gave the executive some concern, he is now
happy to say that the sovereignty and rights of the United States are now
everywhere practically respected by foreign powers; and a general
sympathy with the country is manifested throughout the world.

The reports of the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and the Navy will
give the information in detail deemed necessary and convenient for your
deliberation and action; while the executive and all the departments will
stand ready to supply omissions, or to communicate new facts considered
important for you to know.

It is now recommended that you give the legal means for making this
contest a short and decisive one: that you place at the control of the
government for the work at least four hundred thousand men and
$400,000,000. That number of men is about one-tenth of those of proper
ages within the regions where, apparently, all are willing to engage; and
the sum is less than a twenty-third part of the money value owned by the
men who seem ready to devote the whole. A debt of $600,000,000 now is a
less sum per head than was the debt of our Revolution when we came out of
that struggle; and the money value in the country now bears even a
greater proportion to what it was then than does the population. Surely
each man has as strong a motive now to preserve our liberties as each had
then to establish them.

A right result at this time will be worth more to the world than ten
times the men and ten times the money. The evidence reaching us from the
country leaves no doubt that the material for the work is abundant, and
that it needs only the hand of legislation to give it legal sanction, and
the hand of the executive to give it practical shape and efficiency. One
of the greatest perplexities of the government is to avoid receiving
troops faster than it can provide for them. In a word, the people will
save their government if the government itself will do its part only
indifferently well.

It might seem, at first thought, to be of little difference whether the
present movement at the South be called "secession" or "rebellion." The
movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they
knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by
any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people possessed
as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much
pride in and reverence for the history and government of their common
country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They knew they could
make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble
sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced by an insidious debauching of the
public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism which, if conceded, was
followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the
complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any State
of the Union may consistently with the national Constitution, and
therefore lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the
consent of the Union or of any other State. The little disguise that the
supposed right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be
the sole judges of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice.

With rebellion thus sugar-coated they have been drugging the public mind
of their section for more than thirty years, and until at length they
have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against the
government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the farcical
pretense of taking their State out of the Union, who could have been
brought to no such thing the day before.

This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the
assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining
to a State--to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither
more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the
Constitution--no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union.
The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their
British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union
directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas
in its temporary independence was never designated a State. The new ones
only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that
name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of
Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and
independent States"; but even then the object plainly was not to declare
their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the
contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at the
time, and afterward, abundantly show. The express plighting of faith by
each and all of the original thirteen in the Articles of Confederation,
two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive.
Having never been States either in substance or in name outside of the
Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a
claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about
the "sovereignty" of the States; but the word even is not in the national
Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions.
What is "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far
wrong to define it as "a political community without a political
superior"? Tested by this, no one of our States except Texas ever was a
sovereignty. And even Texas gave up the character on coming into the
Union; by which act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United
States, and the laws and treaties of the United States made in pursuance
of the Constitution, to be for her the supreme law of the land. The
States have their status in the Union, and they have no other legal
status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by
revolution. The Union, and not themselves separately, procured their
independence and their liberty. By conquest or purchase the Union gave
each of them whatever of independence or liberty it has. The Union is
older than any of the States, and, in fact, it created them as States.
Originally some dependent colonies made the Union, and, in turn, the
Union threw off their old dependence for them, and made them States, such
as they are. Not one of them ever had a State constitution independent of
the Union. Of course, it is not forgotten that all the new States framed
their constitutions before they entered the Union nevertheless, dependent
upon and preparatory to coming into the Union.

Unquestionably the States have the powers and rights reserved to them in
and by the national Constitution; but among these surely are not included
all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive, but, at most,
such only as were known in the world at the time as governmental powers;
and certainly a power to destroy the government itself had never been
known as a governmental, as a merely administrative power. This relative
matter of national power and State rights, as a principle, is no other
than the principle of generality and locality. Whatever concerns the
whole should be confided to the whole--to the General Government; while
whatever concerns only the State should be left exclusively to the State.
This is all there is of original principle about it. Whether the national
Constitution in defining boundaries between the two has applied the
principle with exact accuracy, is not to be questioned. We are all bound
by that defining, without question.

What is now combated is the position that secession is consistent with
the Constitution--is lawful and peaceful. It is not contended that there
is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law
which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased with
money the countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is
it just that they shall go off without leave and without refunding? The
nation paid very large sums (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a
hundred millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just
that she shall now be off without consent or without making any return?
The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of these
so-called seceding States in common with the rest. Is it just either that
creditors shall go unpaid or the remaining States pay the whole? A part
of the present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of
Texas. Is it just that she shall leave and pay no part of this herself?

Again, if one State may secede, so may another; and when all shall have
seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just for creditors?
Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their
money? If we now recognize this doctrine by allowing the seceders to go
in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do if others choose to go or
to extort terms upon which they will promise to remain.

The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They have
assumed to make a national constitution of their own, in which of
necessity they have either discarded or retained the right of secession
as they insist it exists in ours.  If they have discarded it, they
thereby admit that on principle it ought not to be in ours. If they have
retained it, by their own construction of ours, they show that to be
consistent they must secede from one another whenever they shall find it
the easiest way of settling their debts, or effecting any other selfish
or unjust object. The principle itself is one of disintegration and upon
which no government can possibly endure.

If all the States save one should assert the power to drive that one out
of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would
at once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon
State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being
called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the
others from that one," it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do,
unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a
minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority,
may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the
rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the
Constitution and speaks from the preamble calling itself "We, the
People."

It may well be questioned whether there is to-day a majority of the
legally qualified voters of any State except perhaps South Carolina in
favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are
the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called seceded
States. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of them. It is
ventured to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of
an election held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one
side of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as
demonstrating popular sentiment. At such an election, all that large
class who are at once for the Union and against coercion would be coerced
to vote against the Union.

It may be affirmed without extravagance that the free institutions we
enjoy have developed the powers and improved the condition of our whole
people beyond any example in the world. Of this we now have a striking
and an impressive illustration. So large an army as the government has
now on foot was never before known without a soldier in it but who has
taken his place there of his own free choice. But more than this, there
are many single regiments whose members, one and another, possess full
practical knowledge of all the arts, sciences, professions, and whatever
else, whether useful or elegant, is known in the world; and there is
scarcely one from which there could not be selected a President, a
Cabinet, a Congress, and perhaps a court, abundantly competent to
administer the government itself. Nor do I say this is not true also in
the army of our late friends, now adversaries in this contest; but if it
is, so much better the reason why the government which has conferred such
benefits on both them and us should not be broken up. Whoever in any
section proposes to abandon such a government would do well to consider
in deference to what principle it is that he does it; what better he is
likely to get in its stead; whether the substitute will give, or be
intended to give, so much of good to the people. There are some
foreshadowings on this subject. Our adversaries have adopted some
declarations of independence in which, unlike the good old one, penned by
Jefferson, they omit the words "all men are created equal." Why? They
have adopted a temporary national constitution, in the preamble of which,
unlike our good old one, signed by Washington, they omit "We, the
People," and substitute, "We, the deputies of the sovereign and
independent States." Why? Why this deliberate pressing out of view the
rights of men and the authority of the people?

This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it is a
struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of
government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men to
lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of
laudable pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair
chance in the race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures,
from necessity; this is the leading object of the government for whose
existence we contend.

I am most happy to believe that the plain people understand and
appreciate this. It is worthy of note that, while in this the
government's hour of trial large numbers of those in the army and navy
who have been favored with the offices have resigned and proved false to
the hand which had pampered them, not one common soldier or common sailor
is known to have deserted his flag.

Great honor is due to those officers who remained true, despite the
example of their treacherous associates; but the greatest honor, and most
important fact of all, is the unanimous firmness of the common soldiers
and common sailors. To the last man, so far as known, they have
successfully resisted the traitorous efforts of those whose commands, but
an hour before, they obeyed as absolute law. This is the patriotic
instinct of the plain people. They understand, without an argument, that
the destroying of the government which was made by Washington means no
good to them.

Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in
it our people have already settled--the successful establishing and the
successful administering of it. One still remains--its successful
maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is
now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry
an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful
and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly and
constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back to
bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots
themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of
peace: teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither
can they take it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners
of a war.

Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of candid men as to what is to
be the course of the government toward the Southern States after the
rebellion shall have been suppressed, the executive deems it proper to
say it will be his purpose then, as ever, to be guided by the
Constitution and the laws; and that he probably will have no different
understanding of the powers and duties of the Federal Government
relatively to the rights of the States and the people, under the
Constitution, than that expressed in the inaugural address.

He desires to preserve the government, that it may be administered for
all as it was administered by the men who made it. Loyal citizens
everywhere have the right to claim this of their government, and the
government has no right to withhold or neglect it. It is not perceived
that in giving it there is any coercion, any conquest, or any
subjugation, in any just sense of those terms.

The Constitution provides, and all the States have accepted the
provision, that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this
Union a republican form of government." But if a State may lawfully go
out of the Union, having done so it may also discard the republican form
of government, so that to prevent its going out is an indispensable means
to the end of maintaining the guarantee mentioned; and when an end is
lawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it are also lawful and
obligatory.

It was with the deepest regret that the executive found the duty of
employing the war power in defense of the government forced upon him. He
could but perform this duty or surrender the existence of the government.
No compromise by public servants could, in this case, be a cure; not that
compromises are not often proper, but that no popular government can long
survive a marked precedent that those who carry an election can only save
the government from immediate destruction by giving up the main point
upon which the people gave the election. The people themselves, and not
their servants, can safely reverse their own deliberate decisions.

As a private citizen the executive could not have consented that these
institutions shall perish; much less could he in betrayal of so vast and
so sacred a trust as these free people had confided to him. He felt that
he had no moral right to shrink, nor even to count the chances of his own
life, in what might follow. In full view of his great responsibility he
has, so far, done what he has deemed his duty. You will now, according to
your own judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views and
your action may so accord with his as to assure all faithful citizens who
have been disturbed in their rights of a certain and speedy restoration
to them, under the Constitution and the laws.

And having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure purpose,
let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear and with manly
hearts.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN,

July 4, 1861



TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1861.

HON. SEC. OF INTERIOR.

MY DEAR SIR:--Please ask the Comr. of Indian Affairs, and of the Gen'l
Land Office to come with you, and see me at once. I want the assistance
of all of you in overhauling the list of appointments a little before I
send them to the Senate.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 9th
instant, requesting a copy of correspondence upon the subject of the
incorporation of the Dominican republic with the Spanish monarchy, I
transmit a report from the Secretary of State; to whom the resolution was
referred.

WASHINGTON, July 11, 1861.



MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I transmit to Congress a copy of correspondence between the Secretary of
State and her Britannic Majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary accredited to this government, relative to the exhibition
of the products of industry of all nations, which is to take place at
London in the course of next year. As citizens of the United States may
justly pride themselves upon their proficiency in industrial arts, it is
desirable that they should have proper facilities toward taking part in
the exhibition. With this view I recommend such legislation by Congress
at this session as may be necessary for that purpose.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

WASHINGTON, July 16, 1861



MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

As the United States have, in common with Great Britain and France, a
deep interest in the preservation and development of the fisheries
adjacent to the northeastern coast and islands of this continent, it
seems proper that we should concert with the governments of those
countries such measures as may be conducive to those important objects.
With this view I transmit to Congress a copy of a correspondence between
the Secretary of State and the British minister here, in which the latter
proposes, on behalf of his government, the appointment of a joint
commission to inquire into the matter, in order that such ulterior
measures may be adopted as may be advisable for the objects proposed.
Such legislation recommended as may be necessary to enable the executive
to provide for a commissioner on behalf of the United States:

WASHINGTON, JULY 19, 1861.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



TO THE ADJUTANT-GENERAL

WASHINGTON, JULY 19, 1861

ADJUTANT-GENERAL:

I have agreed, and do agree, that the two Indian regiments named within
shall be accepted if the act of Congress shall admit it. Let there be no
further question about it.

A. LINCOLN.



MEMORANDA OF MILITARY POLICY SUGGESTED BY THE
BULL RUN DEFEAT.
JULY 23, 1861

1. Let the plan for making the blockade effective be pushed forward with
all possible despatch.

2. Let the volunteer forces at Fort Monroe and vicinity under General
Butler be constantly drilled, disciplined, and instructed without more
for the present.

3. Let Baltimore be held as now, with a gentle but firm and certain hand.

4. Let the force now under Patterson or Banks be strengthened and made
secure in its position.

5. Let the forces in Western Virginia act till further orders according
to instructions or orders from General McClellan.

6. [Let] General Fremont push forward his organization and operations in
the West as rapidly as possible, giving rather special attention to
Missouri.

7. Let the forces late before Manassas, except the three-months men, be
reorganized as rapidly as possible in their camps here and about
Arlington.

8. Let the three-months forces who decline to enter the longer service be
discharged as rapidly as circumstances will permit.

9. Let the new volunteer forces be brought forward as fast as possible,
and especially into the camps on the two sides of the river here.

When the foregoing shall be substantially attended to:

1. Let Manassas Junction (or some point on one or other of the railroads
near it) and Strasburg be seized, and permanently held, with an open line
from Washington to Manassas, and an open line from Harper's Ferry to
Strasburg the military men to find the way of doing these.

2. This done, a joint movement from Cairo on Memphis; and from Cincinnati
on East Tennessee.



TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY.

WASHINGTON, D.C., July 24, 1861

THE GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY.

SIR:--Together with the regiments of three years' volunteers which the
government already has in service in your State, enough to make eight in
all, if tendered in a reasonable time, will be accepted, the new
regiments to be taken, as far as convenient, from the three months' men
and officers just discharged, and to be organized, equipped, and sent
forward as fast as single regiments are ready, On the same terms as were
those already in the service from that State.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.

[Indorsement.]

This order is entered in the War Department, and the Governor of New
Jersey is authorized to furnish the regiments with wagons and horses.

S. CAMERON, Secretary of War.



MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 22d
instant; requesting a copy of the correspondence between this, government
and foreign powers with reference to maritime right, I transmit a report
from the Secretary of State.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

WASHINGTON, July 25, 1861



MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 15th
instant, requesting a copy of the correspondence between this government
and foreign powers on the subject of the existing insurrection in the
United States, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State.

WASHINGTON, July 25, 1861.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



TO SECRETARY CHASE.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, JULY 16, 1861

MR CHASE:--The bearer, Mr.____, wants ______ in the custom house at
Baltimore. If his recommendations are satisfactory, and I recollect them
to have been so, the fact that he is urged by the Methodists should be in
his favor, as they complain of us some.

LINCOLN.



MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 24th
instant, asking the grounds, reasons, and evidence upon which the police
Commissioners of Baltimore were arrested and are now detained as
prisoners at Port McHenry, I have to state that it is judged to be
incompatible with the public interest at this time to furnish the
information called for by the resolution.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

WASHINGTON, JULY 27, 1861



MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant requesting
information concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in my message of
the 4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of the Navy.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

JULY 30, 1861



MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 23d instant requesting
information concerning the imprisonment of Lieutenant John J. Worden
(John L. Worden) of the United States navy, I transmit a report from the
Secretary of the Navy.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

July 30, 1861



ORDER TO UNITED STATES MARSHALS.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 31, 1861

The Marshals of the United States in the vicinity of forts where
political prisoners are held will supply decent lodging and sustenance
for such prisoners unless they shall prefer to provide in those respects
for themselves, in which case they will be allowed to do so by the
commanding officer in charge.

Approved, and the Secretary of the State will transmit the order to the
Marshals, to the Lieutenant-General, and the Secretary of the Interior.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of yesterday,
requesting information regarding the imprisonment of loyal citizens of
the United States by the forces now in rebellion against this government,
I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, and the copy of a
telegraphic despatch by which it was accompanied.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

WASHINGTON, August 2, 1861.



MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of your honorable body of date July 31, 1861,
requesting the President to inform the Senate whether the Hon. James H.
Lane, a member of that body from Kansas, has been appointed a
brigadier-general in the army of the United States, and if so, whether he
has accepted such appointment, I have the honor to transmit herewith
certain papers, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which, taken together,
explain themselves, and which contain all the information I possess upon
the questions propounded.

It was my intention, as shown by my letter of June 20, 1861, to appoint
Hon. James H. Lane, of Kansas, a brigadier-general of United States
volunteers in anticipation of the act of Congress, since passed, for
raising such volunteers; and I have no further knowledge upon the
subject, except as derived from the papers herewith enclosed.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 5, 1861



TO SECRETARY CAMERON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, AUGUST 7, 1861
HON. SECRETARY OF WAR

MY DEAR SIR:--The within paper, as you see, is by HON. John S. Phelps and
HON. Frank P. Blair, Jr., both members of the present Congress from
Missouri. The object is to get up an efficient force of Missourians in
the southwestern part of the State. It ought to be done, and Mr. Phelps
ought to have general superintendence of it. I see by a private report to
me from the department that eighteen regiments are already accepted from
Missouri. Can it not be arranged that part of them (not yet organized, as
I understand) may be taken from the locality mentioned and put under the
control of Mr. Phelps, and let him have discretion to accept them for a
shorter term than three years--or the war--understanding, however, that
he will get them for the full term if he can? I hope this can be done,
because Mr. Phelps is too zealous and efficient and understands his
ground too well for us to lose his service. Of course provision for
arming, equipping, etc., must be made. Mr. Phelps is here, and wishes to
carry home with him authority for this matter.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN



PROCLAMATION OF A NATIONAL FAST-DAY,
AUGUST 12, 1861.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A Proclamation.

Whereas a joint committee of both houses of Congress has waited on the
President of the United States and requested him to "recommend a day of
public humiliation, prayer, and fasting to be observed by the people of
the United States with religious solemnities and the offering of fervent
supplications to Almighty God for the safety and welfare of these States,
His blessings on their arms, and a speedy restoration of peace"; and

Whereas it is fit and becoming in all people at all times to acknowledge
and revere the supreme government of God, to bow in humble submission to
His chastisements, to confess and deplore their sins and transgressions
in the full conviction that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom, and to pray with all fervency and contrition for the pardon of
their past offences and for a blessing upon their present and prospective
action; and

Whereas when our own beloved country, once, by the blessing of God,
united, prosperous, and happy, is now afflicted with faction and civil
war, it is peculiarly fit for us to recognize the hand of God in this
terrible visitation, and in sorrowful remembrance of our own faults and
crimes as a nation and as individuals to humble ourselves before Him and
to pray for His mercy-to pray that we may be spared further punishment,
though most justly deserved, that our arms may be blessed and made
effectual for the re-establishment of order, law, and peace throughout
the wide extent of our country, and that the inestimable boon of civil
and religious liberty, earned under His guidance and blessing by the
labors and sufferings of our fathers, may be restored in all its original
excellence.

Therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do appoint
the last Thursday in September next as a day of humiliation, prayer, and
fasting for all the people of the nation. And I do earnestly recommend to
all the people, and especially to all ministers and teachers of religion
of all denominations and to all heads of families, to observe and keep
that day according to their several creeds and modes of worship in all
humility and with all religious solemnity, to the end that the united
prayer of the nation may ascend to the Throne of Grace and bring down
plentiful blessings upon our country.

     In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand
     and caused the seal of the United States to
[SEAL.]  be affixed, this twelfth day of August, A. D.
     1861, and of the independence of the United
     States of America the eighty-sixth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



TO JAMES POLLOCK.

WASHINGTON, AUGUST 15, 1861

HON. JAMES POLLOCK.

MY DEAR SIR:--You must make a job for the bearer of this--make a job of
it with the collector and have it done. You can do it for me and you
must.

Yours as ever,
A. LINCOLN.



TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR O. P. MORTON.

WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 15, 1861

GOVERNOR MORTON, Indiana: Start your four regiments to St. Louis at the
earliest moment possible. Get such harness as may be necessary for your
rifled gums. Do not delay a single regiment, but hasten everything
forward as soon as any one regiment is ready. Have your three additional
regiments organized at once. We shall endeavor to send you the arms this
week.

A. LINCOLN



TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FREMONT,

WASHINGTON, August 15, 1861

TO MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:

Been answering your messages since day before yesterday. Do you receive
the answers? The War Department has notified all the governors you
designate to forward all available force. So telegraphed you. Have you
received these messages? Answer immediately.

A. LINCOLN.



PROCLAMATION FORBIDDING INTERCOURSE WITH
REBEL STATES, AUGUST 16, 1861.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation.

Whereas on the fifteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-one,
the President of the United States, in view of an insurrection against
the laws, Constitution, and government of the United States which had
broken out within the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama,
Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and in pursuance of the
provisions of the act entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the
militia to execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and
repel invasions, and to repeal the act now in force for that purpose,"
approved February twenty-eighth, seventeen hundred and ninety-five, did
call forth the militia to suppress said insurrection, and to cause the
laws of the Union to be duly executed, and the insurgents have failed to
disperse by the time directed by the President; and whereas such
insurrection has since broken out and yet exists within the States of
Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas; and whereas the
insurgents in all the said States claim to act under the authority
thereof, and such claim is not disclaimed or repudiated by the persons
exercising the functions of government in such State or States, or in the
part or parts thereof in which such combinations exist, nor has such
insurrection been suppressed by said States:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, in
pursuance of an act of Congress approved July thirteen, eighteen hundred
and sixty-one, do hereby declare that the inhabitants of the said States
of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama,
Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida (except the
inhabitants of that part of the State of Virginia lying west of the
Allegheny Mountains, and of such other parts of that State, and the other
States hereinbefore named, as may maintain a loyal adhesion to the Union
and the Constitution, or may be time to time occupied and controlled by
forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of said
insurgents), are in a state of insurrection against the United States,
and that all commercial intercourse between the same and the inhabitants
thereof, with the exceptions aforesaid, and the citizens of other States
and other parts of the United States, is unlawful, and will remain
unlawful until such insurrection shall cease or has been suppressed; that
all goods and chattels, wares and merchandise, coming from any of said
States, with the exceptions aforesaid, into other parts of the United
States, without the special license and permission of the President,
through the Secretary of the Treasury, or proceeding to any of said
States, with the exceptions aforesaid, by land or water, together with
the vessel or vehicle conveying the same, or conveying persons to or from
said States, with said exceptions, will be forfeited to the United
States; and that from and after fifteen days from the issuing of this
proclamation all ships and vessels belonging in whole or in part to any
citizen or inhabitant of any of said States, with said exceptions, found
at sea, or in any port of the United States, will be forfeited to the
United States; and I hereby enjoin upon all district attorneys, marshals,
and officers of the revenue and of the military and naval forces of the
United States to be vigilant in the execution of said act, and in the
enforcement of the penalties and forfeitures imposed or declared by it;
leaving any party who may think himself aggrieved thereby to his
application to the Secretary of the Treasury for the remission of any
penalty or forfeiture, which the said Secretary is authorized by law to
grant if, in his judgment, the special circumstances of any case shall
require such remission.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand,...................

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of Sate.



TO SECRETARY CAMERON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 17, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.

MY DEAR SIR:--Unless there be reason to the contrary, not known to me,
make out a commission for Simon B. Buckner, of Kentucky, as a
brigadier-general of volunteers. It is to be put into the hands of
General Anderson, and delivered to General Buckner or not, at the
discretion of General Anderson. Of course it is to remain a secret unless
and until the commission is delivered.

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN

Same day made.

[Indorsement.]



TO GOVERNOR MAGOFFIN,

WASHINGTON, D.C., AUGUST 24, 1861

To HIS EXCELLENCY B. MAGOFFIN, Governor of the State of Kentucky.

SIR:--Your letter of the 19th instant, in which you urge the "removal
from the limits of Kentucky of the military force now organized and in
camp within that State," is received.

I may not possess full and precisely accurate knowledge upon this
subject; but I believe it is true that there is a military force in camp
within Kentucky, acting by authority of the United States, which force is
not very large, and is not now being augmented.

I also believe that some arms have been furnished to this force by the
United States.

I also believe this force consists exclusively of Kentuckians, having
their camp in the immediate vicinity of their own homes, and not
assailing or menacing any of the good people of Kentucky.

In all I have done in the premises I have acted upon the urgent
solicitation of many Kentuckians, and in accordance with what I believed,
and still believe, to be the wish of a majority of all the Union-loving
people of Kentucky.

While I have conversed on this subject with many eminent men of Kentucky,
including a large majority of her members of Congress, I do not remember
that any one of them, or any other person, except your Excellency and the
bearers of your Excellency's letter, has urged me to remove the military
force from Kentucky or to disband it. One other very worthy citizen of
Kentucky did solicit me to have the augmenting of the force suspended for
a time.

Taking all the means within my reach to form a judgment, I do not believe
it is the popular wish of Kentucky that this force shall be removed
beyond her limits; and, with this impression, I must respectfully decline
to so remove it.

I most cordially sympathize with your Excellency in the wish to preserve
the peace of my own native State, Kentucky. It is with regret I search,
and cannot find, in your not very short letter, any declaration or
intimation that you entertain any desire for the preservation of the
Federal Union.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL FREMONT.

WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 2, 1861

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT.

MY DEAR SIR:--Two points in your proclamation of August 30 give me some
anxiety.

First. Should you shoot a man, according to the proclamation, the
Confederates would very certainly shoot our best men in their hands in
retaliation; and so, man for man, indefinitely. It is, therefore, my
order that you allow no man to be shot under the proclamation without
first having my approbation or consent.

Second. I think there is great danger that the closing paragraph, in
relation to the confiscation of property and the liberating slaves of
traitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends and turn them
against us; perhaps ruin our rather fair prospect for Kentucky. Allow me,
therefore, to ask that you will, as of your own motion, modify that
paragraph so as to conform to the first and fourth sections of the act of
Congress entitled "An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionary
purposes," approved August 6, 1861, and a copy of which act I herewith
send you.

This letter is written in a spirit of caution, and not of censure. I send
it by special messenger, in order that it may certainly and speedily
reach you.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TELEGRAM TO GOVERNORS WASHBURN OF MAINE, FAIRBANKS OF VERMONT, BERRY
OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ANDREW OF MASSACHUSETTS, BUCKINGHAM OF CONNECTICUT, AND
SPRAGUE OF RHODE ISLAND.

WAR DEPARTMENT, September 11, 1861.

General Butler proposes raising in New England six regiments, to be
recruited and commanded by himself, and to go on special service.

I shall be glad if you, as governor of ______, will answer by telegraph
if you consent.

A. LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL FREMONT.

WASHINGTON, D.C., SEPTEMBER 11, 1861

MAJOR-GENERAL JOHN C. FREMONT.

SIR:-Yours of the 8th, in answer to mine of the 2d instant, is just
received. Assuming that you, upon the ground, could better judge of the
necessities of your position than I could at this distance, on seeing
your proclamation of August 30 I perceived no general objection to it.
The particular clause, however, in relation to the confiscation of
property and the liberation of slaves appeared to me to be objectionable
in its nonconformity to the act of Congress passed the 6th of last August
upon the same subjects; and hence I wrote you, expressing my wish that
that clause should be modified accordingly. Your answer, just received,
expresses the preference on your part that I should make an open order
for the modification, which I very cheerfully do. It is therefore ordered
that the said clause of said proclamation be so modified, held, and
construed as to conform to, and not to transcend, the provisions on the
same subject contained in the act of Congress entitled "An act to
confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes," approved August
6, 1861, and that said act be published at length with this order.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



TO MRS. FREMONT.

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 12, 1861

Mrs. GENERAL FREMONT.

MY DEAR MADAM:--Your two notes of to-day are before me. I answered the
letter you bore me from General Fremont on yesterday, and not hearing
from you during the day, I sent the answer to him by mail. It is not
exactly correct, as you say you were told by the elder Mr. Blair, to say
that I sent Postmaster-General Blair to St. Louis to examine into that
department and report. Postmaster-General Blair did go, with my
approbation, to see and converse with General Fremont as a friend. I do
not feel authorized to furnish you with copies of letters in my
possession without the consent of the writers. No impression has been
made on my mind against the honor or integrity of General Fremont, and I
now enter my protest against being understood as acting in any hostility
toward him.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



TO JOSEPH HOLT,

EXECUTIVE MANSION, SEPTEMBER 12, 1861

HON. JOSEPH HOLT.

DEAR SIR:--Yours of this day in relation to the late proclamation of
General Fremont is received yesterday I addressed a letter to him, by
mail, on the same subject, and which is to be made public when he
receives it. I herewith send you a copy of that letter, which perhaps
shows my position as distinctly as any new one I could write. I will
thank you not to make it public until General Fremont shall have had time
to receive the original.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL SCOTT

WASHINGTON, D.C., September 16, 1861.

DEAR SIR:--Since conversing with you I have concluded to request you to
frame an order for recruiting North Carolinians at Fort Hatteras. I
suggest it to be so framed as for us to accept a smaller force--even a
company--if we cannot get a regiment or more. What is necessary to now
say about officers you will judge.  Governor Seward says he has a nephew
(Clarence A. Seward, I believe) who would be willing to go and play
colonel and assist in raising the force. Still it is to be considered
whether the North Carolinians will not prefer officers of their own. I
should expect they would.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO SECRETARY CAMERON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 18, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. MY DEAR SIR:--To guard against misunderstanding, I
think fit to say that the joint expedition of the army and navy agreed
upon some time since, and in which General T. W. Sherman was and is to
bear a conspicuous part, is in no wise to be abandoned, but must be ready
to move by the 1st of, or very early in, October.  Let all preparations
go forward accordingly.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL FREMONT,

WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER 12, 1861

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:

Governor Morton telegraphs as follows: "Colonel Lane, just arrived by
special train, represents Owensborough, forty miles above Evansville, in
possession of secessionists. Green River is navigable. Owensborough must
be seized. We want a gunboat sent up from Paducah for that purpose." Send
up the gunboat if, in your discretion, you think it right. Perhaps you
had better order those in charge of the Ohio River to guard it vigilantly
at all points.

A. LINCOLN.



To O. H. BROWNING.

(Private and Confidential)

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON SEPTEMBER 22, 1861

HON. O. H. BROWNING.

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 17th is just received; and coming from you, I
confess it astonishes me. That you should object to my adhering to a law
which you had assisted in making and presenting to me less than a month
before is odd enough. But this is a very small part. General Fremont's
proclamation as to confiscation of property and the liberation of slaves
is purely political and not within the range of military law or
necessity. If a commanding general finds a necessity to seize the farm of
a private owner for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has
the right to do so, and to so hold it as long as the necessity lasts; and
this is within military law, because within military necessity. But to
say the farm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever,
and this as well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as
when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about
it. And the same is true of slaves. If the general needs them, he can
seize them and use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to
fix their permanent future condition.  That must be settled according to
laws made by law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The
proclamation in the point in question is simply "dictatorship." It
assumes that the general may do anything he pleases confiscate the lands
and free the slaves of loyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. And
going the whole figure, I have no doubt, would be more popular with some
thoughtless people than that which has been done, But I cannot assume
this reckless position, nor allow others to assume it on my
responsibility.

You speak of it as being the only means of saving the government. On the
contrary, it is itself the surrender of the government. Can it be
pretended that it is any longer the Government of the United States--any
government of constitution and laws wherein a general or a president may
make permanent rules of property by proclamation? I do not say Congress
might not with propriety pass a law on the point, just such as General
Fremont proclaimed.

I do not say I might not, as a member of Congress, vote for it. What I
object to is, that I, as President, shall expressly or impliedly seize
and exercise the permanent legislative functions of the government.

So much as to principle. Now as to policy. No doubt the thing was popular
in some quarters, and would have been more so if it had been a general
declaration of emancipation. The Kentucky Legislature would not budge
till that proclamation was modified; and General Anderson telegraphed me
that on the news of General Fremont having actually issued deeds of
manumission, a whole company of our volunteers threw down their arms and
disbanded. I was so assured as to think it probable that the very arms we
had furnished Kentucky would be turned against us. I think to lose
Kentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, we
cannot hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all against us,
and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consent to
separation at once, including the surrender of this Capital. On the
contrary, if you will give up your restlessness for new positions, and
back me manfully on the grounds upon which you and other kind friends
gave me the election and have approved in my public documents, we shall
go through triumphantly. You must not understand I took my course on the
proclamation because of Kentucky. I took the same ground in a private
letter to General Fremont before I heard from Kentucky.

You think I am inconsistent because I did not also forbid General Fremont
to shoot men under the proclamation. I understand that part to be within
military law, but I also think, and so privately wrote General Fremont,
that it is impolitic in this, that our adversaries have the power, and
will certainly exercise it, to shoot as many of our men as we shoot of
theirs.  I did not say this in the public letter, because it is a subject
I prefer not to discuss in the hearing of our enemies.

There has been no thought of removing General Fremont on any ground
connected with his proclamation, and if there has been any wish for his
removal on any ground, our mutual friend Sam. Glover can probably tell
you what it was. I hope no real necessity for it exists on any ground.

Your friend, as ever,
A. LINCOLN.



MEMORANDUM FOR A PLAN OF CAMPAIGN
[OCTOBER 1?] 1861

On or about the 5th of October (the exact date to be determined
hereafter) I wish a movement made to seize and hold a point on the
railroad connecting Virginia and Tennessee near the mountain-pass called
Cumberland Gap. That point is now guarded against us by Zollicoffer, with
6000 or 8000 rebels at Barboursville Ky.,--say twenty-five miles from the
Gap, toward Lexington.  We have a force of 5000 or 6000 under General
Thomas, at Camp Dick Robinson, about twenty-five miles from Lexington and
seventy-five from Zollicoffer's camp, On the road between the two. There
is not a railroad anywhere between Lexington and the point to be seized,
and along the whole length of which the Union sentiment among the people
largely predominates. We have military possession of the railroad from
Cincinnati to Lexington, and from Louisville to Lexington, and some home
guards, under General Crittenden, are on the latter line.  We have
possession of the railroad from Louisville to Nashville, Tenn., so far as
Muldraugh's Hill, about forty miles, and the rebels have possession of
that road all south of there. At the Hill we have a force of 8000, under
General Sherman, and about an equal force of rebels is a very short
distance south, under General Buckner.

We have a large force at Paducah, and a smaller at Port Holt, both on the
Kentucky side, with some at Bird's Point, Cairo, Mound City, Evansville,
and New Albany, all on the other side, and all which, with the gunboats
on the river, are perhaps sufficient to guard the Ohio from Louisville to
its mouth.

About supplies of troops, my general idea is that all from Wisconsin,
Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas, not now elsewhere, be
left to Fremont. All from Indiana and Michigan, not now elsewhere, be
sent to Anderson at Louisville. All from Ohio needed in western Virginia
be sent there, and any remainder be sent to Mitchell at Cincinnati, for
Anderson. All east of the mountains be appropriated to McClellan and to
the coast.

As to movements, my idea is that the one for the coast and that on
Cumberland Gap be simultaneous, and that in the meantime preparation,
vigilant watching, and the defensive only be acted upon; this, however,
not to apply to Fremont's operations in northern and middle Missouri.
That before these movements Thomas and Sherman shall respectively watch
but not attack Zollicoffer and Buckner. That when the coast and Gap
movements shall be ready Sherman is merely to stand fast, while all at
Cincinnati and all at Louisville, with all on the line, concentrate
rapidly at Lexington, and thence to Thomas's camp, joining him, and the
whole thence upon the Gap. It is for the military men to decide whether
they can find a pass through the mountains at or near the Gap which
cannot be defended by the enemy with a greatly inferior force, and what
is to be done in regard to this.

The coast and Gap movements made, Generals McClellan and Fremont, in
their respective departments, will avail themselves of any advantages the
diversions may present.

[He was entirely unable to get this started, Sherman would have taken an
active part if given him, the others were too busy getting lines of
communication guarded--and discovering many "critical" supply items that
had not been sent them.  Also the commanding general did not like it.
D.W.]



TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 4, 1861

HONORABLE SECRETARY OF STATE.

DEAR SIR:--Please see Mr. Walker, well vouched as a Union man and
son-in-law of Governor Morehead, and pleading for his release. I
understand the Kentucky arrests were not made by special direction from
here, and I am willing if you are that any of the parties may be released
when James Guthrie and James Speed think they should be.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO THE VICEROY OF EGYPT.

WASHINGTON, October 11, 1861.

GREAT AND GOOD FRIEND:--I have received from Mr. Thayer, Consul-General
of the United States at Alexandria, a full account of the liberal,
enlightened, and energetic proceedings which, on his complaint, you have
adopted in bringing to speedy and condign punishment the parties,
subjects of your Highness in Upper Egypt, who were concerned in an act of
criminal persecution against Faris, an agent of certain Christian
missionaries in Upper Egypt. I pray your Highness to be assured that
these proceedings, at once so prompt and so just, will be regarded as a
new and unmistakable proof equally of your Highness's friendship for the
United States and of the firmness, integrity and wisdom, with which the
government of your Highness is conducted. Wishing you great prosperity
and success, I am your friend,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

HIS HIGHNESS MOHAMMED SAID PACHA, Viceroy of Egypt and its Dependencies,
etc.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



ORDER AUTHORIZING SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF
HABEAS CORPUS.

October 14 1861

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL WINFIELD SCOTT:

The military line of the United States for the suppression of the
insurrection may be extended so far as Bangor, in Maine. You and any
officer acting under your authority are hereby authorized to suspend the
writ of habeas corpus in any place between that place and the city of
Washington.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



TO SECRETARY OF INTERIOR.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 14, 1861

HON. SEC. OF INTERIOR.

DEAR SIR:--How is this? I supposed I was appointing for register of wills
a citizen of this District. Now the commission comes to me "Moses Kelly,
of New Hampshire." I do not like this.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TWO SONS WHO WANT TO WORK

TO MAJOR RAMSEY.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 17, 1861
MAJOR RAMSEY.

MY DEAR SIR:--The lady bearer of this says she has two sons who want to
work. Set them at it if possible. Wanting to work is so rare a want that
it should be encouraged.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL THOMAS W. SHERMAN.

WASHINGTON, October 18, 1861.

GENERAL THOMAS SHERMAN, Annapolis, Md.:

Your despatch of yesterday received and shown to General McClellan. I
have promised him not to direct his army here without his consent. I do
not think I shall come to Annapolis.

A. LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL CURTIS, WITH INCLOSURES.

WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861

BRIGADIER-GENERAL S. R. CURTIS.

MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is a document--half letter, half order--which,
wishing you to see, but not to make public, I send unsealed. Please read
it and then inclose it to the officer who may be in command of the
Department of the West at the time it reaches him. I cannot now know
whether Fremont or Hunter will then be in command.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861

BRIGADIER-GENERAL S. R. CURTIS.

DEAR SIR:--On receipt of this, with the accompanying inclosures, you will
take safe, certain, and suitable measures to have the inclosure addressed
to Major-General Fremont delivered to him with all reasonable despatch,
subject to these conditions only: that if, when General Fremont shall be
reached by the messenger--yourself or any one sent by you--he shall then
have, in personal command, fought and won a battle, or shall then be
actually in a battle, or shall then be in the immediate presence of the
enemy in expectation of a battle, it is not to be delivered, but held for
further orders. After, and not till after, the delivery to General
Fremont, let the inclosure addressed to General Hunter be delivered to
him.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.


(General Orders No. 18.) HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY,

WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861

Major-General Fremont, of the United States Army, the present commander
of the Western Department of the same, will, on the receipt of this
order, call Major-General Hunter, of the United States Volunteers, to
relieve him temporarily in that command, when he (Major-General Fremont)
will report to general headquarters by letter for further orders.

WINFIELD SCOTT. By command: E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General.



WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861

TO THE COMMANDER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE WEST.

SIR:--The command of the Department of the West having devolved upon you,
I propose to offer you a few suggestions. Knowing how hazardous it is to
bind down a distant commander in the field to specific lines and
operations, as so much always depends on a knowledge of localities and
passing events, it is intended, therefore, to leave a considerable margin
for the exercise of your judgment and discretion.

The main rebel army (Price's) west of the Mississippi is believed to have
passed Dade County in full retreat upon northwestern Arkansas, leaving
Missouri almost freed from the enemy, excepting in the southeast of the
State. Assuming this basis of fact, it seems desirable, as you are not
likely to overtake Price, and are in danger of making too long a line
from your own base of supplies and reinforcements, that you should give
up the pursuit, halt your main army, divide it into two corps of
observation, one occupying Sedalia and the other Rolla, the present
termini of railroads; then recruit the condition of both corps by
re-establishing and improving their discipline and instructions,
perfecting their clothing and equipments, and providing less
uncomfortable quarters. Of course, both railroads must be guarded and
kept open, judiciously employing just so much force as is necessary for
this. From these two points, Sedalia and Rolla, and especially in
judicious cooperation with Lane on the Kansas border, it would be so easy
to concentrate and repel any army of the enemy returning on Missouri from
the southwest, that it is not probable any such attempt will be made
before or during the approaching cold weather. Before spring the people
of Missouri will probably be in no favorable mood to renew for next year
the troubles which have so much afflicted and impoverished them during
this. If you adopt this line of policy, and if, as I anticipate, you will
see no enemy in great force approaching, you will have a surplus of force
which you can withdraw from these points and direct to others as may be
needed, the railroads furnishing ready means of reinforcing these main
points if occasion requires. Doubtless local uprisings will for a time
continue to occur, but these can be met by detachments and local forces
of our own, and will ere long tire out of themselves.

While, as stated in the beginning of the letter, a large discretion must
be and is left with yourself, I feel sure that an indefinite pursuit of
Price or an attempt by this long and circuitous route to reach Memphis
will be exhaustive beyond endurance, and will end in the loss of the
whole force engaged in it.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



ORDER RETIRING GENERAL SCOTT AND APPOINTING

GENERAL McCLELLAN HIS SUCCESSOR. (General Orders, No.94.)

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE

WASHINGTON, November 1, 1861

The following order from the President of the United States, announcing
the retirement from active command of the honored veteran Lieutenant
general Winfield Scott, will be read by the army with profound regret:



EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON.

November 1, 1861

On the 1st day of November, A.D. 1861, upon his own application to the
President of the United States, Brevet Lieutenant-General Winfield Scott
is ordered to be placed, and hereby is placed, upon the list of retired
officers of the army of the United States, without reduction in his
current pay, subsistence, or allowances.

The American people will hear with sadness and deep emotion that General
Scott has withdrawn from the active control of the army, while the
President and a unanimous Cabinet express their own and the nation's
sympathy in his personal affliction and their profound sense of the
important public services rendered by him to his country during his long
and brilliant career, among which will ever be gratefully distinguished
his faithful devotion to the Constitution, the Union, and the flag when
assailed by parricidal rebellion.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN


The President is pleased to direct that Major general George B. McClellan
assume the command of the army of the United States. The headquarters of
the army will be established in the city of Washington. All
communications intended for the commanding general will hereafter be
addressed direct to the adjutant-general. The duplicate returns, orders,
and other papers heretofore sent to the assistant adjutant-general,
headquarters of the army, will be discontinued.

By order of the Secretary of War:
L. THOMAS, Adjutant General.



ORDER APPROVING THE PLAN OF GOVERNOR GAMBLE
OF MISSOURI.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,

November 5, 1861.

The Governor of the State of Missouri, acting under the direction of the
convention of that State, proposes to the Government of the United States
that he will raise a military force to serve within the State as State
militia during the war there, to cooperate with the troops in the service
of the United States in repelling the invasion of the State and
suppressing rebellion therein; the said State militia to be embodied and
to be held in the camp and in the field, drilled, disciplined, and
governed according to the Army Regulations and subject to the Articles of
War; the said State militia not to be ordered out of the State except for
the immediate defense of the State of Missouri, but to co-operate with
the troops in the service of the United States in military operations
within the State or necessary to its defense, and when officers of the
State militia act with officers in the service of the United States of
the same grade the officers of the United States service shall command
the combined force; the State militia to be armed, equipped, clothed,
subsisted, transported, and paid by the United States during such time as
they shall be actually engaged as an embodied military force in service
in accordance with regulations of the United States Army or general
orders as issued from time to time.

In order that the Treasury of the United States may not be burdened with
the pay of unnecessary officers, the governor proposes that, although the
State law requires him to appoint upon the general staff an
adjutant-general, a commissary-general, an inspector-general, a
quartermaster-general, a paymaster-general, and a surgeon-general, each
with the rank of colonel of cavalry, yet he proposes that the Government
of the United States pay only the adjutant-general, the
quartermaster-general, and inspector-general, their services being
necessary in the relations which would exist between the State militia
and the United States. The governor further proposes that while he is
allowed by the State law to appoint aides-de-camp to the governor at his
discretion, with the rank of colonel, three only shall be reported to the
United States for payment. He also proposes that the State militia shall
be commanded by a single major-general and by such number of
brigadier-generals as shall allow one for a brigade of not less than four
regiments, and that no greater number of staff officers shall be
appointed for regimental, brigade, and division duties than as provided
for in the act of Congress of the 22d July, 1861; and that, whatever be
the rank of such officers as fixed by the law of the State, the
compensation that they shall receive from the United States shall only be
that which belongs to the rank given by said act of Congress to officers
in the United States service performing the same duties.

The field officers of a regiment in the State militia are one colonel,
one lieutenant-colonel, and one major, and the company officers are a
captain, a first lieutenant, and a second lieutenant. The governor
proposes that, as the money to be disbursed is the money of the United
States, such staff officers in the service of the United States as may be
necessary to act as disbursing officers for the State militia shall be
assigned by the War Department for that duty; or, if such cannot be
spared from their present duty, he will appoint such persons disbursing
officers for the State militia as the President of the United States may
designate. Such regulations as may be required, in the judgment of the
President, to insure regularity of returns and to protect the United
States from any fraudulent practices shall be observed and obeyed by all
in office in the State militia.

The above propositions are accepted on the part of the United States, and
the Secretary of War is directed to make the necessary orders upon the
Ordnance, Quartermaster's, Commissary, Pay, and Medical departments to
carry this agreement into effect. He will cause the necessary staff
officers in the United States service to be detailed for duty in
connection with the Missouri State militia, and will order them to make
the necessary provision in their respective offices for fulfilling this
agreement. All requisitions upon the different officers of the United
States under this agreement to be made in substance in the same mode for
the Missouri State militia as similar requisitions are made for troops in
the service of the United States; and the Secretary of War will cause any
additional regulations that may be necessary to insure regularity and
economy in carrying this agreement into effect to be adopted and
communicated to the Governor of Missouri for the government of the
Missouri State militia.

[Indorsement.]

November 6, 1861.

This plan approved, with the modification that the governor stipulates
that when he commissions a major-general of militia it shall be the same
person at the time in command of the United States Department of the
West; and in case the United States shall change such commander of the
department, he (the governor) will revoke the State commission given to
the person relieved and give one to the person substituted to the United
States command of said department.

A. LINCOLN.



REPLY TO THE MINISTER FROM SWEDEN.

November 8, 1861.

SIR:--I receive with great pleasure a Minister from Sweden. That pleasure
is enhanced by the information which preceded your arrival here, that his
Majesty, your sovereign, had selected you to fill the mission upon the
grounds of your derivation from an ancestral stock identified with the
most glorious era of your country's noble history, and your own eminent
social and political standing in Sweden. This country, sir, maintains,
and means to maintain, the rights of human nature, and the capacity of
men for self-government. The history of Sweden proves that this is the
faith of the people of Sweden, and we know that it is the faith and
practice of their respected sovereign. Rest assured, therefore, that we
shall be found always just and paternal in our transactions with your
government, and that nothing will be omitted on my part to make your
residence in this capital agreeable to yourself and satisfactory to your
government.



INDORSEMENT AUTHORIZING MARTIAL LAW IN SAINT LOUIS.

St. Louis, November 20, 1861. (Received Nov. 20th.)

GENERAL McCLELLAN,

For the President of the United States.

No written authority is found here to declare and enforce martial law in
this department. Please send me such written authority and telegraph me
that it has been sent by mail.

H. W. HALLECK, Major-General.

[Indorsement.] November 21, 1861.

If General McClellan and General Halleck deem it necessary to declare and
maintain martial law in Saint Louis, the same is hereby authorized.

A. LINCOLN.



OFFER TO COOPERATE AND GIVE SPECIAL LINE OF INFORMATION
TO HORACE GREELEY

TO GOVERNOR WALKER.

WASHINGTON, November 21, 1861

DEAR GOVERNOR:--I have thought over the interview which Mr. Gilmore has
had with Mr. Greeley, and the proposal that Greeley has made to Gilmore,
namely, that he [Gilmore] shall communicate to him [Greeley] all that he
learns from you of the inner workings of the administration, in return
for his [Greeley's] giving such aid as he can to the new magazine, and
allowing you [Walker] from time to time the use of his [Greeley's]
columns when it is desirable to feel of, or forestall, public opinion on
important subjects.  The arrangement meets my unqualified approval, and I
shall further it to the extent of my ability, by opening to you--as I do
now--fully the policy of the Government,--its present views and future
intentions when formed, giving you permission to communicate them to
Gilmore for Greeley; and in case you go to Europe I will give these
things direct to Gilmore. But all this must be on the express and
explicit understanding that the fact of these communications coming from
me shall be absolutely confidential,--not to be disclosed by Greeley to
his nearest friend, or any of his subordinates. He will be, in effect, my
mouthpiece, but I must not be known to be the speaker.

I need not tell you that I have the highest confidence in Mr. Greeley. He
is a great power. Having him firmly behind me will be as helpful to me as
an army of one hundred thousand men.

This was to be most severely regretted, when Greeley became a traitor to
the cause, editorialized for compromise and separation--and promoted
McClellan as Democratic candidate for the Presidency.

That he has ever kicked the traces has been owing to his not being fully
informed. Tell Gilmore to say to him that, if he ever objects to my
policy, I shall be glad to have him state to me his views frankly and
fully. I shall adopt his if I can. If I cannot, I will at least tell him
why. He and I should stand together, and let no minor differences come
between us; for we both seek one end, which is the saving of our country.
Now, Governor, this is a longer letter than I have written in a
month,--longer than I would have written for any other man than Horace
Greeley.

Your friend, truly,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

P. S.--The sooner Gilmore sees Greeley the better, as you may before long
think it wise to ventilate our policy on the Trent affair.



ORDER AUTHORIZING GENERAL HALLECK TO SUSPEND
THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS,

DECEMBER 2, 1861.

MAJOR-GENERAL H. W. HALLECK, Commanding in the Department of Missouri.

GENERAL:--As an insurrection exists in the United States, and is in arms
in the State of Missouri, you are hereby authorized and empowered to
suspend the writ of habeas corpus within the limits of the military
division under your command, and to exercise martial law as you find it
necessary in your discretion to secure the public safety and the
authority of the United States.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the
United States to be affixed at Washington, this second day of December,
A.D. 1861.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

WASHINGTON, December 3, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:--In the midst
of unprecedented political troubles we have cause of great gratitude to
God for unusual good health and most abundant harvests.

You will not be surprised to learn that in the peculiar exigencies of the
times our intercourse with foreign nations has been attended with
profound solicitude, chiefly turning upon our own domestic affairs.

A disloyal portion of the American people have during the whole year been
engaged in an attempt to divide and destroy the Union. A nation which
endures factious domestic division is exposed to disrespect abroad, and
one party, if not both, is sure sooner or later to invoke foreign
intervention.

Nations thus tempted to interfere are not always able to resist the
counsels of seeming expediency and ungenerous ambition, although measures
adopted under such influences seldom fail to be unfortunate and injurious
to those adopting them.

The disloyal citizens of the United States who have offered the ruin of
our country in return for the aid and comfort which they have invoked
abroad have received less patronage and encouragement than they probably
expected. If it were just to suppose, as the insurgents have seemed to
assume, that foreign nations in this case, discarding all moral, social,
and treaty obligations, would act solely and selfishly for the most
speedy restoration of commerce, including especially the acquisition of
cotton, those nations appear as yet not to have seen their way to their
object more directly or clearly through the destruction than through the
preservation of the Union. If we could dare to believe that foreign
nations are actuated by no higher principle than this, I am quite sure a
sound argument could be made to show them that they can reach their aim
more readily and easily by aiding to crush this rebellion than by giving
encouragement to it.

The principal lever relied on by the insurgents for exciting foreign
nations to hostility against us, as already intimated, is the
embarrassment of commerce. Those nations, however, not improbably saw
from the first that it was the Union which made as well our foreign as
our domestic commerce. They can scarcely have failed to perceive that the
effort for disunion produces the existing difficulty, and that one strong
nation promises more durable peace and a more extensive, valuable, and
reliable commerce than can the same nation broken into hostile fragments.

It is not my purpose to review our discussions with foreign states,
because, whatever might be their wishes or dispositions, the integrity of
our country and the stability of our government mainly depend not upon
them, but on the loyalty, virtue, patriotism, and intelligence of the
American people. The correspondence itself, with the usual reservations,
is herewith submitted.

I venture to hope it will appear that we have practiced prudence and
liberality toward foreign powers, averting causes of irritation and with
firmness maintaining our own rights and honor.

Since, however, it is apparent that here, as in every other state,
foreign dangers necessarily attend domestic difficulties, I recommend
that adequate and ample measures be adopted for maintaining the public
defenses on every side. While under this general recommendation provision
for defending our seacoast line readily occurs to the mind, I also in the
same connection ask the attention of Congress to our great lakes and
rivers. It is believed that some fortifications and depots of arms and
munitions, with harbor and navigation improvements, all at well-selected
points upon these, would be of great importance to the national defense
and preservation I ask attention to the views of the Secretary of War,
expressed in his report, upon the same general subject.

I deem it of importance that the loyal regions of east Tennessee and
western North Carolina should be connected with Kentucky and other
faithful parts of the Union by rail-road.  I therefore recommend, as a
military measure, that Congress provide for the construction of such
rail-road as speedily as possible. Kentucky will no doubt co-operate, and
through her Legislature make the most judicious selection of a line. The
northern terminus must connect with some existing railroad, and whether
the route shall be from Lexington or Nicholasville to the Cumberland Gap,
or from Lebanon to the Tennessee line, in the direction of Knoxville, or
on some still different line, can easily be determined. Kentucky and the
General Government co-operating, the work can be completed in a very
short time, and when done it will be not only of vast present usefulness
but also a valuable permanent improvement, worth its cost in all the
future.

Some treaties, designed chiefly for the interests of commerce, and having
no grave political importance, have been negotiated, and will be
submitted to the Senate for their consideration.

Although we have failed to induce some of the commercial powers to adopt
a desirable melioration of the rigor of maritime war, we have removed all
obstructions from the way of this humane reform except such as are merely
of temporary and accidental occurrence.

I invite your attention to the correspondence between her Britannic
Majesty's minister accredited to this government and the Secretary of
State relative to the detention of the British ship Perthshire in June
last by the United States steamer Massachusetts for a supposed breach of
the blockade. As this detention was occasioned by an obvious
misapprehension of the facts, and as justice requires that we should
commit no belligerent act not founded in strict right as sanctioned by
public law, I recommend that an appropriation be made to satisfy the
reasonable demand of the owners of the vessel for her detention.

I repeat the recommendation of my predecessor in his annual message to
Congress in December last in regard to the disposition of the surplus
which will probably remain after satisfying the claims of American
citizens against China, pursuant to the awards of the commissioners under
the act of the 3d of March, 1859. If, however, it should not be deemed
advisable to carry that recommendation into effect, I would suggest that
authority be given for investing the principal, or the proceeds of the
surplus referred to, in good securities, with a view to the satisfaction
of such other just claims of our citizens against China as are not
unlikely to arise hereafter in the course of our extensive trade with
that empire.

By the act of the 5th of August last Congress authorized the President to
instruct the commanders of suitable vessels to defend themselves against
and to capture pirates. His authority has been exercised in a single
instance only. For the more effectual protection of our extensive and
valuable commerce in the Eastern seas especially, it seems to me that it
would also be advisable to authorize the commanders of sailing vessels to
recapture any prizes which pirates may make of United States vessels and
their cargoes, and the consular courts now established by law in Eastern
countries to adjudicate the cases in the event that this should not be
objected to by the local authorities.

If any good reason exists why we should persevere longer in withholding
our recognition of the independence and sovereignty of Haiti and Liberia,
I am unable to discern it. Unwilling, however, to inaugurate a novel
policy in regard to them without the approbation of Congress, I submit
for your consideration the expediency of an appropriation for maintaining
a charge d'affaires near each of those new States. It does not admit of
doubt that important commercial advantages might be secured by favorable
treaties with them.

The operations of the treasury during the period which has elapsed since
your adjournment have been conducted with signal success. The patriotism
of the people has placed at the disposal of the government the large
means demanded by the public exigencies. Much of the national loan has
been taken by citizens of the industrial classes, whose confidence in
their country's faith and zeal for their country's deliverance from
present peril have induced them to contribute to the support of the
government the whole of their limited acquisitions. This fact imposes
peculiar obligations to economy in disbursement and energy in action.

The revenue from all sources, including loans, for the financial year
ending on the 30th of June, 1861, was $86,835,900.27, and the
expenditures for the same period, including payments on account of the
public debt, were $84,578,834.47, leaving a balance in the treasury on
the 1st of July of $2,257,065.80. For the first quarter of the financial
year ending on the 30th of September, 1861, the receipts from all
sources, including the balance of the 1st of July, were $102,532,509.27,
and the expenses $98,239733.09, leaving a balance on the 1st of October,
1861, of $4,292,776.18.

Estimates for the remaining three quarters of the year and for the
financial year 1863, together with his views of ways and means for
meeting the demands contemplated by them, will be submitted to Congress
by the Secretary of the Treasury. It is gratifying to know that the
expenditures made necessary by the rebellion are not beyond the resources
of the loyal people, and to believe that the same patriotism which has
thus far sustained the government will continue to sustain it till peace
and union shall again bless the land.

I respectfully refer to the report of the Secretary of War for
information respecting the numerical strength of the army and for
recommendations having in view an increase of its efficiency and the
well-being of the various branches of the service intrusted to his care.
It is gratifying to know that the patriotism of the people has proved
equal to the occasion, and that the number of troops tendered greatly
exceeds the force which Congress authorized me to call into the field.

I refer with pleasure to those portions of his report which make allusion
to the creditable degree of discipline already attained by our troops and
to the excellent sanitary condition of the entire army.

The recommendation of the Secretary for an organization of the militia
upon a uniform basis is a subject of vital importance to the future
safety of the country, and is commended to the serious attention of
Congress.

The large addition to the regular army, in connection with the defection
that has so considerably diminished the number of its officers, gives
peculiar importance to his recommendation for increasing the corps of
cadets to the greatest capacity of the Military Academy.

By mere omission, I presume, Congress has failed to provide chaplains for
hospitals occupied by volunteers. This subject was brought to my notice,
and I was induced to draw up the form of a letter, one copy of which,
properly addressed, has been delivered to each of the persons, and at the
dates respectively named and stated in a schedule, containing also the
form of the letter, marked A, and herewith transmitted.

These gentlemen, I understand, entered upon the duties designated at the
times respectively stated in the schedule, and have labored faithfully
therein ever since. I therefore recommend that they be compensated at the
same rate as chaplains in the army.  I further suggest that general
provision be made for chaplains to serve at hospitals, as well as with
regiments.

The report of the Secretary of the Navy presents in detail the operations
of that branch of the service, the activity and energy which have
characterized its administration, and the results of measures to increase
its efficiency and power such have been the additions, by construction
and purchase, that it may almost be said a navy has been created and
brought into service since our difficulties commenced.

Besides blockading our extensive coast, squadrons larger than ever before
assembled under our flag have been put afloat and performed deeds which
have increased our naval renown.

I would invite special attention to the recommendation of the Secretary
for a more perfect organization of the navy by introducing additional
grades in the service.

The present organization is defective and unsatisfactory, and the
suggestions submitted by the department will, it is believed, if adopted,
obviate the difficulties alluded to, promote harmony, and increase the
efficiency of the navy.

There are three vacancies on the bench of the Supreme Court--two by the
decease of Justices Daniel and McLean and one by the resignation of
Justice Campbell. I have so far forborne making nominations to fill these
vacancies for reasons which I will now state. Two of the outgoing judges
resided within the States now overrun by revolt, so that if successors
were appointed in the same localities they could not now serve upon their
circuits; and many of the most competent men there probably would not
take the personal hazard of accepting to serve, even here, upon the
Supreme bench. I have been unwilling to throw all the appointments
north-ward, thus disabling myself from doing justice to the South on the
return of peace; although I may remark that to transfer to the North one
which has heretofore been in the South would not, with reference to
territory and population, be unjust.

During the long and brilliant judicial career of Judge McLean his circuit
grew into an empire-altogether too large for any one judge to give the
courts therein more than a nominal attendance--rising in population from
1,470,018 in 1830 to 6,151,405 in 1860.

Besides this, the country generally has outgrown our present judicial
system. If uniformity was at all intended, the system requires that all
the States shall be accommodated with circuit courts, attended by Supreme
judges, while, in fact, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Florida,
Texas, California, and Oregon have never had any such courts. Nor can
this well be remedied without a change in the system, because the adding
of judges to the Supreme Court, enough for the accommodation of all parts
of the country with circuit courts, would create a court altogether too
numerous for a judicial body of any sort. And the evil, if it be one,
will increase as new States come into the Union. Circuit courts are
useful or they are not useful. If useful, no State should be denied them;
if not useful, no State should have them. Let them be provided for all or
abolished as to all.

Three modifications occur to me, either of which, I think, would be an
improvement upon our present system. Let the Supreme Court be of
convenient number in every event; then, first, let the whole country be
divided into circuits of convenient size, the Supreme judges to serve in
a number of them corresponding to their own number, and independent
circuit judges be provided for all the rest; or, secondly, let the
Supreme judges be relieved from circuit duties and circuit judges
provided for all the circuits; or, thirdly, dispense with circuit courts
altogether, leaving the judicial functions wholly to the district courts
and an independent Supreme Court.

I respectfully recommend to the consideration of Congress the present
condition of the statute laws, with the hope that Congress will be able
to find an easy remedy for many of the inconveniences and evils which
constantly embarrass those engaged in the practical administration of
them. Since the Organization of the government, Congress has enacted some
5000 acts and joint resolutions, which fill more than 6000 closely
printed pages and are scattered through many volumes. Many of these acts
have been drawn in haste and without sufficient caution, so that their
provisions are often obscure in themselves or in conflict with each
other, or at least so doubtful as to render it very difficult for even
the best-informed persons to ascertain precisely what the statute law
really is.

It seems to me very important that the statute laws should be made as
plain and intelligible as possible, and be reduced to as small a compass
as may consist with the fullness and precision of the will of the
Legislature and the perspicuity of its language. This well done would, I
think, greatly facilitate the labors of those whose duty it is to assist
in the administration of the laws, and would be a lasting benefit to the
people, by placing before them in a more accessible and intelligible form
the laws which so deeply concern their interests and their duties.

I am informed by some whose opinions I respect that all the acts of
Congress now in force and of a permanent and general nature might be
revised and rewritten so as to be embraced in one volume (or at most two
volumes) of ordinary and convenient size; and I respectfully recommend to
Congress to consider of the subject, and if my suggestion be approved to
devise such plan as to their wisdom shall seem most proper for the
attainment of the end proposed.

One of the unavoidable consequences of the present insurrection is the
entire suppression in many places of all the ordinary means of
administering civil justice by the officers and in the forms of existing
law. This is the case, in whole or in part, in all the insurgent States;
and as our armies advance upon and take possession of parts of those
States the practical evil becomes more apparent. There are no courts or
officers to whom the citizens of other States may apply for the
enforcement of their lawful claims against citizens of the insurgent
States, and there is a vast amount of debt constituting such claims. Some
have estimated it as high as $200,000,000, due in large part from
insurgents in open rebellion to loyal citizens who are even now making
great sacrifices in the discharge of their patriotic duty to support the
government.

Under these circumstances I have been urgently solicited to establish, by
military power, courts to administer summary justice in such cases. I
have thus far declined to do it, not because I had any doubt that the end
proposed--the collection of the debts--was just and right in itself, but
because I have been unwilling to go beyond the pressure of necessity in
the unusual exercise of power. But the powers of Congress, I suppose, are
equal to the anomalous occasion, and therefore I refer the whole matter
to Congress, with the hope that a plan maybe devised for the
administration of justice in all such parts of the insurgent States and
Territories as may be under the control of this government, whether by a
voluntary return to allegiance and order or by the power of our arms;
this, however, not to be a permanent institution, but a temporary
substitute, and to cease as soon as the ordinary courts can be
reestablished in peace.

It is important that some more convenient means should be provided, if
possible, for the adjustment of claims against the government, especially
in view of their increased number by reason of the war. It is as much the
duty of government to render prompt justice against itself in favor of
citizens as it is to administer the same between private individuals. The
investigation and adjudication of claims in their nature belong to the
judicial department. Besides, it is apparent that the attention of
Congress will be more than usually engaged for some time to come with
great national questions. It was intended by the organization of the
Court of Claims mainly to remove this branch of business from the halls
of Congress; but, while the court has proved to be an effective and
valuable means of investigation, it in great degree fails to effect the
object of its creation for want of power to make its judgments final.

Fully aware of the delicacy, not to say the danger of the subject, I
commend to your careful consideration whether this power of making
judgments final may not properly be given to the court, reserving the
right of appeal on questions of law to the Supreme Court, with such other
provisions as experience may have shown to be necessary.

I ask attention to the report of the Postmaster general, the following
being a summary statement of the condition of the department:

The revenue from all sources during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1861,
including the annual permanent appropriation of $700,000 for the
transportation of "free mail matter," was $9,049,296.40, being about 2
per cent. less than the revenue for 1860.

The expenditures were $13,606,759.11, showing a decrease of more than 8
per cent. as compared with those of the previous year and leaving an
excess of expenditure over the revenue for the last fiscal year of
$4,557,462.71.

The gross revenue for the year ending June 30, 1863, is estimated at an
increase of 4 per cent. on that of 1861, making $8,683,000, to which
should be added the earnings of the department in carrying free matter,
viz., $700,000, making $9,383,000.

The total expenditures for 1863 are estimated at $12,528,000, leaving an
estimated deficiency of $3,145,000 to be supplied from the treasury in
addition to the permanent appropriation.

The present insurrection shows, I think, that the extension of this
District across the Potomac River at the time of establishing the capital
here was eminently wise, and consequently that the relinquishment of that
portion of it which lies within the State of Virginia was unwise and
dangerous. I submit for your consideration the expediency of regaining
that part of the District and the restoration of the original boundaries
thereof through negotiations with the State of Virginia.

The report of the Secretary of the Interior, with the accompanying
documents, exhibits the condition of the several branches of the public
business pertaining to that department.  The depressing influences of the
insurrection have been specially felt in the operations of the Patent and
General Land Offices. The cash receipts from the sales of public lands
during the past year have exceeded the expenses of our land system only
about $200,000. The sales have been entirely suspended in the Southern
States, while the interruptions to the business of the country and the
diversion of large numbers of men from labor to military service have
obstructed settlements in the new States and Territories of the
Northwest.

The receipts of the Patent Office have declined in nine months about
$100,000.00 rendering a large reduction of the force employed necessary
to make it self-sustaining.

The demands upon the Pension Office will be largely increased by the
insurrection.  Numerous applications for pensions, based upon the
casualties of the existing war, have already been made. There is reason
to believe that many who are now upon the pension rolls and in receipt of
the bounty of the government are in the ranks of the insurgent army or
giving them aid and comfort. The Secretary of the Interior has directed a
suspension of the payment of the pensions of such persons upon proof of
their disloyalty. I recommend that Congress authorize that officer to
cause the names of such persons to be stricken from the pension rolls.

The relations of the government with the Indian tribes have been greatly
disturbed by the insurrection, especially in the southern superintendency
and in that of New Mexico. The Indian country south of Kansas is in the
possession of insurgents from Texas and Arkansas. The agents of the
United States appointed since the 4th of March for this superintendency
have been unable to reach their posts, while the most of those who were
in office before that time have espoused the insurrectionary cause, and
assume to exercise the powers of agents by virtue of commissions from the
insurrectionists. It has been stated in the public press that a portion
of those Indians have been organized as a military force and are attached
to the army of the insurgents. Although the government has no official
information upon this subject, letters have been written to the
Commissioner of Indian Affairs by several prominent chiefs giving
assurance of their loyalty to the United States and expressing a wish for
the presence of Federal troops to protect them. It is believed that upon
the repossession of the country by the Federal forces the Indians will
readily cease all hostile demonstrations and resume their former
relations to the government.

Agriculture, confessedly the largest interest of the nation, has not a
department nor a bureau, but a clerkship only, assigned to it in the
government. While it is fortunate that this great interest is so
independent in its nature as not to have demanded and extorted more from
the government, I respectfully ask Congress to consider whether something
more cannot be given voluntarily with general advantage.

Annual reports exhibiting the condition of our agriculture, commerce, and
manufactures would present a fund of information of great practical value
to the country. While I make no suggestion as to details, I venture the
opinion that an agricultural and statistical bureau might profitably be
organized.

The execution of the laws for the suppression of the African slave trade
has been confided to the Department of the Interior.  It is a subject of
gratulation that the efforts which have been made for the suppression of
this inhuman traffic have been recently attended with unusual success.
Five vessels being fitted out for the slave trade have been seized and
condemned. Two mates of vessels engaged in the trade and one person in
equipping a vessel as a slaver have been convicted and subjected to the
penalty of fine and imprisonment, and one captain, taken with a cargo of
Africans on board his vessel, has been convicted of the highest grade of
offense under our laws, the punishment of which is death.

The Territories of Colorado, Dakota, and Nevada, created by the last
Congress, have been organized, and civil administration has been
inaugurated therein under auspices especially gratifying when it is
considered that the leaven of treason was found existing in some of these
new countries when the Federal officers arrived there.

The abundant natural resources of these Territories, with the security
and protection afforded by organized government, will doubtless invite to
them a large immigration when peace shall restore the business of the
country to its accustomed channels. I submit the resolutions of the
Legislature of Colorado, which evidence the patriotic spirit of the
people of the Territory. So far the authority of the United States has
been upheld in all the Territories, as it is hoped it will be in the
future. I commend their interests and defense to the enlightened and
generous care of Congress.

I recommend to the favorable consideration of Congress the interests of
the District of Columbia. The insurrection has been the cause of much
suffering and sacrifice to its inhabitants, and as they have no
representative in Congress that body should not overlook their just
claims upon the government.

At your late session a joint resolution was adopted authorizing the
President to take measures for facilitating a proper representation of
the industrial interests of the United States at the exhibition of the
industry of all nations to be holden at London in the year 1862. I regret
to say I have been unable to give personal attention to this subject--a
subject at once so interesting in itself and so extensively and
intimately connected with the material prosperity of the world. Through
the Secretaries of State and of the Interior a plan or system has been
devised and partly matured, and which will be laid before you.

Under and by virtue of the act of Congress entitled "An act to confiscate
property used for insurrectionary purposes," approved August 6, 1861, the
legal claims of certain persons to the labor and service of certain other
persons have become forfeited, and numbers of the latter thus liberated
are already dependent on the United States, and must be provided for in
some way. Besides this, it is not impossible that some of the States will
pass similar enactments for their own benefit respectively, and by
operation of which persons of the same class will be thrown upon them for
disposal. In such case I recommend that Congress provide for accepting
such persons from such States, according to some mode of valuation, in
lieu, pro tanto, of direct taxes, or upon some other plan to be agreed on
with such States respectively; that such persons, on such acceptance by
the General Government, be at once deemed free, and that in any event
steps be taken for colonizing both classes (or the one first mentioned if
the other shall not be brought into existence) at some place or places in
a climate congenial to them. It might be well to consider, too, whether
the free colored people already in the United States could not, so far as
individuals may desire, be included in such colonization.

To carry out the plan of colonization may involve the acquiring of
territory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expended
in the territorial acquisition. Having practised the acquisition of
territory for nearly sixty years, the question of constitutional power to
do so is no longer an open one with us. The power was questioned at first
by Mr. Jefferson, who, however, in the purchase of Louisiana, yielded his
scruples on the plea of great expediency. If it be said that the only
legitimate object of acquiring territory is to furnish homes for white
men, this measure effects that object, for emigration of colored men
leaves additional room for white men remaining or coming here. Mr.
Jefferson, however, placed the importance of procuring Louisiana more on
political and commercial grounds than on providing room for population.

On this whole proposition, including the appropriation of money with the
acquisition of territory, does not the expediency amount to absolute
necessity--that without which the government itself cannot be
perpetuated?

The war continues. In considering the policy to be adopted for
suppressing the insurrection I have been anxious and careful that the
inevitable conflict for this purpose shall not degenerate into a violent
and remorseless revolutionary struggle. I have therefore in every case
thought it proper to keep the integrity of the Union prominent as the
primary object of the contest on our part, leaving all questions which
are not of vital military importance to the more deliberate action of the
Legislature.

In the exercise of my best discretion I have adhered to the blockade of
the ports held by the insurgents, instead of putting in force by
proclamation the law of Congress enacted at the late session for closing
those ports.

So also, obeying the dictates of prudence, as well as the obligations of
law, instead of transcending I have adhered to the act of Congress to
confiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes. If a new law upon
the same subject shall be proposed, its propriety will be duly
considered. The Union must be preserved, and hence all indispensable
means must be employed. We should not be in haste to determine that
radical and extreme measures, which may reach the loyal as well as the
disloyal, are indispensable.

The inaugural address at the beginning of the Administration and the
message to Congress at the late special session were both mainly devoted
to topics domestic controversy out of which the insurrection and
consequent war have sprung. Nothing now occurs to add or subtract to or
from the principles or general purposes stated and expressed in those
documents.

The last ray of hope for preserving the Union peaceably expired at the
assault upon Fort Sumter, and a general review of what has occurred since
may not be unprofitable. What was painfully uncertain then is much better
defined and more distinct now, and the progress of events is plainly in
the right direction. The insurgents confidently claimed a strong support
from north of Mason and Dixon's line, and the friends of the Union were
not free from apprehension on the point. This, however, was soon settled
definitely, and on the right side. South of the line noble little
Delaware led off right from the first. Maryland was made to seem against
the Union. Our soldiers were assaulted, bridges were burned, and
railroads torn up within her limits, and we were many days at one time
without the ability to bring a single regiment over her soil to the
capital. Now her bridges and railroads are repaired and open to the
government; she already gives seven regiments to the cause of the Union,
and none to the enemy; and her people, at a regular election, have
sustained the Union by a larger majority and a larger aggregate vote than
they ever before gave to any candidate or any question. Kentucky, too,
for some time in doubt, is now decidedly and, I think, unchangeably
ranged on the side of the Union. Missouri is comparatively quiet, and, I
believe, can, not again be overrun by the insurrectionists. These three
States of Maryland, Kentucky, and Missouri, neither of which would
promise a single soldier at first, have now an aggregate of not less than
forty thousand in the field for the Union, while of their citizens
certainly not more than a third of that number, and they of doubtful
whereabouts and doubtful existence, are in arms against us. After a
somewhat bloody struggle of months, winter closes on the Union people of
western Virginia, leaving them masters of their own country.

An insurgent force of about fifteen hundred, for months dominating the
narrow peninsular region constituting the counties of Accomac and
Northampton, and known as Eastern Shore of Virginia, together with some
contiguous parts of Maryland, have laid down their arms, and the people
there have renewed their allegiance to and accepted the protection of the
old flag. This leaves no armed insurrectionist north of the Potomac or
east of the Chesapeake.

Also we have obtained a footing at each of the isolated points on the
southern coast of Hatteras, Port Royal, Tybee Island (near Savannah), and
Ship Island; and we likewise have some general accounts of popular
movements in behalf of the Union in North Carolina and Tennessee.

These things demonstrate that the cause of the Union is advancing
steadily and certainly southward.

Since your last adjournment Lieutenant-General Scott has retired from the
head of the army. During his long life the nation has not been unmindful
of his merit; yet on calling to mind how faithfully, ably, and
brilliantly he has served the country, from a time far back in our
history, when few of the now living had been born, and thenceforward
continually, I cannot but think we are still his debtors. I submit,
therefore, for your consideration what further mark of recognition is due
to him, and to ourselves as a grateful people.

With the retirement of General Scott came the Executive duty of
appointing in his stead a general-in-chief of the army. It is a fortunate
circumstance that neither in council nor country was there, so far as I
know, any difference of opinion as to the proper person to be selected.
The retiring chief repeatedly expressed his judgment in favor of General
McClellan for the position, and in this the nation seemed to give a
unanimous concurrence. The designation of General McClellan is therefore
in considerable degree the selection of the country as well as of the
Executive, and hence there is better reason to hope there will be given
him the confidence and cordial support thus by fair implication promised,
and without which he cannot with so full efficiency serve the country.

It has been said that one bad general is better than two good ones, and
the saying is true if taken to mean no more than that an army is better
directed by a single mind, though inferior, than by two superior ones at
variance and cross-purposes with each other.

And the same is true in all joint operations wherein those engaged can
have none but a common end in view and can differ only as to the choice
of means. In a storm at sea no one on hoard can wish the ship to sink,
and yet not unfrequently all go down together because too many will
direct and no single mind can be allowed to control.

It continues to develop that the insurrection is largely, if not
exclusively, a war upon the first principle of popular government--the
rights of the people. Conclusive evidence of this is found in the most
grave and maturely considered public documents, as well as in the general
tone of the insurgents. In those documents we find the abridgment of the
existing right of suffrage and the denial to the people of all right to
participate in the selection of public officers except the legislative
boldly advocated, with labored arguments to prove that large control of
the people in government is the source of all political evil. Monarchy
itself is sometimes hinted at as a possible refuge from the power of the
people.

In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omit
raising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism. It
is not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be made in
favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with its
connections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a brief
attention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, if
not above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that labor
is available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unless
somebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him to
labor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that
capital shall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own
consent, or buy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having
proceeded so far, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either
hired laborers or what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that
whoever is once a hired laborer is fixed in that condition for life.

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor
is there any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the
condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all
inferences from them are groundless.

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit
of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed.
Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher
consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection
as any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always
will be, a relation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits.
The error is in assuming that the whole labor of community exists within
that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor
themselves, and with their capital hire or buy another few to labor for
them. A large majority belong to neither class--neither work for others
nor have others working for them. In most of the Southern States a
majority of the whole people of all colors are neither slaves nor
masters, while in the Northern a large majority are neither hirers nor
hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters,--work for
themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking
the whole product to themselves, and asking no favors of capital on the
one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on the other. It is not
forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingle their own labor
with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands and also buy or
hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed and not a
distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence of this
mixed class.

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thing
as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many
independent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their
lives were hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world
labors for wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land
for himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at length
hires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generous and
prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, and
consequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No
men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from
poverty; none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not
honestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which
they already possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to
close the door of advancement against such as they and to fix new
disabilities and burdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost.

From the first taking of our national census to the last are seventy
years, and we find our population at the end of the period eight times as
great as it was at the beginning. The increase of those other things
which men deem desirable has been even greater. We thus have at one view
what the popular principle, applied to government through the machinery
of the States and the Union, has produced in a given time, and also what
if firmly maintained it promises for the future. There are already among
us those who if the Union be preserved will live to see it contain
200,000,000. The struggle of to-day is not altogether for to-day; it is
for a vast future also. With a reliance on Providence all the more firm
and earnest, let us proceed in the great task which events have devolved
upon us.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

WASHINGTON, December 20, 1861.

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I transmit to Congress a letter from the secretary of the executive
committee of the commission appointed to represent the interests of those
American citizens who may desire to become exhibitors at the industrial
exhibition to be held in London in 1862, and a memorial of that
commission, with a report of the executive committee thereof and copies
of circulars announcing the decisions of Her Majesty's commissioners in
London, giving directions to be observed in regard to articles intended
for exhibition, and also of circular forms of application, demands for
space, approvals, etc., according to the rules prescribed by the British
commissioners.

As these papers fully set forth the requirements necessary to enable
those citizens of the United States who may wish to become exhibitors to
avail themselves of the privileges of the exhibition, I commend them to
your early consideration, especially in view of the near approach of the
time when the exhibition will begin.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



LETTER OF REPRIMAND TO GENERAL HUNTER

TO GENERAL HUNTER.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,

Dec.31, 1861

MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER.

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 23d is received, and I am constrained to say it
is difficult to answer so ugly a letter in good temper. I am, as you
intimate, losing much of the great confidence I placed in you, not from
any act or omission of yours touching the public service, up to the time
you were sent to Leavenworth, but from the flood of grumbling despatches
and letters I have seen from you since. I knew you were being ordered to
Leavenworth at the time it was done; and I aver that with as tender a
regard for your honor and your sensibilities as I had for my own, it
never occurred to me that you were being "humiliated, insulted, and
disgraced"; nor have I, up to this day, heard an intimation that you have
been wronged, coming from any one but yourself. No one has blamed you for
the retrograde movement from Springfield, nor for the information you
gave General Cameron; and this you could readily understand, if it were
not for your unwarranted assumption that the ordering you to Leavenworth
must necessarily have been done as a punishment for some fault. I thought
then, and think yet, the position assigned to you is as responsible, and
as honorable, as that assigned to Buell--I know that General McClellan
expected more important results from it. My impression is that at the
time you were assigned to the new Western Department, it had not been
determined to replace General Sherman in Kentucky; but of this I am not
certain, because the idea that a command in Kentucky was very desirable,
and one in the farther West undesirable, had never occurred to me. You
constantly speak of being placed in command of only 3000.  Now, tell me,
is this not mere impatience? Have you not known all the while that you
are to command four or five times that many.

I have been, and am sincerely your friend; and if, as such, I dare to
make a suggestion, I would say you are adopting the best possible way to
ruin yourself. "Act well your part, there all the honor lies." He who
does something at the head of one regiment, will eclipse him who does
nothing at the head of a hundred.

Your friend, as ever,

A. LINCOLN.



TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HALLECK.

WASHINGTON, D.C., December 31, 1861

GENERAL H. W. HALLECK, St. Louis, Missouri:

General McClellan is sick. Are General Buell and yourself in concert?
When he moves on Bowling Green, what hinders it being reinforced from
Columbus? A simultaneous movement by you on Columbus might prevent it.

A. LINCOLN.

[Similar despatch to Buell same date.]



1862



TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL.

WASHINGTON CITY, January 1, 1862

BRIGADIER-GENERAL BUELL, Louisville:

General McClellan should not yet be disturbed with business. I think you
better get in concert with General Halleck at once. I write you to-night.
I also telegraph and write Halleck.

A. LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 1, 1862

DEAR GENERAL HALLECK:

General McClellan is not dangerously ill, as I hope, but would better not
be disturbed with business. I am very anxious that, in case of General
Buell's moving toward Nashville, the enemy shall not be greatly
reinforced, and I think there is danger he will be from Columbus. It
seems to me that a real or feigned attack upon Columbus from up the river
at the same time would either prevent this or compensate for it by
throwing Columbus into our hands. I wrote General Buell a letter similar
to this, meaning that he and you shall communicate and act in concert,
unless it be your judgment and his that there is no necessity for it. You
and he will understand much better than I how to do it. Please do not
lose time in this matter.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO THE PEOPLE OF MARYLAND,

In view of the recent declaration of the people of Maryland of their
adhesion to the Union, so distinctly made in their recent election, the
President directs that all the prisoners who having heretofore been
arrested in that State are now detained in military custody by the
President's authority, be released from their imprisonment on the
following conditions, namely: that if they were holding any civil or
military offices when arrested, the terms of which have expired, they
shall not resume or reclaim such office; and secondly, all persons
availing themselves of this proclamation shall engage by oath or parole
of honor to maintain the Union and the Constitution of the United States,
and in no way to aid or abet by arms, counsel, conversation, or
information of any kind the existing insurrection against the Government
of the United States.

To guard against misapprehension it is proper to state that this
proclamation does not apply to prisoners of war.



MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

WASHINGTON, January 2, 1862

To THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

I transmit to Congress a copy of a letter to the Secretary of State from
James R. Partridge, secretary to the executive committee to the in
exhibition to be held in London in the course present year, and a copy of
the correspond which it refers, relative to a vessel for the of taking
such articles as persons in this country may wish to exhibit on that
occasion. As it appears no naval vessel can be spared for the purpose, I
recommend that authority be given to charter a suitable merchant vessel,
in order that facilities similar to those afforded by the government
exhibition of 1851 may also be extended to citizens of the United States
who may desire to contribute to the exhibition of this year.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN



MESSAGES OF DISAPPOINTMENT WITH HIS GENERALS

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL.

WASHINGTON, January 4, 1862.

GENERAL BUELL:

Have arms gone forward for East Tennessee? Please tell me the progress
and condition of the movement in that direction. Answer.

A. LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,

January 6, 1862.

BRIGADIER-GENERAL BUELL.

MY DEAR SIR:--Your despatch of yesterday has been received, and it
disappoints and distresses me. I have shown it to General McClellan, who
says he will write you to-day. I am not competent to criticize your
views, and therefore what I offer is in justification of myself. Of the
two, I would rather have a point on the railroad south of Cumberland Gap
than Nashville. First, because it cuts a great artery of the enemy's
communication, which Nashville does not; and secondly, because it is in
the midst of loyal people who would rally around it, while Nashville is
not. Again, I cannot see why the movement on East Tennessee would not be
a diversion in your favor rather than a disadvantage, assuming that a
movement toward Nashville is the main object. But my distress is that our
friends in East Tennessee are being hanged and driven to despair, and
even now, I fear, are thinking of taking rebel arms for the sake of
personal protection. In this we lose the most valuable stake we have in
the South. My despatch, to which yours is an answer, was sent with the
knowledge of Senator Johnson and Representative Maynard of East
Tennessee, and they will be upon me to know the answer, which I cannot
safely show them. They would despair, possibly resign to go and save
their families somehow, or die with them. I do not intend this to be an
order in any sense, but merely, as intimated before, to show you the
grounds of my anxiety.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUELL.

WASHINGTON, January 7, 1862.

BRIGADIER-GENERAL D.C. BUELL, Louisville:

Please name as early a day as you safely can on or before which you can
be ready to move southward in concert with Major-General Halleck. Delay
is ruining us, and it is indispensable for me to have something definite.
I send a like despatch to Major-General Halleck.

A. LINCOLN.



MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

WASHINGTON, January 10, 1862

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I transmit to Congress a translation of an instruction to the minister of
his Majesty the Emperor of Austria accredited to this government, and a
copy of a note to that minister from the Secretary of State relative to
the questions involved in the taking from the British steamer Trent of
certain citizens of the United States by order of Captain Wilkes of the
United States Navy. This correspondence may be considered as a sequel to
that previously communicated to Congress relating to the same subject.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



INDORSEMENT ON LETTER FROM GENERAL HALLECK,

JANUARY 10, 1862.

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI ST. Louis, January 6, 1862.

To His EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT:

In reply to your Excellency's letter of the 1st instant, I have to state
that on receiving your telegram I immediately communicated with General
Buell and have since sent him all the information I could obtain of the
enemy's movements about Columbus and Camp Beauregard. No considerable
force has been sent from those places to Bowling Green. They have about
22,000 men at Columbus, and the place is strongly fortified. I have at
Cairo, Port Holt, and Paducah only about 15,000, which, after leaving
guards at these places, would give me but little over 10,000 men with
which to assist General Buell. It would be madness to attempt anything
serious with such a force, and I cannot at the present time withdraw any
from Missouri without risking the loss of this State. The troops recently
raised in other States of this department have, without my knowledge,
been sent to Kentucky and Kansas.

I am satisfied that the authorities at Washington do not appreciate the
difficulties with which we have to contend here. The operations of Lane,
Jennison, and others have so enraged the people of Missouri that it is
estimated that there is a majority of 80,000 against the government. We
are virtually in an enemy's country. Price and others have a considerable
army in the southwest, against which I am operating with all my available
force.

This city and most of the middle and northern counties are
insurrectionary,--burning bridges, destroying telegraph lines, etc.,--and
can be kept down only by the presence of troops. A large portion of the
foreign troops organized by General Fremont are unreliable; indeed, many
of them are already mutinous. They have been tampered with by
politicians, and made to believe that if they get up a mutiny and demand
Fremont's return the government will be forced to restore him to duty
here. It is believed that some high officers are in the plot I have
already been obliged to disarm several of these organizations, and I am
daily expecting more serious outbreaks. Another grave difficulty is the
want of proper general officers to command the troops and enforce order
and discipline, and especially to protect public property from robbery
and plunder. Some of the brigadier-generals assigned to this department
are entirely ignorant of their duties and unfit for any command. I assure
you, Mr. President, it is very difficult to accomplish much with such
means. I am in the condition of a carpenter who is required to build a
bridge with a dull axe, a broken saw, and rotten timber. It is true that
I have some very good green timber, which will answer the purpose as soon
as I can get it into shape and season it a little.

I know nothing of General Buell's intended operations, never having
received any information in regard to the general plan of campaign. If it
be intended that his column shall move on Bowling Green while another
moves from Cairo or Paducah on Columbus or Camp Beauregard, it will be a
repetition of the same strategic error which produced the disaster of
Bull Run. To operate on exterior lines against an enemy occupying a
central position will fail, as it always has failed, in ninety-nine cases
out of a hundred. It is condemned by every military authority I have ever
read.

General Buell's army and the forces at Paducah occupy precisely the same
position in relation to each other and to the enemy as did the armies of
McDowell and Patterson before the battle of Bull Run.

Very respectfully, your obedient servant,

H. W. HALLECK, Major-General

[Indorsement]

The within is a copy of a letter just received from General Halleck. It
is exceedingly discouraging. As everywhere else, nothing can be done.

A. LINCOLN.



TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR ANDREW.

WASHINGTON, D. C., January 11, 1862

GOVERNOR JOHN A. ANDREW, Boston:

I will be greatly obliged if you will arrange; somehow with General
Butler to officer his two un-officered regiments.

A. LINCOLN



TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 13, 1861

BRIGADIER-GENERAL BUELL.

MY DEAR SIR--Your despatch of yesterday is received, in which you say, "I
received your letter and General McClellan's, and will at once devote my
efforts to your views and his." In the midst of my many cares I have not
seen, nor asked to see, General McClellan's letter to you. For my own
views, I have not offered and do not now offer them as orders; and while
I am glad to have them respectfully considered, I would blame you to
follow them contrary to your own clear judgment, unless I should put them
in the form of orders. As to General McClellan's views, you understand
your duty in regard to them better than I do.

With this preliminary I state my general idea of this war to be, that we
have the greater numbers and the enemy has the greater facility of
concentrating forces upon points of collision; that we must fail unless
we can find some way of making our advantage an overmatch for his; and
that this can only be done by menacing him with superior forces at
different points at the same time, so that we can safely attack one or
both if he makes no change; and if he weakens one to strengthen the
other, forbear to attack the strengthened one, but seize and hold the
weakened one, gaining so much.

To illustrate: Suppose last summer, when Winchester ran away to reinforce
Manassas, we had forborne to attack Manassas, but had seized and held
Winchester. I mention this to illustrate and not to criticise. I did not
lose confidence in McDowell, and I think less harshly of Patterson than
some others seem to. . . . Applying the principle to your case, my idea
is that Halleck shall menace Columbus and "down river" generally, while
you menace Bowling Green and East Tennessee. If the enemy shall
concentrate at Bowling Green, do not retire from his front, yet do not
fight him there either, but seize Columbus and East Tennessee, one or
both, left exposed by the concentration at Bowling Green. It is a matter
of no small anxiety to me, and which I am sure you will not overlook,
that the East Tennessee line is so long and over so bad a road.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.

(Indorsement.)

Having to-day written General Buell a letter, it occurs to me to send
General Halleck a copy of it.

A. LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 1, 1862.

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK.

MY DEAR SIR:--The Germans are true and patriotic and so far as they have
got cross in Missouri it is upon mistake and misunderstanding. Without a
knowledge of its contents, Governor Koerner, of Illinois, will hand you
this letter. He is an educated and talented German gentleman, as true a
man as lives. With his assistance you can set everything right with the
Germans. . . . My clear judgment is that, with reference to the German
element in your command, you should have Governor Koerner with you; and
if agreeable to you and him, I will make him a brigadier-general, so that
he can afford to give his time. He does not wish to command in the field,
though he has more military knowledge than some who do. If he goes into
the place, he will simply be an efficient, zealous, and unselfish
assistant to you. I say all this upon intimate personal acquaintance with
Governor Koerner.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN



MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

WASHINGTON, January 17, 1862

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I transmit to Congress a translation of an instruction to the minister of
his Majesty the King of Prussia accredited to this government, and a copy
of a note to that minister from the Secretary of State relating to the
capture and detention of certain citizens of the United States,
passengers on board the British steamer Trent, by order of Captain Wilkes
of the United States Navy.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN



TO GENERAL McCLELLAN.

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON.

January 20, 1862.

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. McCLELLAN,

Commanding Armies of the United States:

You or any officer you may designate will in your discretion suspend the
writ of habeas corpus so far as may relate to Major Chase, lately of the
Engineer Corps of the Army of the United States, now alleged to be guilty
of treasonable practices against this government.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD.



PRESIDENT'S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO. 1

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 27, 1862.

Ordered, That the 22d day of February, 1862, be the day for a general
movement of the land and the naval forces of the United States against
the insurgent forces.

That especially the army at and about Fortress Monroe, the Army of the
Potomac, the Army of Western Virginia, the army near Munfordville,
Kentucky, the army and flotilla at Cairo, and a naval force in the Gulf
of Mexico, be ready for a movement on that day.

That all other forces, both land and naval, with their respective
commanders, obey existing orders for the time, and be ready to obey
additional orders when duly given.

That the heads of departments, and especially the Secretaries of War and
of the Navy, with all their subordinates, and the General-in-chief, with
all other commanders and subordinates of land and naval forces, will
severally be held to their strict and full responsibilities for the
prompt execution of this order.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



TO SECRETARY STANTON,

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, January 31, 1862

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR.

MY DEAR SIR:--It is my wish that the expedition commonly called the
"Lane Expedition" shall be, as much as has been promised at the
adjutant-general's office, under the supervision of General McClellan,
and not any more. I have not intended, and do not now intend, that it
shall be a great, exhausting affair, but a snug, sober column of 10,000
or 15,000. General Lane has been told by me many times that he is under
the command of General Hunter, and assented to it as often as told. It
was the distinct agreement between him and me, when I appointed him, that
he was to be under Hunter.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL WAR ORDER NO. 1.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 31, 1862.

Ordered, That all the disposable force of the Army of the Potomac, after
providing safely for the defence of Washington, be formed into an
expedition for the immediate object of seizing and occupying a point upon
the railroad southwestward of what is known as Manassas Junction, all
details to be in the discretion of the commander-in-chief, and the
expedition to move before or on the 22d day of February next.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



OPPOSITION TO McCLELLAN'S PLANS

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN,

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 3, 1862.

MAJOR-GENERAL MCCLELLAN.

DEAR SIR--You and I have distinct and different plans for a movement of
the Army of the Potomac--yours to be down the Chesapeake, up the
Rappahannock to Urbana, and across land to the terminus of the railroad
on the York River; mine to move directly to a point on the railroad
southwest of Manassas.

If you will give me satisfactory answers to the following questions, I
shall gladly yield my plan to yours.

First.  Does not your plan involve a greatly larger expenditure of time
and money than mine?

Second. Wherein is a victory more certain by your plan than mine?

Third. Wherein is a victory more valuable by your plan than mine?

Fourth. In fact, would it not be less valuable in this, that it would
break no great line of the enemy's communications, while mine would?

Fifth. In case of disaster, would not a retreat be more difficult by your
plan than mine?

Yours truly,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



Memorandum accompanying Letter of President Lincoln to General

McClellan, dated February 3,1862.

First. Suppose the enemy should attack us in force before we reach the
Occoquan, what?

Second. Suppose the enemy in force shall dispute the crossing of the
Occoquan, what? In view of this, might it not be safest for us to cross
the Occoquan at Coichester, rather than at the village of Occoquan? This
would cost the enemy two miles of travel to meet us, but would, on the
contrary, leave us two miles farther from our ultimate destination.

Third. Suppose we reach Maple Valley without an attack, will we not be
attacked there in force by the enemy marching by the several roads from
Manassas; and if so, what?



TO WM. H. HERNDON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 3, 1862.

DEAR WILLIAM:--Yours of January 30th just received. Do just as you say
about the money matter.

As you well know, I have not time to write a letter of respectable
length. God bless you, says

Your friend,

A. LINCOLN.



RESPITE FOR NATHANIEL GORDON

February 4, 1862

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,

To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting:

Whereas it appears that at a term of the Circuit Court of the United
States of America for the Southern District of New York held in the month
of November, A.D. 1861, Nathaniel Gordon was indicted and convicted for
being engaged in the slave trade, and was by the said court sentenced to
be put to death by hanging by the neck, on Friday the 7th day of
February, AD. 1862:

And whereas a large number of respectable citizens have earnestly
besought me to commute the said sentence of the said Nathaniel Gordon to
a term of imprisonment for life, which application I have felt it to be
my duty to refuse:

And whereas it has seemed to me probable that the unsuccessful
application made for the commutation of his sentence may have prevented
the said Nathaniel Gordon from making the necessary preparation for the
awful change which awaits him;

Now, therefore, be it known, that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the
United States of America, have granted and do hereby grant unto him, the
said Nathaniel Gordon, a respite of the above recited sentence, until
Friday the twenty-first day of February, A.D. 1862, between the hours of
twelve o'clock at noon and three o'clock in the afternoon of the said
day, when the said sentence shall be executed.

In granting this respite, it becomes my painful duty to admonish the
prisoner that, relinquishing all expectation of pardon by human
authority, he refer himself alone to the mercy of the common God and
Father of all men.

In testimony whereof I have hereunto signed my name and caused the seal
of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this fourth day of February, A.D. 1862,
and of the independence of the United States the eighty-sixth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.

WASHINGTON CITY, February 4. 1862

To THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

The third section of the "Act further to promote the efficiency of the
Navy," approved December 21, 1862, provides:

"That the President of the United States, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall have the authority to detail from the
retired list of the navy for the command of squadrons and single ships
such officers as he may believe that the good of the service requires to
be thus placed in command; and such officers may, if upon the
recommendation of the President of the United States they shall receive a
vote of thanks of Congress for their services and gallantry in action
against an enemy, be restored to the active list, and not otherwise."

In conformity with this law, Captain Samuel F. Du Pont, of the navy, was
nominated to the Senate for continuance as the flag-officer in command of
the squadron which recently rendered such important service to the Union
in the expedition to the coast of South Carolina.

Believing that no occasion could arise which would more fully correspond
with the intention of the law, or be more pregnant with happy influence
as an example, I cordially recommend that Captain Samuel F. Du Pont
receive a vote of thanks of Congress for his services and gallantry
displayed in the capture of Forts Walker and Beauregard, commanding the
entrance of Port Royal Harbor, on the 7th of November, 1861.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



TO GENERALS D. HUNTER AND J. H. LANE.

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 4, 1862.

MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER AND BRIGADIER-GENERAL LANE, Leavenworth, Kansas:

My wish has been and is to avail the government of the services of both
General Hunter and General Lane, and, so far as possible, to personally
oblige both. General Hunter is the senior officer, and must command when
they serve together; though in so far as he can consistently with the
public service and his own honor oblige General Lane, he will also oblige
me. If they cannot come to an amicable understanding, General Lane must
report to General Hunter for duty, according to the rules, or decline the
service.

A. LINCOLN.



EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1, RELATING TO POLITICAL
PRISONERS.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, February 14,1862.

The breaking out of a formidable insurrection based on a conflict of
political ideas, being an event without precedent in the United States,
was necessarily attended by great confusion and perplexity of the public
mind. Disloyalty before unsuspected suddenly became bold, and treason
astonished the world by bringing at once into the field military forces
superior in number to the standing army of the United States.

Every department of the government was paralyzed by treason. Defection
appeared in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, in the Cabinet,
in the Federal courts; ministers and consuls returned from foreign
countries to enter the insurrectionary councils of land or naval forces;
commanding and other officers of the army and in the navy betrayed our
councils or deserted their posts for commands in the insurgent forces.
Treason was flagrant in the revenue and in the post-office service, as
well as in the Territorial governments and in the Indian reserves.

Not only governors, judges, legislators, and ministerial officers in the
States, but even whole States rushed one after another with apparent
unanimity into rebellion. The capital was besieged and its connection
with all the States cut off. Even in the portions of the country which
were most loyal, political combinations and secret societies were formed
furthering the work of disunion, while, from motives of disloyalty or
cupidity or from excited passions or perverted sympathies, individuals
were found furnishing men, money, and materials of war and supplies to
the insurgents' military and naval forces. Armies, ships, fortifications,
navy yards, arsenals, military posts, and garrisons one after another
were betrayed or abandoned to the insurgents.

Congress had not anticipated, and so had not provided for, the emergency.
The municipal authorities were powerless and inactive. The judicial
machinery seemed as if it had been designed, not to sustain the
government, but to embarrass and betray it.

Foreign intervention, openly invited and industriously instigated by the
abettors of the insurrection, became imminent, and has only been
prevented by the practice of strict and impartial justice, with the most
perfect moderation, in our intercourse with nations.

The public mind was alarmed and apprehensive, though fortunately not
distracted or disheartened. It seemed to be doubtful whether the Federal
Government, which one year before had been thought a model worthy of
universal acceptance, had indeed the ability to defend and maintain
itself.

Some reverses, which, perhaps, were unavoidable, suffered by newly levied
and inefficient forces, discouraged the loyal and gave new hopes to the
insurgents. Voluntary enlistments seemed about to cease and desertions
commenced. Parties speculated upon the question whether conscription had
not become necessary to fill up the armies of the United States.

In this emergency the President felt it his duty to employ with energy
the extraordinary powers which the Constitution confides to him in cases
of insurrection. He called into the field such military and naval forces,
unauthorized by the existing laws, as seemed necessary. He directed
measures to prevent the use of the post-office for treasonable
correspondence. He subjected passengers to and from foreign countries to
new passport regulations, and he instituted a blockade, suspended the
writ of habeas corpus in various places, and caused persons who were
represented to him as being or about to engage in disloyal and
treasonable practices to be arrested by special civil as well as military
agencies and detained in military custody when necessary to prevent them
and deter others from such practices. Examinations of such cases were
instituted, and some of the persons so arrested have been discharged from
time to time under circumstances or upon conditions compatible, as was
thought, with the public safety.

Meantime a favorable change of public opinion has occurred. The line
between loyalty and disloyalty is plainly defined. The whole structure of
the government is firm and stable. Apprehension of public danger and
facilities for treasonable practices have diminished with the passions
which prompted heedless persons to adopt them. The insurrection is
believed to have culminated and to be declining.

The President, in view of these facts, and anxious to favor a return to
the normal course of the administration as far as regard for the public
welfare will allow, directs that all political prisoners or state
prisoners now held in military custody be released on their subscribing
to a parole engaging them to render no aid or comfort to the enemies in
hostility to the United States.

The Secretary of War will, however, in his discretion, except from the
effect of this order any persons detained as spies in the service of the
insurgents, or others whose release at the present moment may be deemed
incompatible with the public safety.

To all persons who shall be so released, and who shall keep their parole,
the President grants an amnesty for any past offences of treason or
disloyalty which they may have comminuted.

Extraordinary arrests will hereafter be made under the direction of the
military authorities alone.

By order of the President EDWIN M. STANTON,  Secretary of War.



MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

WASHINGTON CITY, February 15, 1862

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES:

The third section of the "Act further to promote the efficiency of the
Navy," approved December 21, 1861, provides

"That the President of the United States, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall have the authority to detail from the
retired list of the navy for the command of squadrons and single ships
such officers as he may believe that the good of the service requires to
be thus placed in command; and such officers may, if upon the
recommendation of the President of the United States they shall receive a
vote of thanks of Congress for their services and gallantry in action
against an enemy, be restored to the active list, and not otherwise."

In conformity with this law, Captain Louis M. Goldsborough, of the navy,
was nominated to the Senate for continuance as the flag-officer in
command of the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, which recently
rendered such important service to the Union in the expedition to the
coast of North Carolina.

Believing that no occasion could arise which would more fully correspond
with the intention of the law or be more pregnant with happy influence as
an example, I cordially recommend that Captain Louis M. Goldsborough
receive a vote of thanks of Congress for his services and gallantry
displayed in the combined attack of the forces commanded by him and
Brigadier-General Burnside in the capture of Roanoke Island and the
destruction of rebel gunboats On the 7th, 8th, and 10th of February,
1862.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



FIRST WRITTEN NOTICE OF GRANT

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON,

February 16, 1862.

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, St. Louis, Missouri:

You have Fort Donelson safe, unless Grant shall be overwhelmed from
outside; to prevent which latter will, I think, require all the
vigilance, energy, and skill of yourself and Buell, acting in full
co-operation. Columbus will not get at Grant, but the force from Bowling
Green will. They hold the railroad from Bowling Green to within a few
miles of Fort Donelson, with the bridge at Clarksville undisturbed. It is
unsafe to rely that they will not dare to expose Nashville to Buell. A
small part of their force can retire slowly toward Nashville, breaking up
the railroad as they go, and keep Buell out of that city twenty days.
Meanwhile Nashville will be abundantly defended by forces from all South
and perhaps from hers at Manassas. Could not a cavalry force from General
Thomas on the upper Cumberland dash across, almost unresisted, and cut
the railroad at or near Knoxville, Tennessee? In the midst of a
bombardment at Fort Donelson, why could not a gunboat run up and destroy
the bridge at Clarksville? Our success or failure at Fort Donelson is
vastly important, and I beg you to put your soul in the effort. I send a
copy of this to Buell.

A. LINCOLN.



EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2.--IN RELATION TO STATE PRISONERS.

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 1862

It is ordered:

First. That a special commission of two persons, one of military rank and
the other in civil life, be appointed to examine the cases of the state
prisoners remaining in the military custody of the United States, and to
determine whether in view of the public Safety and the existing rebellion
they should be discharged, or remain in military custody, or be remitted
to the civil tribunals for trial.

Second. That Major-General John A. Dix, commanding in Baltimore, and the
HON. Edwards Pierrepont, of New York, be, and they are hereby, appointed
commissioners for the purpose above mentioned; and they are authorized to
examine, hear, and determine the cases aforesaid ex parte and in a
summary manner, at such times and places as in their discretion they may
appoint, and make full report to the War Department.

By order of the President EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War.



ORDER RELATING TO COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE.

Considering that the existing circumstances of the country allow a
partial restoration of commercial intercourse between the inhabitants of
those parts of the United States heretofore declared to be in
insurrection and the citizens of the loyal States of the Union, and
exercising the authority and discretion confided to me by the act of
Congress, approved July 13, 1861, entitled "An act further to provide for
the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes," I hereby
license and permit such commercial intercourse in all cases within the
rules and regulations which have been or may be prescribed by the
Secretary of the Treasury for conducting and carrying on the same on the
inland waters and ways of the United States.

WASHINGTON, February 28, 1862.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



SPEECH TO THE PERUVIAN MINISTER,

WASHINGTON, D. C., MARCH 4, 1862

The United States have no enmities, animosities, or rivalries, and no
interests which conflict with the welfare, safety, and rights or
interests of any other nation. Their own prosperity, happiness, and
aggrandizement are sought most safely and advantageously through the
preservation not only of peace on their own part, but peace among all
other nations. But while the United States are thus a friend to all other
nations, they do not seek to conceal the fact that they cherish especial
sentiments of friendship for, and sympathies with, those who, like
themselves, have founded their institutions on the principle of the equal
rights of men; and such nations being more prominently neighbors of the
United States, the latter are co-operating with them in establishing
civilization and culture on the American continent. Such being the
general principles which govern the United States in their foreign
relations, you may be assured, sir, that in all things this government
will deal justly, frankly, and, if it be possible, even liberally with
Peru, whose liberal sentiments toward us you have so kindly expressed.



MESSAGE TO CONGRESS RECOMMENDING COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION.

March 6, 1862

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:--I recommend
the adoption of a joint resolution by your honorable bodies which shall
be substantially as follows:

"Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State
which may adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State
pecuniary aid, to be used by such State, in its discretion, to compensate
for the inconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of
system."

If the proposition contained in the resolution does not meet the approval
of Congress and the country, there is the end; but if it does command
such approval, I deem it of importance that the States and people
immediately interested should be at once distinctly notified of the fact,
so that they may begin to consider whether to accept or reject it. The
Federal Government would find its highest interest in such a measure, as
one of the most efficient means of self-preservation. The leaders of the
existing insurrection entertain the hope that this government will
ultimately be forced to acknowledge the independence of some part of the
disaffected region, and that all the slave States north of such part will
then say, "The Union for which we have struggled being already gone, we
now choose to go with the Southern section." To deprive them of this hope
substantially ends the rebellion, and the initiation of emancipation
completely deprives them of it as to all the States initiating it. The
point is not that all the States tolerating slavery would very soon, if
at all, initiate emancipation; but that, while the offer is equally made
to all, the more northern shall by such initiation make it certain to the
more southern that in no event will the former ever join the latter in
their proposed confederacy. I say "initiation" because, in my judgment,
gradual and not sudden emancipation is better for all. In the mere
financial or pecuniary view, any member of Congress with the census
tables and treasury reports before him can readily see for himself how
very soon the current expenditures of this war would purchase, at fair
valuation, all the slaves in any named State. Such a proposition on the
part of the General Government sets up no claim of a right by Federal
authority to interfere with slavery within State limits, referring, as it
does, the absolute control of the subject in each case to the State and
its people immediately interested. It is proposed as a matter of
perfectly free choice with them.

In the annual message last December, I thought fit to say, "The Union
must be preserved, and hence all indispensable means must be employed." I
said this not hastily, but deliberately. War has been made and continues
to be an indispensable means to this end. A practical reacknowledgment of
the national authority would render the war unnecessary, and it would at
once cease. If, however, resistance continues, the war must also
continue; and it is impossible to foresee all the incidents which may
attend and all the ruin which may follow it. Such as may seem
indispensable or may obviously promise great efficiency toward ending the
struggle must and will come.

The proposition now made (though an offer only), I hope it may be
esteemed no offense to ask whether the pecuniary consideration tendered
would not be of more value to the States and private persons concerned
than are the institution and property in it in the present aspect of
affairs.

While it is true that the adoption of the proposed resolution would be
merely initiatory, and not within itself a practical measure, it is
recommended in the hope that it would soon lead to important practical
results. In full view of my great responsibility to my God and to my
country, I earnestly beg the attention of Congress and the people to the
subject.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



INDORSEMENT ON LETTER FROM GOVERNOR YATES.

STATE OF ILLINOIS, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, SPRINGFIELD, ILL., March 1, 1862

HON. EDWIN M. STANTON, SECRETARY OF WAR, Washington, D. C.

SIR:--The government at my special request a few months since contracted
for fourteen batteries of the James rifled gun, 6-pounder calibre, and a
limited quantity of the James projectiles, weighing about fourteen pounds
each. The reports showing the superiority of this gun and projectile,
both as regards range, accuracy, and execution, for field service over
that of all others at the battle of Fort Donelson, leads me to request
that there be furnished to the State of Illinois in the shortest time
practicable seven batteries of 12-pounder calibre James rifled guns, with
carriages, harness, implements, etc., complete and ready for field
service, together with the following fixed ammunition to each gun, viz.,
225 shells, 225 canister, and 50 solid projectiles, weighing about 24
pounds each, and also 200 shells, 100 canister, and 100 solid projectiles
for each of the guns of the fourteen batteries named above, weighing
about 14 pounds each, all to be of the James model.

Very respectfully,

RICHARD YATES, Governor of Illinois.

[Indorsement.]

March 8, 1862.

The within is from the Governor of Illinois. I understand the seven
additional batteries now sought are to be 6-gun batteries, and the object
is to mix them with the fourteen batteries they already have so as to
make each battery consist of four 6-pounders and two 12-pounders. I shall
be very glad to have the requisition filled if it can be without
detriment to the service.

A. LINCOLN.



PRESIDENT'S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO.2.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON

March 8, 1862.

Ordered: 1. That the major-general commanding the Army of the Potomac
proceed forthwith to organize that part of the said army destined to
enter upon active operations (including the reserve, but excluding the
troops to be left in the fortifications about Washington) into four army
corps, to be commanded according to seniority of rank, as follows:

First Corps to consist of four divisions, and to be commanded by
Major-General I. McDowell. Second Corps to consist of three divisions,
and to be commanded by Brigadier-General E. V. Sumner. Third Corps to
consist of three divisions, and to be commanded by Brigadier-General S.
P. Heintzelman. Fourth Corps to consist of three divisions, and to be
commanded by Brigadier-General E. D. Keyes.

2.  That the divisions now commanded by the officers above assigned to
the commands of army corps shall be embraced in and form part of their
respective corps.

3.  The forces left for the defense of Washington will be placed in
command of Brigadier-General James S. Wadsworth, who shall also be
military governor of the District of Columbia.

4.  That this order be executed with such promptness and dispatch as not
to delay the commencement of the operations already directed to be
underwritten by the Army of the Potomac.

5. A fifth army corps, to be commanded by Major general N. P. Banks, will
be formed from his own and General Shields's (late General Lander's)
divisions.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



PRESIDENT'S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO.3.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, MARCH 8,1862

Ordered: That no change of the base of operations of the Army of the
Potomac shall be made without leaving in and about Washington such a
force as in the opinion of the general-in-chief and the commanders of all
the army corps shall leave said city entirely secure.

That no more than two army corps (about 50,000 troops) of said Army of
the Potomac shall be moved en route for a new base of operations until
the navigation of the Potomac from Washington to the Chesapeake Bay shall
be freed from enemy's batteries and other obstructions, or until the
President shall hereafter give express permission.

That any movements as aforesaid en route for a new base of operations
which may be ordered by the general-in-chief, and which may be intended
to move upon the Chesapeake Bay, shall begin to move upon the bay as
early as the 18th day of March instant, and the general-in-chief shall be
responsible that it so move as early as that day.

Ordered, That the army and navy co-operate in an immediate effort to
capture the enemy's batteries upon the Potomac between Washington and the
Chesapeake Bay.

A. LINCOLN



MEMORANDUM OF AN INTERVIEW BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND SOME BORDER
SLAVE STATE REPRESENTATIVES, BY HON. J. W. CRISFIELD.

"DEAR SIR:--I called, at the request of the President, to ask you to come
to the White House tomorrow morning, at nine o'clock, and bring such of
your colleagues as are in town."

WASHINGTON, March 10, 1862.

Yesterday, on my return from church, I found Mr. Postmaster-General Blair
in my room, writing the above note, which he immediately suspended, and
verbally communicated the President's invitation, and stated that the
President's purpose was to have some conversation with the delegations of
Kentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware, in explanation of
his message of the 6th instant.

This morning these delegations, or such of them as were in town,
assembled at the White House at the appointed time, and after some little
delay were admitted to an audience. Mr. Leary and myself were the only
members from Maryland present, and, I think, were the only members of the
delegation at that time in the city. I know that Mr. Pearoe, of the
Senate, and Messrs. Webster and Calvert, of the House, were absent.

After the usual salutations, and we were seated, the President said, in
substance, that he had invited us to meet him to have some conversation
with us in explanation of his message of the 6th; that since he had sent
it in several of the gentlemen then present had visited him, but had
avoided any allusion to the message, and he therefore inferred that the
import of the message had been misunderstood, and was regarded as
inimical to the interests we represented; and he had resolved he would
talk with us, and disabuse our minds of that erroneous opinion.

The President then disclaimed any intent to injure the interests or wound
the sensibilities of the slave States. On the contrary, his purpose was
to protect the one and respect the other; that we were engaged in a
terrible, wasting, and tedious war; immense armies were in the field, and
must continue in the field as long as the war lasts; that these armies
must, of necessity, be brought into contact with slaves in the States we
represented and in other States as they advanced; that slaves would come
to the camps, and continual irritation was kept up; that he was
constantly annoyed by conflicting and antagonistic complaints: on the one
side a certain class complained if the slave was not protected by the
army; persons were frequently found who, participating in these views,
acted in a way unfriendly to the slaveholder; on the other hand,
slaveholders complained that their rights were interfered with, their
slaves induced to abscond and protected within the lines; these
complaints were numerous, loud and deep; were a serious annoyance to him
and embarrassing to the progress of the war; that it kept alive a spirit
hostile to the government in the States we represented; strengthened the
hopes of the Confederates that at some day the border States would unite
with them, and thus tend to prolong the war; and he was of opinion, if
this resolution should be adopted by Congress and accepted by our States,
these causes of irritation and these hopes would be removed, and more
would be accomplished toward shortening the war than could be hoped from
the greatest victory achieved by Union armies; that he made this
proposition in good faith, and desired it to be accepted, if at all,
voluntarily, and in the same patriotic spirit in which it was made; that
emancipation was a subject exclusively under the control of the States,
and must be adopted or rejected by each for itself; that he did not claim
nor had this government any right to coerce them for that purpose; that
such was no part of his purpose in making this proposition, and he wished
it to be clearly understood; that he did not expect us there to be
prepared to give him an answer, but he hoped we would take the subject
into serious consideration, confer with one another, and then take such
course as we felt our duty and the interests of our constituents required
of us.

Mr. Noell, of Missouri, said that in his State slavery was not considered
a permanent institution; that natural causes were there in operation
which would at no distant day extinguish it, and he did not think that
this proposition was necessary for that; and, besides that, he and his
friends felt solicitous as to the message on account of the different
constructions which the resolution and message had received. The New York
Tribune was for it, and understood it to mean that we must accept gradual
emancipation according to the plan suggested, or get something worse.

The President replied that he must not be expected to quarrel with the
New York Tribune before the right time; he hoped never to have to do it;
he would not anticipate events. In respect to emancipation in Missouri,
he said that what had been observed by Mr. Noell was probably true, but
the operation of these natural causes had not prevented the irritating
conduct to which he had referred, or destroyed the hopes of the
Confederates that Missouri would at some time merge herself alongside of
them, which, in his judgment, the passage of this resolution by Congress
and its acceptance by Missouri would accomplish.

Mr. Crisfield, of Maryland, asked what would be the effect of the refusal
of the State to accept this proposal, and he desired to know if the
President looked to any policy beyond the acceptance or rejection of this
scheme.

The President replied that he had no designs beyond the actions of the
States on this particular subject. He should lament their refusal to
accept it, but he had no designs beyond their refusal of it.

Mr. Menzies, of Kentucky, inquired if the President thought there was any
power except in the States themselves to carry out his scheme of
emancipation.

The President replied that he thought there could not be. He then went
off into a course of remarks not qualifying the foregoing declaration nor
material to be repeated to a just understanding of his meaning.

Mr. Crisfield said he did not think the people of Maryland looked upon
slavery as a permanent institution; and he did not know that they would
be very reluctant to give it up if provision was made to meet the loss
and they could be rid of the race; but they did not like to be coerced
into emancipation, either by the direct action of the government or by
indirection, as through the emancipation of slaves in this District, or
the confiscation of Southern property as now threatened; and he thought
before they would consent to consider this proposition they would require
to be informed on these points. The President replied that, unless he was
expelled by the act of God or the Confederate armies he should occupy
that house for three years; and as long as he remained there Maryland had
nothing to fear either for her institutions or her interests on the
points referred to.

Mr. Crisfield immediately added: "Mr. President, if what you now say
could be heard by the people of Maryland, they would consider your
proposition with a much better feeling than I fear without it they will
be inclined to do."

The President: "That [meaning a publication of what he said] will not do;
it would force me into a quarrel before the proper time "; and, again
intimating, as he had before done, that a quarrel with the "Greeley
faction" was impending, he said he did not wish to encounter it before
the proper time, nor at all if it could be avoided.

[The Greely faction wanted an immediate Emancipation Proclamation. D.W.]

Governor Wickliffe, of Kentucky, then asked him respecting the
constitutionality of his scheme.

The President replied: "As you may suppose, I have considered that; and
the proposition now submitted does not encounter any constitutional
difficulty. It proposes simply to co-operate with any State by giving
such State pecuniary aid"; and he thought that the resolution, as
proposed by him, would be considered rather as the expression of a
sentiment than as involving any constitutional question.

Mr. Hall, of Missouri, thought that if this proposition was adopted at
all it should be by the votes of the free States, and come as a
proposition from them to the slave States, affording them an inducement
to put aside this subject of discord; that it ought not to be expected
that members representing slaveholding constituencies should declare at
once, and in advance of any proposition to them, for the emancipation of
slavery.

The President said he saw and felt the force of the objection; it was a
fearful responsibility, and every gentleman must do as he thought best;
that he did not know how this scheme was received by the members from the
free States; some of them had spoken to him and received it kindly; but
for the most part they were as reserved and chary as we had been, and he
could not tell how they would vote. And in reply to some expression of
Mr. Hall as to his own opinion regarding slavery, he said he did not
pretend to disguise his anti-slavery feeling; that he thought it was
wrong, and should continue to think so; but that was not the question we
had to deal with now. Slavery existed, and that, too, as well by the act
of the North as of the South; and in any scheme to get rid of it the
North as well as the South was morally bound to do its full and equal
share. He thought the institution wrong and ought never to have existed;
but yet he recognized the rights of property which had grown out of it,
and would respect those rights as fully as similar rights in any other
property; that property can exist and does legally exist. He thought such
a law wrong, but the rights of property resulting must be respected; he
would get rid of the odious law, not by violating the rights, but by
encouraging the proposition and offering inducements to give it up.

Here the interview, so far as this subject is concerned, terminated by
Mr. Crittenden's assuring the President that, whatever might be our final
action, we all thought him solely moved by a high patriotism and sincere
devotion to the happiness and glory of his country; and with that
conviction we should consider respectfully the important suggestions he
had made.

After some conversation on the current war news, we retired, and I
immediately proceeded to my room and wrote out this paper.
J. W. CRISFIELD.

We were present at the interview described in the foregoing paper of Mr.
Crisfield, and we certify that the substance of what passed on the
occasion is in this paper faithfully and fully given.

J. W. MENZIES, J. J. CRITTENDEN, R. MALLORY.

March 10, 1862.



PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL WAR ORDER NO.3.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 11, 1862.

Major-General McClellan having personally taken the field at the head of
the Army of the Potomac, until otherwise ordered he is relieved from the
command of the other military departments, he retaining command of the
Department of the Potomac.

Ordered further, That the departments now under the respective commands
of Generals Halleck and Hunter, together with so much of that under
General Buell as lies west of a north and south line indefinitely drawn
through Knoxville, Tenn., be consolidated and designated the Department
of the Mississippi, and that until otherwise ordered Major General
Halleck have command of said department.

Ordered also, That the country west of the Department of the Potomac and
east of the Department of the Mississippi be a military department, to be
called the Mountain Department, and that the same be commanded by
Major-General Fremont.

That all the commanders of departments, after the receipt of this order
by them, respectively report severally and directly to the Secretary of
War, and that prompt, full, and frequent reports will be expected of all
and each of them.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GENERAL MCCLELLAN.

WAR DEPARTMENT, March 13, 1862.

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. MCCLELLAN:

The President, having considered the plan of operations agreed upon by
yourself and the commanders of army corps, makes no objection to the same
but gives the following directions as to its execution:

1.  Leave such force at Manassas Junction as shall make it entirely
certain that the enemy shall no repossess himself of that position and
line of communication.

2.  Leave Washington entirely secure.

3.  Move the remainder of the force down the Potomac, choosing a new base
at Fortress Monroe or anywhere between here and there, or, at all events,
move such remainder of the army at once in pursuit of the enemy by some
route.

EDWARD M. STANTON, Secretary of War.



SPEECH TO A PARTY OF MASSACHUSETTS GENTLEMAN

WASHINGTON, MARCH 13, 1862

I thank you, Mr. Train, for your kindness in presenting me with this
truly elegant and highly creditable specimen of the handiwork of the
mechanics of your State of Massachusetts, and I beg of you to express my
hearty thanks to the donors. It displays a perfection of workmanship
which I really wish I had time to acknowledge in more fitting words, and
I might then follow your idea that it is suggestive, for it is evidently
expected that a good deal of whipping is to be done. But as we meet here
socially let us not think only of whipping rebels, or of those who seem
to think only of whipping negroes, but of those pleasant days, which it
is to be hoped are in store for us, when seated behind a good pair of
horses we can crack our whips and drive through a peaceful, happy, and
prosperous land. With this idea, gentlemen, I must leave you for my
business duties. [It was likely a Buggy-Whip D.W.]



MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.

WASHINGTON CITY, March 20, 1862.

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

The third section of the "Act further to promote the efficiency of the
Navy," approved December 21, 1861, provides:

"That the President of the United States, by and with the advice and
consent of the Senate, shall have the authority to detail from the
retired list of the navy for the command of squadrons and single ships
such officers as he may believe the good of the service requires to be
thus placed in command; and such officers may, if upon the recommendation
of the President of the United States they shall receive a vote of thanks
cf Congress for their services and gallantry in action against an enemy,
be restored to the active list, and not otherwise."

In conformity with this law, Captain Samuel F. Du Pont, of the navy, was
nominated to the Senate for continuance as the flag-officer in command of
the squadron which recently rendered such important service to the Union
in the expedition to the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida.

Believing that no occasion could arise which would more fully correspond
with the intention of the law or be more pregnant with happy influence as
an example, I cordially recommend that Captain Samuel F. Du Pont receive
a vote of thanks of Congress for his service and gallantry displayed in
the capture since the 21st December, 1861, of various ports on the coasts
of Georgia and Florida, particularly Brunswick, Cumberland Island and
Sound, Amelia Island, the towns of St. Mary's, St. Augustine, and
Jacksonville and Fernandina.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, MARCH 31, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN.

MY DEAR SIR:-This morning I felt constrained to order Blenker's division
to Fremont, and I write this to assure you I did so with great pain,
understanding that you would wish it otherwise. If you could know the
full pressure of the case, I am confident that you would justify it, even
beyond a mere acknowledgment that the commander-in-chief may order what
he pleases.

Yours very truly,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



GIFT OF SOME RABBITS

TO MICHAEL CROCK. 360 N. Fourth St., Philadelphia.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 2, 1862.

MY DEAR SIR:-Allow me to thank you in behalf of my little son for your
present of white rabbits. He is very much pleased with them.

Yours truly,

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



INSTRUCTION TO SECRETARY STANTON.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 3, 1862.

The Secretary of War will order that one or the other of the corps of
General McDowell and General Sumner remain in front of Washington until
further orders from the department, to operate at or in the direction of
Manassas Junction, or otherwise, as occasion may require; that the other
Corps not so ordered to remain go forward to General McClellan as
speedily as possible; that General McClellan commence his forward
movements from his new base at once, and that such incidental
modifications as the foregoing may render proper be also made. A.
LINCOLN.



TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN.

WASHINGTON, April 6, 1862.

GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN:

Yours of 11 A. M. today received. Secretary of War informs me that the
forwarding of transportation, ammunition, and Woodbury's brigade, under
your orders, is not, and will not be, interfered with. You now have over
one hundred thousand troops with you, independent of General Wool's
command. I think you better break the enemy's line from Yorktown to
Warwick River at once. This will probably use time as advantageously as
you can.

A. LINCOLN, President



TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN.

WASHINGTON, April 9, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN.

MY DEAR SIR+--Your despatches, complaining that you are not properly
sustained, while they do not offend me, do pain me very much.

Blenker's division was withdrawn from you before you left here, and you
knew the pressure under which I did it, and, as I thought, acquiesced in
it certainly not without reluctance.

After you left I ascertained that less than 20,000 unorganized men,
without a single field battery, were all you designed to be left for the
defense of Washington and Manassas Junction, and part of this even to go
to General Hooker's old position; General Banks's corps, once designed
for Manassas Junction, was divided and tied up on the line of Winchester
and Strasburg, and could not leave it without again exposing the upper
Potomac and the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. This presented (or would
present when McDowell and Sumner should be gone) a great temptation to
the enemy to turn back from the Rappahannock and sack Washington. My
explicit order that Washington should, by the judgment of all the
Commanders of corps, be left entirely secure, had been neglected. It was
precisely this that drove me to detain McDowell.

I do not forget that I was satisfied with your arrangement to leave Banks
at Manassas Junction; but when that arrangement was broken up and nothing
substituted for it, of course I was not satisfied. I was constrained to
substitute something for it myself.

And now allow me to ask, do you really think I should permit the line
from Richmond via Manaasas Junction to this city to be entirely open,
except what resistance could be presented by less than 20,000 unorganized
troops? This is a question which the country will not allow me to evade.

There is a curious mystery about the number of the troops now with you.
When I telegraphed you on the 6th, saying you had over 100,000 with you,
I had just obtained from the Secretary of War a statement, taken as he
said from your own returns, making 108,000 then with you and en route to
you. You now say you will have but 85,000 when all enroute to you shall
have reached you. How can this discrepancy of 23,000 be accounted for?

As to General Wool's command, I understand it is doing for you precisely
what a like number of your own would have to do if that command was away.
I suppose the whole force which has gone forward to you is with you by
this time; and if so, I think it is the precise time for you to strike a
blow. By delay the enemy will relatively gain upon you--that is, he will
gain faster by fortifications and reinforcements than you can by
reinforcements alone.

And once more let me tell you it is indispensable to you that you strike
a blow. I am powerless to help this. You will do me the justice to
remember I always insisted that going down the bay in search of a field,
instead of fighting at or near Manassas, was only shifting and not
surmounting a difficulty; that we would find the same enemy and the same
or equal entrenchments at either place. The country will not fail to
note--is noting now--that the present hesitation to move upon an
entrenched enemy is but the story of Manassas repeated.

I beg to assure you that I have never written you or spoken to you in
greater kindness of feeling than now, nor with a fuller purpose to
sustain you, so far as in my most anxious judgment I consistently can;
but you must act.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 9, 1862.

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Saint Louis, Mo.: If the rigor of the confinement
of Magoffin (Governor of Kentucky) at Alton is endangering his life, or
materially impairing his health, I wish it mitigated as far as it can be
consistently with his safe detention.

A. LINCOLN.

Please send above, by order of the President. JOHN HAY.



PROCLAMATION RECOMMENDING THANKSGIVING FOR VICTORIES,

APRIL 10, 1862.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation

It has pleased Almighty God to vouchsafe signal victories to the land and
naval forces engaged in suppressing, an internal rebellion, and at the
same time to avert from our country the dangers of foreign intervention
and invasion.

It is therefore recommended to the people of the United States that at
their next weekly assemblages in their accustomed places of public
worship which shall occur after notice of this proclamation shall have
been received, they especially acknowledge and render thanks to our
Heavenly Father for these inestimable blessings, that they then and there
implore spiritual consolation in behalf of all who have been brought into
affliction by the casualties and calamities of sedition and civil war,
and that they reverently invoke the divine guidance for our national
counsels, to the end that they may speedily result in the restoration of
peace, harmony, and unity throughout our borders and hasten the
establishment of fraternal relations among all the countries of the
earth.

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the
United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this tenth day of April, A.D. 1862, and
of the independence of the United States the eighty-sixth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.



ABOLISHING SLAVERY IN WASHINGTON, D.C.

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. April 16, 1862.

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The act
entitled "An act for the relief of certain persons held to service or
labor in the District of Columbia" has this day been approved and signed.

I have never doubted the constitutional authority of Congress to abolish
slavery in this District, and I have ever desired to see the national
capital freed from the institution in some satisfactory way. Hence there
has never been in my mind any question on the subject except the one of
expediency, arising in view of all the circumstances. If there be matters
within and about this act which might have taken a course or shape more
satisfactory to my judgment, I do not attempt to specify them. I am
gratified that the two principles of compensation and colonization are
both recognized and practically applied in the act.

In the matter of compensation, it is provided that claims may be
presented within ninety days from the passage of the act, "but not
thereafter"; and there is no saving for minors, femmes covert, insane or
absent persons. I presume this is an omission by mere oversight, and I
recommend that it be supplied by an amendatory or supplemental act.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.



TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN.

WASHINGTON, April 21, 1862.

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your despatch of the 19th was received that day. Fredericksburg is
evacuated and the bridges destroyed by the enemy, and a small part of
McDowell's command occupies this side of the Rappahannock, opposite the
town. He purposes moving his whole force to that point.

A. LINCOLN.



TO POSTMASTER-GENERAL

A. LINCOLN. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 24, 1862.

Hon. POSTMASTER-GENERAL.

MY DEAR SIR:--The member of Congress from the district including Tiffin,
O., calls on me about the postmaster at that place. I believe I turned
over a despatch to you from some persons there, asking a suspension, so
as for them to be heard, or something of the sort. If nothing, or nothing
amounting to anything, has been done, I think the suspension might now be
suspended, and the commission go forward.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN.

WASHINGTON, April 29, 1862.

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Would it derange or embarrass your operations if I were to appoint
Captain Charles Griffin a brigadier-general of volunteers? Please answer.

A. LINCOLN.



MESSAGE TO THE SENATE, MAY 1, 1862.

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate [of April 22] in relation to
Brigadier-General Stone, I have the honor to state that he was arrested
and imprisoned under my general authority, and upon evidence which
whether he be guilty or innocent, required, as appears to me, such
proceedings to be had against him for the public safety.  I deem it
incompatible with the public interest, as also, perhaps, unjust to
General Stone, to make a more particular statement of the evidence.

He has not been tried because, in the state of military operations at the
time of his arrest and since, the officers to constitute a court martial
and for witnesses could not be withdrawn from duty without serious injury
to the service. He will be allowed a trial without any unnecessary delay;
the charges and specifications will be furnished him in due season, and
every facility for his defense will be afforded him by the War
Department.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN,

WASHINGTON, MAY 1, 1862



TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, MAY 1, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your call for Parrott guns from Washington alarms me, chiefly because it
argues indefinite procrastination. Is anything to be done?

A. LINCOLN.



TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK.

WAR DEPARTMENT, MAY 1, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Pittsburgh Landing, Tennessee:

I am pressed by the Missouri members of Congress to give General
Schofield independent command in Missouri. They insist that for want of
this their local troubles gradually grow worse. I have forborne, so far,
for fear of interfering with and embarrassing your operations. Please
answer telling me whether anything, and what, I can do for them without
injuriously interfering with you.

A. LINCOLN.



RESPONSE TO EVANGELICAL LUTHERANS, MAY 6, 1862

GENTLEMEN:--I welcome here the representatives of the Evangelical
Lutherans of the United States. I accept with gratitude their assurances
of the sympathy and support of that enlightened, influential, and loyal
class of my fellow citizens in an important crisis which involves, in my
judgment, not only the civil and religious liberties of our own dear
land, but in a large degree the civil and religious liberties of mankind
in many countries and through many ages. You well know, gentlemen, and
the world knows, how reluctantly I accepted this issue of battle forced
upon me on my advent to this place by the internal enemies of our
country. You all know, the world knows, the forces and the resources the
public agents have brought into employment to sustain a government
against which there has been brought not one complaint of real injury
committed against society at home or abroad. You all may recollect that
in taking up the sword thus forced into our hands this government
appealed to the prayers of the pious and the good, and declared that it
placed its whole dependence on the favor of God. I now humbly and
reverently, in your presence, reiterate the acknowledgment of that
dependence, not doubting that, if it shall please the Divine Being who
determines the destinies of nations, this shall remain a united people,
and that they will, humbly seeking the divine guidance, make their
prolonged national existence a source of new benefits to themselves and
their successors, and to all classes and conditions of mankind.



TELEGRAM TO FLAG-OFFICER L. M. GOLDSBOROUGH.

FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, MAY 7, 1862

FLAG-OFFICER GOLDSBOROUGH.

SIR:--Major-General McClellan telegraphs that he has ascertained by a
reconnaissance that the battery at Jamestown has been abandoned, and he
again requests that gunboats may be sent up the James River.

If you have tolerable confidence that you can successfully contend with
the Merrimac without the help of the Galena and two accompanying
gunboats, send the Galena and two gunboats up the James River at once.
Please report your action on this to me at once. I shall be found either
at General Wool's headquarters or on board the Miami.

Your obedient servant,

A. LINCOLN.



FURTHER REPRIMAND OF McCLELLAN

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN.

FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, May 9, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

MY DEAR SIR:--I have just assisted the Secretary of War in framing part
of a despatch to you relating to army corps, which despatch, of course,
will have reached you long before this will. I wish to say a few words to
you privately on this subject. I ordered the army corps organization not
only on the unanimous opinion of the twelve generals whom you had
selected and assigned as generals of divisions, but also on the unanimous
opinion of every military man I could get an opinion from, and every
modern military book, yourself only excepted. Of course, I did not on my
own judgment pretend to understand the subject. I now think it
indispensable for you to know how your struggle against it is received in
quarters which we cannot entirely disregard. It is looked upon as merely
an effort to pamper one or two pets, and to persecute and degrade their
supposed rivals. I have had no word from Sumner, Heintzleman, or Keyes
the commanders of these corps are, of course, the three highest officers
with you; but I am constantly told that you have no consultation or
communication with them; that you consult and communicate with nobody but
General Fitz John Porter, and perhaps General Franklin. I do not say
these complaints are true or just; but at all events, it is proper you
should know of their existence. Do the commanders of corps disobey your
orders in anything?

When you relieved General Hamilton of his command the other day, you
thereby lost the confidence of at least one of your best friends in the
Senate. And here let me say, not as applicable to you personally, that
Senators and Representatives speak of me in their places without
question, and that officers of the army must cease addressing insulting
letters to them for taking no greater liberty with them.

But to return. Are you strong enough--are you strong enough even with my
help--to set your foot upon the necks of Sumner, Heintzelman, and Keyes
all at once? This is a practical and very serious question to you?

The success of your army and the cause of the country are the same, and,
of course, I only desire the good of the cause.

Yours truly,

A. LINCOLN.



TO FLAG-OFFICER L. M. GOLDSBOROUGH,

FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, May 10, 1862

FLAG-OFFICER GOLDSBOROUGH.

MY DEAR SIR:--I send you this copy of your report of yesterday for the
purpose of saying to you in writing that you are quite right in supposing
the movement made by you and therein reported was made in accordance with
my wishes verbally expressed to you in advance. I avail myself of the
occasion to thank you for your courtesy and all your conduct, so far as
known to me, during my brief visit here.

Yours very truly,

A. LINCOLN.



PROCLAMATION RAISING THE BLOCKADE OF CERTAIN PORTS.

May 12, 1862.

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation.

Whereas, by my proclamation of the 19th of April, one thousand eight
hundred and sixty-one, it was declared that the ports of certain States,
including those of Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina, Port Royal,
in the State of South Carolina, and New Orleans, in the State of
Louisiana, were, for reasons therein set forth, intended to be placed
under blockade; and whereas the said ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and
New Orleans have since been blockaded; but as the blockade of the same
ports may now be safely relaxed with advantage to the interests of
commerce:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the
United States, pursuant to the authority in me vested by the fifth
section of the act of Congress approved on the 13th of July last,
entitled "An act further to provide for the collection of duties on
imports, and for other purposes," do hereby declare that the blockade of
the said ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans shall so far
cease and determine, from and after the first day of June next, that
commercial intercourse with those ports, except as to persons, things,
and information contraband of war, may from that time be carried on,
subject to the laws of the United States, and to the limitations and in
pursuance of the regulations which are prescribed by the Secretary of the
Treasury in his order of this date, which is appended to this
proclamation.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of
the United States to be affixed.

Done at the city of Washington, this twelfth day of May, in the year of
our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the
independence of the United States the eighty-sixth.

ABRAHAM LINCOLN.

By the President:
WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State.





*** End of this LibraryBlog Digital Book "The Writings of Abraham Lincoln — Volume 5: 1858-1862" ***

Copyright 2023 LibraryBlog. All rights reserved.