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