On February 27, 1860, only a few days from now but 150 years ago, the future Republican nominee for the presidency rose to speak at the Cooper Institute in New York. One eyewitness noted that "When Lincoln rose to speak, I was greatly disappointed. He was tall, tall, - oh, how tall! and so angular and awkward that I had, for an instant, a feeling of pity for so ungainly a man." As Lincoln began speaking, the eyewitness noticed that "his faced lighted up as with an inward fire; the whole man was transfigured. I forgot his clothes, his personal appearance, and his individual peculiarities. Presently, forgetting myself, I was on my feet like the rest, yelling like a wild Indian, cheering this wonderful man." Below is a transcription of his speech:
Mr. President and fellow citizens of New York:
The facts with which I
shall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anything new
in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, it will
be in the mode of presenting the facts, and the inferences and observations
following that presentation.
In his speech last autumn, at Columbus,
Ohio, as reported in "The New-York Times," Senator Douglas said:
"Our
fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this
question just as well, and even better, than we do now."
I fully indorse
this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it
furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between
Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply
leaves the inquiry: "What was the understanding those fathers had of the
question mentioned?"
What is the frame of government under which we
live?
The answer must be: "The Constitution of the United States." That
Constitution consists of the original, framed in 1787, (and under which the
present government first went into operation,) and twelve subsequently framed
amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.
Who were our
fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the "thirty-nine" who signed the
original instrument may be fairly called our fathers who framed that part of the
present Government. It is almost exactly true to say they framed it, and it is
altogether true to say they fairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the
whole nation at that time. Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and
accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.
I take these
"thirty-nine," for the present, as being "our fathers who framed the Government
under which we live."
What is the question which, according to the text,
those fathers understood "just as well, and even better than we do now?"
It is this: Does the proper division of local from federal authority, or
anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control as to
slavery in our Federal Territories?
Upon this, Senator Douglas holds the
affirmative, and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an
issue; and this issue - this question - is precisely what the text declares our
fathers understood "better than we."
Let us now inquire whether the
"thirty-nine," or any of them, ever acted upon this question; and if they did,
how they acted upon it - how they expressed that better understanding?
In 1784, three years before the Constitution - the United States then
owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other, the Congress of the
Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that
Territory; and four of the "thirty-nine" who afterward framed the Constitution,
were in that Congress, and voted on that question. Of these, Roger Sherman,
Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition, thus showing
that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor
anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery
in federal territory. The other of the four - James M'Henry - voted against the
prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for
it.
In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was
in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only
territory owned by the United States, the same question of prohibiting slavery
in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation; and two
more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed the Constitution, were in that
Congress, and voted on the question. They were William Blount and William Few;
and they both voted for the prohibition - thus showing that, in their
understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else,
properly forbids the Federal Government to control as to slavery in Federal
territory. This time the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now
well known as the Ordinance of '87.
The question of federal control of
slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the
Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded
that the "thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instrument,
expressed any opinion on that precise question.
In 1789, by the first
Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the
Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern
Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the "thirty-nine,"
Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of the House of Representatives from
Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition, and
finally passed both branches without yeas and nays, which is equivalent to a
unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine
fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas
Gilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William
Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard
Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.
This
shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal
authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to
prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct
principle, and their oath to support the Constitution, would have constrained
them to oppose the prohibition.
Again, George Washington, another of the
"thirty-nine," was then President of the United States, and, as such approved
and signed the bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing
that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor
anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government, to control as to
slavery in federal territory.
No great while after the adoption of the
original Constitution, North Carolina ceded to the Federal Government the
country now constituting the State of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia
ceded that which now constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both
deeds of cession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the Federal
Government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded territory. Besides this,
slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances,
Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit
slavery within them. But they did interfere with it - take control of it - even
there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of
Mississippi. In the act of organization, they prohibited the bringing of slaves
into the Territory, from any place without the United States, by fine, and
giving freedom to slaves so bought. This act passed both branches of Congress
without yeas and nays. In that Congress were three of the "thirty-nine" who
framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read and
Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, voted for it. Certainly they would have
placed their opposition to it upon record, if, in their understanding, any line
dividing local from federal authority, or anything in the Constitution, properly
forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory.
In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Our
former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States; but this
Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a
territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the State of
Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively
large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and slavery was
extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not, in
the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it - take
control of it - in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of
Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made, in relation to slaves,
was:
First. That no slave should be imported into the territory from
foreign parts.
Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had
been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.
Third. That no slave should be carried into it, except by the owner, and
for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fine upon the
violator of the law, and freedom to the slave.
This act also was passed
without yeas and nays. In the Congress which passed it, there were two of the
"thirty-nine." They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the
case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have
allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it, if, in their
understanding, it violated either the line properly dividing local from federal
authority, or any provision of the Constitution.
In 1819-20, came and
passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both
branches of Congress, upon the various phases of the general question. Two of
the "thirty-nine" - Rufus King and Charles Pinckney - were members of that
Congress. Mr. King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all
compromises, while Mr. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition
and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his
understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything in
the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in federal
territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his votes, showed that, in his understanding,
there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.
The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine," or of
any of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover.
To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in
1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in 1819-20 - there
would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman,
William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin, three
times. The true number of those of the "thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have
acted upon the question, which, by the text, they understood better than we, is
twenty-three, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.
Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who
framed the government under which we live," who have, upon their official
responsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very question which the
text affirms they "understood just as well, and even better than we do now;" and
twenty-one of them - a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine" - so acting
upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and willful
perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and
federal authority, or anything in the Constitution they had made themselves, and
sworn to support, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the
federal territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder
than words, so actions, under such responsibility, speak still louder.
Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of
slavery in the federal territories, in the instances in which they acted upon
the question. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have
done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority,
or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood in the way; or they
may, without any such question, have voted against the prohibition, on what
appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. No one who has sworn to
support the Constitution can conscientiously vote for what he understands to be
an unconstitutional measure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and
ought to vote against a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same
time, he deems it inexpedient. It, therefore, would be unsafe to set down even
the two who voted against the prohibition, as having done so because, in their
understanding, any proper division of local from federal authority, or anything
in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in
federal territory.
The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine," so far as
I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct
question of federal control of slavery in the federal territories. But there is
much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not
have appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had it been
manifested at all.
For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I
have purposely omitted whatever understanding may have been manifested by any
person, however distinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the
original Constitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whatever
understanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty-nine" even, on any
other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look into their
acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slave trade, and the
morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appear to us that on the
direct question of federal control of slavery in federal territories, the
sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably have acted just as the
twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several of the most noted anti-slavery
men of those times - as Dr. Franklin, Alexander Hamilton and Gouverneur Morris -
while there was not one now known to have been otherwise, unless it may be John
Rutledge, of South Carolina.
The sum of the whole is, that of our
thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution, twenty-one - a clear
majority of the whole - certainly understood that no proper division of local
from federal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal
Government to control slavery in the federal territories; while all the rest
probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was the understanding
of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and the text affirms that
they understood the question "better than we."
But, so far, I have been
considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the
original Constitution. In and by the original instrument, a mode was provided
for amending it; and, as I have already stated, the present frame of "the
Government under which we live" consists of that original, and twelve amendatory
articles framed and adopted since. Those who now insist that federal control of
slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the
provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, that all
fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the original
instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the
fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprived of "life,
liberty or property without due process of law;" while Senator Douglas and his
peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenth amendment, providing that
"the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution" "are
reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
Now, it so
happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congress which sat under
the Constitution - the identical Congress which passed the act already
mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory.
Not only was it the same Congress, but they were the identical, same individual
men who, at the same session, and at the same time within the session, had under
consideration, and in progress toward maturity, these Constitutional amendments,
and this act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The
Constitutional amendments were introduced before, and passed after the act
enforcing the Ordinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to
enforce the Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending.
The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the
framers of the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre- eminently our
fathers who framed that part of "the Government under which we live," which is
now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to control slavery in the
federal territories.
Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this
day to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and
carried to maturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each
other? And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled with
the other affirmation from the same mouth, that those who did the two things,
alleged to be inconsistent, understood whether they really were inconsistent
better than we - better than he who affirms that they are inconsistent?
It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the original
Constitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed the
amendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may be fairly
called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live." And so
assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in his whole life,
declared that, in his understanding, any proper division of local from federal
authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to
control as to slavery in the federal territories. I go a step further. I defy
any one to show that any living man in the whole world ever did, prior to the
beginning of the present century, (and I might almost say prior to the beginning
of the last half of the present century,) declare that, in his understanding,
any proper division of local from federal authority, or any part of the
Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in the
federal territories. To those who now so declare, I give, not only "our fathers
who framed the Government under which we live," but with them all other living
men within the century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they
shall not be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them.
Now, and here, let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do
not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did.
To do so, would be to discard all the lights of current experience - to reject
all progress - all improvement. What I do say is, that if we would supplant the
opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we should do so upon evidence so
conclusive, and argument so clear, that even their great authority, fairly
considered and weighed, cannot stand; and most surely not in a case whereof we
ourselves declare they understood the question better than we.
If any
man at this day sincerely believes that a proper division of local from federal
authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to
control as to slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so, and to
enforce his position by all truthful evidence and fair argument which he can.
But he has no right to mislead others, who have less access to history, and less
leisure to study it, into the false belief that "our fathers who framed the
Government under which we live" were of the same opinion - thus substituting
falsehood and deception for truthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at
this day sincerely believes "our fathers who framed the Government under which
we live," used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led
them to understand that a proper division of local from federal authority or
some part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to control as to
slavery in the federal territories, he is right to say so. But he should, at the
same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he
understands their principles better than they did themselves; and especially
should he not shirk that responsibility by asserting that they "understood the
question just as well, and even better, than we do now."
.
But enough!
Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we
live, understood this question just as well, and even better, than we do now,"
speak as they spoke, and act as they acted upon it. This is all Republicans ask
- all Republicans desire - in relation to slavery. As those fathers marked it,
so let it be again marked, as an evil not to be extended, but to be tolerated
and protected only because of and so far as its actual presence among us makes
that toleration and protection a necessity. Let all the guarantees those fathers
gave it, be, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly, maintained. For this
Republicans contend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be
content.
And now, if they would listen - as I suppose they will not - I
would address a few words to the Southern people.
I would say to them: -
You consider yourselves a reasonable and a just people; and I consider that in
the general qualities of reason and justice you are not inferior to any other
people. Still, when you speak of us Republicans, you do so only to denounce us a
reptiles, or, at the best, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing
to pirates or murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans." In all your
contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditional condemnation of
"Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attended to. Indeed, such
condemnation of us seems to be an indispensable prerequisite - license, so to
speak - among you to be admitted or permitted to speak at all. Now, can you, or
not, be prevailed upon to pause and to consider whether this is quite just to
us, or even to yourselves? Bring forward your charges and specifications, and
then be patient long enough to hear us deny or justify.
You say we are
sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proof is upon you.
You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our party has no existence in
your section - gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true;
but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change
of principle, begin to get votes in your section, we should thereby cease to be
sectional. You cannot escape this conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide
by it? If you are, you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be
sectional, for we shall get votes in your section this very year. You will then
begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the
issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making,
and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily
yours, and remains until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or
practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is
ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started - to a discussion
of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would
wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for any other object, then our
principle, and we with it, are sectional, and are justly opposed and denounced
as such. Meet us, then, on the question of whether our principle, put in
practice, would wrong your section; and so meet it as if it were possible that
something may be said on our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you
really believe that the principle which "our fathers who framed the Government
under which we live" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it
again and again, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to
demand your condemnation without a moment's consideration.
Some of you
delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by
Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave
that warning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed an
act of Congress, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern
Territory, which act embodied the policy of the Government upon that subject up
to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one year after he
penned it, he wrote LaFayette that he considered that prohibition a wise
measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time
have a confederacy of free States.
Bearing this in mind, and seeing that
sectionalism has since arisen upon this same subject, is that warning a weapon
in your hands against us, or in our hands against you? Could Washington himself
speak, would he cast the blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his
policy, or upon you who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and
we commend it to you, together with his example pointing to the right
application of it.
But you say you are conservative - eminently
conservative - while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the
sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against
the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the
point in controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Government
under which we live;" while you with one accord reject, and scout, and spit upon
that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree
among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new
propositions and plans, but you are unanimous in rejecting and denouncing the
old policy of the fathers. Some of you are for reviving the foreign slave trade;
some for a Congressional Slave-Code for the Territories; some for Congress
forbidding the Territories to prohibit Slavery within their limits; some for
maintaining Slavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the
"gur-reat pur-rinciple" that "if one man would enslave another, no third man
should object," fantastically called "Popular Sovereignty;" but never a man
among you is in favor of federal prohibition of slavery in federal territories,
according to the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under which
we live." Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate
in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether
your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your charge or destructiveness
against us, are based on the most clear and stable foundations.
Again,
you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was.
We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we deny that we made it so.
It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We
resisted, and still resist, your innovation; and thence comes the greater
prominence of the question. Would you have that question reduced to its former
proportions? Go back to that old policy. What has been will be again, under the
same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times, readopt the
precepts and policy of the old times.
You charge that we stir up
insurrections among your slaves. We deny it; and what is your proof? Harper's
Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was no Republican; and you have failed to
implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of
our party is guilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do
know it, you are inexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact.
If you do not know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially for
persisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make the proof.
You need to be told that persisting in a charge which one does not know to be
true, is simply malicious slander.
Some of you admit that no Republican
designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that
our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not
believe it. We know we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were
not held to and made by "our fathers who framed the Government under which we
live." You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it
occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in
evident glee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could get
an advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and your expectations
were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at
least, your charge was a slander, and he was not much inclined by it to cast his
vote in your favor. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a
continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves, or with
you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we
do, in common with "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live,"
declare our belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declare
even this. For anything we say or do, the slaves would scarcely know there is a
Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generally know it but for
your misrepresentations of us, in their hearing. In your political contests
among yourselves, each faction charges the other with sympathy with Black
Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black
Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood and thunder among the slaves.
Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the
Republican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection,
twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least three times as many lives were lost
as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the
conclusion that Southampton was "got up by Black Republicanism." In the present
state of things in the United States, I do not think a general, or even a very
extensive slave insurrection is possible. The indispensable concert of action
cannot be attained. The slaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can
incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are
everywhere in parcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied, the
indispensable connecting trains.
Much is said by Southern people about
the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses; and a part of it, at
least, is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and
communicated to twenty individuals before some one of them, to save the life of
a favorite master or mistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave
revolution in Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under
peculiar circumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not
connected with slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty were
admitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save a friend,
betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, averted the calamity.
Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthy assassinations in
the field, and local revolts extending to a score or so, will continue to occur
as the natural results of slavery; but no general insurrection of slaves, as I
think, can happen in this country for a long time. Whoever much fears, or much
hopes for such an event, will be alike disappointed.
In the language of
Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still in our power to direct the
process of emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees,
as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu,
filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force
itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up."
Mr.
Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power of emancipation is in
the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, as to the power of
emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government,
however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the extension of the
institution - the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on
any American soil which is now free from slavery.
John Brown's effort
was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to
get up a revolt among slaves, in which the slaves refused to participate. In
fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly
enough it could not succeed. That affair, in its philosophy, corresponds with
the many attempts, related in history, at the assassination of kings and
emperors. An enthusiast broods over the oppression of a people till he fancies
himself commissioned by Heaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which
ends in little else than his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon,
and John Brown's attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely
the same. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, and on New
England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the two things.
And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown,
Helper's Book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Human action
can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a
judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, which cast at least a
million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy that judgment and feeling - that
sentiment - by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it.
You can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into order
in the face of your heaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by
forcing the sentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the
ballot-box, into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be?
Would the number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?
But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of your
Constitutional rights.
That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would
be palliated, if not fully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of
numbers, to deprive you of some right, plainly written down in the Constitution.
But we are proposing no such thing.
When you make these declarations,
you have a specific and well-understood allusion to an assumed Constitutional
right of yours, to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them
there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the
Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on
the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even
by implication.
Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will
destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the
Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You
will rule or ruin in all events.
This, plainly stated, is your language.
Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional
question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction
between dictum and decision, the Court have decided the question for you in a
sort of way. The Court have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right
to take slaves into the federal territories, and to hold them there as property.
When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a
divided Court, by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing
with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its
avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was
mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact - the statement in the opinion
that "the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in
the Constitution."
An inspection of the Constitution will show that the
right of property in a slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it.
Bear in mind, the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is
impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it
is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there - "distinctly," that is, not
mingled with anything else - "expressly," that is, in words meaning just that,
without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.
If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is
affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show
that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found in the Constitution,
nor the word "property" even, in any connection with language alluding to the
things slave, or slavery; and that wherever in that instrument the slave is
alluded to, he is called a "person;" - and wherever his master's legal right in
relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as "service or labor which may be
due," - as a debt payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show,
by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery,
instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the
Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.
To show all
this, is easy and certain.
When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall
be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will
withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?
And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers, who framed the
Government under which we live" - the men who made the Constitution - decided
this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago - decided it without
division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among
themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and, so far as any
evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.
Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified
to break up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be
at once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action? But you
will not abide the election of a Republican president! In that supposed event,
you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of
having destroyed it will be upon us! That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol
to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "Stand and deliver, or I shall kill
you, and then you will be a murderer!"
To be sure, what the robber
demanded of me - my money - was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but
it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to
extort my money, and the threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote,
can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
A few words now to
Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great
Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us
Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do
nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not
so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them
if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say
and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us
determine, if we can, what will satisfy them.
Will they be satisfied if
the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not.
In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely
mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them,
if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We
know it will not. We so know, because we know we never had anything to do with
invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us
from the charge and the denunciation.
The question recurs, what will
satisfy them? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow,
convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy
task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our
organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have
constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency
to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have
never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.
These
natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them?
This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it
right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words.
Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them.
Senator Douglas' new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all
declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in
pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with
greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free State constitutions. The whole
atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before
they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
I am
quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them
would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you
please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so
that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue
to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.
I am also aware they have
not, as yet, in terms, demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions.
Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemn emphasis,
than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall
have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and
nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they
do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the
reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation.
Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they
cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and
a social blessing.
Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground
save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts,
laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be
silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its
nationality - its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon
its extension - its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we
thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought
it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise
fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do,
they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but,
thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with
their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political
responsibilities, can we do this?
Wrong as we think slavery is, we can
yet afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the
necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation; but can we, while our
votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to
overrun us here in these Free States? If our sense of duty forbids this, then
let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none
of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and
belabored - contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the
right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living
man nor a dead man - such as a policy of "don't care" on a question about which
all true men do care - such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield
to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but
the righteous to repentance - such as invocations to Washington, imploring men
to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
Neither let
us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened
from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to
ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US,
TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
Posts
