|
LINCOLN AND THE CHAMBER IN WHICH HE
DELIVERED THIS SPEECH
A House Divided
|
|
Go here for more about
 Abraham
Lincoln.
Go here for more about
Lincoln's
A House Divided speech.
Image above:
The Upside-down stovepipe hat is where
Representative Lincoln used to sit. Also in this
chamber, Abraham Lincoln's body lay in repose
after the long train journey from Washington,
DC.
Photo
Credits: Great Valley State University |
It follows the full text transcript of
Abraham Lincoln's A House Divided speech, delivered
to the Illinois House of Representatives at Springfield,
Illinois - June 16, 1858.
 |
Mr. President and
Gentlemen of the Convention, |
If we could first
know where we are, and whither we are tending,
we could then better judge what to do, and how
to do it.
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 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.
Have we no
tendency to the latter condition? Let any one
who doubts, carefully contemplate that now
almost complete legal combination, piece of
machinery so to speak, compounded of the
Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision.
Let him consider not only what work the
machinery is adapted to do, and how well
adapted, but also, let him study the history of
its construction, and trace, if he can, or
rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences
of design and concert of action among its chief
bosses, from the beginning.
But, so far,
Congress only had acted and an endorsement by
the people, real or apparent, was indispensable
to save the point already gained, and give
chance for more.
The new year of
1854 found slavery excluded from more than half
the States by State Constitutions, and from most
of the national territory by Congressional
prohibition.
Four days later
commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing
that Congressional prohibition. This opened all
the national territory to slavery and was the
first point gained. This necessity had not been
overlooked but had been provided for, as well as
might be, in the notable argument of "squatter
sovereignty,'' otherwise called "sacred right of
self government,'' which latter phrase, though
expressive of the only rightful basis of any
government, was so perverted in this attempted
use of it as to amount to just this: That if any
one man, choose to enslave another, no third man
shall be allowed to object.
That argument was
incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in
the language which follows:
"It being
the true intent and meaning of this act not
to legislate slavery into any Territory or
state, nor to exclude it there from, but to
leave the people thereof perfectly free to
form and regulate their domestic
institutions in their own way, subject only
to the Constitution of the United States.''
Then opened the roar of loose declamation in
favor of "Squatter Sovereignty,'' and "Sacred
right of self government.''
"But,'' said
opposition members, "let us be more specific.
Let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare
that the people of the territory may exclude
slavery.''
"Not we,'' said
the friends of the measure; and down they voted
the amendment.
While the Nebraska
bill was passing through congress, a law case,
involving the question of a negro's freedom, by
reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him
first into a free state and then a territory
covered by the congressional prohibition, and
held him as a slave, for a long time in each,
was passing through the U.S. Circuit Court for
the District of Missouri. And both, Nebraska
bill and law suit, were brought to a decision in
the same month of May 1854. The negro's name was
Dred Scott,' which name now designates the
decision finally made in the case.
Before the then
next Presidential election, the law case came
to, and was argued in the Supreme Court of the
United States. But the decision of it was
deferred until after the election. Still, before
the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of
the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the
Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the
people of a territory can constitutionally
exclude slavery from their limits. And the
latter answers, "That is a question for the
Supreme Court.''
The election came.
Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the endorsement,
such as it was, secured. That was the second
point gained. The endorsement, however, fell
short of a clear popular majority by nearly four
hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not
overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory.
The outgoing
President, in his last annual message, as
impressively as possible echoed back upon the
people the weight and authority of the
endorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did
not announce their decision, but ordered a
re-argument.
The Presidential
inauguration came, and still no decision of the
court. But the incoming President, in his
inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people
to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever
it might be.
Then, in a few
days, came the decision. The reputed author of
the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to
make a speech at this capitol indorsing the Dred
Scott Decision, and vehemently denouncing all
opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes
the early occasion of the Silliman letter to
indorse and strongly construe that decision, and
to express his astonishment that any different
view had ever been entertained.
At length a
squabble springs up between the President and
the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere
question of fact, whether the Lecompton
constitution was or was not, in any just sense,
made by the people of Kansas. And in that
squabble the latter declares that all he wants
is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares
not whether slavery be voted down or voted up.
I do not
understand his declaration that he cares not
whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be
intended by him other than as an apt definition
of the policy he would impress upon the public
mind, the principle for which he declares he has
suffered much, and is ready to suffer to the
end.
And well may he
cling to that principle. If he has any parental
feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle
is the only shred left of his original Nebraska
doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision,
"squatter sovereignty'' squatted out of
existence, tumbled down like temporary
scaffolding, like the mould at the foundry
served through one blast and fell back into
loose sand, helped to carry an election, and
then was kicked to the winds. His late joint
struggle with the Republicans against the
Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the
original Nebraska doctrine.
That struggle was
made on a point, the right of a people to make
their own constitution, upon which he and the
Republicans have never differed. The several
points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection
with Senator Douglas' "care not'' policy,
constitute the piece of machinery in its present
state of advancement. This was the third point
gained.
The working points of that machinery are:
First, that no
negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and
no descendant of such slave can ever be a
citizen of any State, in the sense of that term
as used in the Constitution of the United
States. This point is made in order to deprive
the negro, in every possible event, of the
benefit of this provision of the United States
Constitution, which declares that "The citizens
of each State shall be entitled to all
privileges and immunities of citizens in the
several States.''
Secondly, that
"subject to the Constitution of the United
States,'' neither Congress nor a Territorial
Legislature can exclude slavery from any United
States territory. This point is made in order
that individual men may fill up the territories
with slaves, without danger of losing them as
property, and thus to enhance the chances of
permanency to the institution through all the
future.
Thirdly, that
whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in
a free State, makes him free, as against the
holder, the United States courts will not
decide, but will leave to be decided by the
courts of any slave State the negro may be
forced into by the master. This point is made,
not to be pressed immediately, but, if
acquiesced in for a while, and apparently
indorsed by the people at an election, then to
sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred
Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred
Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every
other master may lawfully do with any other one,
or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any
other free State.
Auxiliary to all
this, and working hand in hand with it, the
Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to
educate and mould public opinion, at least
Northern public opinion, to not care whether
slavery is voted down or voted up.
This shows exactly
where we now are, and partially also, whither we
are tending. It will throw additional light on
the latter, to go back, and run the mind over
the string of historical facts already stated.
Several things
will now appear less dark and mysterious than
they did when they were transpiring. The people
were to be left "perfectly free,'' "subject only
to the Constitution.''
What the
Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could
not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an
exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision
to afterwards come in and declare the perfect
freedom of the people, to be just no freedom at
all.
Why was the
amendment, expressly declaring the right of the
people to exclude slavery, voted down? Plainly
enough now, the adoption of it would have
spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision.
Why was the court
decision held up? Why even a Senator's
individual opinion withheld till after the
Presidential election? Plainly enough now, the
speaking out then would have damaged the
"perfectly free'' argument upon which the
election was to be carried.
Why the outgoing
President's felicitation on the endorsement? Why
the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming
President's advance exhortation in favor of the
decision? These things look like the cautious
patting and petting a spirited horse,
preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded
that he may give the rider a fall.
And why the hasty
after endorsements of the decision by the
President and others? We can not absolutely know
that all these exact adaptations are the result
of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed
timbers, different portions of which we know
have been gotten out at different times and
places and by different workmen, Stephen,
Franklin, Roger and James, for instance. And
when we see these timbers joined together, and
see they exactly make the frame of a house or a
mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly
fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of
the different pieces exactly adapted to their
respective places, and not a piece too many or
too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a
single piece be lacking, we can see the place in
the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet
bring such piece in, in such a case, we find it
impossible to not believe that Stephen and
Franklin and Roger and James all understood one
another from the beginning, and all worked upon
a common plan or draft drawn up before the first
lick was struck.
It should not be
overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the
people of a State as well as Territory, were to
be left "perfectly free'' "subject only to the
Constitution.''
Why mention a
State? They were legislating for territories and
not for or about States. Certainly the people of
a State are and ought to be subject to the
Constitution of the United States. But why is
mention of this lugged into this merely
territorial law? Why are the people of a
territory and the people of a state therein
lumped together, and their relation to the
Constitution therein treated as being precisely
the same?
While the opinion
of the Court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the
Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of
all the concurring Judges, expressly declare
that the Constitution of the United States
neither permits Congress nor a Territorial
legislature to exclude slavery from any United
States territory, they all omit to declare
whether or not the same Constitution permits a
state, or the people of a State, to exclude it.
Possibly, this was
a mere omission. But who can be quite sure, if
McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the
opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the
people of a state to exclude slavery from their
limits, just as Chase and Macy sought to get
such declaration, in behalf of the people of a
territory, into the Nebraska bill---I ask, who
can be quite sure that it would not have been
voted down, in the one case, as it had been in
the other.
The nearest
approach to the point of declaring the power of
a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson.
He approaches it more than once, using the
precise idea, and almost the language too, of
the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact
language is, "except in cases where the power is
restrained by the Constitution of the United
States, the law of the State is supreme over the
subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.''
In what cases the
power of the states is so restrained by the U.S.
Constitution, is left an open question,
precisely as the same question, as to the
restraint on the power of the territories was
left open in the Nebraska act. Put that and that
together, and we have another nice little niche,
which we may, ere long, see filled with another
Supreme Court decision, declaring that the
Constitution of the United States does not
permit a state to exclude slavery from its
limits.
And this may
especially be expected if the doctrine of "care
not whether slavery be voted down or voted up,''
shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to
give promise that such a decision can be
maintained when made.
Such a decision is
all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful
in all the States.
Welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably
coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the
power of the present political dynasty shall be
met and overthrown.
We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the
people of Missouri are on the verge of making
their State free; and we shall awake to the
reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has
made Illinois a slave State.
To meet and
overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work
now before all those who would prevent that
consummation. That is what we have to do. But
how can we best do it?
There are those
who denounce us openly to their own friends, and
yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is
the aptest instrument there is, with which to
effect that object. They do not tell us, nor has
he told us, that he wishes any such object to be
effected. They wish us to infer all, from the
facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the
present head of the dynasty; and that he has
regularly voted with us, on a single point, upon
which, he and we, have never differed.
They remind us
that he is a very great man, and that the
largest of us are very small ones. Let this be
granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead
lion.'' Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for
this work, is at least a caged and toothless
one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery?
He don't care anything about it. His avowed
mission is impressing the "public heart'' to
care nothing about it.
A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks
Douglas' superior talent will be needed to
resist the revival of the African slave trade.
Does Douglas
believe an effort to revive that trade is
approaching? He has not said so. Does he really
think so? But if it is, how can he resist it?
For years he has labored to prove it a sacred
right of white men to take negro slaves into the
new territories. Can he possibly show that it is
less a sacred right to buy them where they can
be bought cheapest? And, unquestionably they can
be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.
He has done all in
his power to reduce the whole question of
slavery to one of a mere right of property. And
as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave
trade, how can he refuse that trade in that
"property'' shall be "perfectly free,'' unless
he does it as a protection to the home
production? And as the home producers will
probably not ask the protection, he will be
wholly without a ground of opposition.
Senator Douglas
holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be
wiser to-day than he was yesterday, that he may
rightfully change when he finds himself wrong.
But, can we for that reason, run ahead, and
infer that he will make any particular change,
of which he, himself, has given no intimation?
Can we safely base our action upon any such
vague inference?
Now, as ever, I
wish to not misrepresent Judge Douglas'
position, question his motives, or do ought that
can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if
ever, he and we can come together on principle
so that our great cause may have assistance from
his great ability, I hope to have interposed no
adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not
now with us, he does not pretend to be, he does
not promise to ever be.
Our cause, then,
must be entrusted to, and conducted by its own
undoubted friends, those whose hands are free,
whose hearts are in the work, who do care for
the result.
Two years ago the
Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen
hundred thousand strong. We did this under the
single impulse of resistance to a common danger,
with every external circumstance against us. Of
strange, discordant, and even, hostile elements,
we gathered from the four winds, and formed and
fought the battle through, under the constant
hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered
enemy.
Did we brave all
then, to falter now, now when that same enemy is
wavering, dissevered and belligerent? The result
is not doubtful. We shall not fail. If we stand
firm, we shall not fail. Wise councils may
accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or
later the victory is sure to come.
More History
|
