Abraham Lincoln’s Speech at Leavenworth, Kansas, December 3, 1859

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: You are, as yet, the people of a Territory; but you probably soon will be the people of a State of the Union. Then you will be in possession of new privileges, and new duties will be upon you. You will have to bear a part in all that pertains to the administration of the National Government. That government, from the beginning, has had, has now, and must continue to have a policy in relation to domestic slavery. It cannot, if it would, be without a policy upon that subject. And that policy must, of necessity, take one of two directions. It must deal with the institution as being wrong or as not being wrong.

Mr. Lincoln then stated, somewhat in detail, the early action of the General Government upon the question—in relation to the foreign slave trade, the basis of Federal representation, and the prohibition of slavery in the Federal territories; the Fugitive Slave clause in the Constitution, and insisted that, plainly that early policy, was based on the idea of slavery being wrong; and tolerating it so far, and only so far, as the necessity of its actual presence required.

He then took up the policy of the Kansas-Nebraska act, which he argued was based on opposite ideas—that is, the idea that slavery is not wrong. He said: “You, the people of Kansas, furnish the example of the first application of this new policy. At the end of about five years, after having almost continual struggles, fire and bloodshed, over this very question, and after having framed several State Constitutions, you have, at last, secured a Free State Constitution, under which you will probably be admitted into the Union. You have, at last, at the end of all this difficulty, attained what we, in the old North-western Territory, attained without any difficulty at all. Compare, or rather contrast, the actual working of this new policy with that of the old, and say whether, after all, the old way—the way adopted by Washington and his compeers—was not the better way.”

Mr. Lincoln argued that the new policy had proven false to all its promises—that its promise to the Nation was to speedily end the slavery agitation, which it had not done, but directly the contrary—that its promises to the people of the Territories was to give them greater control of their own affairs than the people of former Territories had had; while, by the actual experiment, they had had less control of their own affairs, and had been more bedeviled by outside interference than the people of any other Territory ever had.

He insisted that it was deceitful in its expressed wish to confer additional privileges upon the people; else it would have conferred upon them the privilege of choosing their own officers. That if there be any just reason why all the privileges of a State should not be conferred on the people of a Territory at once, it only could be the smallness of numbers; and that if while their number was small, they were fit to do some things, and unfit to do others, it could only be because those they were unfit to do, were the larger and more important things—that, in this case, the allowing the people of Kansas to plant their soil with slavery, and not allowing them to choose their own Governor, could only be justified on the idea that the planting a new State with slavery was a very small matter, and the election of Governor a very much greater matter. “Now,” said he, “compare these two matters and decide which is really the greater. You have already had, I think, five Governors, and yet, although their doings, in their respective days, were of some little interest to you, it is doubtful whether you now, even remember the names of half of them. They are gone (all but the last) without leaving a trace upon your soil, or having done a single act which can, in the least degree, help or hurt you, in all the indefinite future before you. This is the size of the Governor question. Now, how is it with the slavery question? If your first settlers had so far decided in favor of slavery, as to have got five thousand slaves planted on your soil, you could, by no moral possibility, have adopted a Free State Constitution. Their owners would be influential voters among you as good men as the rest of you, and, by their greater wealth, and consequent, greater capacity, to assist the more needy, perhaps the most influential among you. You could not wish to destroy, or injuriously interfere with their property. You would not know what to do with the slaves after you had made them free. You would not wish to keep them as underlings; nor yet to elevate them to social and political equality. You could not send them away. The slave States would not let you send them there; and the free States would not let you send them there. All the rest of your property would not pay for sending them to Liberia. In one word, you could not have made a free State, if the first half of your own numbers had got five thousand slaves fixed upon the soil. You could have disposed of, not merely five, but five hundred Governors easier. There they would have stuck, in spite of you, to plague you and your children, and your children's children, indefinitely. Which is the greater, this, or the Governor question? Which could the more safely be intrusted to the first few people who settle a Territory? Is it that which, at most, can be but temporary and brief in its effects? or that which being done by the first few, can scarcely ever be undone by the succeeding many?

He insisted that, little as was Popular Sovereignty at first, the Dred Scott decision, which is indorsed by the author of Popular Sovereignty, has reduced it to still smaller proportions, if it has not entirely crushed it out. That, in fact, all it lacks of being crushed out entirely by that decision, is the lawyer's technical distinction between decision and dictum. That the Court has already said a Territorial government cannot exclude slavery; but because they did not say it in a case where a Territorial government had tried to exclude slavery, the lawyers hold that saying of the Court to be dictum and not decision. “But,” said Mr. Lincoln, “is it not certain that the Court will make a decision of it, the first time a Territorial government tries to exclude slavery?”

Mr. Lincoln argued that the doctrine of Popular Sovereignty, carried out, renews the African Slave Trade. Said he: “Who can show that one people have a better right to carry slaves to where they have never been, than another people have to buy slaves wherever they please, even in Africa?”

He also argued that the advocates of Popular Sovereignty, by their efforts to brutalize the negro in the public mind—denying him any share in the Declaration of Independence, and comparing him to the crocodile—were beyond what avowed pro-slavery men ever do, and really did as much, or more than they, toward making the institution national and perpetual.

He said many of the Popular Sovereignty advocates were “as much opposed to slavery as any one;” but that they could never find any proper time or place to oppose it. In their view, it must not be opposed in politics, because that is agitation; nor in the pulpit, because it is not religion; nor in the Free States, because it is not there; nor in the Slave States, because it is there. These gentlemen, however, are never offended by hearing Slavery supported in any of these places. Still, they are “as much opposed to Slavery as anybody.” One would suppose that it would exactly suit them if the people of the Slave States would themselves adopt emancipation; but when Frank Blair tried this last year, in Missouri, and was beaten, every one of them threw up his hat and shouted “Hurrah for the Democracy!”

Mr. Lincoln argued that those who thought Slavery right ought to unite on a policy which should deal with it as being right; that they should go for a revival of the Slave Trade; for carrying the institution everywhere, into Free States as well as Territories; and for a surrender of fugitive slaves in Canada, or war with Great Britain. Said he, “all shades of Democracy, popular sovereign as well as the rest, are fully agreed that slaves are property, and only property. If Canada now had as many horses as she has slaves belonging to Americans, I should think it just cause of war if she did not surrender them on demand.[”]

“On the other hand, all those who believe slavery is wrong should unite on a policy, dealing with it as a wrong. They should be deluded into no deceitful contrivances, pretending indifference, but really working for that to which they are opposed.” He urged this at considerable length.

He then took up some of the objections to Republicans. They were accused of being sectional. He denied it. What was the proof? “Why, that they have no existence, get no votes in the South. But that depends on the South, and not on us. It is their volition, not ours; and if there be fault in it, it is primarily theirs, and remains so, unless they show that we repeal them by some wrong principle. If they attempt this, they will find us holding no principle, other than those held and acted upon by the men who gave us the government under which we live. They will find that the charge of sectionalism will not stop at us, but will extend to the very men who gave us the liberty we enjoy. But if the mere fact that we get no votes in the slave states makes us sectional, whenever we shall get votes in those states, we shall cease to be sectional; and we are sure to get votes, and a good many of them too, in these states next year.

“You claim that you are conservative; and we are not. We deny it. What is conservatism? Preserving the old against the new. And yet you are conservative in struggling for the new, and we are destructive in trying to maintain the old. Possibly you mean you are conservative in trying to maintain the existing institution of slavery. Very well; we are not trying to destroy it. The peace of society, and the structure of our government both require that we should let it alone, and we insist on letting it alone. If I might advise my Republican friends here, I would say to them, leave your Missouri neighbors alone. Have nothing whatever to do with their slaves. Have nothing whatever to do with the white people, save in a friendly way. Drop past differences, and so conduct yourselves that if you cannot be at peace with them, the fault shall be wholly theirs.

“You say we have made the question more prominent than heretofore. We deny it. It is more prominent; but we did not make it so. Despite of us, you would have a change of policy; we resist the change, and in the struggle, the greater prominence is given to the question. Who is responsible for that, you or we? If you would have the question reduced to its old proportions go back to the old policy. That will effect it.

“But you are for the Union; and you greatly fear the success of the Republicans would destroy the Union. Why? Do the Republicans declare against the Union? Nothing like it. Your own statement of it is, that if the Black Republicans elect a President, you won't stand it. You will break up the Union. That will be your act, not ours. To justify it, you must show that our policy gives you just cause for such desperate action. Can you do that? When you attempt it, you will find that our policy is exactly the policy of the men who made the Union. Nothing more and nothing less. Do you really think you are justified to break up the government rather than have it administered by Washington, and other good and great men who made it, and first administered it? If you do you are very unreasonable; and more reasonable men cannot and will not submit to you. While you elect [the] President, we submit, neither breaking nor attempting to break up the Union. If we shall constitutionally elect a President, it will be our duty to see that you submit. Old John Brown has just been executed for treason against a state. We cannot object, even though he agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed, and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might think himself right. So, if constitutionally we elect a President, and therefore you undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with you as old John Brown has been dealt with. We shall try to do our duty. We hope and believe that in no section will a majority so act as to render such extreme measures necessary.”

Mr. Lincoln closed by an appeal to all—opponents as well as friends—to think soberly and maturely, and never fail to cast their vote, insisting that it was not a privilege only, but a duty to do so.

SOURCE: Roy P. Bassler, Editor, Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3, p. 497-502 which cites Illinois State Journal, December 12, 1859 as its source.

Samuel Clark Pomeroy

Pomeroy, Samuel Clark, pioneer and United States senator, was born at Southampton, Mass., Jan. 3, 1816; was educated at Amherst College, and in 1840 became an enthusiastic opponent of slavery. He was present when President Pierce signed the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and remarked to the president: “Your victory is but an adjournment of the question from the halls of legislation at Washington to the prairies of the freedom-loving West, and there, sir, we shall beat you.” To assist in carrying out his prophecy he left Boston in Aug., 1854, with 200 people bound for Kansas, and upon arriving in the territory located at Atchison. He canvassed the Eastern states in the interest of the free-state cause; was one of a party arrested by Col. Cooke on the Nebraska river in Oct., 1856, but was released by Gov. Geary upon his arrival at Topeka; was a member of the Osawatomie convention in May, 1859, that organized the Republican party in Kansas, and served on the first state executive committee of that party. In connection with his management of the aid committee for the relief of the people of Kansas in the great drought of 1860 he was charged with irregular conduct, but was exonerated in March, 1861, by a committee composed of W. W. Guthrie, F. P. Baker and C. B. Lines. On April 4, 1861, he was elected one of the first United States senators from Kansas, and was reëlected in 1867. During the troubles over the Cherokee Neutral Lands many of the people of the state lost confidence in Mr. Pomeroy, and in 1873 he was defeated for reëlection to the senate by John J. Ingalls. It was in connection with this [s]enatorial election that State Senator A. N. York of Montgomery county made his sensational charges of bribery against Senator Pomeroy. The charges were investigated by a committee of the United States senate and also by a joint committee of the Kansas legislature. On March 3, 1873, a majority of the former committee reported that “the whole transaction, whatever view be taken of it, is the result of a concerted plot to defeat Mr. Pomeroy.” Three days later the committee of the state legislature reported Mr. Pomeroy "guilty of the crime of bribery, and attempting to corrupt, by offers of money, members of the legislature.” He was arraigned for trial before Judge Morton at Topeka on June 8, 1874, but a change of venue was taken to Osage county. After several delays and continuances the case was dismissed on March 12, 1875. On Oct. 11, 1873, while the political opposition to Mr. Pomeroy was at its height he was shot by Martin F. Conway in Washington, the bullet entering the right breast, inflicting a painful but not serious wound. Conway claimed that Pomeroy had ruined himself and his family. After the bribery case against him was dismissed Mr. Pomeroy returned to the East and died at Whitinsville, Mass., Aug. 27, 1891.

SOURCE: Frank W. Blackmar, Editor, A Standard History of Kansas and Kansans, Volume 2, p. 485-6

Gerrit Smith to the Chairman of the Jerry Rescue Committee, August 27,1859

[August 27, 1859.]

For many years I have feared, and published my fears, that slavery must go out in the blood. My speech in Congress on the Nebraska Bill was strongly marked by such fears. These fears have grown into belief. So debauched are the white people by slavery, that there is not virtue enough left in them to put it down. . . . The feeling among the blacks, that they must deliver themselves, gains strength with fearful rapidity. . . . No wonder is it that in this state of facts which I have sketched (the failure of the Liberal Party, the Free Soil Party, the Republican Party, to do anything for the slaves) intelligent black men in the States and Canada should see no hope for their race in the practice and policy of white men. No wonder they are brought to the conclusion that no resource is left to them but in God and insurrections. For insurrection then we may look any year, any month, any day. A terrible remedy for a terrible wrong! But come it must unless anticipated by repentance, and the putting away of the terrible wrong.

It will be said that these insurrections will be failures — that they will be put down. Yes, but, nevertheless, will not slavery be put down by them? For what portions are there of the South that will cling to slavery after two or three considerable insurrections shall have filled the whole South with horror? And is it entirely certain that these insurrections will be put down promptly and before they can have spread far? Will telegraphs and railroads be too swift for even the swiftest insurrections? Remember that telegraphs and railroads can be rendered useless in an hour. Remember, too, that many who would be glad to face the insurgents, would be busy in transporting their wives and daughters to places where they would be safe from that worst fate which husbands and fathers can imagine for their wives and daughters.

SOURCE: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 240-1

Charles Sumner to Gerrit Smith, March 18, 1856

Washington, 18th March, '56.

My Dear Gerrit Smith — I have your volume, “Gerrit Smith in Congress,” and am glad to possess it.

I am happy also that it owes its origin in any degree to a hint from me.

Of this I am sure. It will remain a monument of your constant, able and devoted labors during a brief term in Congress, and will be recognized as an arsenal of truth, whence others will draw bright weapons.

Douglas has appeared at last on the scene, and with him that vulgar swagger which ushered in the Nebraska debate. Truly — truly — this is a godless place. Read that report, also the President's messages, and see how completely the plainest rights of the people of Kansas are ignored. My heart is sick.

And yet I am confident that Kansas will be a free State. But we have before us a long season of excitement, and ribald debate, in which truth will be mocked and reviled.

Remember me kindly to your family, and believe me,

My dear friend,

Sincerely yours,

Charles Sumner.

SOURCES: Octavius Brooks Frothingham, Gerrit Smith: A Biography, p. 225-6

Salmon P. Chase to John Denison Baldwin, Esq,* Worcester Mass., August 20, 1860

Columbus, Aug 20^h [1860]

Dear Sir, Yours of the 11th reached me yesterday on my return from Michigan; & I hasten to thank you for the expressions of regard & confidence which it contains.

It would be a vain attempt were I to try to correct all or a very small part of the misrepresentations or misconceptions of my views which find their way into the Press: & I do not think it worth while to make the effort in respect to these to which you call my attention.

Fortunately I have no new opinions to express on any question connected with Nationalized Slavery. In my speech on Mr. Clay's compromise Resolutions in 1850, I distinctly stated my views in respect to legislative prohibition of Slavery in Territories. You will find this speech in the Congressional Globe Appendix, 1849-50, and this particular question discussed on page 478. I reaffirmed the same views in the Nebraska-Kansas Debate; & I have seen no occasion to change them. They are now substantially embodied in the Republican National Platform.

In respect to the organization of Territorial Governments I think Mr. Jefferson's plan of 1784 the better plan. It contemplated the prohibition of Slavery, as did the plan subsequently adopted, but it left more both in Organization & Administration to the people. The great objections to the “Territorial bills” of last winter, to which you refer, were in my judgment that they did not contain so distinct and explicit prohibition of Slavery, & that they did provide for the appointment of Territorial Officers by the Administration; which was equivalent to giving them pro-slavery Governors, Judges &c. To these bills I certainly preferred Mr. Thayer's Land District Bills: & I should have preferred bills framed on the plan of Jefferson, but with larger freedom of Legislation, to either.

I regret very much to hear of the feeling which exists in the Worcester District in regard to Mr. Thayer. I have but a slight personal acquaintance with him, but that acquaintance impressed me with a belief that he is sincere, earnest, & able. He has certainly rendered great service to the cause of Freedom. His plan of Organized Emigration contributed largely to save Kansas from Slavery. And if he now pushes his ideas too far in the direction of absolutely unlimited control by the settlers of a territory over every matter within their own limits whether national in its reach & consequences or not, it should be remembered that nothing is more certain than that the ripening convictions of the people favor — not the substitution of Presidential Intervention for Slavery, in place of Congressional Intervention against Slavery, which is the sole achievement of the Douglas Nebraska Scheme — but the admission of a far larger measure of true Popular Sovereignty, — fully harmonized with the fundamental principles of Human Rights, in the organization of Territorial Governments.

I write this for your own satisfaction, & because your kind letter calls for a frank response; I do not write for publication: because no opinions of individuals at this time are important enough to be thrust before the public. We are engaged in a great struggle upon a great issue fairly joined through our National Convention. God forbid that any personal strifes should endanger the Cause! Let us gain the victory; & I am sure that there will be then no difficulty in so harmonizing views, by honest endeavors to satisfy each others reasonable demands, as to secure that after success without which the preliminary success at the November Polls will be of little value.

_______________

* From letter-book 7, pp. 68-70. John Denison Baldwin 1809-1883; journalist at this time, owner and editor of the Worcester Spy; member of Congress 1863-1869.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 289-90

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, February 9, 1855

Washington Feb 9. 1855.

Dear Hamlin, A much longer time has slipped by without my writing to you than ought; but you know what my situation is & your charity will excuse me.

The papers, which are really hearty against Slavery, are, I perceive, unanimous in urging my name for Governor, & I have assurances from whigs and democrats that if I become the Peoples Candidate there will be large support from the liberals of all sides. I appreciate these manifestations of regard very — very highly. Whatever proximate results may be they bind me by fresh ties to the Cause of Liberty & Progress. There seems now to be little opposition to my nomination except with the inconsiderable number who look with alarm or dislike upon the progress of our doctrine, unless the Kns¹ shall take distinct ground against me. The opposition of the former class may be safely disregarded — that of the latter will probably divide the People's Movement if based on the ground that nobody is to be supported by the Kns unless a member of their order.

Judge Spalding was here a day or two since, and sought a conversation with me in relation to the Governorship. I was very explicit on all points:

1. That the nomination and election would doubtless gratify me as an endorsement of my course & a manifestation of confidence from the People of Ohio.

2. That I could not accept a nomination or be a candidate on any platform which did not represent my convictions. Of course, I wd. not insist on the expression of all I wished; but the actual expression must be right & in the right direction.

3. That in no case could I suffer my name to be used to divide the opponents of slavery in Ohio; but, in case the Convention should take ground on which I could not honorably act, I should regard myself as having no present work to do in Ohio.

He seemed to have been a good deal under the impression that the Whigs would not support me, because of the events of 1849, & to have inclined to the idea that it would be best to defer to this sentiment & nominate another man: but he left apparently determined to use his influence with us.

Here the members of Congress all seem willing to support me, except perhaps, Campbell. He manifests a disinclination to touch the subject at all. I think he wishes to await the decision of the Kns. It is curious that he, a Seward Whig, should be apparently the chief of the western Knownothings. But strange things are happening now a days.

The elections of the last few weeks have produced a marked effect here. Harlan, Wilson, Durkee, Seward, are all regarded as hot shot from abolition cannon. Then the action of the Supreme Court of Wisconsin has startled the politicians — & the Judges too — not a little — and now even while I am writing comes the election of Trumbull in Illinois — Anti Douglas & Anti Nebraska at all events & an election which in this [illegible] at least a triumph. Everything indicates that the Antislavery Sentiment will [go] on & on to its final triumph now. What part Ohio shall have the next few months will go far to determine.

Write me soon & tell me all you learn. It seems to me you have said enough agst the Kns, and had better hold up. Give them credit for [illegible] in Massachusetts & wait till [illegible] if ever, to renew the combat. My idea is fight nobody who does not fight us. We have enemies enough in the Slaveholders & their aiders.

I write [illegible] about the paper.

_______________

¹ The Know Nothing Party

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 269-70

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin,* July 21, 1854

Washington, July 21, 1854,.

My Dear Hamlin: It was good to see your handwriting again. You had been so long silent that I almost began to think you had forgotten me, and did not know where to address a letter to jog your remembrance.

I share your disappointment in regard to the outcome of the Columbus Convention,¹ and thousands upon thousands throughout the country partake it also. But then, the question is, Can anything better be done than make the best of that? One thing is clear, the Convention have made an issue with the Slave Power, and the people will not let the politicians shirk it hereafter. The determination to restore the Mo. Restriction and the declared opposition to New Slave States will make it impossible to avoid it. We shall thus have free access to the people and all we have to do is to urge our larger and sounder views, and get the intelligent assent of the masses to them. Starting from the Anti-slavery point I do not fear that the new party will not be ultimately essentially democratic. But should it be otherwise one thing is clear—the Old Line Democracy will go beyond it, whenever once whipped into its traces (?) in respect to consistency, in Anti-slavery declarations; and thus furnish to Antislavery democrats a party to their kind. It shall not be my fault if the new party does not become essentially democratic; and you must help me. The day may come when I shall have it in my power to prove my sincere appreciation of your merits; or you may, which I would greatly prefer, be placed by the appreciation of the people, in a position where you can confer easier than receive favors.

It is true as alleged by some that the Antislavery Resolution of the Old Line Democracy is more comprehensively antislavery than the People's Platform at Columbus, but, then it has been neutralized by the endorsement of the Baltimore Platform and nullified by the acts of the Party which put it forth in electing such a President as Pierce and such a Senator as Pugh² and in sustaining such Covenant Breakers as Douglas. There is a good hope that the People's Platform will be stuck to, and a little truth honestly received and lived up to, is better than a great deal of disregarded profession.

You see that I mean to go along with the Antislavery movement, in the phase which it has now assumed; keeping a watchful eye upon it that the strength which our votes give it be not abused.

We have confirmed the Japan Treaty. It is a great thing for our reputation to have made the first Treaty with that isolated Empire. Its provisions are important to our Pacific Commerce.

The Reciprocity Treaty is under discussion. I think it will be confirmed.

What do you think of Hunter's substitute for the Homestead bill? I voted for it finally, after the Senate had abandoned the House Homestead Bill, as the best bill there was any hope of securing at this session. Keep me advised me where to write you.

Yours faithfully,

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

_______________

* From the Pierce-Sumner Papers.

¹ The first State Convention of the Anti-Nebraska men, July 13,1854. Cf. note in Schuckers's Chase, p. 165.

² George E. Pugh succeeded Chase as Senator from Ohio. Chase's term expired March 3,1855.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 262-3

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward L. Pierce, May 16, 1854

Washington, May 16, 1854.

My Dear Pierce: I enclose to you a brief which has no merit except simplicity and directness.

Many thanks to you for the pamphlet you sent me. I have not yet had time to read it, but shall certainly do so. I read your article in support of Mrs. Peters design with great pleasure, and am gratified you find time for such good work.

Sumner showed me your letter about E. S. I rejoiced greatly to hear of his success. That he should have failed of a good and appreciative audience in Circuit would have been a personal mortification to me.

The Nebraska scheme is on its legs again. Its passage into law is uncertain; it will be determined by superior tactics. Nous verroux, as Father Ritchie used to say, when disposed to seem sagacious and to make a parade of all the French the Revolution of '98 ever permitted him to acquire.

Have you seen Derby about publishing that book? I am sometimes spoken to on the subject, and would try to furnish you the material if Derby thinks fit to undertake the publication.

Yours truly.

[SALMON P. CHASE.]

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 260-1

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 23, 1854

Washington, Jany 23, 1854.

My Dear Sir: Wrote you a day or two since. Today the Nebraska Bill was called up, but was postponed till Monday. It is designed to press it through the Senate for fear of the awakening of popular indignation. I send you the Bill as now proposed to be amended. I send you, also, the original Report [of the] Bill from which you will see how material the attraction is. I also enclose with this an appeal in the Era. The signs all indicate Storms ahead.

I am fully advised that the amend'ts as they now stand were [made after] consultation with Pierce and that the Administration with a good deal of trepidation has resolved to risk its fortunes upon the bill as it now stands. Many of its warm friends say they are sure to go down upon it. There is certainly great alarm & misgiving. Cass told me today that he was not consulted, & was decidedly against the renewal of the agitation: but he will vote with the proslavery side. A personal & near friend of the Presidents called on me tonight & told me that Cass was excluded from consultations. They meant to drag him along. Even New Hampshire wavers about supporting the Bill. Maine is in a rebellion, all Rhode Island except perhaps Jones is against it. Every northern Whig Senator without exception is against it; Houston & Benton are against it

I hope the Columbian will [get the] slips of the Appeal and circulate it through the Legislature. You [don't] need to be told who wrote it. Please see to having the slips struck off & circulated.

I suppose the Senatorial [question] decided in this time. Feeling no interest in it, since no man can be elected who is not proslavery I only desire to call the attention of the people to a much greater matter. I am sorry to hear that you have electioneered for Manypenny. I like him personally, but I would cut off my right hand sooner than aid him or any other man to reach a position in which he will make Ohio the vassal of the Slave Power.

I shall soon return among the people and I mean to see whether shams will rule forever. I know that the advocates must bite the dust and they shall

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 256-7

Senator Salmon P. Chase to Edward S. Hamlin, January 22, 1854

Washington Jany 22, 1854

My Dear Sir, I think you are mistaken in the am^t, of my debt to you — it was for one letter instead of two or three when you wrote last, and it is for two now. I am quite willing however that the balance in this account should be decidedly against me, as your letters have much more interest for me than mine can have for you; and besides I am harder pushed than you can be.

I don't feel a great deal of interest in the election of Senator, since our side has nothing to expect. If it could be postponed we should have a fair chance:— as it is, I suppose, we have none though I feel right sure that the time is not distant when men who now vote to have Ohio represented here by a Hunker will rue it as a foolish & unnecessary act.

My great anxiety is to have our friends in Ohio buckle on their armor & go to work to redeem the State. We can do that I am sure if we will & by our means. I think, circumstanced as you now are, you ought to reestablish your connection with the press, or at least take up your location in a part of the State where you can advantage the cause — say, Toledo Cleveland or Cincinnati. You ought to resume the Editorial charge of the True Democrat. Wade says he will give you his interest of $1000 — I will give you mine of $200 — if an arrangement can be made by which you will become permanently interested & Editor. I should think you would feel as deeply as I do on the subject of wresting Ohio from the Hunkers.

The Nebraska Bill is the principal topic of conversation here. What is the prospect of the Resolution on the subject in our Legislature? I enclose the Washⁿ. Sentinel that you may see with what insolence the Editor speaks of our State. It makes me repent my vote for Tucker for printer, & wish I had voted for some one wholly unconnected with the Political Press or for Bailey. It will prevent me from voting to give him the Patent Report to print which he needs much.

Benton says (I dined with him yesterday) that Douglas has committed political suicide He is staunch against the repeal of the Missouri Prohibition. Gov. Allen, & two of the members for R. I. will vote against it. The Governor has written to R. I. for Legislative instructions, which if they come will fix his colleagues. Mason, of Virginia told Fish that he did not want the Nebraska Bill: he was content that things should stand as they are. Douglas, I suppose, eager to compel the South to come to him has out southernized the South; and has dragged the timid & irresolute administration along with him.

Won't you write a strong article for the Columbian on the Sentinel Article?

Let them know immediately the prospect of the Resolution in the Senate & House. It should be pushed to a vote at the earliest moment.

Tell me the names of the most prominent men of the two Houses, with short sketches of them. Do you know Makenzie? Give me all the information you can. Where is Townshend? What of his wife's health.

SOURCE: Diary and correspondence of Salmon P. Chase, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, Vol. 2, p. 254-6

Anthony Burns

BURNS, Anthony, fugitive slave, b. in Virginia about 1830; d. in St. Catharines, Canada, 27 July, 1862. He effected his escape from slavery in Virginia, and was at work in Boston in the winter of 1853-'4. On 23 May, 1854, the U. S. house of representatives passed the Kansas-Nebraska bill repealing the Missouri compromise, and permitting the extension of negro slavery, which had been restricted since 1820. The news caused great indignation throughout the free states, especially in Boston, where the anti-slavery party had its headquarters. Just at this crisis Burns was arrested by U. S. Marshal Watson Freeman, under the provisions of the fugitive-slave act, on a warrant sworn out by Charles F. Suttle. He was confined in the Boston court-house under a strong guard, and on 25 May was taken before U. S. Commissioner Loring for examination. Through the efforts of Wendell Phillips and Theodore Parker, an adjournment was secured to 27 May, and in the mean time a mass-meeting was called at Faneuil hall, and the U. S. marshal summoned a large posse of extra deputies, who were armed and stationed in and about the court-house to guard against an expected attempt at the rescue of Burns. The meeting at Faneuil hall was addressed by the most prominent men of Boston, and could hardly be restrained from adjourning in a body to storm the court-house. While this assembly was in session, a premature attempt to rescue Burns was made under the leadership of Thomas W. Higginson. A door of the courthouse was battered in, one of the deputies was killed in the fight, and Col. Higginson and others of the assailants were wounded. A call for re-enforcements was sent to Faneuil hall, but in the confusion it never reached the chairman. On the next day the examination was held before Commissioner Loring, Richard H. Dana and Charles M. Ellis appearing for the prisoner. The evidence showed that Burns was amenable under the law, and his surrender to his master was ordered. When the decision was made known, many houses were draped in black, and the state of popular feeling was such that the government directed that the prisoner be sent to Virginia on board the revenue cutter “Morris.” He was escorted to the wharf by a strong guard, through streets packed with excited crowds. At the wharf the tumult seemed about to culminate in riot, when the Rev. Daniel Foster (who was killed in action early in the civil war) exclaimed, “Let us pray!” and silence fell upon the multitude, who stood with uncovered heads, while Burns was hurried on board the cutter. A more impressively dramatic ending, or one more characteristic of an excited but law-abiding and God-fearing New England community, could hardly be conceived for this famous case. Burns afterward studied at Oberlin college, and eventually became a Baptist minister, and settled in Canada, where, during the closing years of his life, he presided over a congregation of his own color. See “Anthony Burns, A History,” by C. E. Stevens (Boston, 1854).

SOURCE: James Grant Wilson & John Fiske, Editors, Appleton's Cyclopædia of American Biography, Volume 1, p. 460

Horace Greeley to James S. Pike, February 26, 1860

New York, February 26, 1860.

Friend P.: Before you say much more about John Bell, will you just take down the volumes of the Congressional Globe for 1853-4 and refresh your recollection of the part he played with regard to the Nebraska bill? Will you look especially at his votes, February 6th, on Chase's amendment; February 15th, on Douglas's amendment (the present slavery proviso); March 2d, on Chase's amendment (allowing the people of the Territories to prohibit slavery); March 2d, against Chase again, etc. It does seem to me that you or I must be mad or strangely forgetful about this business. I venture to say that Bell's record is the most tangled and embarrassing to the party which shall run him for President of any man's in America. And as to his wife's owning the slaves — bosh! We know that Bell has owned slaves — how did he get rid of them? That's an interesting question. We knowhow to answer it respecting Bates.

But I don't care what is done about the nomination. I know what ought to be done, and having set that forth am content. I stand in the position of the rich old fellow, who, having built a church entirely out of his own means, addressed his townsmen thus:

“I've built you a meeting-house,

And bought you a bell;

Now go to meeting,

Or go to h---!”

Yours,

Horace Greeley.

James S. Pike, Washington City, D. C.

SOURCE: James Shepherd Pike, First Blows of the Civil War: The Ten Years of Preliminary Conflict in the United States from 1850 to 1860, p. 499-500

Diary of William Howard Russell: Monday, April 1, 1861

On Easter Monday, after breakfast with Mr. Olmsted, I drove over to visit Senator Douglas. Originally engaged in some mechanical avocation, by his ability and eloquence he has raised himself to the highest position in the State short of the Presidency, which might have been his but for the extraordinary success of his opponent in a fortuitous suffrage scramble. He is called the Little Giant, being modo bipedali staturâ, but his head entitles him to some recognition of intellectual height. His sketch of the causes which have led to the present disruption of parties, and the hazard of civil war, was most vivid and able; and for more than an hour he spoke with a vigor of thought and terseness of phrase which, even on such dreary and uninviting themes as squatter sovereignty and the Kansas-Nebraska question, interested a foreigner in the man and the subject. Although his sympathies seemed to go with the South on the question of slavery and territorial extension, he condemned altogether the attempt to destroy the Union.

SOURCE: William Howard Russell, My Diary North and South, p. 55

Governor Samuel J. Kirkwood to Senator James W. Grimes, January 12, 1861

Des Moines, Ia., January 12, 1861.

Hon. James W. Grimes:

Dear Sir: — It really appears to me as though our Southern friends are determined on the destruction of our Government, unless they can change its whole basis and make it a government for the growth and spread of slavery. The real point of controversy is in regard to slavery in the territories. On that point I would be willing to go thus far: Restore the question of slavery in our present territories to the position in which it was placed by the compromise measures of 1850, and before passing the Kansas-Nebraska bill, and admit Kansas as a free state at once. The whole country agreed to do this once, and therefore could do so again. As to future acquisitions of territory, do either one of two things: 1st, Prohibit future acquisitions except by the vote of two thirds of each branch of Congress, or: 2nd, Make the condition of the Territory at the time of its acquisition its permanent condition until admitted as a state.

I think neither of these requires an abandonment of principles, or involves disgrace to either party, North or South.

But at all hazards the Union must be honored; the laws must be enforced. What can I do in the premises? Shall I tender the aid of the State to Mr. Buchanan? Some of our people desire an extra session — I do not. My present intention is not to call an extra session till after the 4th of March. If after that time an extra session be necessary to support the Government, I will so far as in me lies see to it that the last fighting man in the State, and the last dollar in the treasury are devoted to that object, and our people will sustain me. If such aid is required by Mr. Buchanan, it is at his service. Please consult our delegation and write me fully such course as you think best to be pursued.

Very truly,

SAMUEL J. KIRKWOOD.

P. S. — Can anything be done in the way of procuring arms for this State beyond the regular quota for the current year? Cannot an arsenal be established and supplied in some North-western free State?

SOURCE: Henry Warren Lathrop, The Life and Times of Samuel J. Kirkwood, Iowa's War Governor, p. 108-9

Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided" Speech

SPEECH IN ACCEPTANCE OF NOMINATION AS UNITED STATES SENATOR, MADE AT THE CLOSE OF THE REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION, SPRINGFIELD, ILL., 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 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 the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

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 architects, from the beginning.

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.

But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an indorsement [sic] by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more.

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 therefrom; 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 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 into a Territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and lawsuit 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, requested 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 answered: "That is a question for the Supreme Court."

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, 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 indorsement. The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. 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 capital 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 quarrel 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 so 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 mold 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's "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:

(1) 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 that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

(2) 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 enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

(3) 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 mold public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to 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 afterward 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 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 indorsement? 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 of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconeert. 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 we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises 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 see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in—in such a case we find it impossible not to 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 blow 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 is 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 Mace 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 United States 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 this 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.  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 wish us to infer all this from the fact 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 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's 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 not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught 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 ever to be.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted [sic] 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 counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.

SOURCE: Marion Mills Miller, Editor, Life and Works of Abraham Lincoln, Volume 3: Speeches and debates, 1856-1858, p. 35-46