Abraham Lincoln / The People's Leader in the Struggle for National Existence

shortly be announcement of a new policy." It is hardly to be doubted that the announcement which he had in mind was to be concerned wi

ew, as secession was itself something which was not to be admitted, being, from the constitutional point of view, impossible, there never had in the legal sense of the term been any secession. The instant the armed rebellion had been brought to an end, the rebelling States were to be considered as having resumed their old-time relations with the States of the North and with the central government. They were under the same obligations as before for taxation, for subordination in foreign relations, and for the acceptance of the control of the Federal government on all matters classed as Federal. On the other hand, they were entitled to the privileges that had from the beginning been exercised by independent States: namely, the control of their local affairs on matters not classed as Federal, and they had a right t

ken with grief that their great captain should have been struck down, while the South might well be troubled that the control and adjustment of the great interstate perplexities was not to be in the hands of the wise, sympathetic, and patient ruler,

e in history had any people been able against such apparently overwhelming perils and difficulties to maintain a national existence. There was, therefore, notwithstanding the great misfortune, for the people South and North, in the loss of the wise ruler at a time when so many difficulties remained to be adjusted, a dramatic fitness in having the life of the leader close just as t

neral Johnston might be able to effect a junction with the retreating forces of Lee and it was important to do whatever was practicable, either with forces or with a show of forces, to delay Johnston and to make such combination impossible. A thin line of Federal troops was brought into position to the north of Johnston's advance, but Sherman himself kept

erman, simple-hearted man that he was, permitted himself, for the time, to be confused by Reagan's semblance of authority. He executed with Reagan a convention which covered not merely the surrender of Johnston's army but the preliminaries of a final peace. This convention was of course made subject to the approval of the authorities in Washington. When it came into the hands of President Johnson, it was, under the counsel of Seward and Stanton, promptly disavowed. Johnson instructed Grant, who had reported to Washington from Appomattox, to make his way at once to Goldsborough and, relieving Sherman, to arrange for the surrender of Johnston's army on the terms o

s still new to his office and he was still prepared to accept counsel. The matter was, therefore, arranged as Grant desired. Grant took the instructions and had his personal word with Sherman, but this word was so quietly given that none of the men in Sherman's army, possibly no one b

mattox." Sherman was keen enough to understand what must have passed in Washington, and was able to appreciate the loyal consideration shown by General Grant in the successful effort to protect the honour and the prestige of his old comrade. The surrender was carried out on the 26th of April, eleven days after the death of Lincoln. Johnston's troops, like those of Lee, were distributed to their homes. The officers retained their side-arms, and the men, leaving their rifles, took with them not only such horses and mules as they still had with them connected with the cavalry or artillery, but als

great commander. Partly on this ground, and partly apparently as a result of general "incompatibility of temper," Davis managed to quarrel at different times during the War with some of the generals who had shown themselves the most capable and the most serviceable. He would probably have quarrelled with Lee, if it had been possible for any one to make quarrel relations with that fine-natured gentleman, and if Lee had not been too strongly entrenched in the hearts of his countrymen to make any interference with him unwise, even for the President. Davis had, however, managed to interfere very seriously with the operations of men like Beauregard, Sidney Johnson, Joseph Johnston, and other commanders whose continued leadership was most important for the Confederacy. It was the obstinacy of Davis that had protracted the War through the winter and spring of 1865, long after it was evident from the reports of Lee and of the other commanders that the resources of the Confederacy were exhausted and that any further struggle simply meant an inexcusable loss of life on both sides. As a Northern soldier who has had experience in Southern prisons, I may be excused also from bearing in mind the fearful responsibility that rests upon Davis for the mismanagement of those prisons, a mismanagement which caused the death of thousands of brave

not to be captured. Unfortunately it had not proved possible to get this informal expression of a very important piece of policy conveyed throughout the lines farther west. An enterpris

nths in which Davis was a prisoner at Fortress Monroe, and while the question of his trial for treason was being fiercely debated in Washington, the sentiment of the Confederacy naturally concentrated upon its late President. He was, as the single prisoner, the surviving emblem of the contest. His vanities, irritability, and blunders were forgotten. It was natural that, under the circumstances, his people, the people of th

ld darky whom I had come to know during the days of our sojourn, for the purpose of getting a shave. The old fellow took up his razor, put it down again and then again lifted it up, but his arm was shaking and I saw that he was so agitated that he was not fitted for the task. "Massa," he said, "I can't shave yer this mornin'." "What is the matter?" I inquired. "Well," he replied, "somethin's happened to Massa Linkum." "Why!" said I, "nothing has happened to Lincoln. I know what there is to be known. What are you talking about?" "Well!" the old man replied with a half sob, "we coloured folks-we get news or we get half news sooner than you-uns. I dun know jes' what

what was in his despatches. The Division Adjutant stepped out on the porch of the headquarters with the paper in his hand, but he broke down before he could begin to read. The Division Commander took the word and was able simply to announce: "Lincoln is dead." The word "President" was not necessary and he sought in fact for the shortest word

om were carried on his responsibilities in the army, and later in the nation's government. To many good Americans, however, Washington represented for years an antagonistic principle of government. He was regarded as an aristocrat and there were not a few political leaders, with groups of voters behind them, who dreaded, and doubtless honestly dreaded, that the influence of Washington might be utilised to build up in this country some fresh form of the monarchy that had been overthrown. The years of the Presidency had to be completed and the bitter antagonisms of the seven years' fighting and of the issues of the Constitution-building had to be outgrown, before the people were able to recognise as a whole the perfect integrity of purpose and consistency of action of their great leader, the first President. Even then when the animosities and suspicions had died away, while the people were ready to honour the high character and the accomplishments of Washington, the feeling was one of reverence rather than of affection. This sentiment gave rise later to the title of the "Father of his Country"; but there was no such personal feeling towards Washington as warranted,

sising antagonisms, he held consistently that the highest interest of one section of the country must be the real interest of the whole people, and that the ruler of the nation had upon him the responsibility of so shaping the national policy that all the people should recognise the government as their government. It was this large understanding and width of sympathy that made Lincoln in a sense

the London Nation at the time of the Ce

any European country, and the degree of eminence is correspondingly reduced. It is just because America has stood for opportunity that conspicuous individuals have been comparatively rare. Strong personality, however, has not been rare; it is the abundance of such personality that has built up silently into the rising fabric of the American Commonwealth, pioneers, roadmakers, traders, lawyers, soldiers, teachers, toiling terribly over the material and moral foundation of the country, few of whose names have emerged or survived. Lincoln was of this stock, was reared among these rude energetic folk, had lived all those so

elivered at the Centennial celebration, s

ring in its principles in which he devoutly believed and served mightily to save. When to-day, the world celebrates the century of his existence, he has become the ideal of both North and South, of a common country, composed not only of the factions that once confronted each other in war's dreadful array, but of the myriad thousands that have

ge nature and wide and sympatheti

It was distinctly the weird mixture in him of qualities and forces, of the lofty with the common, the ideal with the uncouth, of that which he had become with that which he had not ceased to be, that

e. The charm of Lincoln's oratory flooded all the rare depth and genuineness of his convictions and his sympath

Whittie

form that

a martyr

n face that

the knee

peace where

, strife,

he awful

the price

Bry

done, the b

e to an hon

est monume

fetters o

y life; its

thee with the

noble ho

d in the ca

Low

n shall beh

nest, brave, f

ent, dreading p

r new soil, the

ose, if perhaps not at once, yet in a brief space, with the

efore being lost in the ocean of time. We call that man great to whom it is given so to impress himself upon his fellow-men by deed, by creation, by service to the community, by character, by the inspiration from on high that has been breathe

e of his life's work, Lincoln stands enshrined in the thought and in the hearts of his countrymen. He is our "Father Abraham," belonging to us, his fellow-citizens,

PE

S OF ABRAH

Cooper Instit

ry 27,

C. Nott and Cephas Brainerd, and with the Correspondence between Mr. Lincoln an

DUCTO

esponse to the invitation of certain representative New Yorkers, was, as well i

record, were accepted by the Republican leaders as constituting the principles and the policy to be maintained during the Presidential

he words of Lincoln, the election was fo

terfered with in the original slave States, or in the additional territory that had been conceded to it under the Missouri Compromise; and, secondly,

e convictions, both in the debates with Douglas and in the Cooper Institute speech, were presented by Lincoln more forcibly and more conclusively than had been done by any other political leader, that Lincoln

H.

Septembe

WITH LINCOLN, N

obert L

VERMONT, J

AJOR P

of the summer of 1860.... After the Cooper Institute address, my father came to Exeter to see how I was getting along, and this visit resulted in his making a number of speeches in New England on his way and on his return, and at Exeter he wrote to my mother a letter which was mainly concerned with me, but which did make reference to these speeches.... He said that he had had some embarrassment with these New England speec

rely

T LIN

Judg

N, MASS., J

PUT

phlet now in your hands is authentic and conclusive. Mr. Lincoln read the proof both of the address and of the notes. I am glad that you are to include in y

e it shows what we thought of the address at that time.... Your worthy fath

fait

ES C.

ephas B

t 18, 1909. DEA

able for the public.... I am glad also that with the address you are proposing to print the letters received by Judge Nott from Mr. Lincoln. One or two

earlier to John Sherman, who, like Lincoln, had never before spoken in New York, five ten-dollar gold pieces, that he said he "had not expected his expenses to be paid." At a lunch tha

s expecting to hear some specimen of Western stump-speaking as it was then understood. You will, of course, observe that the speech contains nothing of the kind. I do remember, however, that Lincoln spoke of the condition of feeling between the Nor

braries in New York, and I also had interviews as to one special point with Mr. Bancroft, with

to your father for advice or assistance when he failed to help us, and he was always so kindly and gentle in what he did and said that every one of us youngsters acquired for him a very great affection. He always had time to see us and was always on hand when he was wanted, and if we desired to have anything, we got it if h

rely

S BRA

ODUC

RLES C

t had not reached the front rank of the Illinois Bar. The record which Mr. Lincoln himself placed in the Congressional Directory in 1847 might still be taken as the record of his public and official life: "Born February 12th, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. Education defective. Profession a lawyer. Have been a captain of volunteers in the Black Hawk War. Postmaster in a very small office. Four times a member of the Illinois Legislature and a member of the lower house of Congress." Was this the record of a man who should be made the head of a nation

speech. This is one of the few printed speeches that I did not hear him deliver in person. As I read the concluding pages of that speech, the conflict of opinion that preceded the conflict of arms then sweeping upon the country like an approaching solar eclipse seemed prefigured like a chapter of the Book of Fate. Here again he was the Old Testament prophet, before whom Horace Greeley bowed his head, saying that he had never listened to a greater speech, although he had heard several of Webster's best." Later, Mr. Greeley became the leader of the Republican forces

oln was nominated for the Presidency he was neither appreciated nor known in New York. That fact

g could be; the conversation was easy and familiar; the prospects of the Republican party in the coming struggle were talked over, and so little was it supposed by the gentlemen who had not heard the address that Mr. Lincoln could possibly be the candidate that one of them, Mr. Charles W. Elliott, asked, artlessly: "Mr. Lincoln, what candidate do you really think would be most likely to carry Illinois?" Mr. Lincoln answered by illustration: "Illinois

aid, "Are you lame, Mr. Lincoln?" He replied that he had on new boots and they hurt him. The two gentlemen then boarded a street car. When they reached the place where Mr. Nott would leave the car on his way home, he shook Mr. Lincoln by the hand and, bidding him good-bye, told him that this car would carry him to the side door of the Astor House. Mr. Lincoln went on alone, the only occu

liant effect which was to follow? Did he feel the loneliness of the situation-the want of his loyal Illinois adherents? Did his sinking heart infer that he was but a speck of humanity to which the great city would never again give a thought? He was a plain man, an ungainly man; unadorned, apparently uncultivated, showing the awkwardness of self-conscious rusticity. His dress that night before a New York audience was the most unbecoming that a fiend's ingenuity could have devised for a tall, gaunt man-a black frock coat, ill-setting and too short for him in the body, skirt, and arms-a rolling collar, low-down, disclosing his long thin, shrivelled throat uncovered and exposed. No man in all New York appeared that night more simple, more unassuming, more modest, more unpretentious, more conscious of his own defects than Abraham Lincoln; and yet we now know that within his soul there burned the fires of an unbounded ambition, sustained by a self-reliance

ad and lonely; and when it was too late, when the car was beyond call, he blamed himself for not accompanying Mr.

ry 12,

ENCE WITH

New York, Feb

r S

St. Louis a short time ago-the second will be in a few days by Mr. C.M. Clay, and the third we would prefer to have from you, rather than from any other person. Of the audience I should add that it is not that of an ordinary political meeting. These lectures have been contrived to call o

here; but they have, for you, the highest esteem, and your celebrated contest with Judge Douglas awoke their warmest sympathy and admiration. Th

ectf

es C.

incoln. 69 Wall

23,

r S

y of your addre

ter form, with such notes and references as will best attract readers seeking informat

r effect here than any other single speech. It is the real platform in the Eastern Sta

ay be. Most of the emendations are trivial and do not affec

rience in criticising for Reviews, I find hardly anything to touch and nothing to omit. It is the only

that than is pleasant or profitable, we will not add to your burden in that regard, but if you will let any frie

ectf

es C.

coln. Springfield,

C. Not

ear

and upon which you have made some notes for emendations, was received some days ago-Of course

now re-examine, and make notes, without an expenditure of time wh

t bottom of first page, you propose to substitute "Democrats" for "Douglas"-But what I am saying there is true of Douglas, and is not true of "Democrats" generally; so that the proposed substitution would be a very considerable blunder-Your proposed insertion of "residences" though it would do little or no harm, is not at all necessary to the sense

age 7, I do not think them material, but I a

" and retained-"Court" as a collection more properly governs the plural "have" as I understand-"The" preceding "Court," in the latter case, must al

your copy of the speech, together with one printed here, under my own hasty supervising. That at New York was

mplimentary letter, and your interest

end and

Lin

, New York. Au

r S

vised edition of your Cooper Ins. speec

know, that I have made no alterations

e taken his place then; and his name is recorded as voting for the Ordinance. This makes no difference in the result, but I presume you will not wish the historical inaccuracy (if it is suc

nguage; as "delegated" instead of "granted," etc. As it is given in

correct please

been weighed down by other matters; mine

ectf

es C.

Lincoln. 69 WA

17,

r S

th the last corrections. I delayed sending, thinkin

ay has not arrived. From your not touching the proofs in that regar

esitate to let us know; it will afford us much ple

tfully

ES C.

A. Li

, ILLS., Se

C. NOT

ear

have not yet arrived-I am greatly obliged to you

ting Mr. Baldwin had voted for its passage, I had relied on a communication of Mr. Greeley, over his own signature, published in the New York Weekly Tribune of October 15, 1859. If yo

tself shows differently

very

LIN

Addr

ABRAHAM

Policy of the Framer

ples of the Re

er Institute, Feb

Young Men's Re

Not

OTT and CEPH

the Board

S OF TH

RODGERS,

AWKINS, Vic

TERLING,

FRANKLIN,

IVE CO

RAINERD,

N P. MA

C. McC

ES C.

S H. C

DEG

H. W

JOH

S M.

SORY

LLEN B

EL D

M BA

AM V.

N J

E W.

A. H

H MAN

LTON

CIS

E GRE

S A. P

R KE

S KE

GE F

CURTIS

N F. MA

EF

enying impartiality with which Mr. Lincoln has turned from the testimony of "the Fathers," on the general question of slavery, to present the single question which he discusses. From the first line to the last-from his premises to his conclusion, he travels with swift, unerring directness which no logician ever excelled-an argument complete and full, without the affectation of learning, and without the stiffness which usually accompanies dates and details. A single, easy, simple sentence of plain Anglo-Saxon words contains a chapter of history that, in some instances, has taken days of labor to verify and which must have cost the author months o

, Septem

DR

d familiar; nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty, i

mbus, Ohio, as reported in the New

under which we live, understood this question

nd an agreed starting-point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator

of Government un

he original, framed in 1787, (and under which the present Government first went into operati

amed 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 o

esent, as being "our fathers who fram

the text, those fathers understood "just

thority, or anything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal

ve. This affirmation and denial form an issue; and this issue-this question-

m, ever acted upon this question; and if they did, how they

ho 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,[7] thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from feder

ongress 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[9]; and they both voted for the prohibition-thus showing that, in their und

he Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nin

e 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 an unanimous passage.[12] In this Congress, there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed

itution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the federal territory; else both their fidelity to corr

ned the bill; thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in his understanding, no line dividing local from f

Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it-take control of it-even there to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized the Territory of Mississippi. In the act of organization, they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the Territory, from any place without the United States, by fine, and giving freedom to slaves so brought.[15] This act passed both branches of

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

d be imported into the ter

to it who had been imported into the Unite

and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases bein

Dayton.[18] 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 opp

] 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

the "thirty-nine," or of any of them, upon the d

s 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"

etter than we do now"; and twenty-one of them-a clear majority of the whole "thirty-nine"-so acting upon it as to make them guilty of gross political impropriety and wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any proper division between local and federal authority, or anythin

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

ct question of federal control of slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understandin

"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 sixt

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

ed since. Those who now insist that federal control of slavery in federal territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisions which they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fix upon provisions in these amendatory articles and not in the original instrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselves upon the

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 terri

s before stated, were pre-eminently our fathers who framed that part of "the Government under which we liv

e 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

sion 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

rrent 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, an

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 pa

licans 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 mak

uppose they will not-I would address

. 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 pre

year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof does not touch the issue. The fact that we get no votes in your section, is a fact of your making, and not of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle or practice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started-to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for

es, 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 wa

n 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

ves 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 sh

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 form

nterprise. 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

pon 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 Governmen

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 concer

was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiar circumstances,[31] 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.

rtation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as that the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up

ower of emancipation, I speak of the slaveholding States only. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power of restraining the e

fair, 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 els

on, 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 he

rather than submit to a denial o

fied, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, to deprive you of some rig

nto the federal territories, and to hold them there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument

nless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on

tially 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 reaso

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-"di

h 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 deb

is, is easy an

notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw t

ame Constitutional question in our favor, long ago-decided it without division among themselves, when making the decision; without division among

inal 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

t it was no more my own than my vote is my own; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and

en 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,

y 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.

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 purpo

tolerated-we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and

e, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone-have never disturbed them-so that,

ayings 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 reaso

t 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.[41] Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whol

en 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

by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT

N

e, responsib

John.

, battle

the surrende

capture

the, with the Co

eneral N

n command of French

, the pris

le, battl

letter to, fr

publicans

P., difficult

, Will

the, and emanci

n. Braxto

, on the Cooper

ohn, rai

on Linc

, Gen.

second bat

, Gen. A

y of the Po

ence of Kno

enjamin F