« PreviousContinue »
there as property. But no such right is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument is literally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that such a right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication,
“ Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is, that you will destroy the Government, unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you please, on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events.
“ This, plainly stated, is your language to us. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed Constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum and decision, the Courts have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The Courts have substantially said, it is your Constitutional right to take slaves into the Federal Territories, and to bold them there as property.
“When I say the decision was made in a sort of way, I mean it was made in a divided Court by a bare majority of the Judges, and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so made as that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact—the statement in the opinion that 'the right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution.'
“An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly and expressly affirmed in it. " Bear in mind the Judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right is impliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracity that it is distinctly and expressly affirmed there distinctly' that is, not mingled with any thing else—'expressly' that is, in words meaning just that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no other meaning.
“If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others to show that neither the word ' slave' nor.slavery' is to be found in the Constitution, nor the word property' even, in any connection with language alluding to the things slave, or slavery, and that wherever in that instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a 'person ;' and wherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, it is spoken of as
service or labor due,' as a debt' payable in service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneous history, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead of speaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man.
“ To show all this is easy and certain.
“ When this obvious mistake of the Judges shall be brought to their notice, is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it ?
“And then it is to be remembered that our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live'-the men who made the Constitution-decided this same Constitutional question in our favor, long ago--decided it without a division among themselves, when making the decision ; without division among themselves about the meaning of it after it was made, and so far as any evidence is left, without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts.
“ Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this Government, unless such a court decision as yours is, shall be at once submitted to, as a conclusive and final rule of political action.
“ But you will not abide the election of a Republican President. In that supposed event, you say, you will destroy the Union; and then, you say, the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us !
“That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, 'stand and deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you will be a murderer!
“ To be sure, what the robber demanded of me-my money was my own; and I had a clear right to keep it; but it was no møre my own than my vote is my own; and threat of death to me, to extort my money, and threat of destruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguished in principle.
"A few words now to Republicans. It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace, and in harmony, one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to bave it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even though the southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them ?
" Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrendered to them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints against us, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We so know because we know we never had any thing to do with invasions and insurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation.
“ The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this : We must not only let them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.
" These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only : cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly-done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated—we must place ourselves avowedly with them. Douglas's new sedition law must be enacted and onforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our Free-State Constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
“I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, “Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery.' But we do let them alone-have never disturbed them so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.
“I am also aware they have not, as yet, in terms demanded the overthrow of our Free-State Constitutions. Yet those Constitutions declare the wrong of slavery, with more solemu emphasis, than do all other sayings against it; and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrow of these Constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as they do, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing.
“Nor can we justifiably withhold this, on any ground save our conviction that slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, and constitutions against it, are themselves wrong, and should be silenced, and swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationality-its universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon its extension-its en!argement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, if they thought it wrong. Their thinking it right, and our thinking it wrong, is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, as being right; but, thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can we cast our votes with their view, and against our own? In view of our moral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?
“ Wrong as we thinkslavery is, we can get afford to let it alone where it is, because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation ; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spread into the National Territories, and to overrun us here in these Free States ?
“If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by our duty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored-contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither a living man nor a dead man—such as a policy of .don't care' on a question about which all true men do care-such as Union appeals beseeching true Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance—such as invocations to Washington, imploring men to upsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did.
“Neither let us be slapdered from our duty by false accusations against us, not frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government, nor of dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty, as we understand it.”
IS NOMINATED FOR PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION
On the sixteenth of May, 1860, the Republican National Convention assembled in Chicago, for the purpose of nominating candidates for the Presidency and Vice-Presidency. The first day was spent in organizing, and the second, in adopting rules for the government of the Convention and the platform of the party, and on the third, the body proceeded to ballot for the two candidates. Mr. Lincoln was nominated for President by Mr. Judd, of Illinois, and on the first ballot, received 102 votes, Mr. Seward receiving, on the same ballot, 1731 votes, and the balance being divided between the other candidates. On the second ballot, the vote stood : Lincoln, 181; Seward, 184}; and on the third, Mr. Lincoln received 230 votes,
or within one and one-half of a nomination. One of the delegates then changed four votes of his State, giving them to Mr. Lincoln, thus nominating him, and then, amid a scene of the most intense excitement, vote after vote was changed to the successful candidate, until at length the nomination was made unanimous. The selection was received by the Republican voters of the country with the most unbounded enthusiasm, and immediate preparations were made for an arduous campaign. The antecedents of their standard-bearer were of such an honorable and noble character, that they felt convinced the different factions among the opposition—indeed, all who were inspired more by patriotism than party predilections—would support him in the canvass and at the ballot-box. The architect of his own fortunes, he had raised himself from obscurity to eminence and distinction. Born in a floorless log-cabin, in a Kentucky wilderness; the child of humble and uneducated, but Christian parents; and with no education save that received during six months tuition in an unpretending school-house, and from attentive study at home by the light of a log fire, Abraham Lincoln, by his indefatigable perseverance and energy, rapidly rose from one position of trust and responsibility to another, until he attained the nomination of a great political party for the highest office in the gift of the American people.
IS NOTIFIED OF HIS NOMINATION-THE
ADDRESSES ON THE OCCASION. The committee appointed by the Convention to notify Mr. Lincoln of his nomination, performed their duty without delay, and upon arriving at his residence in Springfield, whither they were escorted by an immense concourse of citizens, the President of the Convention addressed the nominee as follows: