Books: The Life of Abraham Lincoln

H >> Henry Ketcham >> The Life of Abraham Lincoln

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20

The republican convention met in Springfield on the 16th of June.
Lincoln was by acclamation nominated "as the first and only choice" of
the republican party for United States senator. The above time-honored
phrase was used sincerely on that occasion. There was great enthusiasm,
absolute unanimity.

On the evening of the following day he addressed the convention in a
speech which has become historic. His opening words were:

"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 the 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."

This speech came quickly to be known as "the house-divided-against-
itself speech." By that name it is still known. Concluding he said:
"Our cause, then, must be entrusted to and conducted by its own
undoubted friends, those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the
work, who do care for the result.... 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." This was a strong speech, delivered before an audience
of men of unusual ability, delegates who represented all parts of the
state. It was in no wise a harangue. It was entirely thoughtful and
strictly logical. The effect of it was to intensify the enthusiasm, and
to spread it all through the state. It was a speech that Douglas could
not ignore, though he might misrepresent it. This he did by raising the
charge of sectionalism against his adversary.

About three weeks later, on the 9th of July, Douglas made an elaborate
speech in Chicago. Lincoln was in the audience. It was unofficially
arranged that he should reply. He did so the following evening. A week
later a similar thing occurred in Springfield. Douglas made a speech in
the afternoon to which Lincoln replied in the evening. Shortly after
this Lincoln wrote Douglas a letter proposing a series of joint
discussions, or challenging him to a series of joint debates. Douglas
replied in a patronizing and irritating tone, asked for a slight
advantage in his own favor, but he accepted the proposal. He did not do
it in a very gracious manner, but he did it. They arranged for seven
discussions in towns, the locations being scattered fairly over the
entire territory of the state.

If Illinois had before been "the cynosure of neighboring eyes," much
more was it so now. Lincoln was by no means the most prominent anti-
slavery man, but he was the only man in a position to beard his rival.
The proposed debates excited not only the interest of the state and the
neighboring states, but from the East and the South all minds were
turned to this tournament. It was not a local discussion; it was a
national and critical question that was at issue. The interest was no
less eager in New York, Washington, and Charleston than in
Indianapolis, Milwaukee, and St. Louis.

The two men had been neighbors for many years. They were together
members of the legislature, first in Vandalia and then in Springfield.
They had frequently met socially in Springfield. Both paid marked
attentions to the same young lady. Both had served in Washington City.
Douglas was for most of his life an officeholder, so that in one way or
another Lincoln would be brought into association with him. But though
they met so frequently it is not probable that, before this time,
either recognized in the other his supreme antagonist. After the repeal
of the Missouri Compromise Lincoln had, as already related, discussed
Douglas with great plainness of speech. This had been twice repeated in
this year. But these were, comparatively speaking, mere incidents. The
great contest was to be in the debates.

In the outset, Douglas had the advantage of prestige. Nothing succeeds
like success. Douglas had all his life had nothing but success. He
twice had missed the nomination for presidency, but he was still the
most formidable man in the senate. He was very popular in his own
state. He was everywhere greeted by large crowds, with bands of music
and other demonstrations. He always traveled in a special car and often
in a special train, which was freely placed at his disposal by the
Illinois Central Railway. Lincoln traveled by accommodation train,
freight train, or wagon, as best he could. As both the men were
everyday speaking independently between the debates, this question of
transportation was serious. The inconveniences of travel made a great
drain upon the nervous force and the health. One day when the freight
train bearing Lincoln was side-tracked to let his rival's special train
roll by, he good-humoredly remarked that Douglas "did not smell any
royalty in this car."

Another fact which gave Douglas the advantage was the friendship and
sympathy of Horace Greeley and others, who had much influence with the
party of Lincoln. Douglas had broken with Buchanan's administration on
a question relating to Kansas. The iniquity of the powers at Washington
went so far that even Douglas rebelled. This led Greeley and others to
think that Douglas had in him the making of a good republican if he was
only treated with sufficient consideration. Accordingly, all of that
influence was bitterly thrown in opposition to Lincoln.

The methods of the two men were as diverse as their bodily appearance.
Douglas was a master of what the ancient Greeks would have called
"making the worse appear the better reason." He was able to misstate
his antagonist's position so shrewdly as to deceive the very elect. And
with equal skill he could escape from the real meaning of his own
statements. Lincoln's characterization is apt: "Judge Douglas is
playing cuttlefish--a small species of fish that has no mode of
defending himself when pursued except by throwing out a black fluid
which makes the water so dark the enemy cannot see it, and thus it
escapes."

Lincoln's method was to hold the discussion down to the point at issue
with clear and forcible statement. He arraigned the iniquity of slavery
as an offense against God. He made the phrase "all men" of the
Declaration of Independence include the black as well as the white.
Said he: "There is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled
to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of
Independence--the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of
happiness.... In the right to eat the bread, without the leave of
anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal, and the equal
of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man." He quoted
Jefferson's remark, "I tremble for my country when I remember that God
is just." Mercilessly he analyzed Douglas's speeches and exposed his
sophistry.

The forensic ability of the two men is suggestively indicated by the
remark of a lady who heard them speak, and afterward said: "I can
recall only one fact of the debates, that I felt so sorry for Lincoln
while Douglas was speaking, and then _so_ sorry for Douglas while
Lincoln was speaking."

These debates occupied seven different evenings of three hours each.
The speeches were afterwards published in book form and had a wide
circulation. These speeches, numbering twenty-one in all, filled a
large volume. It is not the purpose of this chapter to give an outline
of the debates, it is only to give a general idea of their result. But
out of them came one prominent fact, which so influenced the careers of
the two men that it must be briefly recorded. This went by the name of
"the Freeport doctrine."

In the first debate Douglas had asked Lincoln a series of questions.
The villainy of these questions was in the innuendo. They began, "I
desire to know whether Lincoln stands to-day, as he did in 1854, in
favor of," etc. Douglas then quoted from the platform of a convention
which Lincoln had not attended, and with which he had nothing to do.
Lincoln denied these insinuations, and said that he had never favored
those doctrines; but the trick succeeded, and the impression was made
that Douglas had cornered him. The questions, to all intents and
purposes, were a forgery. This forgery was quickly exposed by a Chicago
paper, and the result was not helpful to Douglas. It was made manifest
that he was not conducting the debates in a fair and manly way.

Further than this, the fact that these questions had been asked gave
Lincoln, in turn, the right to ask questions of Douglas. This right he
used. For the next debate, which was to be at Freeport, he prepared,
among others, the following question: "Can the people of a United
States territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of
the United States, exclude slavery from its limits prior to the
formation of a state constitution?" If this were answered "No," it
would alienate the citizens of Illinois. If it were answered "Yes," it
would alienate the democrats of the South.

On the way to Freeport he met a number of friends and took counsel of
them. When he read question number two, the one above quoted, his
friends earnestly and unanimously advised him not to put that question.
"If you do," said they, "you never can be senator." To which Lincoln
replied: "Gentlemen, I am killing larger game. If Douglas answers, he
can never be President, and the battle of 1860 is worth a hundred of
this."

It is not probable that Lincoln expected to be in 1860 the nominee of
the republican party. But he did see the danger of the election of
Douglas to the presidency. He was willing to surrender the senatorial
election to save the country from a Douglas administration. The
sacrifice was made. The prediction proved true. Lincoln lost the
senatorship, Douglas lost the presidency.

The popular verdict, as shown in the election, was in favor of Lincoln.
The republicans polled 125,430 votes; the Douglas democrats, 121,609,
and the Buchanan democrats, 5,071. But the apportionment of the
legislative districts was such that Douglas had a majority on the joint
ballot of the legislature. He received 54 votes to 46 for Lincoln. This
secured his reelection to the senate.

The popular verdict outside the state of Illinois was in favor of
Lincoln. The republican party circulated the volume containing the full
report of the speeches. It does not appear that the democrats did so.
This forces the conclusion that the intellectual and moral victory was
on the side of Lincoln.

There is a pathetic sequel to this. The campaign had been very arduous
on Lincoln. Douglas had made 130 speeches in 100 days, not counting
Sundays. Lincoln had made probably about the same number. These were
not brief addresses from a railway car, but fully elaborated speeches.
The labors commenced early in July and continued through the heat of
the summer. With Lincoln the inadequate means of travel added to the
draft upon his strength. At the end of all came the triumphant election
of his rival. Add to this the fact that the next day he received a
letter from the republican committee saying that their funds would not
meet the bills, and asking for an additional contribution. The rest is
best told in Lincoln's own words:

"Yours of the 15th is just received. I wrote you the same day. As to
the pecuniary matter, I am willing to pay according to my ability, but
I am the poorest hand living to get others to pay. I have been on
expense so long without earning anything that I am absolutely without
money now for even household purposes. Still, if you can put up $250
for me towards discharging the debt of the committee, I will allow it
when you and I settle the private matter between us. This, with what I
have already paid, and with an outstanding note of mine, will exceed my
subscription of $500. This, too, is exclusive of my ordinary expenses
during the campaign, all which, being added to my loss of time and
business, bears pretty heavily on one no better off in world's goods
than I; but as I had the post of honor, it is not for me to be over-
nice. You are feeling badly--'And this, too, shall pass away.' Never
fear."

CHAPTER XVI.

GROWING AUDACITY OF THE SLAVE POWER.

So closely is the life of Lincoln intertwined with the growth of the
slave power that it will be necessary at this point to give a brief
space to the latter. It was the persistent, the ever-increasing, the
imperious demands of this power that called Lincoln to his post of
duty. The feeling upon the subject had reached a high degree of tension
at the period we are now considering. To understand this fully, we must
go back and come once again down through the period already treated.
There are three salient points of development.

The first of these is the fugitive slave law. At the adoption of the
Constitution it was arranged that there should be no specific approval
of slavery. For this reason the word "slave" does not appear in that
document. But the idea is there, and the phrase, "person held to
service or labor," fully covers the subject. Slaves were a valuable
property. The public opinion approved of the institution. To set up one
part of the territory as a refuge for escaped slaves would be an
infringement of this right of property, and would cause unceasing
friction between the various parts of the country.

In 1793, which happens to be the year of the invention of the cotton
gin, the fugitive slave law was passed. This was for the purpose of
enacting measures by which escaped slaves might be recaptured. This law
continued in force to 1850. As the years passed, the operation of this
law produced results not dreamed of in the outset. There came to be
free states, communities in which the very toleration of slavery was an
abomination. The conscience of these communities abhorred the
institution. Though these people were content to leave slavery
unmolested in the slave states, they were angered at having the horrors
of slave-hunting thrust upon them. In other words, they were unable to
reside in any locality, no matter how stringent the laws were in behalf
of freedom, where they were not liable to be invaded, their very homes
entered, by the institution of slavery in its most cruel forms.

This aroused a bitter antagonism in the North. Societies were formed to
assist fugitive slaves to escape to Canada. Men living at convenient
distances along the route were in communication with one another. The
fugitives were passed secretly and with great skill along this line.
These societies were known as the Underground Railway. The
appropriateness of this name is obvious. The men themselves who
secreted the fugitive slaves were said to keep stations on that
railway.

This organized endeavor to assist the fugitives was met by an increased
imperiousness on the part of the slave power. Slavery is imperious in
its nature. It almost inevitably cultivates that disposition in those
who wield the power. So that the case was rendered more exasperating by
the passage, in 1850, of another fugitive slave law. Nothing could have
been devised more surely adapted to inflame the moral sense of those
communities that were, in feeling or conscience, opposed to slavery,
than this law of 1850. This was a reenactment of the law of 1793, but
with more stringent and cruel regulations. The concealment or assisting
of a fugitive was highly penal. Any home might be invaded and searched.
No hearth was safe from intrusion. The negro could not testify in his
own behalf. It was practically impossible to counteract the oath or
affidavit of the pretended master, and a premium was practically put
upon perjury. The pursuit of slaves became a regular business, and its
operation was often indescribably horrible. These cruelties were
emphasized chiefly in the presence of those who were known to be averse
to slavery in any form, and they could not escape from the revolting
scenes.

The culmination of this was in what is known as the Dred Scott
decision. Dred Scott was a slave in Missouri. He was by his master
taken to Fort Snelling, now in the state of Minnesota, then in the
territory of Wisconsin. This was free soil, and the slave was, at least
while there, free. With the consent of his former master he married a
free woman who had formerly been a slave. Two children were born to
them. The master returned to Missouri, bringing the negroes. He here
claimed that they, being on slave soil, were restored to the condition
of slavery.

Scott sued for his freedom and won his case. It was, however, appealed
to the Supreme Court of the United States. The first opinion of the
court was written by Judge Nelson. This treated of this specific case
only. Had this opinion issued as the finding of the court, it would not
have aroused general attention.

But the court was then dominated by the slave sentiment, and the
opportunity of laying down general principles on the subject of slavery
could not be resisted. The decision was written by Chief Justice Taney,
and reaches its climax in the declaration that the negro "had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect." Professor T. W. Dwight says
that much injustice was done to Chief Justice Taney by the erroneous
statement that he had himself affirmed that the negro "had no rights
which the white man was bound to respect." But while this may be
satisfactory to the legal mind, to the lay mind, to the average
citizen, it is a distinction without a difference, or, at best, with a
very slight difference. The Judge was giving what, in his opinion, was
the law of the land. It was his opinion, nay, it was his decision. Nor
was it the unanimous ruling of the court. Two justices dissented. The
words quoted are picturesque, and are well suited to a battle-cry. On
every side, with ominous emphasis in the North, one heard that the
negro had no rights which the white man was bound to respect. This was,
until 1860, the last and greatest exhibition of audacity on the part of
the slave power.

There was another exhibition of the spirit of slavery which deserves
special mention. This is the history of the settlement of Kansas. That
remarkable episode, lasting from 1854 to 1861, requires a volume, not a
paragraph, for its narration. It is almost impossible for the
imagination of those who live in an orderly, law-abiding community, to
conceive that such a condition of affairs ever existed in any portion
of the United States. The story of "bleeding Kansas" will long remain
an example of the proverb that truth is stranger than fiction.

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, in 1854, opened up to this free
territory the possibility of coming into the Union as a slave state. It
was to be left to the actual settlers to decide this question. This
principle was condensed into the phrase "squatter sovereignty." The
only resource left to those who wished Kansas to come in as a free
state was to settle it with an anti-slavery population.

With this purpose in view, societies were formed in anti-slavery
communities, extending as far east as the Atlantic coast, to assist
emigrants. From Iowa, Illinois, Ohio, Massachusetts, and elsewhere,
emigrants poured into Kansas. But the slave party had the advantage of
geographical location. The slave state of Missouri was only just across
the river. It was able, at short notice and with little expense, to
pour out its population in large numbers. This it did. Many went from
Missouri as actual settlers. By far the larger part went only
temporarily and for the purpose of creating a disturbance. These were
popularly called "border ruffians." Their excesses of ruffianism are
not easily described. They went into the territory for the purpose of
driving out all the settlers who had come in under the emigrant aid
societies. Murder was common. At the elections, they practised
intimidation and every form of election fraud then known. Every
election was contested, and both parties always claimed the victory.
The parties elected two separate legislatures, adopted two
constitutions, established two capitals. For several years, civil war
and anarchy prevailed.

There is no doubt, either reasonable or unreasonable,--there is no
doubt whatever that the anti-slavery men had a vast majority of actual
settlers. The territorial governors were appointed by Presidents Pierce
and Buchanan. These were uniformly pro-slavery and extremely partisan.
But every governor quickly came to side with the free-state men, or
else resigned to get out of the way.

The pro-slavery men, after the farce of a pretended vote, declared the
Lecompton constitution adopted. The governor at that time was Walker,
of Mississippi, who had been appointed as a sure friend of the
interests of slavery. But even he revolted at so gross an outrage, and
made a personal visit to Washington to protest against it. It was at
this point, too, that Senator Douglas broke with the administration.

In spite of the overwhelming majority of anti-slavery settlers in the
state, Kansas was not admitted to the Union until after the
inauguration of Abraham Lincoln.

So unscrupulous, imperious, grasping was the slave power. Whom the gods
wish to destroy, they first make mad. The slave power had reached the
reckless point of madness and was rushing to its own destruction. These
three manifestations,--the fugitive-slave law, the Dred Scott decision,
and the anarchy in Kansas,--though they were revolting in the extreme
and indescribably painful, hastened the end.

CHAPTER XVII.

THE BACKWOODSMAN AT THE CENTER OF EASTERN CULTURE.

Lincoln's modesty made it impossible for him to be ambitious. He
appreciated honors, and he desired them up to a certain point. But they
did not, in his way of looking at them, seem to belong to him. He was
slow to realize that he was of more than ordinary importance to the
community.

At the first republican convention in 1856, when Fremont was nominated
for President, 111 votes were cast for Lincoln as the nominee for vice-
president. The fact was published in the papers. When he saw the item
it did not enter his head that he was the man. He said "there was a
celebrated man of that name in Massachusetts; doubtless it was he."

In 1858, when he asked Douglas the fatal question at Freeport, he was
simply killing off Douglas's aspirations for the presidency. It was
with no thought of being himself the successful rival.

Douglas had twice been a candidate for nomination before the democratic
convention. Had it not been for this question he would have been
elected at the next following presidential election.

As late as the early part of 1860, Lincoln vaguely desired the
nomination for the vice-presidency. He would have been glad to be the
running-mate of Seward, nothing more. Even this honor he thought to be
beyond his reach, so slowly did he come to realize the growth of his
fame.

The reports of the Lincoln-Douglas debates had produced a profound
sensation in the West. They were printed in large numbers and scattered
broadcast as campaign literature. Some Eastern men, also, had been
alert to observe these events. William Cullen Bryant, the scholarly
editor of the New York _Evening Post_, had shown keen interest in
the debates.

Even after the election Lincoln did not cease the vigor of his
criticisms. It will be remembered that before the formal debate Lincoln
voluntarily went to Chicago to hear Douglas and to answer him. He
followed him to Springfield and did the same thing. He now, after the
election of 1858, followed him to Ohio and answered his speeches in
Columbus and Cincinnati.

The Reverend Henry Ward Beecher, who was always watchful of the
development of the anti-slavery sentiment, now invited Lincoln to
lecture in Plymouth Church, Brooklyn. The invitation was accepted with
the provision that the lecture might be a political speech.

J. G. Holland, who doubtless knew whereof he wrote, declares that it
was a great misfortune that Lincoln was introduced to the country as a
rail-splitter. Americans have no prejudice against humble beginnings,
they are proud of self-made men, but there is nothing in the ability to
split rails which necessarily qualifies one for the demands of
statesmanship. Some of his ardent friends, far more zealous than
judicious, had expressed so much glory over Abe the rail-splitter, that
it left the impression that he was little more than a rail-splitter who
could talk volubly and tell funny stories. This naturally alienated the
finest culture east of the Alleghanies. "It took years for the country
to learn that Mr. Lincoln was not a boor. It took years for them to
unlearn what an unwise and boyish introduction of a great man to the
public had taught them. It took years for them to comprehend the fact
that in Mr. Lincoln the country had the wisest, truest, gentlest,
noblest, most sagacious President who had occupied the chair of state
since Washington retired from it."

Pages:
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20