THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

COMPLETE

CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION

By Abraham Lincoln

Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley

With an Introduction by Theodore Roosevelt

The Essay on Lincoln by Carl Schurz

The Address on Lincoln by Joseph Choate

VOLUME 1. 

INTRODUCTORY

Immediately after Lincoln's re-election to the Presidency, in anoff-hand speech, delivered in response to a serenade by some of hisadmirers on the evening of November 10, 1864, he spoke as follows:

"It has long been a grave question whether any government not too strongfor the liberties of its people can be strong enough to maintain itsexistence in great emergencies. On this point, the present rebellionbrought our republic to a severe test, and the Presidential election, occurring in regular course during the rebellion, added not a littleto the strain. .. . The strife of the election is but human naturepractically applied to the facts in the case. What has occurred in thiscase must ever occur in similar cases. Human nature will not change. Inany future great national trial, compared with the men of this, we shallhave as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad and as good. Let us therefore study the incidents in this as philosophy to learnwisdom from and none of them as wrongs to be avenged. .. . Now that theelection is over, may not all having a common interest reunite in acommon fort to save our common country? For my own part, I have strivenand shall strive to avoid placing any obstacle in the way. So long as Ihave been here, I have not willingly planted a thorn in any man's bosom. While I am deeply sensible to the high compliment of a re-electionand duly grateful, as I trust, to Almighty God for having directed mycountrymen to a right conclusion, as I think for their own good, it addsnothing to my satisfaction that any other man may be disappointed orpained by the result. "

This speech has not attracted much general attention, yet it is in apeculiar degree both illustrative and typical of the great statesman whomade it, alike in its strong common-sense and in its lofty standard ofmorality. Lincoln's life, Lincoln's deeds and words, are not only ofconsuming interest to the historian, but should be intimately known toevery man engaged in the hard practical work of American political life. It is difficult to overstate how much it means to a nation to have asthe two foremost figures in its history men like Washington and Lincoln. It is good for every man in any way concerned in public life to feelthat the highest ambition any American can possibly have will begratified just in proportion as he raises himself toward the standardsset by these two men. 

It is a very poor thing, whether for nations or individuals, to advancethe history of great deeds done in the past as an excuse for doingpoorly in the present; but it is an excellent thing to study the historyof the great deeds of the past, and of the great men who did them, withan earnest desire to profit thereby so as to render better service inthe present. In their essentials, the men of the present day are muchlike the men of the past, and the live issues of the present can befaced to better advantage by men who have in good faith studied how theleaders of the nation faced the dead issues of the past. Such a study ofLincoln's life will enable us to avoid the twin gulfs of immorality andinefficiency--the gulfs which always lie one on each side of the careersalike of man and of nation. It helps nothing to have avoided one ifshipwreck is encountered in the other. The fanatic, the well-meaningmoralist of unbalanced mind, the parlor critic who condemns others buthas no power himself to do good and but little power to do ill--allthese were as alien to Lincoln as the vicious and unpatrioticthemselves. His life teaches our people that they must act with wisdom, because otherwise adherence to right will be mere sound and fury withoutsubstance; and that they must also act high-mindedly, or else what seemsto be wisdom will in the end turn out to be the most destructive kind offolly. 

Throughout his entire life, and especially after he rose to leadershipin his party, Lincoln was stirred to his depths by the sense of fealtyto a lofty ideal; but throughout his entire life, he also accepted humannature as it is, and worked with keen, practical good sense to achieveresults with the instruments at hand. It is impossible to conceive of aman farther removed from baseness, farther removed from corruption, frommere self-seeking; but it is also impossible to conceive of a man ofmore sane and healthy mind--a man less under the influence of thatfantastic and diseased morality (so fantastic and diseased as to be inreality profoundly immoral) which makes a man in this work-a-dayworld refuse to do what is possible because he cannot accomplish theimpossible. 

In the fifth volume of Lecky's History of England, the historian drawsan interesting distinction between the qualities needed for a successfulpolitical career in modern society and those which lead to eminence inthe spheres of pure intellect or pure moral effort. He says:

". .. . The moral qualities that are required in the higher spheresof statesmanship [are not] those of a hero or a saint. Passionateearnestness and self-devotion, complete concentration of every facultyon an unselfish aim, uncalculating daring, a delicacy of conscience anda loftiness of aim far exceeding those of the average of men, are herelikely to prove rather a hindrance than an assistance. The politiciandeals very largely with the superficial and the commonplace; his art isin a great measure that of skilful compromise, and in the conditionsof modern life, the statesman is likely to succeed best who possessessecondary qualities to an unusual degree, who is in the closestintellectual and moral sympathy with the average of the intelligentmen of his time, and who pursues common ideals with more than commonability. .. . Tact, business talent, knowledge of men, resolution, promptitude and sagacity in dealing with immediate emergencies, acharacter which lends itself easily to conciliation, diminishes frictionand inspires confidence, are especially needed, and they are more likelyto be found among shrewd and enlightened men of the world than among menof great original genius or of an heroic type of character. "

The American people should feel profoundly grateful that the greatestAmerican statesman since Washington, the statesman who in thisabsolutely democratic republic succeeded best, was the very man whoactually combined the two sets of qualities which the historian thusputs in antithesis. Abraham Lincoln, the rail-splitter, the Westerncountry lawyer, was one of the shrewdest and most enlightened men of theworld, and he had all the practical qualities which enable such a man toguide his countrymen; and yet he was also a genius of the heroic type, a leader who rose level to the greatest crisis through which this nationor any other nation had to pass in the nineteenth century. 

THEODORE ROOSEVELT

SAGAMORE HILL, OYSTER BAY, N. Y. , September 22, 1905. 

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

"I have endured, " wrote Lincoln not long before his death, "a greatdeal of ridicule without much malice, and have received a great deal ofkindness not quite free from ridicule. " On Easter Day, 1865, the worldknew how little this ridicule, how much this kindness, had reallysignified. Thereafter, Lincoln the man became Lincoln the hero, year byyear more heroic, until to-day, with the swift passing of those who knewhim, his figure grows ever dimmer, less real. This should not be. ForLincoln the man, patient, wise, set in a high resolve, is worth far morethan Lincoln the hero, vaguely glorious. Invaluable is the example ofthe man, intangible that of the hero. 

And, though it is not for us, as for those who in awed stillnesslistened at Gettysburg with inspired perception, to know AbrahamLincoln, yet there is for us another way whereby we may attain suchknowledge--through his words--uttered in all sincerity to those wholoved or hated him. Cold, unsatisfying they may seem, these printedwords, while we can yet speak with those who knew him, and look intoeyes that once looked into his. But in truth it is here that we find hissimple greatness, his great simplicity, and though no man tried less soto show his power, no man has so shown it more clearly. 

Thus these writings of Abraham Lincoln are associated with those ofWashington, Hamilton, Franklin, and of the other "Founders of theRepublic, " not that Lincoln should become still more of the past, but, rather, that he with them should become still more of the present. However faint and mythical may grow the story of that Great Struggle, the leader, Lincoln, at least should remain a real, living American. No matter how clearly, how directly, Lincoln has shown himself in hiswritings, we yet should not forget those men whose minds, from theirvarious view-points, have illumined for us his character. As this nationowes a great debt to Lincoln, so, also, Lincoln's memory owes a greatdebt to a nation which, as no other nation could have done, has beenable to appreciate his full worth. Among the many who have brought aboutthis appreciation, those only whose estimates have been placed in thesevolumes may be mentioned here. To President Roosevelt, to Mr. Schurzand to Mr. Choate, the editor, for himself, for the publishers, and onbehalf of the readers, wishes to offer his sincere acknowledgments. 

Thanks are also due, for valuable and sympathetic assistance rendered inthe preparation of this work, to Mr. Gilbert A. Tracy, of Putnam, Conn. , Major William H. Lambert, of Philadelphia, and Mr. C. F. Gunther, ofChicago, to the Chicago Historical Association and personally toits capable Secretary, Miss McIlvaine, to Major Henry S. Burrage, ofPortland, Me. , and to General Thomas J. Henderson, of Illinois. 

For various courtesies received, the editor is furthermore indebted tothe Librarian of the Library of Congress; to Messrs. McClure, Phillips& Co. , D. Appleton & Co. , Macmillan & Co. , Dodd, Mead & Co. , and HarperBrothers, of New York; to Houghton, Mifflin & Co. , Dana, Estes & Co. , and L. C. Page & Co. , of Boston; to A. C. McClure & Co. , of Chicago; toThe Robert Clarke Co. , of Cincinnati, and to the J. B. Lippincott Co. , of Philadelphia. 

It is hardly necessary to add that every effort has been made by theeditor to bring into these volumes whatever material may there properlybelong, material much of which is widely scattered in public librariesand in private collections. He has been fortunate in securing certaininteresting correspondence and papers which had not before come intoprint in book form. Information concerning some of these papers hadreached him too late to enable the papers to find place in their properchronological order in the set. Rather, however, than not to presentthese papers to the readers they have been included in the seventhvolume of the set, which concludes the "Writings. "

 [These later papers are, in this etext, re-arranged into chronologic order. D. W. ]

October, 1905, A. B. L. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN: AN ESSAY BY CARL SHURZ

No American can study the character and career of Abraham Lincolnwithout being carried away by sentimental emotions. We are alwaysinclined to idealize that which we love, --a state of mind veryunfavorable to the exercise of sober critical judgment. It is thereforenot surprising that most of those who have written or spoken on thatextraordinary man, even while conscientiously endeavoring to draw alifelike portraiture of his being, and to form a just estimate of hispublic conduct, should have drifted into more or less indiscriminatingeulogy, painting his great features in the most glowing colors, andcovering with tender shadings whatever might look like a blemish. 

But his standing before posterity will not be exalted by mere praise ofhis virtues and abilities, nor by any concealment of his limitationsand faults. The stature of the great man, one of whose peculiar charmsconsisted in his being so unlike all other great men, will rather losethan gain by the idealization which so easily runs into the commonplace. For it was distinctly the weird mixture of qualities and forces in him, of the lofty with the common, the ideal with the uncouth, of that whichhe had become with that which he had not ceased to be, that made himso fascinating a character among his fellow-men, gave him his singularpower over their minds and hearts, and fitted him to be the greatestleader in the greatest crisis of our national life. 

His was indeed a marvellous growth. The statesman or the military heroborn and reared in a log cabin is a familiar figure in American history;but we may search in vain among our celebrities for one whose origin andearly life equalled Abraham Lincoln's in wretchedness. He first saw thelight in a miserable hovel in Kentucky, on a farm consisting of afew barren acres in a dreary neighborhood; his father a typical "poorSouthern white, " shiftless and without ambition for himself or hischildren, constantly looking for a new piece of land on which he mightmake a living without much work; his mother, in her youth handsome andbright, grown prematurely coarse in feature and soured in mind by dailytoil and care; the whole household squalid, cheerless, and utterly voidof elevating inspirations. .. Only when the family had "moved" into themalarious backwoods of Indiana, the mother had died, and a stepmother, a woman of thrift and energy, had taken charge of the children, theshaggy-headed, ragged, barefooted, forlorn boy, then seven years old, "began to feel like a human being. " Hard work was his early lot. When amere boy he had to help in supporting the family, either on his father'sclearing, or hired out to other farmers to plough, or dig ditches, orchop wood, or drive ox teams; occasionally also to "tend the baby, "when the farmer's wife was otherwise engaged. He could regard it as anadvancement to a higher sphere of activity when he obtained work in a"crossroads store, " where he amused the customers by his talk over thecounter; for he soon distinguished himself among the backwoods folkas one who had something to say worth listening to. To win thatdistinction, he had to draw mainly upon his wits; for, while his thirstfor knowledge was great, his opportunities for satisfying that thirstwere wofully slender. 

In the log schoolhouse, which he could visit but little, he was taughtonly reading, writing, and elementary arithmetic. Among the peopleof the settlement, bush farmers and small tradesmen, he found none ofuncommon intelligence or education; but some of them had a few books, which he borrowed eagerly. Thus he read and reread, AEsop's Fables, learning to tell stories with a point and to argue by parables; he readRobinson Crusoe, The Pilgrim's Progress, a short history of the UnitedStates, and Weems's Life of Washington. To the town constable's he wentto read the Revised Statutes of Indiana. Every printed page that fellinto his hands he would greedily devour, and his family and friendswatched him with wonder, as the uncouth boy, after his daily work, crouched in a corner of the log cabin or outside under a tree, absorbedin a book while munching his supper of corn bread. In this manner hebegan to gather some knowledge, and sometimes he would astonish thegirls with such startling remarks as that the earth was moving aroundthe sun, and not the sun around the earth, and they marvelled where"Abe" could have got such queer notions. Soon he also felt the impulseto write; not only making extracts from books he wished to remember, butalso composing little essays of his own. First he sketched these withcharcoal on a wooden shovel scraped white with a drawing-knife, or onbasswood shingles. Then he transferred them to paper, which was a scarcecommodity in the Lincoln household; taking care to cut his expressionsclose, so that they might not cover too much space, --a style-formingmethod greatly to be commended. Seeing boys put a burning coal on theback of a wood turtle, he was moved to write on cruelty to animals. Seeing men intoxicated with whiskey, he wrote on temperance. Inverse-making, too, he tried himself, and in satire on persons offensiveto him or others, --satire the rustic wit of which was not always fit forears polite. Also political thoughts he put upon paper, and some ofhis pieces were even deemed good enough for publication in the countyweekly. 

Thus he won a neighborhood reputation as a clever young man, which heincreased by his performances as a speaker, not seldom drawing uponhimself the dissatisfaction of his employers by mounting a stump in thefield, and keeping the farm hands from their work by little speeches ina jocose and sometimes also a serious vein. At the rude social frolicsof the settlement he became an important person, telling funny, stories, mimicking the itinerant preachers who had happened to pass by, andmaking his mark at wrestling matches, too; for at the age of seventeenhe had attained his full height, six feet four inches in his stockings, if he had any, and a terribly muscular clodhopper he was. But hewas known never to use his extraordinary strength to the injury orhumiliation of others; rather to do them a kindly turn, or to enforcejustice and fair dealing between them. All this made him a favorite inbackwoods society, although in some things he appeared a little odd, to his friends. Far more than any of them, he was given not only toreading, but to fits of abstraction, to quiet musing with himself, andalso to strange spells of melancholy, from which he often would pass ina moment to rollicking outbursts of droll humor. But on the whole hewas one of the people among whom he lived; in appearance perhaps evena little more uncouth than most of them, --a very tall, rawboned youth, with large features, dark, shrivelled skin, and rebellious hair; hisarms and legs long, out of proportion; clad in deerskin trousers, whichfrom frequent exposure to the rain had shrunk so as to sit tightly onhis limbs, leaving several inches of bluish shin exposed between theirlower end and the heavy tan-colored shoes; the nether garment heldusually by only one suspender, that was strung over a coarse homemadeshirt; the head covered in winter with a coonskin cap, in summer with arough straw hat of uncertain shape, without a band. 

It is doubtful whether he felt himself much superior to hissurroundings, although he confessed to a yearning for some knowledgeof the world outside of the circle in which he lived. This wish wasgratified; but how? At the age of nineteen he went down the Mississippito New Orleans as a flatboat hand, temporarily joining a trade manymembers of which at that time still took pride in being called "halfhorse and half alligator. " After his return he worked and lived in theold way until the spring of 1830, when his father "moved again, " thistime to Illinois; and on the journey of fifteen days "Abe" had to drivethe ox wagon which carried the household goods. Another log cabin wasbuilt, and then, fencing a field, Abraham Lincoln split those historicrails which were destined to play so picturesque a part in thePresidential campaign twenty-eight years later. 

Having come of age, Lincoln left the family, and "struck out forhimself. " He had to "take jobs whenever he could get them. " The firstof these carried him again as a flatboat hand to New Orleans. Theresomething happened that made a lasting impression upon his soul:he witnessed a slave auction. "His heart bled, " wrote one of hiscompanions; "said nothing much; was silent; looked bad. I can say, knowing it, that it was on this trip that he formed his opinion onslavery. It run its iron in him then and there, May, 1831. I haveheard him say so often. " Then he lived several years at New Salem, in Illinois, a small mushroom village, with a mill, some "stores" andwhiskey shops, that rose quickly, and soon disappeared again. It was adesolate, disjointed, half-working and half-loitering life, without anyother aim than to gain food and shelter from day to day. He served aspilot on a steamboat trip, then as clerk in a store and a mill; businessfailing, he was adrift for some time. Being compelled to measure hisstrength with the chief bully of the neighborhood, and overcoming him, he became a noted person in that muscular community, and won the esteemand friendship of the ruling gang of ruffians to such a degree that, when the Black Hawk war broke out, they elected him, a young man oftwenty-three, captain of a volunteer company, composed mainly of roughsof their kind. He took the field, and his most noteworthy deed of valorconsisted, not in killing an Indian, but in protecting against his ownmen, at the peril of his own life, the life of an old savage who hadstrayed into his camp. 

The Black Hawk war over, he turned to politics. The step from thecaptaincy of a volunteer company to a candidacy for a seat in theLegislature seemed a natural one. But his popularity, although greatin New Salem, had not spread far enough over the district, and he wasdefeated. Then the wretched hand-to-mouth struggle began again. He "setup in store-business" with a dissolute partner, who drank whiskey whileLincoln was reading books. The result was a disastrous failure and aload of debt. Thereupon he became a deputy surveyor, and was appointedpostmaster of New Salem, the business of the post-office being so smallthat he could carry the incoming and outgoing mail in his hat. All thiscould not lift him from poverty, and his surveying instruments and horseand saddle were sold by the sheriff for debt. 

But while all this misery was upon him his ambition rose to higher aims. He walked many miles to borrow from a schoolmaster a grammar with whichto improve his language. A lawyer lent him a copy of Blackstone, and hebegan to study law. 

People would look wonderingly at the grotesque figure lying in thegrass, "with his feet up a tree, " or sitting on a fence, as, absorbedin a book, he learned to construct correct sentences and made himselfa jurist. At once he gained a little practice, pettifogging before ajustice of the peace for friends, without expecting a fee. Judicialfunctions, too, were thrust upon him, but only at horse-races orwrestling matches, where his acknowledged honesty and fairness gave hisverdicts undisputed authority. His popularity grew apace, and soonhe could be a candidate for the Legislature again. Although he calledhimself a Whig, an ardent admirer of Henry Clay, his clever stumpspeeches won him the election in the strongly Democratic district. Then for the first time, perhaps, he thought seriously of his outwardappearance. So far he had been content with a garb of "Kentucky jeans, "not seldom ragged, usually patched, and always shabby. Now, he borrowedsome money from a friend to buy a new suit of clothes--"store clothes"fit for a Sangamon County statesman; and thus adorned he set out for thestate capital, Vandalia, to take his seat among the lawmakers. 

His legislative career, which stretched over several sessions--forhe was thrice re-elected, in 1836, 1838, and 1840--was not remarkablybrilliant. He did, indeed, not lack ambition. He dreamed even of makinghimself "the De Witt Clinton of Illinois, " and he actually distinguishedhimself by zealous and effective work in those "log-rolling" operationsby which the young State received "a general system of internalimprovements" in the shape of railroads, canals, and banks, --a recklesspolicy, burdening the State with debt, and producing the usual crop ofpolitical demoralization, but a policy characteristic of the time andthe impatiently enterprising spirit of the Western people. Lincoln, no doubt with the best intentions, but with little knowledge of thesubject, simply followed the popular current. The achievement in which, perhaps, he gloried most was the removal of the State government fromVandalia to Springfield; one of those triumphs of political managementwhich are apt to be the pride of the small politician's statesmanship. One thing, however, he did in which his true nature asserted itself, andwhich gave distinct promise of the future pursuit of high aims. Againstan overwhelming preponderance of sentiment in the Legislature, followedby only one other member, he recorded his protest against a proslaveryresolution, --that protest declaring "the institution of slavery tobe founded on both injustice and bad policy. " This was not only theirrepressible voice of his conscience; it was true moral valor, too; forat that time, in many parts of the West, an abolitionist was regardedas little better than a horse-thief, and even "Abe Lincoln" would hardlyhave been forgiven his antislavery principles, had he not been knownas such an "uncommon good fellow. " But here, in obedience to the greatconviction of his life, he manifested his courage to stand alone, thatcourage which is the first requisite of leadership in a great cause. 

Together with his reputation and influence as a politician grew his lawpractice, especially after he had removed from New Salem to Springfield, and associated himself with a practitioner of good standing. He had nowat last won a fixed position in society. He became a successful lawyer, less, indeed, by his learning as a jurist than by his effectiveness asan advocate and by the striking uprightness of his character; and it maytruly be said that his vivid sense of truth and justice had much to dowith his effectiveness as an advocate. He would refuse to act as theattorney even of personal friends when he saw the right on the otherside. He would abandon cases, even during trial, when the testimonyconvinced him that his client was in the wrong. He would dissuade thosewho sought his service from pursuing an obtainable advantage when theirclaims seemed to him unfair. Presenting his very first case in theUnited States Circuit Court, the only question being one of authority, he declared that, upon careful examination, he found all the authoritieson the other side, and none on his. Persons accused of crime, when hethought them guilty, he would not defend at all, or, attempting theirdefence, he was unable to put forth his powers. One notable exception ison record, when his personal sympathies had been strongly aroused. Butwhen he felt himself to be the protector of innocence, the defenderof justice, or the prosecutor of wrong, he frequently disclosed suchunexpected resources of reasoning, such depth of feeling, and rose tosuch fervor of appeal as to astonish and overwhelm his hearers, and makehim fairly irresistible. Even an ordinary law argument, coming from him, seldom failed to produce the impression that he was profoundly convincedof the soundness of his position. It is not surprising that the mereappearance of so conscientious an attorney in any case should havecarried, not only to juries, but even to judges, almost a presumptionof right on his side, and that the people began to call him, sincerelymeaning it, "honest Abe Lincoln. "

In the meantime he had private sorrows and trials of a painfullyafflicting nature. He had loved and been loved by a fair and estimablegirl, Ann Rutledge, who died in the flower of her youth and beauty, andhe mourned her loss with such intensity of grief that his friends fearedfor his reason. Recovering from his morbid depression, he bestowedwhat he thought a new affection upon another lady, who refused him. And finally, moderately prosperous in his worldly affairs, and havingprospects of political distinction before him, he paid his addresses toMary Todd, of Kentucky, and was accepted. But then tormenting doubts ofthe genuineness of his own affection for her, of the compatibilityof their characters, and of their future happiness came upon him. Hisdistress was so great that he felt himself in danger of suicide, andfeared to carry a pocket-knife with him; and he gave mortal offenceto his bride by not appearing on the appointed wedding day. Now thetorturing consciousness of the wrong he had done her grew unendurable. He won back her affection, ended the agony by marrying her, and became afaithful and patient husband and a good father. But it was no secretto those who knew the family well that his domestic life was full oftrials. The erratic temper of his wife not seldom put the gentlenessof his nature to the severest tests; and these troubles and struggles, which accompanied him through all the vicissitudes of his life fromthe modest home in Springfield to the White House at Washington, adding untold private heart-burnings to his public cares, and sometimesprecipitating upon him incredible embarrassments in the discharge of hispublic duties, form one of the most pathetic features of his career. 

He continued to "ride the circuit, " read books while travelling in hisbuggy, told funny stories to his fellow-lawyers in the tavern, chattedfamiliarly with his neighbors around the stove in the store and at thepost-office, had his hours of melancholy brooding as of old, and becamemore and more widely known and trusted and beloved among the peopleof his State for his ability as a lawyer and politician, for theuprightness of his character and the overflowing spring of sympathetickindness in his heart. His main ambition was confessedly that ofpolitical distinction; but hardly any one would at that time have seenin him the man destined to lead the nation through the greatest crisisof the century. 

His time had not yet come when, in 1846, he was elected to Congress. Ina clever speech in the House of Representatives he denounced PresidentPolk for having unjustly forced war upon Mexico, and he amused theCommittee of the Whole by a witty attack upon General Cass. Moreimportant was the expression he gave to his antislavery impulsesby offering a bill looking to the emancipation of the slaves in theDistrict of Columbia, and by his repeated votes for the famous WilmotProviso, intended to exclude slavery from the Territories acquired fromMexico. But when, at the expiration of his term, in March, 1849, he lefthis seat, he gloomily despaired of ever seeing the day when the causenearest to his heart would be rightly grasped by the people, and when hewould be able to render any service to his country in solving the greatproblem. Nor had his career as a member of Congress in any sense beensuch as to gratify his ambition. Indeed, if he ever had any belief in agreat destiny for himself, it must have been weak at that period; for heactually sought to obtain from the new Whig President, General Taylor, the place of Commissioner of the General Land Office; willing tobury himself in one of the administrative bureaus of the government. Fortunately for the country, he failed; and no less fortunately, when, later, the territorial governorship of Oregon was offered to him, Mrs. Lincoln's protest induced him to decline it. Returning to Springfield, he gave himself with renewed zest to his law practice, acquiesced in theCompromise of 1850 with reluctance and a mental reservation, supportedin the Presidential campaign of 1852 the Whig candidate in somespiritless speeches, and took but a languid interest in the politics ofthe day. But just then his time was drawing near. 

The peace promised, and apparently inaugurated, by the Compromise of1850 was rudely broken by the introduction of the Kansas-Nebraska Billin 1854. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, opening the Territoriesof the United States, the heritage of coming generations, to theinvasion of slavery, suddenly revealed the whole significance of theslavery question to the people of the free States, and thrust itselfinto the politics of the country as the paramount issue. Something likean electric shock flashed through the North. Men who but a short timebefore had been absorbed by their business pursuits, and deprecated allpolitical agitation, were startled out of their security by a suddenalarm, and excitedly took sides. That restless trouble of conscienceabout slavery, which even in times of apparent repose had secretlydisturbed the souls of Northern people, broke forth in an utterancelouder than ever. The bonds of accustomed party allegiance gave way. Antislavery Democrats and antislavery Whigs felt themselves drawntogether by a common overpowering sentiment, and soon they began torally in a new organization. The Republican party sprang into being tomeet the overruling call of the hour. Then Abraham Lincoln's time wascome. He rapidly advanced to a position of conspicuous championship inthe struggle. This, however, was not owing to his virtues and abilitiesalone. Indeed, the slavery question stirred his soul in its profoundestdepths; it was, as one of his intimate friends said, "the only one onwhich he would become excited"; it called forth all his faculties andenergies. Yet there were many others who, having long and arduouslyfought the antislavery battle in the popular assembly, or in the press, or in the halls of Congress, far surpassed him in prestige, and comparedwith whom he was still an obscure and untried man. His reputation, although highly honorable and well earned, had so far been essentiallylocal. As a stump-speaker in Whig canvasses outside of his State he hadattracted comparatively little attention; but in Illinois he had beenrecognized as one of the foremost men of the Whig party. Among theopponents of the Nebraska Bill he occupied in his State so importanta position, that in 1856 he was the choice of a large majority of the"Anti-Nebraska men" in the Legislature for a seat in the Senate of theUnited States which then became vacant; and when he, an old Whig, couldnot obtain the votes of the Anti-Nebraska Democrats necessary to makea majority, he generously urged his friends to transfer their votesto Lyman Trumbull, who was then elected. Two years later, in thefirst national convention of the Republican party, the delegation fromIllinois brought him forward as a candidate for the vice-presidency, andhe received respectable support. Still, the name of Abraham Lincoln wasnot widely known beyond the boundaries of his own State. But now it wasthis local prominence in Illinois that put him in a position of peculiaradvantage on the battlefield of national politics. In the assault on theMissouri Compromise which broke down all legal barriers to the spreadof slavery Stephen Arnold Douglas was the ostensible leader and centralfigure; and Douglas was a Senator from Illinois, Lincoln's State. Douglas's national theatre of action was the Senate, but in hisconstituency in Illinois were the roots of his official position andpower. What he did in the Senate he had to justify before the peopleof Illinois, in order to maintain himself in place; and in Illinois alleyes turned to Lincoln as Douglas's natural antagonist. 

As very young men they had come to Illinois, Lincoln from Indiana, Douglas from Vermont, and had grown up together in public life, Douglasas a Democrat, Lincoln as a Whig. They had met first in Vandalia, in1834, when Lincoln was in the Legislature and Douglas in the lobby; andagain in 1836, both as members of the Legislature. Douglas, a very ablepolitician, of the agile, combative, audacious, "pushing" sort, rose inpolitical distinction with remarkable rapidity. In quick succession hebecame a member of the Legislature, a State's attorney, secretaryof state, a judge on the supreme bench of Illinois, three times aRepresentative in Congress, and a Senator of the United States when onlythirty-nine years old. In the National Democratic convention of 1852 heappeared even as an aspirant to the nomination for the Presidency, asthe favorite of "young America, " and received a respectable vote. He hadfar outstripped Lincoln in what is commonly called political successand in reputation. But it had frequently happened that in politicalcampaigns Lincoln felt himself impelled, or was selected by his Whigfriends, to answer Douglas's speeches; and thus the two were lookedupon, in a large part of the State at least, as the representativecombatants of their respective parties in the debates beforepopular meetings. As soon, therefore, as, after the passage of hisKansas-Nebraska Bill, Douglas returned to Illinois to defend his causebefore his constituents, Lincoln, obeying not only his own impulse, butalso general expectation, stepped forward as his principal opponent. Thus the struggle about the principles involved in the Kansas-NebraskaBill, or, in a broader sense, the struggle between freedom and slavery, assumed in Illinois the outward form of a personal contest betweenLincoln and Douglas; and, as it continued and became more animated, that personal contest in Illinois was watched with constantly increasinginterest by the whole country. When, in 1858, Douglas's senatorial termbeing about to expire, Lincoln was formally designated by the Republicanconvention of Illinois as their candidate for the Senate, to takeDouglas's place, and the two contestants agreed to debate the questionsat issue face to face in a series of public meetings, the eyes of thewhole American people were turned eagerly to that one point: and thespectacle reminded one of those lays of ancient times telling of twoarmies, in battle array, standing still to see their two principalchampions fight out the contested cause between the lines in singlecombat. 

Lincoln had then reached the full maturity of his powers. His equipmentas a statesman did not embrace a comprehensive knowledge of publicaffairs. What he had studied he had indeed made his own, with the eagercraving and that zealous tenacity characteristic of superior mindslearning under difficulties. But his narrow opportunities and theunsteady life he had led during his younger years had not permittedthe accumulation of large stores in his mind. It is true, in politicalcampaigns he had occasionally spoken on the ostensible issues betweenthe Whigs and the Democrats, the tariff, internal improvements, banks, and so on, but only in a perfunctory manner. Had he ever given muchserious thought and study to these subjects, it is safe to assume thata mind so prolific of original conceits as his would certainly haveproduced some utterance upon them worth remembering. His soul hadevidently never been deeply stirred by such topics. But when his moralnature was aroused, his brain developed an untiring activity until ithad mastered all the knowledge within reach. As soon as the repeal ofthe Missouri Compromise had thrust the slavery question into politicsas the paramount issue, Lincoln plunged into an arduous study of allits legal, historical, and moral aspects, and then his mind became acomplete arsenal of argument. His rich natural gifts, trained by longand varied practice, had made him an orator of rare persuasiveness. Inhis immature days, he had pleased himself for a short period with thatinflated, high-flown style which, among the uncultivated, passes for"beautiful speaking. " His inborn truthfulness and his artistic instinctsoon overcame that aberration and revealed to him the noble beauty andstrength of simplicity. He possessed an uncommon power of clear andcompact statement, which might have reminded those who knew the storyof his early youth of the efforts of the poor boy, when he copied hiscompositions from the scraped wooden shovel, carefully to trim hisexpressions in order to save paper. His language had the energy ofhonest directness and he was a master of logical lucidity. He lovedto point and enliven his reasoning by humorous illustrations, usuallyanecdotes of Western life, of which he had an inexhaustible store at hiscommand. These anecdotes had not seldom a flavor of rustic robustnessabout them, but he used them with great effect, while amusing theaudience, to give life to an abstraction, to explode an absurdity, toclinch an argument, to drive home an admonition. The natural kindlinessof his tone, softening prejudice and disarming partisan rancor, wouldoften open to his reasoning a way into minds most unwilling to receiveit. 

Yet his greatest power consisted in the charm of his individuality. Thatcharm did not, in the ordinary way, appeal to the ear or to the eye. Hisvoice was not melodious; rather shrill and piercing, especially when itrose to its high treble in moments of great animation. His figure wasunhandsome, and the action of his unwieldy limbs awkward. He commandednone of the outward graces of oratory as they are commonly understood. His charm was of a different kind. It flowed from the rare depth andgenuineness of his convictions and his sympathetic feelings. Sympathywas the strongest element in his nature. One of his biographers, whoknew him before he became President, says: "Lincoln's compassion mightbe stirred deeply by an object present, but never by an object absentand unseen. In the former case he would most likely extend relief, withlittle inquiry into the merits of the case, because, as he expressed ithimself, it `took a pain out of his own heart. '" Only half of this iscorrect. It is certainly true that he could not witness any individualdistress or oppression, or any kind of suffering, without feeling a pangof pain himself, and that by relieving as much as he could the sufferingof others he put an end to his own. This compassionate impulse to helphe felt not only for human beings, but for every living creature. As inhis boyhood he angrily reproved the boys who tormented a wood turtle byputting a burning coal on its back, so, we are told, he would, when amature man, on a journey, dismount from his buggy and wade waist-deepin mire to rescue a pig struggling in a swamp. Indeed, appeals to hiscompassion were so irresistible to him, and he felt it so difficultto refuse anything when his refusal could give pain, that he himselfsometimes spoke of his inability to say "no" as a positive weakness. But that certainly does not prove that his compassionate feeling wasconfined to individual cases of suffering witnessed with his own eyes. As the boy was moved by the aspect of the tortured wood turtle tocompose an essay against cruelty to animals in general, so the aspect ofother cases of suffering and wrong wrought up his moral nature, and sethis mind to work against cruelty, injustice, and oppression in general. 

As his sympathy went forth to others, it attracted others to him. Especially those whom he called the "plain people" felt themselves drawnto him by the instinctive feeling that he understood, esteemed, andappreciated them. He had grown up among the poor, the lowly, theignorant. He never ceased to remember the good souls he had met amongthem, and the many kindnesses they had done him. Although in his mentaldevelopment he had risen far above them, he never looked down upon them. How they felt and how they reasoned he knew, for so he had once felt andreasoned himself. How they could be moved he knew, for so he had oncebeen moved himself and practised moving others. His mind was much largerthan theirs, but it thoroughly comprehended theirs; and while he thoughtmuch farther than they, their thoughts were ever present to him. Nor hadthe visible distance between them grown as wide as his rise in the worldwould seem to have warranted. Much of his backwoods speech and mannersstill clung to him. Although he had become "Mr. Lincoln" to his lateracquaintances, he was still "Abe" to the "Nats" and "Billys" and "Daves"of his youth; and their familiarity neither appeared unnatural tothem, nor was it in the least awkward to him. He still told andenjoyed stories similar to those he had told and enjoyed in the Indianasettlement and at New Salem. His wants remained as modest as they hadever been; his domestic habits had by no means completely accommodatedthemselves to those of his more highborn wife; and though the "Kentuckyjeans" apparel had long been dropped, his clothes of better materialand better make would sit ill sorted on his gigantic limbs. His cottonumbrella, without a handle, and tied together with a coarse string tokeep it from flapping, which he carried on his circuit rides, is said tobe remembered still by some of his surviving neighbors. This rusticityof habit was utterly free from that affected contempt of refinement andcomfort which self-made men sometimes carry into their more affluentcircumstances. To Abraham Lincoln it was entirely natural, and all thosewho came into contact with him knew it to be so. In his ways of thinkingand feeling he had become a gentleman in the highest sense, but therefining process had polished but little the outward form. The plainpeople, therefore, still considered "honest Abe Lincoln" one ofthemselves; and when they felt, which they no doubt frequently did, thathis thoughts and aspirations moved in a sphere above their own, they were all the more proud of him, without any diminutionof fellow-feeling. It was this relation of mutual sympathy andunderstanding between Lincoln and the plain people that gave him hispeculiar power as a public man, and singularly fitted him, as we shallsee, for that leadership which was preeminently required in the greatcrisis then coming on, --the leadership which indeed thinks and movesahead of the masses, but always remains within sight and sympathetictouch of them. 

He entered upon the campaign of 1858 better equipped than he had everbeen before. He not only instinctively felt, but he had convincedhimself by arduous study, that in this struggle against the spread ofslavery he had right, justice, philosophy, the enlightened opinion ofmankind, history, the Constitution, and good policy on his side. Itwas observed that after he began to discuss the slavery question hisspeeches were pitched in a much loftier key than his former oratoricalefforts. While he remained fond of telling funny stories in privateconversation, they disappeared more and more from his public discourse. He would still now and then point his argument with expressions ofinimitable quaintness, and flash out rays of kindly humor and wittyirony; but his general tone was serious, and rose sometimes to genuinesolemnity. His masterly skill in dialectical thrust and parry, hiswealth of knowledge, his power of reasoning and elevation of sentiment, disclosed in language of rare precision, strength, and beauty, notseldom astonished his old friends. 

Neither of the two champions could have found a more formidableantagonist than each now met in the other. Douglas was by far the mostconspicuous member of his party. His admirers had dubbed him "the LittleGiant, " contrasting in that nickname the greatness of his mind with thesmallness of his body. But though of low stature, his broad-shoulderedfigure appeared uncommonly sturdy, and there was something lion-like inthe squareness of his brow and jaw, and in the defiant shake of his longhair. His loud and persistent advocacy of territorial expansion, in thename of patriotism and "manifest destiny, " had given him an enthusiasticfollowing among the young and ardent. Great natural parts, a highlycombative temperament, and long training had made him a debaterunsurpassed in a Senate filled with able men. He could be as forceful inhis appeals to patriotic feelings as he was fierce in denunciation andthoroughly skilled in all the baser tricks of parliamentary pugilism. While genial and rollicking in his social intercourse--the idol of the"boys" he felt himself one of the most renowned statesmen of his time, and would frequently meet his opponents with an overbearing haughtiness, as persons more to be pitied than to be feared. In his speech openingthe campaign of 1858, he spoke of Lincoln, whom the Republicans haddared to advance as their candidate for "his" place in the Senate, withan air of patronizing if not contemptuous condescension, as "a kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman and a good citizen. " The Little Giantwould have been pleased to pass off his antagonist as a tall dwarf. Heknew Lincoln too well, however, to indulge himself seriously in such adelusion. But the political situation was at that moment in a curioustangle, and Douglas could expect to derive from the confusion greatadvantage over his opponent. 

By the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, opening the Territories to theingress of slavery, Douglas had pleased the South, but greatly alarmedthe North. He had sought to conciliate Northern sentiment by appendingto his Kansas-Nebraska Bill the declaration that its intent was "notto legislate slavery into any State or Territory, nor to exclude ittherefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to formand regulate their institutions in their own way, subject only to theConstitution of the United States. " This he called "the great principleof popular sovereignty. " When asked whether, under this act, the peopleof a Territory, before its admission as a State, would have the rightto exclude slavery, he answered, "That is a question for the courtsto decide. " Then came the famous "Dred Scott decision, " in which theSupreme Court held substantially that the right to hold slavesas property existed in the Territories by virtue of the FederalConstitution, and that this right could not be denied by any act of aterritorial government. This, of course, denied the right of the peopleof any Territory to exclude slavery while they were in a territorialcondition, and it alarmed the Northern people still more. Douglasrecognized the binding force of the decision of the Supreme Court, atthe same time maintaining, most illogically, that his great principleof popular sovereignty remained in force nevertheless. Meanwhile, theproslavery people of western Missouri, the so-called "border ruffians, "had invaded Kansas, set up a constitutional convention, madea constitution of an extreme pro-slavery type, the "LecomptonConstitution, " refused to submit it fairly to a vote of the people ofKansas, and then referred it to Congress for acceptance, --seeking thusto accomplish the admission of Kansas as a slave State. Had Douglassupported such a scheme, he would have lost all foothold in the North. In the name of popular sovereignty he loudly declared his opposition tothe acceptance of any constitution not sanctioned by a formal popularvote. He "did not care, " he said, "whether slavery be voted up or down, "but there must be a fair vote of the people. Thus he drew upon himselfthe hostility of the Buchanan administration, which was controlled bythe proslavery interest, but he saved his Northern following. Morethan this, not only did his Democratic admirers now call him "the truechampion of freedom, " but even some Republicans of large influence, prominent among them Horace Greeley, sympathizing with Douglas in hisfight against the Lecompton Constitution, and hoping to detach himpermanently from the proslavery interest and to force a lasting breachin the Democratic party, seriously advised the Republicans of Illinoisto give up their opposition to Douglas, and to help re-elect him to theSenate. Lincoln was not of that opinion. He believed that great popularmovements can succeed only when guided by their faithful friends, andthat the antislavery cause could not safely be entrusted to the keepingof one who "did not care whether slavery be voted up or down. " Thisopinion prevailed in Illinois; but the influences within the Republicanparty over which it prevailed yielded only a reluctant acquiescence, ifthey acquiesced at all, after having materially strengthened Douglas'sposition. Such was the situation of things when the campaign of 1858between Lincoln and Douglas began. 

Lincoln opened the campaign on his side at the convention whichnominated him as the Republican candidate for the senatorship, witha memorable saying which sounded like a shout from the watchtower ofhistory: "A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe thisgovernment cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do notexpect the Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall, butI expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing orall the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the furtherspread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in thebelief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocateswill push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all theStates, --old as well as new, North as well as South. " Then he proceededto point out that the Nebraska doctrine combined with the Dred Scottdecision worked in the direction of making the nation "all slave. " Herewas the "irrepressible conflict" spoken of by Seward a short time later, in a speech made famous mainly by that phrase. If there was any newdiscovery in it, the right of priority was Lincoln's. This utteranceproved not only his statesmanlike conception of the issue, but also, in his situation as a candidate, the firmness of his moral courage. The friends to whom he had read the draught of this speech before hedelivered it warned him anxiously that its delivery might be fatal tohis success in the election. This was shrewd advice, in the ordinarysense. While a slaveholder could threaten disunion with impunity, themere suggestion that the existence of slavery was incompatible withfreedom in the Union would hazard the political chances of any publicman in the North. But Lincoln was inflexible. "It is true, " said he, "and I will deliver it as written. .. . I would rather be defeated withthese expressions in my speech held up and discussed before the peoplethan be victorious without them. " The statesman was right in hisfar-seeing judgment and his conscientious statement of the truth, butthe practical politicians were also right in their prediction of theimmediate effect. Douglas instantly seized upon the declaration that ahouse divided against itself cannot stand as the main objective point ofhis attack, interpreting it as an incitement to a "relentless sectionalwar, " and there is no doubt that the persistent reiteration of thischarge served to frighten not a few timid souls. 

Lincoln constantly endeavored to bring the moral and philosophical sideof the subject to the foreground. "Slavery is wrong" was the keynote ofall his speeches. To Douglas's glittering sophism that the right of thepeople of a Territory to have slavery or not, as they might desire, wasin accordance with the principle of true popular sovereignty, he madethe pointed answer: "Then true popular sovereignty, according to SenatorDouglas, means that, when one man makes another man his slave, nothird man shall be allowed to object. " To Douglas's argument thatthe principle which demanded that the people of a Territory should bepermitted to choose whether they would have slavery or not "originatedwhen God made man, and placed good and evil before him, allowing himto choose upon his own responsibility, " Lincoln solemnly replied: "No;God--did not place good and evil before man, telling him to make hischoice. On the contrary, God did tell him there was one tree of thefruit of which he should not eat, upon pain of death. " He did not, however, place himself on the most advanced ground taken by the radicalanti-slavery men. He admitted that, under the Constitution, "theSouthern people were entitled to a Congressional fugitive slave law, "although he did not approve the fugitive slave law then existing. Hedeclared also that, if slavery were kept out of the Territories duringtheir territorial existence, as it should be, and if then the people ofany Territory, having a fair chance and a clear field, should do suchan extraordinary thing as to adopt a slave constitution, uninfluenced bythe actual presence of the institution among them, he saw no alternativebut to admit such a Territory into the Union. He declared further that, while he should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abolished in theDistrict of Columbia, he would, as a member of Congress, with hispresent views, not endeavor to bring on that abolition except oncondition that emancipation be gradual, that it be approved by thedecision of a majority of voters in the District, and that compensationbe made to unwilling owners. On every available occasion, he pronouncedhimself in favor of the deportation and colonization of the blacks, ofcourse with their consent. He repeatedly disavowed any wish on his partto have social and political equality established between whites andblacks. On this point he summed up his views in a reply to Douglas'sassertion that the Declaration of Independence, in speaking of all menas being created equal, did not include the negroes, saying: "I do notunderstand the Declaration of Independence to mean that all men werecreated equal in all respects. They are not equal in color. But Ibelieve that it does mean to declare that all men are equal in somerespects; they are equal in their right to life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness. "

With regard to some of these subjects Lincoln modified his position ata later period, and it has been suggested that he would have professedmore advanced principles in his debates with Douglas, had he not fearedthereby to lose votes. This view can hardly be sustained. Lincoln hadthe courage of his opinions, but he was not a radical. The man whorisked his election by delivering, against the urgent protest of hisfriends, the speech about "the house divided against itself" would nothave shrunk from the expression of more extreme views, had he reallyentertained them. It is only fair to assume that he said what at thetime he really thought, and that if, subsequently, his opinions changed, it was owing to new conceptions of good policy and of duty broughtforth by an entirely new set of circumstances and exigencies. Itis characteristic that he continued to adhere to the impracticablecolonization plan even after the Emancipation Proclamation had alreadybeen issued. 

But in this contest Lincoln proved himself not only a debater, butalso a political strategist of the first order. The "kind, amiable, andintelligent gentleman, " as Douglas had been pleased to call him, was byno means as harmless as a dove. He possessed an uncommon share of thatworldly shrewdness which not seldom goes with genuine simplicity ofcharacter; and the political experience gathered in the Legislatureand in Congress, and in many election campaigns, added to his keenintuitions, had made him as far-sighted a judge of the probable effectsof a public man's sayings or doings upon the popular mind, and asaccurate a calculator in estimating political chances and forecastingresults, as could be found among the party managers in Illinois. Andnow he perceived keenly the ugly dilemma in which Douglas found himself, between the Dred Scott decision, which declared the right to hold slavesto exist in the Territories by virtue of the Federal Constitution, andhis "great principle of popular sovereignty, " according to which thepeople of a Territory, if they saw fit, were to have the right toexclude slavery therefrom. Douglas was twisting and squirming tothe best of his ability to avoid the admission that the two wereincompatible. The question then presented itself if it would be goodpolicy for Lincoln to force Douglas to a clear expression of his opinionas to whether, the Dred Scott decision notwithstanding, "the people of aTerritory could in any lawful way exclude slavery from its limits priorto the formation of a State constitution. " Lincoln foresaw and predictedwhat Douglas would answer: that slavery could not exist in a Territoryunless the people desired it and gave it protection by territoriallegislation. In an improvised caucus the policy of pressing theinterrogatory on Douglas was discussed. Lincoln's friends unanimouslyadvised against it, because the answer foreseen would sufficientlycommend Douglas to the people of Illinois to insure his re-election tothe Senate. But Lincoln persisted. "I am after larger game, " said he. "If Douglas so answers, he can never be President, and the battle of1860 is worth a hundred of this. " The interrogatory was pressed uponDouglas, and Douglas did answer that, no matter what the decision ofthe Supreme Court might be on the abstract question, the people ofa Territory had the lawful means to introduce or exclude slavery byterritorial legislation friendly or unfriendly to the institution. Lincoln found it easy to show the absurdity of the proposition that, ifslavery were admitted to exist of right in the Territories by virtueof the supreme law, the Federal Constitution, it could be kept out orexpelled by an inferior law, one made by a territorial Legislature. Again the judgment of the politicians, having only the nearest object inview, proved correct: Douglas was reelected to the Senate. But Lincoln'sjudgment proved correct also: Douglas, by resorting to the expedientof his "unfriendly legislation doctrine, " forfeited his last chance ofbecoming President of the United States. He might have hoped to win, bysufficient atonement, his pardon from the South for his oppositionto the Lecompton Constitution; but that he taught the people of theTerritories a trick by which they could defeat what the proslavery menconsidered a constitutional right, and that he called that tricklawful, this the slave power would never forgive. The breach betweenthe Southern and the Northern Democracy was thenceforth irremediable andfatal. 

The Presidential election of 1860 approached. The struggle in Kansas, and the debates in Congress which accompanied it, and which notunfrequently provoked violent outbursts, continually stirred the popularexcitement. Within the Democratic party raged the war of factions. Thenational Democratic convention met at Charleston on the 23d of April, 1860. After a struggle of ten days between the adherents and theopponents of Douglas, during which the delegates from the cotton Stateshad withdrawn, the convention adjourned without having nominated anycandidates, to meet again in Baltimore on the 18th of June. There was noprospect, however, of reconciling the hostile elements. It appeared veryprobable that the Baltimore convention would nominate Douglas, whilethe seceding Southern Democrats would set up a candidate of their own, representing extreme proslavery principles. 

Meanwhile, the national Republican convention assembled at Chicago onthe 16th of May, full of enthusiasm and hope. The situation was easilyunderstood. The Democrats would have the South. In order to succeedin the election, the Republicans had to win, in addition to the Statescarried by Fremont in 1856, those that were classed as "doubtful, "--NewJersey, Pennsylvania, and Indiana, or Illinois in the place of eitherNew Jersey or Indiana. The most eminent Republican statesmen and leadersof the time thought of for the Presidency were Seward and Chase, bothregarded as belonging to the more advanced order of antislavery men. Of the two, Seward had the largest following, mainly from New York, New England, and the Northwest. Cautious politicians doubted seriouslywhether Seward, to whom some phrases in his speeches had undeservedlygiven the reputation of a reckless radical, would be able to command thewhole Republican vote in the doubtful States. Besides, during his longpublic career he had made enemies. It was evident that those who thoughtSeward's nomination too hazardous an experiment would consider Chaseunavailable for the same reason. They would then look round for an"available" man; and among the "available" men Abraham Lincoln waseasily discovered to stand foremost. His great debate with Douglas hadgiven him a national reputation. The people of the East being eagerto see the hero of so dramatic a contest, he had been induced to visitseveral Eastern cities, and had astonished and delighted large anddistinguished audiences with speeches of singular power and originality. An address delivered by him in the Cooper Institute in New York, beforean audience containing a large number of important persons, was then, and has ever since been, especially praised as one of the most logicaland convincing political speeches ever made in this country. The peopleof the West had grown proud of him as a distinctively Western great man, and his popularity at home had some peculiar features which could beexpected to exercise a potent charm. Nor was Lincoln's name as that ofan available candidate left to the chance of accidental discovery. Itis indeed not probable that he thought of himself as a Presidentialpossibility, during his contest with Douglas for the senatorship. Aslate as April, 1859, he had written to a friend who had approached himon the subject that he did not think himself fit for the Presidency. The Vice-Presidency was then the limit of his ambition. But some ofhis friends in Illinois took the matter seriously in hand, and Lincoln, after some hesitation, then formally authorized "the use of his name. "The matter was managed with such energy and excellent judgment that, in the convention, he had not only the whole vote of Illinois to startwith, but won votes on all sides without offending any rival. A largemajority of the opponents of Seward went over to Abraham Lincoln, andgave him the nomination on the third ballot. As had been foreseen, Douglas was nominated by one wing of the Democratic party at Baltimore, while the extreme proslavery wing put Breckinridge into the field asits candidate. After a campaign conducted with the energy of genuineenthusiasm on the antislavery side the united Republicans defeated thedivided Democrats, and Lincoln was elected President by a majority offifty-seven votes in the electoral colleges. 

The result of the election had hardly been declared when the disunionmovement in the South, long threatened and carefully planned andprepared, broke out in the shape of open revolt, and nearly a monthbefore Lincoln could be inaugurated as President of the United Statesseven Southern States had adopted ordinances of secession, formed anindependent confederacy, framed a constitution for it, and electedJefferson Davis its president, expecting the other slaveholdingStates soon to join them. On the 11th of February, 1861, Lincoln leftSpringfield for Washington; having, with characteristic simplicity, asked his law partner not to change the sign of the firm "Lincolnand Herndon" during the four years unavoidable absence of the seniorpartner, and having taken an affectionate and touching leave of hisneighbors. 

The situation which confronted the new President was appalling: thelarger part of the South in open rebellion, the rest of the slaveholdingStates wavering preparing to follow; the revolt guided by determined, daring, and skillful leaders; the Southern people, apparently full ofenthusiasm and military spirit, rushing to arms, some of the fortsand arsenals already in their possession; the government of the Union, before the accession of the new President, in the hands of men some ofwhom actively sympathized with the revolt, while others were hampered bytheir traditional doctrines in dealing with it, and really gave it aidand comfort by their irresolute attitude; all the departments full of"Southern sympathizers" and honeycombed with disloyalty; the treasuryempty, and the public credit at the lowest ebb; the arsenals illsupplied with arms, if not emptied by treacherous practices; the regulararmy of insignificant strength, dispersed over an immense surface, anddeprived of some of its best officers by defection; the navy small andantiquated. But that was not all. The threat of disunion had so oftenbeen resorted to by the slave power in years gone by that most Northernpeople had ceased to believe in its seriousness. But, when disunionactually appeared as a stern reality, something like a chill sweptthrough the whole Northern country. A cry for union and peace at anyprice rose on all sides. Democratic partisanship reiterated this crywith vociferous vehemence, and even many Republicans grew afraid ofthe victory they had just achieved at the ballot-box, and spoke ofcompromise. The country fairly resounded with the noise of "anticoercionmeetings. " Expressions of firm resolution from determined antislaverymen were indeed not wanting, but they were for a while almost drownedby a bewildering confusion of discordant voices. Even this was notall. Potent influences in Europe, with an ill-concealed desire for thepermanent disruption of the American Union, eagerly espoused the causeof the Southern seceders, and the two principal maritime powers of theOld World seemed only to be waiting for a favorable opportunity to lendthem a helping hand. 

This was the state of things to be mastered by "honest Abe Lincoln" whenhe took his seat in the Presidential chair, --"honest Abe Lincoln, " whowas so good-natured that he could not say "no"; the greatest achievementin whose life had been a debate on the slavery question; who had neverbeen in any position of power; who was without the slightest experienceof high executive duties, and who had only a speaking acquaintance withthe men upon whose counsel and cooperation he was to depend. Nor washis accession to power under such circumstances greeted with generalconfidence even by the members of his party. While he had indeed wonmuch popularity, many Republicans, especially among those who hadadvocated Seward's nomination for the Presidency, saw the simple"Illinois lawyer" take the reins of government with a feeling littleshort of dismay. The orators and journals of the opposition wereridiculing and lampooning him without measure. Many people actuallywondered how such a man could dare to undertake a task which, as hehimself had said to his neighbors in his parting speech, was "moredifficult than that of Washington himself had been. "

But Lincoln brought to that task, aside from other uncommon qualities, the first requisite, --an intuitive comprehension of its nature. Whilehe did not indulge in the delusion that the Union could be maintained orrestored without a conflict of arms, he could indeed not foresee all theproblems he would have to solve. He instinctively understood, however, by what means that conflict would have to be conducted by the governmentof a democracy. He knew that the impending war, whether great or small, would not be like a foreign war, exciting a united national enthusiasm, but a civil war, likely to fan to uncommon heat the animosities of partyeven in the localities controlled by the government; that this war wouldhave to be carried on not by means of a ready-made machinery, ruledby an undisputed, absolute will, but by means to be furnished by thevoluntary action of the people:--armies to be formed by voluntaryenlistments; large sums of money to be raised by the people, throughrepresentatives, voluntarily taxing themselves; trust of extraordinarypower to be voluntarily granted; and war measures, not seldomrestricting the rights and liberties to which the citizen wasaccustomed, to be voluntarily accepted and submitted to by the people, or at least a large majority of them; and that this would have to bekept up not merely during a short period of enthusiastic excitement; butpossibly through weary years of alternating success and disaster, hopeand despondency. He knew that in order to steer this government bypublic opinion successfully through all the confusion created by theprejudices and doubts and differences of sentiment distracting thepopular mind, and so to propitiate, inspire, mould, organize, unite, andguide the popular will that it might give forth all the means requiredfor the performance of his great task, he would have to take intoaccount all the influences strongly affecting the current of popularthought and feeling, and to direct while appearing to obey. 

This was the kind of leadership he intuitively conceived to be neededwhen a free people were to be led forward en masse to overcome agreat common danger under circumstances of appalling difficulty, theleadership which does not dash ahead with brilliant daring, no matterwho follows, but which is intent upon rallying all the available forces, gathering in the stragglers, closing up the column, so that the frontmay advance well supported. For this leadership Abraham Lincoln wasadmirably fitted, better than any other American statesman of his day;for he understood the plain people, with all their loves and hates, their prejudices and their noble impulses, their weaknesses and theirstrength, as he understood himself, and his sympathetic nature was aptto draw their sympathy to him. 

His inaugural address foreshadowed his official course in characteristicmanner. Although yielding nothing in point of principle, it was by nomeans a flaming antislavery manifesto, such as would have pleased themore ardent Republicans. It was rather the entreaty of a sorrowingfather speaking to his wayward children. In the kindliest languagehe pointed out to the secessionists how ill advised their attempt atdisunion was, and why, for their own sakes, they should desist. Almostplaintively, he told them that, while it was not their duty to destroythe Union, it was his sworn duty to preserve it; that the least hecould do, under the obligations of his oath, was to possess and hold theproperty of the United States; that he hoped to do this peaceably; thathe abhorred war for any purpose, and that they would have noneunless they themselves were the aggressors. It was a masterpiece ofpersuasiveness, and while Lincoln had accepted many valuable amendmentssuggested by Seward, it was essentially his own. Probably Lincolnhimself did not expect his inaugural address to have any effect upon thesecessionists, for he must have known them to be resolved upon disunionat any cost. But it was an appeal to the wavering minds in the North, and upon them it made a profound impression. Every candid man, howevertimid and halting, had to admit that the President was bound by his oathto do his duty; that under that oath he could do no less than he saidhe would do; that if the secessionists resisted such an appeal asthe President had made, they were bent upon mischief, and that thegovernment must be supported against them. The partisan sympathy withthe Southern insurrection which still existed in the North did indeednot disappear, but it diminished perceptibly under the influence of suchreasoning. Those who still resisted it did so at the risk of appearingunpatriotic. 

It must not be supposed, however, that Lincoln at once succeeded inpleasing everybody, even among his friends, --even among those nearest tohim. In selecting his cabinet, which he did substantially before he leftSpringfield for Washington, he thought it wise to call to his assistancethe strong men of his party, especially those who had given evidence ofthe support they commanded as his competitors in the Chicago convention. In them he found at the same time representatives of thedifferent shades of opinion within the party, and of the differentelements--former Whigs and former Democrats--from which the party hadrecruited itself. This was sound policy under the circumstances. Itmight indeed have been foreseen that among the members of a cabinet socomposed, troublesome disagreements and rivalries would break out. Butit was better for the President to have these strong and ambitiousmen near him as his co-operators than to have them as his critics inCongress, where their differences might have been composed in a commonopposition to him. As members of his cabinet he could hope to controlthem, and to keep them busily employed in the service of a commonpurpose, if he had the strength to do so. Whether he did possess thisstrength was soon tested by a singularly rude trial. 

There can be no doubt that the foremost members of his cabinet, Sewardand Chase, the most eminent Republican statesmen, had felt themselveswronged by their party when in its national convention it preferredto them for the Presidency a man whom, not unnaturally, they thoughtgreatly their inferior in ability and experience as well as in service. The soreness of that disappointment was intensified when they saw thisWestern man in the White House, with so much of rustic manner and speechas still clung to him, meeting his fellow-citizens, high and low, on afooting of equality, with the simplicity of his good nature unburdenedby any conventional dignity of deportment, and dealing with the greatbusiness of state in an easy-going, unmethodical, and apparentlysomewhat irreverent way. They did not understand such a man. EspeciallySeward, who, as Secretary of State, considered himself next to theChief Executive, and who quickly accustomed himself to giving orders andmaking arrangements upon his own motion, thought it necessary that heshould rescue the direction of public affairs from hands so unskilled, and take full charge of them himself. At the end of the first month ofthe administration he submitted a "memorandum" to President Lincoln, which has been first brought to light by Nicolay and Hay, and is one oftheir most valuable contributions to the history of those days. In thatpaper Seward actually told the President that at the end of a month'sadministration the government was still without a policy, eitherdomestic or foreign; that the slavery question should be eliminated fromthe struggle about the Union; that the matter of the maintenance of theforts and other possessions in the South should be decided with thatview; that explanations should be demanded categorically from thegovernments of Spain and France, which were then preparing, one for theannexation of San Domingo, and both for the invasion of Mexico; thatif no satisfactory explanations were received war should be declaredagainst Spain and France by the United States; that explanations shouldalso be sought from Russia and Great Britain, and a vigorous continentalspirit of independence against European intervention be aroused all overthe American continent; that this policy should be incessantly pursuedand directed by somebody; that either the President should devotehimself entirely to it, or devolve the direction on some member of hiscabinet, whereupon all debate on this policy must end. 

This could be understood only as a formal demand that the Presidentshould acknowledge his own incompetency to perform his duties, contenthimself with the amusement of distributing post-offices, and resign hispower as to all important affairs into the hands of his Secretary ofState. It seems to-day incomprehensible how a statesman of Seward'scalibre could at that period conceive a plan of policy in which theslavery question had no place; a policy which rested upon the utterlydelusive assumption that the secessionists, who had already formed theirSouthern Confederacy and were with stern resolution preparing to fightfor its independence, could be hoodwinked back into the Union by somesentimental demonstration against European interference; a policy which, at that critical moment, would have involved the Union in a foreign war, thus inviting foreign intervention in favor of the Southern Confederacy, and increasing tenfold its chances in the struggle for independence. Butit is equally incomprehensible how Seward could fail to see that thisdemand of an unconditional surrender was a mortal insult to the headof the government, and that by putting his proposition on paper hedelivered himself into the hands of the very man he had insulted; for, had Lincoln, as most Presidents would have done, instantly dismissedSeward, and published the true reason for that dismissal, it wouldinevitably have been the end of Seward's career. But Lincoln did whatnot many of the noblest and greatest men in history would have beennoble and great enough to do. He considered that Seward was stillcapable of rendering great service to his country in the place inwhich he was, if rightly controlled. He ignored the insult, butfirmly established his superiority. In his reply, which he forthwithdespatched, he told Seward that the administration had a domestic policyas laid down in the inaugural address with Seward's approval; thatit had a foreign policy as traced in Seward's despatches with thePresident's approval; that if any policy was to be maintained orchanged, he, the President, was to direct that on his responsibility;and that in performing that duty the President had a right to theadvice of his secretaries. Seward's fantastic schemes of foreign warand continental policies Lincoln brushed aside by passing them over insilence. Nothing more was said. Seward must have felt that he was atthe mercy of a superior man; that his offensive proposition had beengenerously pardoned as a temporary aberration of a great mind, and thathe could atone for it only by devoted personal loyalty. This he did. He was thoroughly subdued, and thenceforth submitted to Lincoln hisdespatches for revision and amendment without a murmur. The war withEuropean nations was no longer thought of; the slavery question found indue time its proper place in the struggle for the Union; and when, ata later period, the dismissal of Seward was demanded by dissatisfiedsenators, who attributed to him the shortcomings of the administration, Lincoln stood stoutly by his faithful Secretary of State. 

Chase, the Secretary of the Treasury, a man of superb presence, ofeminent ability and ardent patriotism, of great natural dignity and acertain outward coldness of manner, which made him appear more difficultof approach than he really was, did not permit his disappointment toburst out in such extravagant demonstrations. But Lincoln's ways wereso essentially different from his that they never became quiteintelligible, and certainly not congenial to him. It might, perhaps, have been better had there been, at the beginning of the administration, some decided clash between Lincoln and Chase, as there was betweenLincoln and Seward, to bring on a full mutual explanation, and to makeChase appreciate the real seriousness of Lincoln's nature. But, as itwas, their relations always remained somewhat formal, and Chase neverfelt quite at ease under a chief whom he could not understand, and whosecharacter and powers he never learned to esteem at their true value. At the same time, he devoted himself zealously to the duties of hisdepartment, and did the country arduous service under circumstances ofextreme difficulty. Nobody recognized this more heartily than Lincolnhimself, and they managed to work together until near the end ofLincoln's first Presidential term, when Chase, after some disagreementsconcerning appointments to office, resigned from the treasury; and, after Taney's death, the President made him Chief Justice. 

The rest of the cabinet consisted of men of less eminence, whosubordinated themselves more easily. In January, 1862, Lincoln found itnecessary to bow Cameron out of the war office, and to put in his placeEdwin M. Stanton, a man of intensely practical mind, vehement impulses, fierce positiveness, ruthless energy, immense working power, loftypatriotism, and severest devotion to duty. He accepted the war officenot as a partisan, for he had never been a Republican, but only todo all he could in "helping to save the country. " The manner inwhich Lincoln succeeded in taming this lion to his will, by franklyrecognizing his great qualities, by giving him the most generousconfidence, by aiding him in his work to the full of his power, bykindly concession or affectionate persuasiveness in cases of differingopinions, or, when it was necessary, by firm assertions of superiorauthority, bears the highest testimony to his skill in the management ofmen. Stanton, who had entered the service with rather a mean opinionof Lincoln's character and capacity, became one of his warmest, mostdevoted, and most admiring friends, and with none of his secretarieswas Lincoln's intercourse more intimate. To take advice with candidreadiness, and to weigh it without any pride of his own opinion, was oneof Lincoln's preeminent virtues; but he had not long presided over hiscabinet council when his was felt by all its members to be the rulingmind. 

The cautious policy foreshadowed in his inaugural address, and pursuedduring the first period of the civil war, was far from satisfying allhis party friends. The ardent spirits among the Union men thought thatthe whole North should at once be called to arms, to crush the rebellionby one powerful blow. The ardent spirits among the antislavery meninsisted that, slavery having brought forth the rebellion, this powerfulblow should at once be aimed at slavery. Both complained that theadministration was spiritless, undecided, and lamentably slow in itsproceedings. Lincoln reasoned otherwise. The ways of thinking andfeeling of the masses, of the plain people, were constantly present tohis mind. The masses, the plain people, had to furnish the men for thefighting, if fighting was to be done. He believed that the plain peoplewould be ready to fight when it clearly appeared necessary, and thatthey would feel that necessity when they felt themselves attacked. Hetherefore waited until the enemies of the Union struck the first blow. As soon as, on the 12th of April, 1861, the first gun was fired inCharleston harbor on the Union flag upon Fort Sumter, the call wassounded, and the Northern people rushed to arms. 

Lincoln knew that the plain people were now indeed ready to fight indefence of the Union, but not yet ready to fight for the destruction ofslavery. He declared openly that he had a right to summon the people tofight for the Union, but not to summon them to fight for the abolitionof slavery as a primary object; and this declaration gave him numberlesssoldiers for the Union who at that period would have hesitated to dobattle against the institution of slavery. For a time he succeededin rendering harmless the cry of the partisan opposition that theRepublican administration were perverting the war for the Union into an"abolition war. " But when he went so far as to countermand the acts ofsome generals in the field, looking to the emancipation of the slavesin the districts covered by their commands, loud complaints arose fromearnest antislavery men, who accused the President of turning his backupon the antislavery cause. Many of these antislavery men will now, after a calm retrospect, be willing to admit that it would have beena hazardous policy to endanger, by precipitating a demonstrative fightagainst slavery, the success of the struggle for the Union. 

Lincoln's views and feelings concerning slavery had not changed. Thosewho conversed with him intimately upon the subject at that period knowthat he did not expect slavery long to survive the triumph of the Union, even if it were not immediately destroyed by the war. In this he wasright. Had the Union armies achieved a decisive victory in an earlyperiod of the conflict, and had the seceded States been received backwith slavery, the "slave power" would then have been a defeated power, defeated in an attempt to carry out its most effective threat. It wouldhave lost its prestige. Its menaces would have been hollow sound, andceased to make any one afraid. It could no longer have hoped to expand, to maintain an equilibrium in any branch of Congress, and to control thegovernment. The victorious free States would have largely overbalancedit. It would no longer have been able to withstand the onset of ahostile age. It could no longer have ruled, --and slavery had to rule inorder to live. It would have lingered for a while, but it would surelyhave been "in the course of ultimate extinction. " A prolonged warprecipitated the destruction of slavery; a short war might only haveprolonged its death struggle. Lincoln saw this clearly; but he saw alsothat, in a protracted death struggle, it might still have kept disloyalsentiments alive, bred distracting commotions, and caused great mischiefto the country. He therefore hoped that slavery would not survive thewar. 

But the question how he could rightfully employ his power to bring onits speedy destruction was to him not a question of mere sentiment. Hehimself set forth his reasoning upon it, at a later period, in oneof his inimitable letters. "I am naturally antislavery, " said he. "Ifslavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember the time whenI did not so think and feel. And yet I have never understood that thePresidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act upon thatjudgment and feeling. It was in the oath I took that I would, to thebest of my ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution ofthe United States. I could not take the office without taking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to get power, and breakthe oath in using that power. I understood, too, that, in ordinary civiladministration, this oath even forbade me practically to indulge myprivate abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. I didunderstand, however, also, that my oath imposed upon me the duty ofpreserving, to the best of my ability, by every indispensable means, that government, that nation, of which the Constitution was the organiclaw. I could not feel that, to the best of my ability, I had even tiedto preserve the Constitution--if, to save slavery, or any minor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitutionall together. " In other words, if the salvation of the government, theConstitution, and the Union demanded the destruction of slavery, hefelt it to be not only his right, but his sworn duty to destroy it. Itsdestruction became a necessity of the war for the Union. 

As the war dragged on and disaster followed disaster, the sense of thatnecessity steadily grew upon him. Early in 1862, as some of his friendswell remember, he saw, what Seward seemed not to see, that to givethe war for the Union an antislavery character was the surest means toprevent the recognition of the Southern Confederacy as an independentnation by European powers; that, slavery being abhorred by the moralsense of civilized mankind, no European government would dare to offerso gross an insult to the public opinion of its people as openly tofavor the creation of a state founded upon slavery to the prejudice ofan existing nation fighting against slavery. He saw also that slaveryuntouched was to the rebellion an element of power, and that in orderto overcome that power it was necessary to turn it into an elementof weakness. Still, he felt no assurance that the plain people wereprepared for so radical a measure as the emancipation of the slaves byact of the government, and he anxiously considered that, if they werenot, this great step might, by exciting dissension at the North, injurethe cause of the Union in one quarter more than it would help it inanother. He heartily welcomed an effort made in New York to mould andstimulate public sentiment on the slavery question by public meetingsboldly pronouncing for emancipation. At the same time he himselfcautiously advanced with a recommendation, expressed in a specialmessage to Congress, that the United States should co-operate with anyState which might adopt the gradual abolishment of slavery, givingsuch State pecuniary aid to compensate the former owners of emancipatedslaves. The discussion was started, and spread rapidly. Congress adoptedthe resolution recommended, and soon went a step farther in passing abill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. The plain peoplebegan to look at emancipation on a larger scale as a thing to beconsidered seriously by patriotic citizens; and soon Lincoln thoughtthat the time was ripe, and that the edict of freedom could be venturedupon without danger of serious confusion in the Union ranks. 

The failure of McClellan's movement upon Richmond increased immenselythe prestige of the enemy. The need of some great act to stimulate thevitality of the Union cause seemed to grow daily more pressing. OnJuly 21, 1862, Lincoln surprised his cabinet with the draught of aproclamation declaring free the slaves in all the States that should bestill in rebellion against the United States on the 1st of January, 1863. As to the matter itself he announced that he had fully made up his mind;he invited advice only concerning the form and the time of publication. Seward suggested that the proclamation, if then brought out, amidstdisaster and distress, would sound like the last shriek of a perishingcause. Lincoln accepted the suggestion, and the proclamation waspostponed. Another defeat followed, the second at Bull Run. But when, after that battle, the Confederate army, under Lee, crossed the Potomacand invaded Maryland, Lincoln vowed in his heart that, if the Union armywere now blessed with success, the decree of freedom should surelybe issued. The victory of Antietam was won on September 17, and thepreliminary Emancipation Proclamation came forth on the a 22d. It wasLincoln's own resolution and act; but practically it bound the nation, and permitted no step backward. In spite of its limitations, it was theactual abolition of slavery. Thus he wrote his name upon the books ofhistory with the title dearest to his heart, the liberator of the slave. 

It is true, the great proclamation, which stamped the war as one for"union and freedom, " did not at once mark the turning of the tide on thefield of military operations. There were more disasters, Fredericksburgand Chancellorsville. But with Gettysburg and Vicksburg the whole aspectof the war changed. Step by step, now more slowly, then more rapidly, but with increasing steadiness, the flag of the Union advanced fromfield to field toward the final consummation. The decree of emancipationwas naturally followed by the enlistment of emancipated negroes in theUnion armies. This measure had a anther reaching effect than merelygiving the Union armies an increased supply of men. The laboring forceof the rebellion was hopelessly disorganized. The war became like aproblem of arithmetic. As the Union armies pushed forward, the areafrom which the Southern Confederacy could draw recruits and suppliesconstantly grew smaller, while the area from which the Union recruitedits strength constantly grew larger; and everywhere, even within theSouthern lines, the Union had its allies. The fate of the rebellionwas then virtually decided; but it still required much bloody work toconvince the brave warriors who fought for it that they were reallybeaten. 

Neither did the Emancipation Proclamation forthwith command universalassent among the people who were loyal to the Union. There were evensigns of a reaction against the administration in the fall elections of1862, seemingly justifying the opinion, entertained by many, that thePresident had really anticipated the development of popular feeling. Thecry that the war for the Union had been turned into an "abolition war"was raised again by the opposition, and more loudly than ever. Butthe good sense and patriotic instincts of the plain people graduallymarshalled themselves on Lincoln's side, and he lost no opportunity tohelp on this process by personal argument and admonition. There neverhas been a President in such constant and active contact with the publicopinion of the country, as there never has been a President who, whileat the head of the government, remained so near to the people. Beyondthe circle of those who had long known him the feeling steadily grewthat the man in the White House was "honest Abe Lincoln" still, andthat every citizen might approach him with complaint, expostulation, oradvice, without danger of meeting a rebuff from power-proud authority, or humiliating condescension; and this privilege was used by so manyand with such unsparing freedom that only superhuman patience couldhave endured it all. There are men now living who would to-day read withamazement, if not regret, what they ventured to say or write to him. ButLincoln repelled no one whom he believed to speak to him in good faithand with patriotic purpose. No good advice would go unheeded. No candidcriticism would offend him. No honest opposition, while it might painhim, would produce a lasting alienation of feeling between him and theopponent. It may truly be said that few men in power have ever beenexposed to more daring attempts to direct their course, to severercensure of their acts, and to more cruel misrepresentation of theirmotives: And all this he met with that good-natured humor peculiarly hisown, and with untiring effort to see the right and to impress itupon those who differed from him. The conversations he had and thecorrespondence he carried on upon matters of public interest, not onlywith men in official position, but with private citizens, were almostunceasing, and in a large number of public letters, written ostensiblyto meetings, or committees, or persons of importance, he addressedhimself directly to the popular mind. Most of these letters stand amongthe finest monuments of our political literature. Thus he presented thesingular spectacle of a President who, in the midst of a great civilwar, with unprecedented duties weighing upon him, was constantly inperson debating the great features of his policy with the people. 

While in this manner he exercised an ever-increasing influence upon thepopular understanding, his sympathetic nature endeared him more andmore to the popular heart. In vain did journals and speakers of theopposition represent him as a lightminded trifler, who amused himselfwith frivolous story-telling and coarse jokes, while the blood of thepeople was flowing in streams. The people knew that the man at the headof affairs, on whose haggard face the twinkle of humor so frequentlychanged into an expression of profoundest sadness, was more than anyother deeply distressed by the suffering he witnessed; that he feltthe pain of every wound that was inflicted on the battlefield, and theanguish of every woman or child who had lost husband or father; thatwhenever he could he was eager to alleviate sorrow, and that his mercywas never implored in vain. They looked to him as one who was with themand of them in all their hopes and fears, their joys and sorrows, wholaughed with them and wept with them; and as his heart was theirs; sotheir hearts turned to him. His popularity was far different fromthat of Washington, who was revered with awe, or that of Jackson, the unconquerable hero, for whom party enthusiasm never grew wearyof shouting. To Abraham Lincoln the people became bound by a genuinesentimental attachment. It was not a matter of respect, or confidence, or party pride, for this feeling spread far beyond the boundary lines ofhis party; it was an affair of the heart, independent of mere reasoning. When the soldiers in the field or their folks at home spoke of "FatherAbraham, " there was no cant in it. They felt that their President wasreally caring for them as a father would, and that they could go to him, every one of them, as they would go to a father, and talk to him of whattroubled them, sure to find a willing ear and tender sympathy. Thus, their President, and his cause, and his endeavors, and his successgradually became to them almost matters of family concern. And thispopularity carried him triumphantly through the Presidential electionof 1864, in spite of an opposition within his own party which at firstseemed very formidable. 

Many of the radical antislavery men were never quite satisfied withLincoln's ways of meeting the problems of the time. They were veryearnest and mostly very able men, who had positive ideas as to "how thisrebellion should be put down. " They would not recognize the necessityof measuring the steps of the government according to the progressof opinion among the plain people. They criticised Lincoln's cautiousmanagement as irresolute, halting, lacking in definite purpose and inenergy; he should not have delayed emancipation so long; he should nothave confided important commands to men of doubtful views as to slavery;he should have authorized military commanders to set the slaves freeas they went on; he dealt too leniently with unsuccessful generals; heshould have put down all factious opposition with a strong hand insteadof trying to pacify it; he should have given the people accomplishedfacts instead of arguing with them, and so on. It is true, thesecriticisms were not always entirely unfounded. Lincoln's policy had, with the virtues of democratic government, some of its weaknesses, whichin the presence of pressing exigencies were apt to deprive governmentalaction of the necessary vigor; and his kindness of heart, hisdisposition always to respect the feelings of others, frequently madehim recoil from anything like severity, even when severity was urgentlycalled for. But many of his radical critics have since then revisedtheir judgment sufficiently to admit that Lincoln's policy was, on thewhole, the wisest and safest; that a policy of heroic methods, while ithas sometimes accomplished great results, could in a democracy likeours be maintained only by constant success; that it would have quicklybroken down under the weight of disaster; that it might have beensuccessful from the start, had the Union, at the beginning of theconflict, had its Grants and Shermans and Sheridans, its Farraguts andPorters, fully matured at the head of its forces; but that, as the greatcommanders had to be evolved slowly from the developments of the war, constant success could not be counted upon, and it was best to followa policy which was in friendly contact with the popular force, andtherefore more fit to stand trial of misfortune on the battlefield. Butat that period they thought differently, and their dissatisfaction withLincoln's doings was greatly increased by the steps he took toward thereconstruction of rebel States then partially in possession of the Unionforces. 

In December, 1863, Lincoln issued an amnesty proclamation, offeringpardon to all implicated in the rebellion, with certain specifiedexceptions, on condition of their taking and maintaining an oath tosupport the Constitution and obey the laws of the United States and theproclamations of the President with regard to slaves; and also promisingthat when, in any of the rebel States, a number of citizens equal to onetenth of the voters in 1860 should re-establish a state government inconformity with the oath above mentioned, such should be recognizedby the Executive as the true government of the State. The proclamationseemed at first to be received with general favor. But soon anotherscheme of reconstruction, much more stringent in its provisions, was putforward in the House of Representatives by Henry Winter Davis. BenjaminWade championed it in the Senate. It passed in the closing moments ofthe session in July, 1864, and Lincoln, instead of making it a law byhis signature, embodied the text of it in a proclamation as a plan ofreconstruction worthy of being earnestly considered. The differences ofopinion concerning this subject had only intensified the feeling againstLincoln which had long been nursed among the radicals, and some ofthem openly declared their purpose of resisting his re-election tothe Presidency. Similar sentiments were manifested by the advancedantislavery men of Missouri, who, in their hot faction-fight with the"conservatives" of that State, had not received from Lincoln the activesupport they demanded. Still another class of Union men, mainly in theEast, gravely shook their heads when considering the question whetherLincoln should be re-elected. They were those who cherished in theirminds an ideal of statesmanship and of personal bearing in high officewith which, in their opinion, Lincoln's individuality was much out ofaccord. They were shocked when they heard him cap an argument upon graveaffairs of state with a story about "a man out in Sangamon County, "--astory, to be sure, strikingly clinching his point, but sadly lacking indignity. They could not understand the man who was capable, in openinga cabinet meeting, of reading to his secretaries a funny chapter from arecent book of Artemus Ward, with which in an unoccupied moment he hadrelieved his care-burdened mind, and who then solemnly informed theexecutive council that he had vowed in his heart to issue a proclamationemancipating the slaves as soon as God blessed the Union arms withanother victory. They were alarmed at the weakness of a President whowould indeed resist the urgent remonstrances of statesmen against hispolicy, but could not resist the prayer of an old woman for the pardonof a soldier who was sentenced to be shot for desertion. Such men, mostly sincere and ardent patriots, not only wished, but earnestly setto work, to prevent Lincoln's renomination. Not a few of them actuallybelieved, in 1863, that, if the national convention of the Union partywere held then, Lincoln would not be supported by the delegation of asingle State. But when the convention met at Baltimore, in June, 1864, the voice of the people was heard. On the first ballot Lincoln receivedthe votes of the delegations from all the States except Missouri; andeven the Missourians turned over their votes to him before the result ofthe ballot was declared. 

But even after his renomination the opposition to Lincoln within theranks of the Union party did not subside. A convention, called by thedissatisfied radicals in Missouri, and favored by men of a similarway of thinking in other States, had been held already in May, andhad nominated as its candidate for the Presidency General Fremont. He, indeed, did not attract a strong following, but opposition movementsfrom different quarters appeared more formidable. Henry Winter Davis andBenjamin Wade assailed Lincoln in a flaming manifesto. Other Union men, of undoubted patriotism and high standing, persuaded themselves, andsought to persuade the people, that Lincoln's renomination was illadvised and dangerous to the Union cause. As the Democrats had put offtheir convention until the 29th of August, the Union party had, duringthe larger part of the summer, no opposing candidate and platform toattack, and the political campaign languished. Neither were the tidingsfrom the theatre of war of a cheering character. The terrible lossessuffered by Grant's army in the battles of the Wilderness spread generalgloom. Sherman seemed for a while to be in a precarious position beforeAtlanta. The opposition to Lincoln within the Union party grew louder inits complaints and discouraging predictions. Earnest demands were heardthat his candidacy should be withdrawn. Lincoln himself, not knowinghow strongly the masses were attached to him, was haunted by darkforebodings of defeat. Then the scene suddenly changed as if by magic. 

The Democrats, in their national convention, declared the war a failure, demanded, substantially, peace at any price, and nominated on such aplatform General McClellan as their candidate. Their convention hadhardly adjourned when the capture of Atlanta gave a new aspect to themilitary situation. It was like a sun-ray bursting through a darkcloud. The rank and file of the Union party rose with rapidly growingenthusiasm. The song "We are coming, Father Abraham, three hundredthousand strong, " resounded all over the land. Long before the decisiveday arrived, the result was beyond doubt, and Lincoln was re-electedPresident by overwhelming majorities. The election over even hisseverest critics found themselves forced to admit that Lincoln was theonly possible candidate for the Union party in 1864, and that neitherpolitical combinations nor campaign speeches, nor even victories in thefield, were needed to insure his success. The plain people had all thewhile been satisfied with Abraham Lincoln: they confided in him; theyloved him; they felt themselves near to him; they saw personified in himthe cause of Union and freedom; and they went to the ballot-box for himin their strength. 

The hour of triumph called out the characteristic impulses of hisnature. The opposition within the Union party had stung him to thequick. Now he had his opponents before him, baffled and humiliated. Nota moment did he lose to stretch out the hand of friendship to all. "Nowthat the election is over, " he said, in response to a serenade, "may notall, having a common interest, reunite in a common effort to save ourcommon country? For my own part, I have striven, and will strive, toplace no obstacle in the way. So long as I have been here I have notwillingly planted a thorn in any man's bosom. While I am deeplysensible to the high compliment of a re-election, it adds nothing tomy satisfaction that any other man may be pained or disappointed by theresult. May I ask those who were with me to join with me in the samespirit toward those who were against me?" This was Abraham Lincoln'scharacter as tested in the furnace of prosperity. 

The war was virtually decided, but not yet ended. Sherman wasirresistibly carrying the Union flag through the South. Grant had hisiron hand upon the ramparts of Richmond. The days of the Confederacywere evidently numbered. Only the last blow remained to be struck. ThenLincoln's second inauguration came, and with it his second inauguraladdress. Lincoln's famous "Gettysburg speech" has been much and justlyadmired. But far greater, as well as far more characteristic, was thatinaugural in which he poured out the whole devotion and tenderness ofhis great soul. It had all the solemnity of a father's last admonitionand blessing to his children before he lay down to die. These wereits closing words: "Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that thismighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet if God wills that itcontinue until all the wealth piled up by the bondman's two hundred andfifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop ofblood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, `Thejudgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. ' With malicetoward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as Godgives us to see the right, let us strive to finish the work we are in;to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shall have borne thebattle, and for his widow and his orphan; to do all which may achieveand cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with allnations. "

This was like a sacred poem. No American President had ever spoken wordslike these to the American people. America never had a President whofound such words in the depth of his heart. 

Now followed the closing scenes of the war. The Southern armies foughtbravely to the last, but all in vain. Richmond fell. Lincoln himselfentered the city on foot, accompanied only by a few officers and asquad of sailors who had rowed him ashore from the flotilla in the JamesRiver, a negro picked up on the way serving as a guide. Never had theworld seen a more modest conqueror and a more characteristic triumphalprocession, no army with banners and drums, only a throng of those whohad been slaves, hastily run together, escorting the victorious chiefinto the capital of the vanquished foe. We are told that they pressedaround him, kissed his hands and his garments, and shouted and dancedfor joy, while tears ran down the President's care-furrowed cheeks. 

A few days more brought the surrender of Lee's army, and peace wasassured. The people of the North were wild with joy. Everywherefestive guns were booming, bells pealing, the churches ringing withthanksgivings, and jubilant multitudes thronging the thoroughfares, whensuddenly the news flashed over the land that Abraham Lincoln had beenmurdered. The people were stunned by the blow. Then a wail of sorrowwent up such as America had never heard before. Thousands of Northernhouseholds grieved as if they had lost their dearest member. Many aSouthern man cried out in his heart that his people had been robbedof their best friend in their humiliation and distress, when AbrahamLincoln was struck down. It was as if the tender affection which hiscountrymen bore him had inspired all nations with a common sentiment. All civilized mankind stood mourning around the coffin of the deadPresident. Many of those, here and abroad, who not long before hadridiculed and reviled him were among the first to hasten on with theirflowers of eulogy, and in that universal chorus of lamentation andpraise there was not a voice that did not tremble with genuine emotion. Never since Washington's death had there been such unanimity of judgmentas to a man's virtues and greatness; and even Washington's death, although his name was held in greater reverence, did not touch sosympathetic a chord in the people's hearts. 

Nor can it be said that this was owing to the tragic character ofLincoln's end. It is true, the death of this gentlest and most mercifulof rulers by the hand of a mad fanatic was well apt to exalt him beyondhis merits in the estimation of those who loved him, and to make hisrenown the object of peculiarly tender solicitude. But it is also truethat the verdict pronounced upon him in those days has been affectedlittle by time, and that historical inquiry has served rather toincrease than to lessen the appreciation of his virtues, his abilities, his services. Giving the fullest measure of credit to his greatministers, --to Seward for his conduct of foreign affairs, to Chase forthe management of the finances under terrible difficulties, to Stantonfor the performance of his tremendous task as war secretary, --andreadily acknowledging that without the skill and fortitude of the greatcommanders, and the heroism of the soldiers and sailors under them, success could not have been achieved, the historian still finds thatLincoln's judgment and will were by no means governed by those aroundhim; that the most important steps were owing to his initiative; thathis was the deciding and directing mind; and that it was pre-eminentlyhe whose sagacity and whose character enlisted for the administrationin its struggles the countenance, the sympathy, and the support of thepeople. It is found, even, that his judgment on military matters wasastonishingly acute, and that the advice and instructions he gave to thegenerals commanding in the field would not seldom have done honor to theablest of them. History, therefore, without overlooking, or palliating, or excusing any of his shortcomings or mistakes, continues to placehim foremost among the saviours of the Union and the liberators of theslave. More than that, it awards to him the merit of having accomplishedwhat but few political philosophers would have recognized aspossible, --of leading the republic through four years of furious civilconflict without any serious detriment to its free institutions. 

He was, indeed, while President, violently denounced by the oppositionas a tyrant and a usurper, for having gone beyond his constitutionalpowers in authorizing or permitting the temporary suppression ofnewspapers, and in wantonly suspending the writ of habeas corpus andresorting to arbitrary arrests. Nobody should be blamed who, when suchthings are done, in good faith and from patriotic motives protestsagainst them. In a republic, arbitrary stretches of power, even whendemanded by necessity, should never be permitted to pass without aprotest on the one hand, and without an apology on the other. It is wellthey did not so pass during our civil war. That arbitrary measures wereresorted to is true. That they were resorted to most sparingly, and onlywhen the government thought them absolutely required by the safety ofthe republic, will now hardly be denied. But certain it is that thehistory of the world does not furnish a single example of a governmentpassing through so tremendous a crisis as our civil war was with sosmall a record of arbitrary acts, and so little interference with theordinary course of law outside the field of military operations. NoAmerican President ever wielded such power as that which was thrust intoLincoln's hands. It is to be hoped that no American President everwill have to be entrusted with such power again. But no man was everentrusted with it to whom its seductions were less dangerous than theyproved to be to Abraham Lincoln. With scrupulous care he endeavored, even under the most trying circumstances, to remain strictly within theconstitutional limitations of his authority; and whenever the boundarybecame indistinct, or when the dangers of the situation forced himto cross it, he was equally careful to mark his acts as exceptionalmeasures, justifiable only by the imperative necessities of the civilwar, so that they might not pass into history as precedents for similaracts in time of peace. It is an unquestionable fact that during thereconstruction period which followed the war, more things were donecapable of serving as dangerous precedents than during the war itself. Thus it may truly be said of him not only that under his guidance therepublic was saved from disruption and the country was purified of theblot of slavery, but that, during the stormiest and most perilous crisisin our history, he so conducted the government and so wielded his almostdictatorial power as to leave essentially intact our free institutionsin all things that concern the rights and liberties of the citizens. He understood well the nature of the problem. In his first message toCongress he defined it in admirably pointed language: "Must a governmentbe of necessity too strong for the liberties of its own people, ortoo weak to maintain its own existence? Is there in all republics thisinherent weakness?" This question he answered in the name of the greatAmerican republic, as no man could have answered it better, with atriumphant "No. .. . "

It has been said that Abraham Lincoln died at the right moment for hisfame. However that may be, he had, at the time of his death, certainlynot exhausted his usefulness to his country. He was probably the onlyman who could have guided the nation through the perplexities of thereconstruction period in such a manner as to prevent in the work ofpeace the revival of the passions of the war. He would indeed not haveescaped serious controversy as to details of policy; but he could haveweathered it far better than any other statesman of his time, for hisprestige with the active politicians had been immensely strengthened byhis triumphant re-election; and, what is more important, he would havebeen supported by the confidence of the victorious Northern people thathe would do all to secure the safety of the Union and the rights ofthe emancipated negro, and at the same time by the confidence of thedefeated Southern people that nothing would be done by him from motivesof vindictiveness, or of unreasoning fanaticism, or of a selfish partyspirit. "With malice toward none, with charity for all, " the foremostof the victors would have personified in himself the genius ofreconciliation. 

He might have rendered the country a great service in another direction. A few days after the fall of Richmond, he pointed out to a friend thecrowd of office-seekers besieging his door. "Look at that, " said he. "Now we have conquered the rebellion, but here you see something thatmay become more dangerous to this republic than the rebellion itself. "It is true, Lincoln as President did not profess what we now call civilservice reform principles. He used the patronage of the governmentin many cases avowedly to reward party work, in many others to formcombinations and to produce political effects advantageous to the Unioncause, and in still others simply to put the right man into the rightplace. But in his endeavors to strengthen the Union cause, and in hissearch for able and useful men for public duties, he frequently wentbeyond the limits of his party, and gradually accustomed himself to thethought that, while party service had its value, considerations ofthe public interest were, as to appointments to office, of far greaterconsequence. Moreover, there had been such a mingling of differentpolitical elements in support of the Union during the civil war thatLincoln, standing at the head of that temporarily united motley mass, hardly felt himself, in the narrow sense of the term, a party man. And as he became strongly impressed with the dangers brought upon therepublic by the use of public offices as party spoils, it is by no meansimprobable that, had he survived the all-absorbing crisis and found timeto turn to other objects, one of the most important reforms of laterdays would have been pioneered by his powerful authority. This wasnot to be. But the measure of his achievements was full enough forimmortality. 

To the younger generation Abraham Lincoln has already become ahalf-mythical figure, which, in the haze of historic distance, growsto more and more heroic proportions, but also loses in distinctness ofoutline and feature. This is indeed the common lot of popular heroes;but the Lincoln legend will be more than ordinarily apt to becomefanciful, as his individuality, assembling seemingly incongruousqualities and forces in a character at the same time grand and mostlovable, was so unique, and his career so abounding in startlingcontrasts. As the state of society in which Abraham Lincoln grew uppasses away, the world will read with increasing wonder of the man who, not only of the humblest origin, but remaining the simplest andmost unpretending of citizens, was raised to a position of powerunprecedented in our history; who was the gentlest and most peace-lovingof mortals, unable to see any creature suffer without a pang in his ownbreast, and suddenly found himself called to conduct the greatest andbloodiest of our wars; who wielded the power of government when sternresolution and relentless force were the order of the day and then wonand ruled the popular mind and heart by the tender sympathies of hisnature; who was a cautious conservative by temperament and mental habit, and led the most sudden and sweeping social revolution of our time;who, preserving his homely speech and rustic manner even in the mostconspicuous position of that period, drew upon himself the scoffs ofpolite society, and then thrilled the soul of mankind with utterances ofwonderful beauty and grandeur; who, in his heart the best friend of thedefeated South, was murdered because a crazy fanatic took him for itsmost cruel enemy; who, while in power, was beyond measure lampooned andmaligned by sectional passion and an excited party spirit, and aroundwhose bier friend and foe gathered to praise him which they have sincenever ceased to do--as one of the greatest of Americans and the best ofmen. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN, BY JOSEPH H. CHOATE

[This Address was delivered before the Edinburgh PhilosophicalInstitution, November 13, 1900. It is included in this set with thecourteous permission of the author and of Messrs. Thomas Y. Crowell &Company. ]

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

When you asked me to deliver the Inaugural Address on this occasion, I recognized that I owed this compliment to the fact that I was theofficial representative of America, and in selecting a subject Iventured to think that I might interest you for an hour in a brief studyin popular government, as illustrated by the life of the most Americanof all Americans. I therefore offer no apology for asking your attentionto Abraham Lincoln--to his unique character and the part he bore intwo important achievements of modern history: the preservation of theintegrity of the American Union and the emancipation of the coloredrace. 

During his brief term of power he was probably the object of more abuse, vilification, and ridicule than any other man in the world; but when hefell by the hand of an assassin, at the very moment of his stupendousvictory, all the nations of the earth vied with one another in payinghomage to his character, and the thirty-five years that have sinceelapsed have established his place in history as one of the greatbenefactors not of his own country alone, but of the human race. 

One of many noble utterances upon the occasion of his death was that inwhich 'Punch' made its magnanimous recantation of the spirit with whichit had pursued him:

 "Beside this corpse that bears for winding sheet The stars and stripes he lived to rear anew, Between the mourners at his head and feet, Say, scurrile jester, is there room for you?

 . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 

 "Yes, he had lived to shame me from my sneer, To lame my pencil, and confute my pen To make me own this hind--of princes peer, This rail-splitter--a true born king of men. "

Fiction can furnish no match for the romance of his life, and biographywill be searched in vain for such startling vicissitudes of fortune, so great power and glory won out of such humble beginnings and adversecircumstances. 

Doubtless you are all familiar with the salient points of hisextraordinary career. In the zenith of his fame he was the wise, patient, courageous, successful ruler of men; exercising more power thanany monarch of his time, not for himself, but for the good of the peoplewho had placed it in his hands; commander-in-chief of a vast militarypower, which waged with ultimate success the greatest war of thecentury; the triumphant champion of popular government, the delivererof four millions of his fellowmen from bondage; honored by mankind asStatesman, President, and Liberator. 

Let us glance now at the first half of the brief life of which this wasthe glorious and happy consummation. Nothing could be more squalid andmiserable than the home in which Abraham Lincoln was born--a one-roomedcabin without floor or window in what was then the wilderness ofKentucky, in the heart of that frontier life which swiftly movedwestward from the Alleghanies to the Mississippi, always in advance ofschools and churches, of books and money, of railroads and newspapers, of all things which are generally regarded as the comforts and evennecessaries of life. His father, ignorant, needy, and thriftless, content if he could keep soul and body together for himself and hisfamily, was ever seeking, without success, to better his unhappycondition by moving on from one such scene of dreary desolation toanother. The rude society which surrounded them was not much better. Thestruggle for existence was hard, and absorbed all their energies. Theywere fighting the forest, the wild beast, and the retreating savage. From the time when he could barely handle tools until he attained hismajority, Lincoln's life was that of a simple farm laborer, poorly clad, housed, and fed, at work either on his father's wretched farm or hiredout to neighboring farmers. But in spite, or perhaps by means, of thisrude environment, he grew to be a stalwart giant, reaching six feet fourat nineteen, and fabulous stories are told of his feats of strength. With the growth of this mighty frame began that strange education whichin his ripening years was to qualify him for the great destiny thatawaited him, and the development of those mental faculties and moralendowments which, by the time he reached middle life, were to make himthe sagacious, patient, and triumphant leader of a great nation in thecrisis of its fate. His whole schooling, obtained during such odd timesas could be spared from grinding labor, did not amount in all to as muchas one year, and the quality of the teaching was of the lowest possiblegrade, including only the elements of reading, writing, and ciphering. But out of these simple elements, when rightly used by the right man, education is achieved, and Lincoln knew how to use them. As so oftenhappens, he seemed to take warning from his father's unfortunateexample. Untiring industry, an insatiable thirst for knowledge, andan ever-growing desire to rise above his surroundings, were earlymanifestations of his character. 

Books were almost unknown in that community, but the Bible was inevery house, and somehow or other Pilgrim's Progress, AEsop's Fables, a History of the United States, and a Life of Washington fell into hishands. He trudged on foot many miles through the wilderness to borrow anEnglish Grammar, and is said to have devoured greedily the contents ofthe Statutes of Indiana that fell in his way. These few volumes he readand reread--and his power of assimilation was great. To be shut in witha few books and to master them thoroughly sometimes does more for thedevelopment of character than freedom to range at large, in a cursoryand indiscriminate way, through wide domains of literature. This youth'smind, at any rate, was thoroughly saturated with Biblical knowledge andBiblical language, which, in after life, he used with great readinessand effect. But it was the constant use of the little knowledge which hehad that developed and exercised his mental powers. After the hardday's work was done, while others slept, he toiled on, always reading orwriting. From an early age he did his own thinking and made up his ownmind--invaluable traits in the future President. Paper was such a scarcecommodity that, by the evening firelight, he would write and cipheron the back of a wooden shovel, and then shave it off to make room formore. By and by, as he approached manhood, he began speaking in the rudegatherings of the neighborhood, and so laid the foundation of that artof persuading his fellow-men which was one rich result of his education, and one great secret of his subsequent success. 

Accustomed as we are in these days of steam and telegraphs to have everyintelligent boy survey the whole world each morning before breakfast, and inform himself as to what is going on in every nation, it is hardlypossible to conceive how benighted and isolated was the condition of thecommunity at Pigeon Creek in Indiana, of which the family of Lincoln'sfather formed a part, or how eagerly an ambitious and high-spirited boy, such as he, must have yearned to escape. The first glimpse that he evergot of any world beyond the narrow confines of his home was in 1828, atthe age of nineteen, when a neighbor employed him to accompany his sondown the river to New Orleans to dispose of a flatboat of produce--acommission which he discharged with great success. 

Shortly after his return from this his first excursion into the outerworld, his father, tired of failure in Indiana, packed his family andall his worldly goods into a single wagon drawn by two yoke of oxen, andafter a fourteen days' tramp through the wilderness, pitched his camponce more, in Illinois. Here Abraham, having come of age and being nowhis own master, rendered the last service of his minority by ploughingthe fifteen-acre lot and splitting from the tall walnut trees of theprimeval forest enough rails to surround the little clearing with afence. Such was the meagre outfit of this coming leader of men, at theage when the future British Prime Minister or statesman emerges from theuniversity as a double first or senior wrangler, with every advantagethat high training and broad culture and association with the wisest andthe best of men and women can give, and enters upon some form of publicservice on the road to usefulness and honor, the University course beingonly the first stage of the public training. So Lincoln, at twenty-one, had just begun his preparation for the public life to which he soonbegan to aspire. For some years yet he must continue to earn his dailybread by the sweat of his brow, having absolutely no means, no home, no friend to consult. More farm work as a hired hand, a clerkship in avillage store, the running of a mill, another trip to New Orleans on aflatboat of his own contriving, a pilot's berth on the river--these werethe means by which he subsisted until, in the summer of 1832, when hewas twenty-three years of age, an event occurred which gave him publicrecognition. 

The Black Hawk war broke out, and, the Governor of Illinois calling forvolunteers to repel the band of savages whose leader bore that name, Lincoln enlisted and was elected captain by his comrades, among whom hehad already established his supremacy by signal feats of strength andmore than one successful single combat. During the brief hostilitieshe was engaged in no battle and won no military glory, but his localleadership was established. The same year he offered himself as acandidate for the Legislature of Illinois, but failed at the polls. Yethis vast popularity with those who knew him was manifest. The districtconsisted of several counties, but the unanimous vote of the peopleof his own county was for Lincoln. Another unsuccessful attempt atstore-keeping was followed by better luck at surveying, until his horseand instruments were levied upon under execution for the debts of hisbusiness adventure. 

I have been thus detailed in sketching his early years because uponthese strange foundations the structure of his great fame and servicewas built. In the place of a school and university training fortunesubstituted these trials, hardships, and struggles as a preparation forthe great work which he had to do. It turned out to be exactly whatthe emergency required. Ten years instead at the public school and theuniversity certainly never could have fitted this man for the uniquework which was to be thrown upon him. Some other Moses would have had tolead us to our Jordan, to the sight of our promised land of liberty. 

At the age of twenty-five he became a member of the Legislature ofIllinois, and so continued for eight years, and, in the meantime, qualified himself by reading such law books as he could borrow atrandom--for he was too poor to buy any to be called to the Bar. Forhis second quarter of a century--during which a single term in Congressintroduced him into the arena of national questions--he gave himself upto law and politics. In spite of his soaring ambition, his two yearsin Congress gave him no premonition of the great destiny that awaitedhim, --and at its close, in 1849, we find him an unsuccessful applicantto the President for appointment as Commissioner of the General LandOffice--a purely administrative bureau; a fortunate escape forhimself and for his country. Year by year his knowledge and power, hisexperience and reputation extended, and his mental faculties seemed togrow by what they fed on. His power of persuasion, which had always beenmarked, was developed to an extraordinary degree, now that he becameengaged in congenial questions and subjects. Little by little he rose toprominence at the Bar, and became the most effective public speaker inthe West. Not that he possessed any of the graces of the orator; but hislogic was invincible, and his clearness and force of statement impressedupon his hearers the convictions of his honest mind, while his broadsympathies and sparkling and genial humor made him a universal favoriteas far and as fast as his acquaintance extended. 

These twenty years that elapsed from the time of his establishment asa lawyer and legislator in Springfield, the new capital of Illinois, furnished a fitting theatre for the development and display of his greatfaculties, and, with his new and enlarged opportunities, he obviouslygrew in mental stature in this second period of his career, as ifto compensate for the absolute lack of advantages under which he hadsuffered in youth. As his powers enlarged, his reputation extended, for he was always before the people, felt a warm sympathy with all thatconcerned them, took a zealous part in the discussion of every publicquestion, and made his personal influence ever more widely and deeplyfelt. 

My brethren of the legal profession will naturally ask me, how couldthis rough backwoodsman, whose youth had been spent in the forest oron the farm and the flatboat, without culture or training, education orstudy, by the random reading, on the wing, of a few miscellaneous lawbooks, become a learned and accomplished lawyer? Well, he never did. He never would have earned his salt as a 'Writer' for the 'Signet', nor have won a place as advocate in the Court of Session, where thetechnique of the profession has reached its highest perfection, andcenturies of learning and precedent are involved in the equipment of alawyer. Dr. Holmes, when asked by an anxious young mother, "When shouldthe education of a child begin?" replied, "Madam, at least two centuriesbefore it is born!" and so I am sure it is with the Scots lawyer. 

But not so in Illinois in 1840. Between 1830 and 1880 its populationincreased twenty-fold, and when Lincoln began practising law inSpringfield in 1837, life in Illinois was very crude and simple, and sowere the courts and the administration of justice. Books and librarieswere scarce. But the people loved justice, upheld the law, and followedthe courts, and soon found their favorites among the advocates. Thefundamental principles of the common law, as set forth by Blackstoneand Chitty, were not so difficult to acquire; and brains, common sense, force of character, tenacity of purpose, ready wit and power of speechdid the rest, and supplied all the deficiencies of learning. 

The lawsuits of those days were extremely simple, and the principles ofnatural justice were mainly relied on to dispose of them at the Barand on the Bench, without resort to technical learning. Railroads, corporations absorbing the chief business of the community, combinedand inherited wealth, with all the subtle and intricate questions theybreed, had not yet come in--and so the professional agents and theequipment which they require were not needed. But there were many highlyeducated and powerful men at the Bar of Illinois, even in those earlydays, whom the spirit of enterprise had carried there in search of fameand fortune. It was by constant contact and conflict with these thatLincoln acquired professional strength and skill. Every community andevery age creates its own Bar, entirely adequate for its present usesand necessities. So in Illinois, as the population and wealth of theState kept on doubling and quadrupling, its Bar presented a growingabundance of learning and science and technical skill. The earlypractitioners grew with its growth and mastered the requisite knowledge. Chicago soon grew to be one of the largest and richest and certainlythe most intensely active city on the continent, and if any of myprofessional friends here had gone there in Lincoln's later years, totry or argue a cause, or transact other business, with any idea thatEdinburgh or London had a monopoly of legal learning, science, orsubtlety, they would certainly have found their mistake. 

In those early days in the West, every lawyer, especially every courtlawyer, was necessarily a politician, constantly engaged in the publicdiscussion of the many questions evolved from the rapid developmentof town, county, State, and Federal affairs. Then and there, in thisregard, public discussion supplied the place which the universalactivity of the press has since monopolized, and the public speaker who, by clearness, force, earnestness, and wit; could make himself felt onthe questions of the day would rapidly come to the front. In the absenceof that immense variety of popular entertainments which now feed thepublic taste and appetite, the people found their chief amusement infrequenting the courts and public and political assemblies. In eitherplace, he who impressed, entertained, and amused them most was thehero of the hour. They did not discriminate very carefully between theeloquence of the forum and the eloquence of the hustings. Human natureruled in both alike, and he who was the most effective speaker in apolitical harangue was often retained as most likely to win in a causeto be tried or argued. And I have no doubt in this way many retainerscame to Lincoln. Fees, money in any form, had no charms for him--inhis eager pursuit of fame he could not afford to make money. He wasambitious to distinguish himself by some great service to mankind, andthis ambition for fame and real public service left no room for avaricein his composition. However much he earned, he seems to have ended everyyear hardly richer than he began it, and yet, as the years passed, fees came to him freely. One of L 1, 000 is recorded--a very largeprofessional fee at that time, even in any part of America, the paradiseof lawyers. I lay great stress on Lincoln's career as a lawyer--muchmore than his biographers do because in America a state of thingsexists wholly different from that which prevails in Great Britain. Theprofession of the law always has been and is to this day the principalavenue to public life; and I am sure that his training and experiencein the courts had much to do with the development of those forces ofintellect and character which he soon displayed on a broader arena. 

It was in political controversy, of course, that he acquired his widereputation, and made his deep and lasting impression upon the people ofwhat had now become the powerful State of Illinois, and upon the peopleof the Great West, to whom the political power and control of the UnitedStates were already surely and swiftly passing from the older EasternStates. It was this reputation and this impression, and the familiarknowledge of his character which had come to them from his localleadership, that happily inspired the people of the West to present himas their candidate, and to press him upon the Republican convention of1860 as the fit and necessary leader in the struggle for life which wasbefore the nation. 

That struggle, as you all know, arose out of the terrible question ofslavery--and I must trust to your general knowledge of the historyof that question to make intelligible the attitude and leadership ofLincoln as the champion of the hosts of freedom in the final contest. Negro slavery had been firmly established in the Southern States froman early period of their history. In 1619, the year before the Mayflowerlanded our Pilgrim Fathers upon Plymouth Rock, a Dutch ship haddischarged a cargo of African slaves at Jamestown in Virginia: Allthrough the colonial period their importation had continued. A few hadfound their way into the Northern States, but none of them in sufficientnumbers to constitute danger or to afford a basis for political power. At the time of the adoption of the Federal Constitution, there is nodoubt that the principal members of the convention not only condemnedslavery as a moral, social, and political evil, but believed that bythe suppression of the slave trade it was in the course of gradualextinction in the South, as it certainly was in the North. Washington, in his will, provided for the emancipation of his own slaves, andsaid to Jefferson that it "was among his first wishes to see some planadopted by which slavery in his country might be abolished. " Jeffersonsaid, referring to the institution: "I tremble for my country when Ithink that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever, "--andFranklin, Adams, Hamilton, and Patrick Henry were all utterly opposedto it. But it was made the subject of a fatal compromise in the FederalConstitution, whereby its existence was recognized in the States as abasis of representation, the prohibition of the importation of slaveswas postponed for twenty years, and the return of fugitive slavesprovided for. But no imminent danger was apprehended from it till, bythe invention of the cotton gin in 1792, cotton culture by negro laborbecame at once and forever the leading industry of the South, and gavea new impetus to the importation of slaves, so that in 1808, whenthe constitutional prohibition took effect, their numbers had vastlyincreased. From that time forward slavery became the basis of a greatpolitical power, and the Southern States, under all circumstances and atevery opportunity, carried on a brave and unrelenting struggle for itsmaintenance and extension. 

The conscience of the North was slow to rise against it, though bittercontroversies from time to time took place. The Southern leadersthreatened disunion if their demands were not complied with. To save theUnion, compromise after compromise was made, but each one in the end wasbroken. The Missouri Compromise, made in 1820 upon the occasion ofthe admission of Missouri into the Union as a slave State, whereby, inconsideration of such admission, slavery was forever excluded from theNorthwest Territory, was ruthlessly repealed in 1854, by a Congresselected in the interests of the slave power, the intent being to forceslavery into that vast territory which had so long been dedicated tofreedom. This challenge at last aroused the slumbering conscience andpassion of the North, and led to the formation of the Republican partyfor the avowed purpose of preventing, by constitutional methods, thefurther extension of slavery. 

In its first campaign, in 1856, though it failed to elect itscandidates; it received a surprising vote and carried many of theStates. No one could any longer doubt that the North had made up itsmind that no threats of disunion should deter it from pressing itscherished purpose and performing its long neglected duty. From theoutset, Lincoln was one of the most active and effective leaders andspeakers of the new party, and the great debates between Lincoln andDouglas in 1858, as the respective champions of the restriction andextension of slavery, attracted the attention of the whole country. Lincoln's powerful arguments carried conviction everywhere. His moralnature was thoroughly aroused his conscience was stirred to the quick. Unless slavery was wrong, nothing was wrong. Was each man, of whatevercolor, entitled to the fruits of his own labor, or could one man livein idle luxury by the sweat of another's brow, whose skin was darker?He was an implicit believer in that principle of the Declaration ofIndependence that all men are vested with certain inalienable rightsthe equal rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. On thisdoctrine he staked his case and carried it. We have time only for one ortwo sentences in which he struck the keynote of the contest. 

"The real issue in this country is the eternal struggle between thesetwo principles--right and wrong--throughout the world. They are the twoprinciples that have stood face to face from the beginning of time, andwill ever continue to struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of kings. It is the same principle inwhatever shape it develops itself. It is the same spirit that says, 'Youwork and toil and earn bread and I'll eat it. '"

He foresaw with unerring vision that the conflict was inevitable andirrepressible--that one or the other, the right or the wrong, freedomor slavery, must ultimately prevail and wholly prevail, throughout thecountry; and this was the principle that carried the war, once begun, toa finish. 

One sentence of his is immortal:

"Under the operation of the policy of compromise, the slavery agitationhas not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinionit will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'Ahouse divided against itself cannot stand. ' I believe this governmentcannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expectthe Union to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall, but I doexpect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing orall the other; either the opponents of slavery will arrest the furtherspread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in thebelief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocateswill push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all theStates, old as well as new, North as well as South. "

During the entire decade from 1850 to 1860 the agitation of theslavery question was at the boiling point, and events which have becomehistorical continually indicated the near approach of the overwhelmingstorm. No sooner had the Compromise Acts of 1850 resulted in a temporarypeace, which everybody said must be final and perpetual, than newoutbreaks came. The forcible carrying away of fugitive slaves by Federaltroops from Boston agitated that ancient stronghold of freedom to itsfoundations. The publication of Uncle Tom's Cabin, which truly exposedthe frightful possibilities of the slave system; the reckless attemptsby force and fraud to establish it in Kansas against the will of thevast majority of the settlers; the beating of Summer in the SenateChamber for words spoken in debate; the Dred Scott decision in theSupreme Court, which made the nation realize that the slave power had atlast reached the fountain of Federal justice; and finally the executionof John Brown, for his wild raid into Virginia, to invite the slaves torally to the standard of freedom which he unfurled:--all these eventstend to illustrate and confirm Lincoln's contention that the nationcould not permanently continue half slave and half free, but must becomeall one thing or all the other. When John Brown lay under sentence ofdeath he declared that now he was sure that slavery must be wiped out inblood; but neither he nor his executioners dreamt that within four yearsa million soldiers would be marching across the country for its finalextirpation, to the music of the war-song of the great conflict:

 "John Brown's body lies a-mouldering in the grave, But his soul is marching on. "

And now, at the age of fifty-one, this child of the wilderness, thisfarm laborer, rail-sputter, flatboatman, this surveyor, lawyer, orator, statesman, and patriot, found himself elected by the great party whichwas pledged to prevent at all hazards the further extension of slavery, as the chief magistrate of the Republic, bound to carry out thatpurpose, to be the leader and ruler of the nation in its most tryinghour. 

Those who believe that there is a living Providence that overrules andconducts the affairs of nations, find in the elevation of this plain manto this extraordinary fortune and to this great duty, which he sofitly discharged, a signal vindication of their faith. Perhaps to thisphilosophical institution the judgment of our philosopher Emerson willcommend itself as a just estimate of Lincoln's historical place. 

"His occupying the chair of state was a triumph of the good sense ofmankind and of the public conscience. He grew according to the need; hismind mastered the problem of the day: and as the problem grew, so didhis comprehension of it. In the war there was no place for holidaymagistrate, nor fair-weather sailor. The new pilot was hurried tothe helm in a tornado. In four years--four years of battle days--hisendurance, his fertility of resource, his magnanimity, were sorelytried, and never found wanting. There, by his courage, his justice, hiseven temper, his fertile counsel, his humanity, he stood a heroic figurein the centre of a heroic epoch. He is the true history of the Americanpeople in his time, the true representative of this continent--fatherof his country, the pulse of twenty millions throbbing in his heart, thethought of their mind--articulated in his tongue. "

He was born great, as distinguished from those who achieve greatness orhave it thrust upon them, and his inherent capacity, mental, moral, andphysical, having been recognized by the educated intelligence of a freepeople, they happily chose him for their ruler in a day of deadly peril. 

It is now forty years since I first saw and heard Abraham Lincoln, butthe impression which he left on my mind is ineffaceable. After his greatsuccesses in the West he came to New York to make a political address. He appeared in every sense of the word like one of the plain peopleamong whom he loved to be counted. At first sight there was nothingimpressive or imposing about him--except that his great stature singledhim out from the crowd: his clothes hung awkwardly on his giant frame;his face was of a dark pallor, without the slightest tinge of color; hisseamed and rugged features bore the furrows of hardship and struggle;his deep-set eyes looked sad and anxious; his countenance in repose gavelittle evidence of that brain power which had raised him from the lowestto the highest station among his countrymen; as he talked to me beforethe meeting, he seemed ill at ease, with that sort of apprehension whicha young man might feel before presenting himself to a new and strangeaudience, whose critical disposition he dreaded. It was a greataudience, including all the noted men--all the learned and cultured ofhis party in New York editors, clergymen, statesmen, lawyers, merchants, critics. They were all very curious to hear him. His fame as a powerfulspeaker had preceded him, and exaggerated rumor of his wit--the worstforerunner of an orator--had reached the East. When Mr. Bryant presentedhim, on the high platform of the Cooper Institute, a vast sea of eagerupturned faces greeted him, full of intense curiosity to see what thisrude child of the people was like. He was equal to the occasion. Whenhe spoke he was transformed; his eye kindled, his voice rang, his faceshone and seemed to light up the whole assembly. For an hour and a halfhe held his audience in the hollow of his hand. His style of speech andmanner of delivery were severely simple. What Lowell called "thegrand simplicities of the Bible, " with which he was so familiar, werereflected in his discourse. With no attempt at ornament or rhetoric, without parade or pretence, he spoke straight to the point. If any cameexpecting the turgid eloquence or the ribaldry of the frontier, theymust have been startled at the earnest and sincere purity of hisutterances. It was marvellous to see how this untutored man, by mereself-discipline and the chastening of his own spirit, had outgrown allmeretricious arts, and found his own way to the grandeur and strength ofabsolute simplicity. 

He spoke upon the theme which he had mastered so thoroughly. Hedemonstrated by copious historical proofs and masterly logic that thefathers who created the Constitution in order to form a more perfectunion, to establish justice, and to secure the blessings of libertyto themselves and their posterity, intended to empower the FederalGovernment to exclude slavery from the Territories. In the kindliestspirit he protested against the avowed threat of the Southern States todestroy the Union if, in order to secure freedom in those vast regionsout of which future States were to be carved, a Republican Presidentwere elected. He closed with an appeal to his audience, spoken with allthe fire of his aroused and kindling conscience, with a full outpouringof his love of justice and liberty, to maintain their political purposeon that lofty and unassailable issue of right and wrong which alonecould justify it, and not to be intimidated from their high resolve andsacred duty by any threats of destruction to the government or of ruinto themselves. He concluded with this telling sentence, which drove thewhole argument home to all our hearts: "Let us have faith that rightmakes might, and in that faith let us to the end dare to do our duty aswe understand it. " That night the great hall, and the next day the wholecity, rang with delighted applause and congratulations, and he who hadcome as a stranger departed with the laurels of great triumph. 

Alas! in five years from that exulting night I saw him again, for thelast time, in the same city, borne in his coffin through its drapedstreets. With tears and lamentations a heart-broken people accompaniedhim from Washington, the scene of his martyrdom, to his lastresting-place in the young city of the West where he had worked his wayto fame. 

Never was a new ruler in a more desperate plight than Lincoln whenhe entered office on the fourth of March, 1861, four months after hiselection, and took his oath to support the Constitution and the Union. The intervening time had been busily employed by the Southern States incarrying out their threat of disunion in the event of his election. As soon as the fact was ascertained, seven of them had seceded and hadseized upon the forts, arsenals, navy yards, and other public propertyof the United States within their boundaries, and were making everypreparation for war. In the meantime the retiring President, who hadbeen elected by the slave power, and who thought the seceding Statescould not lawfully be coerced, had done absolutely nothing. Lincolnfound himself, by the Constitution, Commander-in-Chief of the Army andNavy of the United States, but with only a remnant of either at hand. Each was to be created on a great scale out of the unknown resources ofa nation untried in war. 

In his mild and conciliatory inaugural address, while appealing to theseceding States to return to their allegiance, he avowed his purpose tokeep the solemn oath he had taken that day, to see that the laws of theUnion were faithfully executed, and to use the troops to recover theforts, navy yards, and other property belonging to the government. Itis probable, however, that neither side actually realized that warwas inevitable, and that the other was determined to fight, until theassault on Fort Sumter presented the South as the first aggressorand roused the North to use every possible resource to maintain thegovernment and the imperilled Union, and to vindicate the supremacy ofthe flag over every inch of the territory of the United States. Thefact that Lincoln's first proclamation called for only 75, 000 troops, toserve for three months, shows how inadequate was even his idea of whatthe future had in store. But from that moment Lincoln and his loyalsupporters never faltered in their purpose. They knew they could win, that it was their duty to win, and that for America the whole hopeof the future depended upon their winning; for now by the acts of theseceding States the issue of the election to secure or prevent theextension of slavery--stood transformed into a struggle to preserve orto destroy the Union. 

We cannot follow this contest. You know its gigantic proportions; thatit lasted four years instead of three months; that in its progress, instead of 75, 000 men, more than 2, 000, 000 were enrolled on the sideof the government alone; that the aggregate cost and loss to the nationapproximated to 1, 000, 000, 000 pounds sterling, and that not less than300, 000 brave and precious lives were sacrificed on each side. Historyhas recorded how Lincoln bore himself during these four frightful years;that he was the real President, the responsible and actual head of thegovernment, through it all; that he listened to all advice, heard allparties, and then, always realizing his responsibility to God and thenation, decided every great executive question for himself. His absolutehonesty had become proverbial long before he was President. "Honest AbeLincoln" was the name by which he had been known for years. His everyact attested it. 

In all the grandeur of the vast power that he wielded, he never ceasedto be one of the plain people, as he always called them, never lost orimpaired his perfect sympathy with them, was always in perfect touchwith them and open to their appeals; and here lay the very secret ofhis personality and of his power, for the people in turn gave him theirabsolute confidence. His courage, his fortitude, his patience, hishopefulness, were sorely tried but never exhausted. 

He was true as steel to his generals, but had frequent occasion tochange them, as he found them inadequate. This serious and painful dutyrested wholly upon him, and was perhaps his most important function asCommander-in-Chief; but when, at last, he recognized in General Grantthe master of the situation, the man who could and would bring the warto a triumphant end, he gave it all over to him and upheld him with allhis might. Amid all the pressure and distress that the burdens of officebrought upon him, his unfailing sense of humor saved him; probably itmade it possible for him to live under the burden. He had always beenthe great story-teller of the West, and he used and cultivated thisfaculty to relieve the weight of the load he bore. 

It enabled him to keep the wonderful record of never having lost histemper, no matter what agony he had to bear. A whole night might bespent in recounting the stories of his wit, humor, and harmless sarcasm. But I will recall only two of his sayings, both about General Grant, whoalways found plenty of enemies and critics to urge the President to ousthim from his command. One, I am sure, will interest all Scotchmen. Theyrepeated with malicious intent the gossip that Grant drank. "Whatdoes he drink?" asked Lincoln. "Whiskey, " was, of course, the answer;doubtless you can guess the brand. "Well, " said the President, "justfind out what particular kind he uses and I'll send a barrel to each ofmy other generals. " The other must be as pleasing to the British asto the American ear. When pressed again on other grounds to get rid ofGrant, he declared, "I can't spare that man, he fights!"

He was tender-hearted to a fault, and never could resist the appeals ofwives and mothers of soldiers who had got into trouble and were undersentence of death for their offences. His Secretary of War and otherofficials complained that they never could get deserters shot. As surelyas the women of the culprit's family could get at him he always gaveway. Certainly you will all appreciate his exquisite sympathy with thesuffering relatives of those who had fallen in battle. His heart bledwith theirs. Never was there a more gentle and tender utterance than hisletter to a mother who had given all her sons to her country, written ata time when the angel of death had visited almost every household in theland, and was already hovering over him. 

"I have been shown, " he says, "in the files of the War Department astatement that you are the mother of five sons who have died gloriouslyon the field of battle. I feel how weak and fruitless must be any wordsof mine which should attempt to beguile you from your grief for aloss so overwhelming but I cannot refrain from tendering to you theconsolation which may be found in the thanks of the Republic they diedto save. I pray that our Heavenly Father may assuage the anguish of yourbereavement and leave you only the cherished memory of the loved and thelost, and the solemn pride that must be yours to have laid so costly asacrifice upon the altar of freedom. "

Hardly could your illustrious sovereign, from the depths of her queenlyand womanly heart, have spoken words more touching and tender to soothethe stricken mothers of her own soldiers. 

The Emancipation Proclamation, with which Mr. Lincoln delighted thecountry and the world on the first of January, 1863, will doubtlesssecure for him a foremost place in history among the philanthropistsand benefactors of the race, as it rescued, from hopeless and degradingslavery, so many millions of his fellow-beings described in the law andexisting in fact as "chattels-personal, in the hands of their ownersand possessors, to all intents, constructions, and purposes whatsoever. "Rarely does the happy fortune come to one man to render such a serviceto his kind--to proclaim liberty throughout the land unto all theinhabitants thereof. 

Ideas rule the world, and never was there a more signal instance of thistriumph of an idea than here. William Lloyd Garrison, who thirty yearsbefore had begun his crusade for the abolition of slavery, and had livedto see this glorious and unexpected consummation of the hopeless causeto which he had devoted his life, well described the proclamation asa "great historic event, sublime in its magnitude, momentous andbeneficent in its far-reaching consequences, and eminently just andright alike to the oppressor and the oppressed. "

Lincoln had always been heart and soul opposed to slavery. Traditionsays that on the trip on the flatboat to New Orleans he formed hisfirst and last opinion of slavery at the sight of negroes chained andscourged, and that then and there the iron entered into his soul. Noboy could grow to manhood in those days as a poor white in Kentucky andIndiana, in close contact with slavery or in its neighborhood, without agrowing consciousness of its blighting effects on free labor, as well asof its frightful injustice and cruelty. In the Legislature of Illinois, where the public sentiment was all for upholding the institution andviolently against every movement for its abolition or restriction, uponthe passage of resolutions to that effect he had the courage with onecompanion to put on record his protest, "believing that the institutionof slavery is founded both in injustice and bad policy. " No greatdemonstration of courage, you will say; but that was at a time whenGarrison, for his abolition utterances, had been dragged by an angry mobthrough the streets of Boston with a rope around his body, and inthe very year that Lovejoy in the same State of Illinois was slain byrioters while defending his press, from which he had printed antislaveryappeals. 

In Congress he brought in a bill for gradual abolition in the Districtof Columbia, with compensation to the owners, for until they raisedtreasonable hands against the life of the nation he always maintainedthat the property of the slaveholders, into which they had come by twocenturies of descent, without fault on their part, ought not to be takenaway from them without just compensation. He used to say that, one wayor another, he had voted forty-two times for the Wilmot Proviso, whichMr. Wilmot of Pennsylvania moved as an addition to every bill whichaffected United States territory, "that neither slavery nor involuntaryservitude shall ever exist in any part of the said territory, " and it isevident that his condemnation of the system, on moral grounds as a crimeagainst the human race, and on political grounds as a cancer that wassapping the vitals of the nation, and must master its whole being orbe itself extirpated, grew steadily upon him until it culminated in hisgreat speeches in the Illinois debate. 

By the mere election of Lincoln to the Presidency, the further extensionof slavery into the Territories was rendered forever impossible--Voxpopuli, vox Dei. Revolutions never go backward, and when founded on agreat moral sentiment stirring the heart of an indignant people theiredicts are irresistible and final. Had the slave power acquiesced inthat election, had the Southern States remained under the Constitutionand within the Union, and relied upon their constitutional and legalrights, their favorite institution, immoral as it was, blighting andfatal as it was, might have endured for another century. The great partythat had elected him, unalterably determined against its extension, wasnevertheless pledged not to interfere with its continuance in the Stateswhere it already existed. Of course, when new regions were foreverclosed against it, from its very nature it must have begun to shrinkand to dwindle; and probably gradual and compensated emancipation, which appealed very strongly to the new President's sense of justice andexpediency, would, in the progress of time, by a reversion to the ideasof the founders of the Republic, have found a safe outlet for bothmasters and slaves. But whom the gods wish to destroy they first makemad, and when seven States, afterwards increased to eleven, openlyseceded from the Union, when they declared and began the war upon thenation, and challenged its mighty power to the desperate and protractedstruggle for its life, and for the maintenance of its authority asa nation over its territory, they gave to Lincoln and to freedom thesublime opportunity of history. 

In his first inaugural address, when as yet not a drop of precious bloodhad been shed, while he held out to them the olive branch in one hand, in the other he presented the guarantees of the Constitution, and afterreciting the emphatic resolution of the convention that nominatedhim, that the maintenance inviolate of the "rights of the States, andespecially the right of each State to order and control its own domesticinstitutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essentialto that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of ourpolitical fabric depend, " he reiterated this sentiment, and declared, with no mental reservation, "that all the protection which, consistentlywith the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfullygiven to all the States when lawfully demanded for whatever cause ascheerfully to one section as to another. "

When, however, these magnanimous overtures for peace and reunion wererejected; when the seceding States defied the Constitution and everyclause and principle of it; when they persisted in staying out of theUnion from which they had seceded, and proceeded to carve out of itsterritory a new and hostile empire based on slavery; when they flew atthe throat of the nation and plunged it into the bloodiest war of thenineteenth century the tables were turned, and the belief gradually cameto the mind of the President that if the Rebellion was not soon subduedby force of arms, if the war must be fought out to the bitter end, thento reach that end the salvation of the nation itself might requirethe destruction of slavery wherever it existed; that if the war was tocontinue on one side for Disunion, for no other purpose than to preserveslavery, it must continue on the other side for the Union, to destroyslavery. 

As he said, "Events control me; I cannot control events, " and as thedreadful war progressed and became more deadly and dangerous, theunalterable conviction was forced upon him that, in order that thefrightful sacrifice of life and treasure on both sides might not be allin vain, it had become his duty as Commander-in-Chief of the Army, asa necessary war measure, to strike a blow at the Rebellion which, all others failing, would inevitably lead to its annihilation, byannihilating the very thing for which it was contending. His own wordsare the best:

"I understood that my oath to preserve the Constitution to the best ofmy ability imposed upon me the duty of preserving by every indispensablemeans that government--that nation--of which that Constitution was theorganic law. Was it possible to lose the nation and yet preserve theConstitution? By general law, life and limb must be protected, yet oftena limb must be amputated to save a life; but a life is never wiselygiven to save a limb. I felt that measures otherwise unconstitutionalmight become lawful by becoming indispensable to the preservation of theConstitution through the preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, Iassumed this ground and now avow it. I could not feel that to the bestof my ability I had ever tried to preserve the Constitution if to saveslavery or any minor matter I should permit the wreck of government, country, and Constitution all together. "

And so, at last, when in his judgment the indispensable necessity hadcome, he struck the fatal blow, and signed the proclamation which hasmade his name immortal. By it, the President, as Commander-in-Chief intime of actual armed rebellion, and as a fit and necessary war measurefor suppressing the rebellion, proclaimed all persons held as slavesin the States and parts of States then in rebellion to be thenceforwardfree, and declared that the executive, with the army and navy, wouldrecognize and maintain their freedom. 

In the other great steps of the government, which led to the triumphantprosecution of the war, he necessarily shared the responsibility and thecredit with the great statesmen who stayed up his hands in his cabinet, with Seward, Chase and Stanton, and the rest, --and with his generals andadmirals, his soldiers and sailors, but this great act was absolutelyhis own. The conception and execution were exclusively his. He laid itbefore his cabinet as a measure on which his mind was made up and couldnot be changed, asking them only for suggestions as to details. He chosethe time and the circumstances under which the Emancipation should beproclaimed and when it should take effect. 

It came not an hour too soon; but public opinion in the North would nothave sustained it earlier. In the first eighteen months of the war itsravages had extended from the Atlantic to beyond the Mississippi. Manyvictories in the West had been balanced and paralyzed by inactionand disasters in Virginia, only partially redeemed by the bloody andindecisive battle of Antietam; a reaction had set in from the generalenthusiasm which had swept the Northern States after the assault uponSumter. It could not truly be said that they had lost heart, but factionwas raising its head. Heard through the land like the blast of abugle, the proclamation rallied the patriotism of the country to freshsacrifices and renewed ardor. It was a step that could not be revoked. It relieved the conscience of the nation from an incubus that hadoppressed it from its birth. The United States were rescued from thefalse predicament in which they had been from the beginning, and thegreat popular heart leaped with new enthusiasm for "Liberty and Union, henceforth and forever, one and inseparable. " It brought not only moralbut material support to the cause of the government, for within twoyears 120, 000 colored troops were enlisted in the military service andfollowing the national flag, supported by all the loyalty of the North, and led by its choicest spirits. One mother said, when her son wasoffered the command of the first colored regiment, "If he accepts itI shall be as proud as if I had heard that he was shot. " He was shotheading a gallant charge of his regiment. .. . The Confederates replied toa request of his friends for his body that they had "buried him under alayer of his niggers. .. ;" but that mother has lived to enjoy thirty-sixyears of his glory, and Boston has erected its noblest monument to hismemory. 

The effect of the proclamation upon the actual progress of the war wasnot immediate, but wherever the Federal armies advanced they carriedfreedom with them, and when the summer came round the new spirit andforce which had animated the heart of the government and people weremanifest. In the first week of July the decisive battle of Gettysburgturned the tide of war, and the fall of Vicksburg made the great riverfree from its source to the Gulf. 

On foreign nations the influence of the proclamation and of these newvictories was of great importance. In those days, when there was nocable, it was not easy for foreign observers to appreciate what wasreally going on; they could not see clearly the true state of affairs, as in the last year of the nineteenth century we have been able, by ournew electric vision, to watch every event at the antipodes and observeits effect. The Rebel emissaries, sent over to solicit intervention, spared no pains to impress upon the minds of public and private menand upon the press their own views of the character of the contest. Theprospects of the Confederacy were always better abroad than at home. Thestock markets of the world gambled upon its chances, and its bonds atone time were high in favor. 

Such ideas as these were seriously held: that the North was fighting forempire and the South for independence; that the Southern States, insteadof being the grossest oligarchies, essentially despotisms, founded onthe right of one man to appropriate the fruit of other men's toil and toexclude them from equal rights, were real republics, feebler to be surethan their Northern rivals, but representing the same idea of freedom, and that the mighty strength of the nation was being put forth tocrush them; that Jefferson Davis and the Southern leaders had createda nation; that the republican experiment had failed and the Union hadceased to exist. But the crowning argument to foreign minds was thatit was an utter impossibility for the government to win in the contest;that the success of the Southern States, so far as separation wasconcerned, was as certain as any event yet future and contingent couldbe; that the subjugation of the South by the North, even if it could beaccomplished, would prove a calamity to the United States and the world, and especially calamitous to the negro race; and that such a victorywould necessarily leave the people of the South for many generationscherishing deadly hostility against the government and the North, andplotting always to recover their independence. 

When Lincoln issued his proclamation he knew that all these ideas werefounded in error; that the national resources were inexhaustible;that the government could and would win, and that if slavery were oncefinally disposed of, the only cause of difference being out of the way, the North and South would come together again, and by and by be as goodfriends as ever. In many quarters abroad the proclamation waswelcomed with enthusiasm by the friends of America; but I think thedemonstrations in its favor that brought more gladness to Lincoln'sheart than any other were the meetings held in the manufacturingcentres, by the very operatives upon whom the war bore the hardest, expressing the most enthusiastic sympathy with the proclamation, whilethey bore with heroic fortitude the grievous privations which the warentailed upon them. Mr. Lincoln's expectation when he announced to theworld that all slaves in all States then in rebellion were set freemust have been that the avowed position of his government, that thecontinuance of the war now meant the annihilation of slavery, would makeintervention impossible for any foreign nation whose people were loversof liberty--and so the result proved. 

The growth and development of Lincoln's mental power and moral force, ofhis intense and magnetic personality, after the vast responsibilities ofgovernment were thrown upon him at the age of fifty-two, furnish a rareand striking illustration of the marvellous capacity and adaptability ofthe human intellect--of the sound mind in the sound body. He came tothe discharge of the great duties of the Presidency with absolutely noexperience in the administration of government, or of the vastlyvaried and complicated questions of foreign and domestic policy whichimmediately arose, and continued to press upon him during the rest ofhis life; but he mastered each as it came, apparently with the facilityof a trained and experienced ruler. As Clarendon said of Cromwell, "Hisparts seemed to be raised by the demands of great station. " His lifethrough it all was one of intense labor, anxiety, and distress, withoutone hour of peaceful repose from first to last. But he rose to everyoccasion. He led public opinion, but did not march so far in advance ofit as to fail of its effective support in every great emergency. Heknew the heart and thought of the people, as no man not in constant andabsolute sympathy with them could have known it, and so holding theirconfidence, he triumphed through and with them. Not only was there thissteady growth of intellect, but the infinite delicacy of his nature andits capacity for refinement developed also, as exhibited in thepurity and perfection of his language and style of speech. The roughbackwoodsman, who had never seen the inside of a university, became inthe end, by self-training and the exercise of his own powers of mind, heart, and soul, a master of style, and some of his utterances will rankwith the best, the most perfectly adapted to the occasion which producedthem. 

Have you time to listen to his two-minutes speech at Gettysburg, at thededication of the Soldiers' Cemetery? His whole soul was in it:

"Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on thiscontinent a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to theproposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in agreat civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceivedand so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield ofthat war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a finalresting-place for those who here gave their lives that that nation mightlive. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. Butin a larger sense we cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannothallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled herehave consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. Theworld will little note, nor long remember, what we say here but it cannever forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, tobe dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here havethus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated tothe great task remaining before us that from these honored dead wetake increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last fullmeasure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shallnot have died in vain--that this nation under God shall have a new birthof freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, and forthe people shall not perish from the earth. "

He lived to see his work indorsed by an overwhelming majority of hiscountrymen. In his second inaugural address, pronounced just forty daysbefore his death, there is a single passage which well displays hisindomitable will and at the same time his deep religious feeling, his sublime charity to the enemies of his country, and his broad andcatholic humanity:

"If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenceswhich in the Providence of God must needs come, but which, havingcontinued through the appointed time, He now wills to remove, and thatHe gives to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due tothose by whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departurefrom those divine attributes which the believers in a living God alwaysascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that thismighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that itcontinue until all the wealth piled by the bondsmen's two hundred andfifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop ofblood drawn with the lash shall be paid with another drawn by the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, 'thejudgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether. '

"With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in theright as God gives us to see the right let us strive on to finish thework we are in to bind up the nation's wounds; to care for him who shallhave borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan to do all whichmay achieve, and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, andwith all nations. "

His prayer was answered. The forty days of life that remained tohim were crowned with great historic events. He lived to seehis Proclamation of Emancipation embodied in an amendment of theConstitution, adopted by Congress, and submitted to the States forratification. The mighty scourge of war did speedily pass away, for itwas given him to witness the surrender of the Rebel army and the fall oftheir capital, and the starry flag that he loved waving in triumph overthe national soil. When he died by the madman's hand in the supreme hourof victory, the vanquished lost their best friend, and the human raceone of its noblest examples; and all the friends of freedom and justice, in whose cause he lived and died, joined hands as mourners at his grave. 

THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, 1832-1843

1832

ADDRESS TO THE PEOPLE OF SANGAMON COUNTY. 

March 9, 1832. 

FELLOW CITIZENS:--Having become a candidate for the honorable office ofone of your Representatives in the next General Assembly of this State, in according with an established custom and the principles of trueRepublicanism it becomes my duty to make known to you, the people whom Ipropose to represent, my sentiments with regard to local affairs. 

Time and experience have verified to a demonstration the public utilityof internal improvements. That the poorest and most thinly populatedcountries would be greatly benefited by the opening of good roads, andin the clearing of navigable streams within their limits, is what noperson will deny. Yet it is folly to undertake works of this orany other without first knowing that we are able to finish them--ashalf-finished work generally proves to be labor lost. There cannotjustly be any objection to having railroads and canals, any more than toother good things, provided they cost nothing. The only objection is topaying for them; and the objection arises from the want of ability topay. 

With respect to the County of Sangamon, some. .. . 

Yet, however desirable an object the construction of a railroad throughour country may be, however high our imaginations may be heated atthoughts of it, --there is always a heart-appalling shock accompanyingthe amount of its cost, which forces us to shrink from our pleasinganticipations. The probable cost of this contemplated railroad isestimated at $290, 000; the bare statement of which, in my opinion, issufficient to justify the belief that the improvement of the SangamonRiver is an object much better suited to our infant resources. .. .. .. 

What the cost of this work would be, I am unable to say. It is probable, however, that it would not be greater than is common to streams of thesame length. Finally, I believe the improvement of the Sangamon Riverto be vastly important and highly desirable to the people of the county;and, if elected, any measure in the Legislature having this for itsobject, which may appear judicious, will meet my approbation and receivemy support. 

It appears that the practice of loaning money at exorbitant rates ofinterest has already been opened as a field for discussion; so I supposeI may enter upon it without claiming the honor or risking the dangerwhich may await its first explorer. It seems as though we are neverto have an end to this baneful and corroding system, acting almost asprejudicially to the general interests of the community as a direct taxof several thousand dollars annually laid on each county for the benefitof a few individuals only, unless there be a law made fixing the limitsof usury. A law for this purpose, I am of opinion, may be made withoutmaterially injuring any class of people. In cases of extreme necessity, there could always be means found to cheat the law; while in all othercases it would have its intended effect. I would favor the passage ofa law on this subject which might not be very easily evaded. Let it besuch that the labor and difficulty of evading it could only be justifiedin cases of greatest necessity. 

Upon the subject of education, not presuming to dictate any planor system respecting it, I can only say that I view it as the mostimportant subject which we as a people can be engaged in. That everyman may receive at least a moderate education, and thereby be enabled toread the histories of his own and other countries, by which he may dulyappreciate the value of our free institutions, appears to be an objectof vital importance, even on this account alone, to say nothing of theadvantages and satisfaction to be derived from all being able to readthe Scriptures, and other works both of a religious and moral nature, for themselves. 

For my part, I desire to see the time when education--and by its means, morality, sobriety, enterprise, and industry--shall become much moregeneral than at present, and should be gratified to have it in my powerto contribute something to the advancement of any measure which mighthave a tendency to accelerate that happy period. 

With regard to existing laws, some alterations are thought to benecessary. Many respectable men have suggested that our estray laws, thelaw respecting the issuing of executions, the road law, and some others, are deficient in their present form, and require alterations. But, considering the great probability that the framers of those laws werewiser than myself, I should prefer not meddling with them, unless theywere first attacked by others; in which case I should feel it both aprivilege and a duty to take that stand which, in my view, might tendmost to the advancement of justice. 

But, fellow-citizens, I shall conclude. Considering the great degree ofmodesty which should always attend youth, it is probable I have alreadybeen more presuming than becomes me. However, upon the subjects ofwhich I have treated, I have spoken as I have thought. I may be wrong inregard to any or all of them; but, holding it a sound maxim that it isbetter only sometimes to be right than at all times to be wrong, so soonas I discover my opinions to be erroneous, I shall be ready to renouncethem. 

Every man is said to have his peculiar ambition. Whether it be true ornot, I can say, for one, that I have no other so great as that of beingtruly esteemed of my fellow-men, by rendering myself worthy of theiresteem. How far I shall succeed in gratifying this ambition is yet to bedeveloped. I am young, and unknown to many of you. I was born, and haveever remained, in the most humble walks of life. I have no wealthyor popular relations or friends to recommend me. My case is thrownexclusively upon the independent voters of the county; and, ifelected, they will have conferred a favor upon me for which I shall beunremitting in my labors to compensate. But, if the good people intheir wisdom shall see fit to keep me in the background, I have been toofamiliar with disappointments to be very much chagrined. 

Your friend and fellow-citizen, A. LINCOLN. 

New Salem, March 9, 1832. 

1833

TO E. C. BLANKENSHIP. 

NEW SALEM, Aug. 10, 1833

E. C. BLANKENSHIP. 

Dear Sir:--In regard to the time David Rankin served the encloseddischarge shows correctly--as well as I can recollect--having no writingto refer. The transfer of Rankin from my company occurred as follows:Rankin having lost his horse at Dixon's ferry and having acquaintance inone of the foot companies who were going down the river was desirousto go with them, and one Galishen being an acquaintance of mine andbelonging to the company in which Rankin wished to go wished to leaveit and join mine, this being the case it was agreed that they shouldexchange places and answer to each other's names--as it was expectedwe all would be discharged in very few days. As to a blanket--I have noknowledge of Rankin ever getting any. The above embraces all the factsnow in my recollection which are pertinent to the case. 

I shall take pleasure in giving any further information in my powershould you call on me. 

Your friend, A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO REQUEST FOR POSTAGE RECEIPT

TO Mr. SPEARS. 

Mr. SPEARS:

At your request I send you a receipt for the postage on your paper. I amsomewhat surprised at your request. I will, however, comply with it. The law requires newspaper postage to be paid in advance, and now thatI have waited a full year you choose to wound my feelings by insinuatingthat unless you get a receipt I will probably make you pay it again. 

Respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

1836

ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLITICAL VIEWS. 

New Salem, June 13, 1836. 

TO THE EDITOR OF THE "JOURNAL"--In your paper of last Saturday I seea communication, over the signature of "Many Voters, " in which thecandidates who are announced in the Journal are called upon to "showtheir hands. " Agreed. Here's mine. 

I go for all sharing the privileges of the government who assist inbearing its burdens. Consequently, I go for admitting all whites tothe right of suffrage who pay taxes or bear arms (by no means excludingfemales). 

If elected, I shall consider the whole people of Sangamon myconstituents, as well those that oppose as those that support me. 

While acting as their representative, I shall be governed by their willon all subjects upon which I have the means of knowing what their willis; and upon all others I shall do what my own judgment teaches mewill best advance their interests. Whether elected or not, I go fordistributing the proceeds of the sales of the public lands to theseveral States, to enable our State, in common with others, to digcanals and construct railroads without borrowing money and paying theinterest on it. If alive on the first Monday in November, I shall votefor Hugh L. White for President. 

Very respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO POLITICAL SMEAR

TO ROBERT ALLEN

New Salem, June 21, 1836

DEAR COLONEL:--I am told that during my absence last week you passedthrough this place, and stated publicly that you were in possession of afact or facts which, if known to the public, would entirely destroy theprospects of N. W. Edwards and myself at the ensuing election; but that, through favor to us, you should forbear to divulge them. No one hasneeded favors more than I, and, generally, few have been less unwillingto accept them; but in this case favor to me would be injustice to thepublic, and therefore I must beg your pardon for declining it. ThatI once had the confidence of the people of Sangamon, is sufficientlyevident; and if I have since done anything, either by design ormisadventure, which if known would subject me to a forfeiture of thatconfidence, he that knows of that thing, and conceals it, is a traitorto his country's interest. 

I find myself wholly unable to form any conjecture of what fact orfacts, real or supposed, you spoke; but my opinion of your veracity willnot permit me for a moment to doubt that you at least believed what yousaid. I am flattered with the personal regard you manifested for me;but I do hope that, on more mature reflection, you will view the publicinterest as a paramount consideration, and therefore determine to letthe worst come. I here assure you that the candid statement of factson your part, however low it may sink me, shall never break the tie ofpersonal friendship between us. I wish an answer to this, and you are atliberty to publish both, if you choose. 

Very respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

TO MISS MARY OWENS. 

VANDALIA, December 13, 1836. 

MARY:--I have been sick ever since my arrival, or I should have writtensooner. It is but little difference, however, as I have very littleeven yet to write. And more, the longer I can avoid the mortificationof looking in the post-office for your letter and not finding it, thebetter. You see I am mad about that old letter yet. I don't like verywell to risk you again. I'll try you once more, anyhow. 

The new State House is not yet finished, and consequently theLegislature is doing little or nothing. The governor delivered aninflammatory political message, and it is expected there will be somesparring between the parties about it as soon as the two Houses get tobusiness. Taylor delivered up his petition for the new county to oneof our members this morning. I am told he despairs of its success, onaccount of all the members from Morgan County opposing it. There arenames enough on the petition, I think, to justify the members from ourcounty in going for it; but if the members from Morgan oppose it, whichthey say they will, the chance will be bad. 

Our chance to take the seat of government to Springfield is better thanI expected. An internal-improvement convention was held there since wemet, which recommended a loan of several millions of dollars, on thefaith of the State, to construct railroads. Some of the Legislature arefor it, and some against it; which has the majority I cannot tell. There is great strife and struggling for the office of the United StatesSenator here at this time. It is probable we shall ease their pains ina few days. The opposition men have no candidate of their own, andconsequently they will smile as complacently at the angry snarl of thecontending Van Buren candidates and their respective friends as theChristian does at Satan's rage. You recollect that I mentioned at theoutset of this letter that I had been unwell. That is the fact, thoughI believe I am about well now; but that, with other things I cannotaccount for, have conspired, and have gotten my spirits so low that Ifeel that I would rather be any place in the world than here. I reallycannot endure the thought of staying here ten weeks. Write back as soonas you get this, and, if possible, say something that will please me, for really I have not been pleased since I left you. This letter isso dry and stupid that I am ashamed to send it, but with my presentfeelings I cannot do any better. 

Give my best respects to Mr. And Mrs. Able and family. 

Your friend, LINCOLN

1837

SPEECH IN ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE. 

January [?], 1837

Mr. CHAIRMAN:--Lest I should fall into the too common error of beingmistaken in regard to which side I design to be upon, I shall make itmy first care to remove all doubt on that point, by declaring that I amopposed to the resolution under consideration, in toto. Before I proceedto the body of the subject, I will further remark, that it is notwithout a considerable degree of apprehension that I venture to crossthe track of the gentleman from Coles [Mr. Linder]. Indeed, I do notbelieve I could muster a sufficiency of courage to come in contact withthat gentleman, were it not for the fact that he, some days since, most graciously condescended to assure us that he would never be foundwasting ammunition on small game. On the same fortunate occasion, he further gave us to understand, that he regarded himself as beingdecidedly the superior of our common friend from Randolph [Mr. Shields];and feeling, as I really do, that I, to say the most of myself, amnothing more than the peer of our friend from Randolph, I shallregard the gentleman from Coles as decidedly my superior also, andconsequently, in the course of what I shall have to say, whenever Ishall have occasion to allude to that gentleman, I shall endeavorto adopt that kind of court language which I understand to be due todecided superiority. In one faculty, at least, there can be no disputeof the gentleman's superiority over me and most other men, and that is, the faculty of entangling a subject, so that neither himself, orany other man, can find head or tail to it. Here he has introduced aresolution embracing ninety-nine printed lines across common writingpaper, and yet more than one half of his opening speech has been madeupon subjects about which there is not one word said in his resolution. 

Though his resolution embraces nothing in regard to theconstitutionality of the Bank, much of what he has said has been witha view to make the impression that it was unconstitutional in itsinception. Now, although I am satisfied that an ample field may be foundwithin the pale of the resolution, at least for small game, yet, asthe gentleman has traveled out of it, I feel that I may, with all duehumility, venture to follow him. The gentleman has discovered that somegentleman at Washington city has been upon the very eve of deciding ourBank unconstitutional, and that he would probably have completed hisvery authentic decision, had not some one of the Bank officers placedhis hand upon his mouth, and begged him to withhold it. The factthat the individuals composing our Supreme Court have, in an officialcapacity, decided in favor of the constitutionality of the Bank, would, in my mind, seem a sufficient answer to this. It is a fact known to all, that the members of the Supreme Court, together with the Governor, forma Council of Revision, and that this Council approved this Bank charter. I ask, then, if the extra-judicial decision not quite but almost madeby the gentleman at Washington, before whom, by the way, the question ofthe constitutionality of our Bank never has, nor never can come--is tobe taken as paramount to a decision officially made by that tribunal, by which, and which alone, the constitutionality of the Bank can ever besettled? But, aside from this view of the subject, I would ask, if thecommittee which this resolution proposes to appoint are to examine intothe Constitutionality of the Bank? Are they to be clothed with power tosend for persons and papers, for this object? And after they have foundthe bank to be unconstitutional, and decided it so, how are they toenforce their decision? What will their decision amount to? They cannotcompel the Bank to cease operations, or to change the course of itsoperations. What good, then, can their labors result in? Certainly none. 

The gentleman asks, if we, without an examination, shall, by giving theState deposits to the Bank, and by taking the stock reserved for theState, legalize its former misconduct. Now I do not pretend to possesssufficient legal knowledge to decide whether a legislative enactmentproposing to, and accepting from, the Bank, certain terms, would havethe effect to legalize or wipe out its former errors, or not; but I canassure the gentleman, if such should be the effect, he has already gotbehind the settlement of accounts; for it is well known to all, that theLegislature, at its last session, passed a supplemental Bank charter, which the Bank has since accepted, and which, according to his doctrine, has legalized all the alleged violations of its original charter in thedistribution of its stock. 

I now proceed to the resolution. By examination it will be found thatthe first thirty-three lines, being precisely one third of the whole, relate exclusively to the distribution of the stock by the commissionersappointed by the State. Now, Sir, it is clear that no question can ariseon this portion of the resolution, except a question between capitalistsin regard to the ownership of stock. Some gentlemen have their stock intheir hands, while others, who have more money than they know what todo with, want it; and this, and this alone, is the question, to settlewhich we are called on to squander thousands of the people's money. What interest, let me ask, have the people in the settlement of thisquestion? What difference is it to them whether the stock is owned byJudge Smith or Sam Wiggins? If any gentleman be entitled to stock in theBank, which he is kept out of possession of by others, let him asserthis right in the Supreme Court, and let him or his antagonist, whichevermay be found in the wrong, pay the costs of suit. It is an old maxim, and a very sound one, that he that dances should always pay the fiddler. Now, Sir, in the present case, if any gentlemen, whose money is a burdento them, choose to lead off a dance, I am decidedly opposed to thepeople's money being used to pay the fiddler. No one can doubt that theexamination proposed by this resolution must cost the State some ten ortwelve thousand dollars; and all this to settle a question in whichthe people have no interest, and about which they care nothing. Thesecapitalists generally act harmoniously and in concert, to fleece thepeople, and now that they have got into a quarrel with themselves we arecalled upon to appropriate the people's money to settle the quarrel. 

I leave this part of the resolution and proceed to the remainder. Itwill be found that no charge in the remaining part of the resolution, iftrue, amounts to the violation of the Bank charter, except one, which Iwill notice in due time. It might seem quite sufficient to say no moreupon any of these charges or insinuations than enough to show they arenot violations of the charter; yet, as they are ingeniously framed andhandled, with a view to deceive and mislead, I will notice in theirorder all the most prominent of them. The first of these is in relationto a connection between our Bank and several banking institutions inother States. Admitting this connection to exist, I should like to seethe gentleman from Coles, or any other gentleman, undertake to show thatthere is any harm in it. What can there be in such a connection, thatthe people of Illinois are willing to pay their money to get a peepinto? By a reference to the tenth section of the Bank charter, anygentleman can see that the framers of the act contemplated the holdingof stock in the institutions of other corporations. Why, then, is it, when neither law nor justice forbids it, that we are asked to spend ourtime and money in inquiring into its truth?

The next charge, in the order of time, is, that some officer, director, clerk or servant of the Bank, has been required to take an oath ofsecrecy in relation to the affairs of said Bank. Now, I do not knowwhether this be true or false--neither do I believe any honest mancares. I know that the seventh section of the charter expresslyguarantees to the Bank the right of making, under certain restrictions, such by-laws as it may think fit; and I further know that the requiringan oath of secrecy would not transcend those restrictions. What, then, if the Bank has chosen to exercise this right? Whom can it injure? Doesnot every merchant have his secret mark? and who is ever silly enoughto complain of it? I presume if the Bank does require any such oath ofsecrecy, it is done through a motive of delicacy to those individualswho deal with it. Why, Sir, not many days since, one gentleman upon thisfloor, who, by the way, I have no doubt is now ready to join this hueand cry against the Bank, indulged in a philippic against one of theBank officials, because, as he said, he had divulged a secret. 

Immediately following this last charge, there are several insinuationsin the resolution, which are too silly to require any sort of notice, were it not for the fact that they conclude by saying, "to the greatinjury of the people at large. " In answer to this I would say that itis strange enough, that the people are suffering these "great injuries, "and yet are not sensible of it! Singular indeed that the people shouldbe writhing under oppression and injury, and yet not one among themto be found to raise the voice of complaint. If the Bank be inflictinginjury upon the people, why is it that not a single petition ispresented to this body on the subject? If the Bank really be agrievance, why is it that no one of the real people is found to askredress of it? The truth is, no such oppression exists. If it did, ourpeople would groan with memorials and petitions, and we would not bepermitted to rest day or night, till we had put it down. The people knowtheir rights, and they are never slow to assert and maintain them, whenthey are invaded. Let them call for an investigation, and I shall everstand ready to respond to the call. But they have made no such call. Imake the assertion boldly, and without fear of contradiction, that noman, who does not hold an office, or does not aspire to one, has everfound any fault of the Bank. It has doubled the prices of the productsof their farms, and filled their pockets with a sound circulatingmedium, and they are all well pleased with its operations. No, Sir, itis the politician who is the first to sound the alarm (which, bythe way, is a false one. ) It is he, who, by these unholy means, isendeavoring to blow up a storm that he may ride upon and direct. It ishe, and he alone, that here proposes to spend thousands of the people'spublic treasure, for no other advantage to them than to make valuelessin their pockets the reward of their industry. Mr. Chairman, this workis exclusively the work of politicians; a set of men who have interestsaside from the interests of the people, and who, to say the most ofthem, are, taken as a mass, at least one long step removed from honestmen. I say this with the greater freedom, because, being a politicianmyself, none can regard it as personal. 

Again, it is charged, or rather insinuated, that officers of the Bankhave loaned money at usurious rates of interest. Suppose this to betrue, are we to send a committee of this House to inquire into it?Suppose the committee should find it true, can they redress the injuredindividuals? Assuredly not. If any individual had been injured in thisway, is there not an ample remedy to be found in the laws of the land?Does the gentleman from Coles know that there is a statute standing infull force making it highly penal for an individual to loan money at ahigher rate of interest than twelve per cent? If he does not he is tooignorant to be placed at the head of the committee which his resolutionpurposes and if he does, his neglect to mention it shows him to be toouncandid to merit the respect or confidence of any one. 

But besides all this, if the Bank were struck from existence, couldnot the owners of the capital still loan it usuriously, as well as now?whatever the Bank, or its officers, may have done, I know thatusurious transactions were much more frequent and enormous before thecommencement of its operations than they have ever been since. 

The next insinuation is, that the Bank has refused specie payments. This, if true is a violation of the charter. But there is not theleast probability of its truth; because, if such had been the fact, theindividual to whom payment was refused would have had an interest inmaking it public, by suing for the damages to which the charter entitleshim. Yet no such thing has been done; and the strong presumption is, that the insinuation is false and groundless. 

From this to the end of the resolution, there is nothing that meritsattention--I therefore drop the particular examination of it. 

By a general view of the resolution, it will be seen that a principalobject of the committee is to examine into, and ferret out, a mass ofcorruption supposed to have been committed by the commissionerswho apportioned the stock of the Bank. I believe it is universallyunderstood and acknowledged that all men will ever act correctly unlessthey have a motive to do otherwise. If this be true, we can only supposethat the commissioners acted corruptly by also supposing that they werebribed to do so. Taking this view of the subject, I would ask if theBank is likely to find it more difficult to bribe the committee ofseven, which, we are about to appoint, than it may have found it tobribe the commissioners?

(Here Mr. Linder called to order. The Chair decided that Mr. Lincolnwas not out of order. Mr. Linder appealed to the House, but, before thequestion was put, withdrew his appeal, saying he preferred to let thegentleman go on; he thought he would break his own neck. Mr. Lincolnproceeded:)

Another gracious condescension! I acknowledge it with gratitude. I knowI was not out of order; and I know every sensible man in the House knowsit. I was not saying that the gentleman from Coles could be bribed, nor, on the other hand, will I say he could not. In that particular I leavehim where I found him. I was only endeavoring to show that there was atleast as great a probability of any seven members that could be selectedfrom this House being bribed to act corruptly, as there was that thetwenty-four commissioners had been so bribed. By a reference tothe ninth section of the Bank charter, it will be seen that thosecommissioners were John Tilson, Robert K. McLaughlin, Daniel Warm, A. G. S. Wight, John C. Riley, W. H. Davidson, Edward M. Wilson, Edward L. Pierson, Robert R. Green, Ezra Baker, Aquilla Wren, John Taylor, SamuelC. Christy, Edmund Roberts, Benjamin Godfrey, Thomas Mather, A. M. Jenkins, W. Linn, W. S. Gilman, Charles Prentice, Richard I. Hamilton, A. H. Buckner, W. F. Thornton, and Edmund D. Taylor. 

These are twenty-four of the most respectable men in the State. Probablyno twenty-four men could be selected in the State with whom the peopleare better acquainted, or in whose honor and integrity they wouldmore readily place confidence. And I now repeat, that there is lessprobability that those men have been bribed and corrupted, than thatany seven men, or rather any six men, that could be selected from themembers of this House, might be so bribed and corrupted, even thoughthey were headed and led on by "decided superiority" himself. 

In all seriousness, I ask every reasonable man, if an issue be joinedby these twenty-four commissioners, on the one part, and any otherseven men, on the other part, and the whole depend upon the honor andintegrity of the contending parties, to which party would the greatestdegree of credit be due? Again: Another consideration is, that we haveno right to make the examination. What I shall say upon this head Idesign exclusively for the law-loving and law-abiding part of the House. To those who claim omnipotence for the Legislature, and who in theplenitude of their assumed powers are disposed to disregard theConstitution, law, good faith, moral right, and everything else, I havenot a word to say. But to the law-abiding part I say, examine the Bankcharter, go examine the Constitution, go examine the acts that theGeneral Assembly of this State has passed, and you will find just asmuch authority given in each and every of them to compel the Bank tobring its coffers to this hall and to pour their contents upon thisfloor, as to compel it to submit to this examination which thisresolution proposes. Why, Sir, the gentleman from Coles, the mover ofthis resolution, very lately denied on this floor that the Legislaturehad any right to repeal or otherwise meddle with its own acts, whenthose acts were made in the nature of contracts, and had been acceptedand acted on by other parties. Now I ask if this resolution does notpropose, for this House alone, to do what he, but the other day, deniedthe right of the whole Legislature to do? He must either abandon theposition he then took, or he must now vote against his own resolution. It is no difference to me, and I presume but little to any one else, which he does. 

I am by no means the special advocate of the Bank. I have long thoughtthat it would be well for it to report its condition to the GeneralAssembly, and that cases might occur, when it might be proper to make anexamination of its affairs by a committee. Accordingly, during thelast session, while a bill supplemental to the Bank charter was pendingbefore the House, I offered an amendment to the same, in these words:"The said corporation shall, at the next session of the GeneralAssembly, and at each subsequent General Session, during the existenceof its charter, report to the same the amount of debts due from saidcorporation; the amount of debts due to the same; the amount of speciein its vaults, and an account of all lands then owned by the same, andthe amount for which such lands have been taken; and moreover, if saidcorporation shall at any time neglect or refuse to submit its books, papers, and all and everything necessary for a full and fair examinationof its affairs, to any person or persons appointed by the GeneralAssembly, for the purpose of making such examination, the saidcorporation shall forfeit its charter. "

This amendment was negatived by a vote of 34 to 15. Eleven of the 34 whovoted against it are now members of this House; and though it wouldbe out of order to call their names, I hope they will all recollectthemselves, and not vote for this examination to be made withoutauthority, inasmuch as they refused to receive the authority when it wasin their power to do so. 

I have said that cases might occur, when an examination might be proper;but I do not believe any such case has now occurred; and if it has, I should still be opposed to making an examination without legalauthority. I am opposed to encouraging that lawless and mobocraticspirit, whether in relation to the Bank or anything else, which isalready abroad in the land and is spreading with rapid and fearfulimpetuosity, to the ultimate overthrow of every institution, of everymoral principle, in which persons and property have hitherto foundsecurity. 

But supposing we had the authority, I would ask what good can resultfrom the examination? Can we declare the Bank unconstitutional, andcompel it to desist from the abuses of its power, provided we find suchabuses to exist? Can we repair the injuries which it may have done toindividuals? Most certainly we can do none of these things. Whythen shall we spend the public money in such employment? Oh, say theexaminers, we can injure the credit of the Bank, if nothing else, Pleasetell me, gentlemen, who will suffer most by that? You cannot injure, toany extent, the stockholders. They are men of wealth--of large capital;and consequently, beyond the power of malice. But by injuring the creditof the Bank, you will depreciate the value of its paper in the hands ofthe honest and unsuspecting farmer and mechanic, and that is all you cando. But suppose you could effect your whole purpose; suppose you couldwipe the Bank from existence, which is the grand ultimatum of theproject, what would be the consequence? why, Sir, we should spendseveral thousand dollars of the public treasure in the operation, annihilate the currency of the State, render valueless in the hands ofour people that reward of their former labors, and finally be once moreunder the comfortable obligation of paying the Wiggins loan, principaland interest. 

OPPOSITION TO MOB-RULE

ADDRESS BEFORE THE YOUNG MEN'S LYCEUM OF SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS. 

January 27, 1837. 

As a subject for the remarks of the evening, "The Perpetuation of ourPolitical Institutions" is selected. 

In the great journal of things happening under the sun, we, the Americanpeople, find our account running under date of the nineteenth century ofthe Christian era. We find ourselves in the peaceful possession of thefairest portion of the earth as regards extent of territory, fertilityof soil, and salubrity of climate. We find ourselves under thegovernment of a system of political institutions conducing moreessentially to the ends of civil and religious liberty than any of whichthe history of former times tells us. We, when mounting the stage ofexistence, found ourselves the legal inheritors of these fundamentalblessings. We toiled not in the acquirement or establishment of them;they are a legacy bequeathed us by a once hardy, brave, and patriotic, but now lamented and departed, race of ancestors. Theirs was thetask (and nobly they performed it) to possess themselves, and throughthemselves us, of this goodly land, and to uprear upon its hills and itsvalleys a political edifice of liberty and equal rights; it is ours onlyto transmit these--the former unprofaned by the foot of an invader, thelatter undecayed by the lapse of time and untorn by usurpation--to thelatest generation that fate shall permit the world to know. This taskgratitude to our fathers, justice to ourselves, duty to posterity, andlove for our species in general, all imperatively require us faithfullyto perform. 

How then shall we perform it? At what point shall we expect the approachof danger? By what means shall we fortify against it? Shall we expectsome transatlantic military giant to step the ocean and crush us at ablow? Never! All the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined, withall the treasure of the earth (our own excepted) in their militarychest, with a Bonaparte for a commander, could not by force take a drinkfrom the Ohio or make a track on the Blue Ridge in a trial of a thousandyears. 

At what point then is the approach of danger to be expected? I answer:If it ever reach us it must spring up amongst us; it cannot come fromabroad. If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author andfinisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time, or dieby suicide. 

I hope I am over-wary; but if I am not, there is even now somethingof ill omen amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law whichpervades the country--the growing disposition to substitute the wild andfurious passions in lieu of the sober judgment of courts, and theworse than savage mobs for the executive ministers of justice. Thisdisposition is awfully fearful in any community; and that it nowexists in ours, though grating to our feelings to admit, it would be aviolation of truth and an insult to our intelligence to deny. Accountsof outrages committed by mobs form the everyday news of the times. They have pervaded the country from New England to Louisiana; they areneither peculiar to the eternal snows of the former nor the burning sunsof the latter; they are not the creature of climate, neither are theyconfined to the slave holding or the non-slave holding States. Alikethey spring up among the pleasure-hunting masters of Southern slaves, and the order-loving citizens of the land of steady habits. Whateverthen their cause may be, it is common to the whole country. 

It would be tedious as well as useless to recount the horrors of all ofthem. Those happening in the State of Mississippi and at St. Louis areperhaps the most dangerous in example and revolting to humanity. In theMississippi case they first commenced by hanging the regular gamblers--aset of men certainly not following for a livelihood a very useful orvery honest occupation, but one which, so far from being forbidden bythe laws, was actually licensed by an act of the Legislature passed buta single year before. Next, negroes suspected of conspiring to raise aninsurrection were caught up and hanged in all parts of the State;then, white men supposed to be leagued with the negroes; and finally, strangers from neighboring States, going thither on business, were inmany instances subjected to the same fate. Thus went on this process ofhanging, from gamblers to negroes, from negroes to white citizens, andfrom these to strangers, till dead men were seen literally danglingfrom the boughs of trees upon every roadside, and in numbers almostsufficient to rival the native Spanish moss of the country as a draperyof the forest. 

Turn then to that horror-striking scene at St. Louis. A single victimonly was sacrificed there. This story is very short, and is perhapsthe most highly tragic of anything of its length that has ever beenwitnessed in real life. A mulatto man by the name of McIntosh was seizedin the street, dragged to the suburbs of the city, chained to a tree, and actually burned to death; and all within a single hour from the timehe had been a freeman attending to his own business and at peace withthe world. 

Such are the effects of mob law, and such are the scenes becoming moreand more frequent in this land so lately famed for love of law andorder, and the stories of which have even now grown too familiar toattract anything more than an idle remark. 

But you are perhaps ready to ask, "What has this to do with theperpetuation of our political institutions?" I answer, It has much todo with it. Its direct consequences are, comparatively speaking, buta small evil, and much of its danger consists in the proneness ofour minds to regard its direct as its only consequences. Abstractlyconsidered, the hanging of the gamblers at Vicksburg was of but littleconsequence. They constitute a portion of population that is worse thanuseless in any community; and their death, if no pernicious example beset by it, is never matter of reasonable regret with any one. Ifthey were annually swept from the stage of existence by the plague orsmallpox, honest men would perhaps be much profited by the operation. Similar too is the correct reasoning in regard to the burning of thenegro at St. Louis. He had forfeited his life by the perpetration of anoutrageous murder upon one of the most worthy and respectable citizensof the city, and had he not died as he did, he must have died by thesentence of the law in a very short time afterwards. As to him alone, it was as well the way it was as it could otherwise have been. But theexample in either case was fearful. When men take it in their headsto-day to hang gamblers or burn murderers, they should recollect that inthe confusion usually attending such transactions they will be as likelyto hang or burn some one who is neither a gambler nor a murderer as onewho is, and that, acting upon the example they set, the mob of to-morrowmay, and probably will, hang or burn some of them by the very samemistake. And not only so: the innocent, those who have ever set theirfaces against violations of law in every shape, alike with the guiltyfall victims to the ravages of mob law; and thus it goes on, step bystep, till all the walls erected for the defense of the persons andproperty of individuals are trodden down and disregarded. But all this, even, is not the full extent of the evil. By such examples, by instancesof the perpetrators of such acts going unpunished, the lawless in spiritare encouraged to become lawless in practice; and having been used tono restraint but dread of punishment, they thus become absolutelyunrestrained. Having ever regarded government as their deadliest bane, they make a jubilee of the suspension of its operations, and pray fornothing so much as its total annihilation. While, on the other hand, good men, men who love tranquillity, who desire to abide by the laws andenjoy their benefits, who would gladly spill their blood in the defenseof their country, seeing their property destroyed, their familiesinsulted, and their lives endangered, their persons injured, and seeingnothing in prospect that forebodes a change for the better, become tiredof and disgusted with a government that offers them no protection, andare not much averse to a change in which they imagine they have nothingto lose. Thus, then, by the operation of this mobocratic spirit whichall must admit is now abroad in the land, the strongest bulwark ofany government, and particularly of those constituted like ours, mayeffectually be broken down and destroyed--I mean the attachment of thepeople. Whenever this effect shall be produced among us; whenever thevicious portion of population shall be permitted to gather in bandsof hundreds and thousands, and burn churches, ravage and robprovision-stores, throw printing presses into rivers, shoot editors, andhang and burn obnoxious persons at pleasure and with impunity, depend onit, this government cannot last. By such things the feelings of the bestcitizens will become more or less alienated from it, and thus it willbe left without friends, or with too few, and those few too weak tomake their friendship effectual. At such a time, and under suchcircumstances, men of sufficient talent and ambition will not be wantingto seize the opportunity, strike the blow, and overturn that fair fabricwhich for the last half century has been the fondest hope of the loversof freedom throughout the world. 

I know the American people are much attached to their government; I knowthey would suffer much for its sake; I know they would endure evilslong and patiently before they would ever think of exchanging it foranother, --yet, notwithstanding all this, if the laws be continuallydespised and disregarded, if their rights to be secure in their personsand property are held by no better tenure than the caprice of a mob, the alienation of their affections from the government is the naturalconsequence; and to that, sooner or later, it must come. 

Here, then, is one point at which danger may be expected. 

The question recurs, How shall we fortify against it? The answer issimple. Let every American, every lover of liberty, every well-wisher tohis posterity swear by the blood of the Revolution never to violatein the least particular the laws of the country, and never to toleratetheir violation by others. As the patriots of seventy-six did to thesupport of the Declaration of Independence, so to the support of theConstitution and laws let every American pledge his life, his property, and his sacred honor. Let every man remember that to violate the law isto trample on the blood of his father, and to tear the charter of hisown and his children's liberty. Let reverence for the laws be breathedby every American mother to the lisping babe that prattles on her lap;let it be taught in schools, in seminaries, and in colleges; let it bewritten in primers, spelling books, and in almanacs; let it be preachedfrom the pulpit, proclaimed in legislative halls, and enforced in courtsof justice. And, in short, let it become the political religion of thenation; and let the old and the young, the rich and the poor, thegrave and the gay of all sexes and tongues and colors and conditions, sacrifice unceasingly upon its altars. 

While ever a state of feeling such as this shall universally or evenvery generally prevail throughout the nation, vain will be every effort, and fruitless every attempt, to subvert our national freedom. 

When, I so pressingly urge a strict observance of all the laws, let menot be understood as saying there are no bad laws, or that grievancesmay not arise for the redress of which no legal provisions have beenmade. I mean to say no such thing. But I do mean to say that althoughbad laws, if they exist, should be repealed as soon as possible, still, while they continue in force, for the sake of example they should bereligiously observed. So also in unprovided cases. If such arise, letproper legal provisions be made for them with the least possible delay, but till then let them, if not too intolerable, be borne with. 

There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law. In anycase that may arise, as, for instance, the promulgation of abolitionism, one of two positions is necessarily true--that is, the thing is rightwithin itself, and therefore deserves the protection of all law and allgood citizens, or it is wrong, and therefore proper to be prohibited bylegal enactments; and in neither case is the interposition of mob laweither necessary, justifiable, or excusable. 

But it may be asked, Why suppose danger to our political institutions?Have we not preserved them for more than fifty years? And why may we notfor fifty times as long?

We hope there is no sufficient reason. We hope all danger may beovercome; but to conclude that no danger may ever arise would itself beextremely dangerous. There are now, and will hereafter be, many causes, dangerous in their tendency, which have not existed heretofore, andwhich are not too insignificant to merit attention. That our governmentshould have been maintained in its original form, from its establishmentuntil now, is not much to be wondered at. It had many props to supportit through that period, which now are decayed and crumbled away. Throughthat period it was felt by all to be an undecided experiment; now it isunderstood to be a successful one. Then, all that sought celebrityand fame and distinction expected to find them in the success of thatexperiment. Their all was staked upon it; their destiny was inseparablylinked with it. Their ambition aspired to display before an admiringworld a practical demonstration of the truth of a proposition which hadhitherto been considered at best no better than problematical--namely, the capability of a people to govern themselves. If they succeeded theywere to be immortalized; their names were to be transferred to counties, and cities, and rivers, and mountains; and to be revered and sung, toasted through all time. If they failed, they were to be calledknaves and fools, and fanatics for a fleeting hour; then to sink and beforgotten. They succeeded. The experiment is successful, and thousandshave won their deathless names in making it so. But the game is caught;and I believe it is true that with the catching end the pleasures ofthe chase. This field of glory is harvested, and the crop is alreadyappropriated. But new reapers will arise, and they too will seek afield. It is to deny what the history of the world tells us is true, tosuppose that men of ambition and talents will not continue to springup amongst us. And when they do, they will as naturally seek thegratification of their ruling passion as others have done before them. The question then is, Can that gratification be found in supportingand in maintaining an edifice that has been erected by others? Mostcertainly it cannot. Many great and good men, sufficiently qualified forany task they should undertake, may ever be found whose ambition wouldaspire to nothing beyond a seat in Congress, a Gubernatorial or aPresidential chair; but such belong not to the family of the lion, orthe tribe of the eagle. What! think you these places would satisfy anAlexander, a Caesar, or a Napoleon? Never! Towering genius disdainsa beaten path. It seeks regions hitherto unexplored. It sees nodistinction in adding story to story upon the monuments of fame erectedto the memory of others. It denies that it is glory enough to serveunder any chief. It scorns to tread in the footsteps of any predecessor, however illustrious. It thirsts and burns for distinction; and ifpossible, it will have it, whether at the expense of emancipating slavesor enslaving freemen. Is it unreasonable, then, to expect that some manpossessed of the loftiest genius, coupled with ambition sufficient topush it to its utmost stretch, will at some time spring up among us? Andwhen such an one does it will require the people to be united with eachother, attached to the government and laws, and generally intelligent, to successfully frustrate his designs. 

Distinction will be his paramount object, and although he would aswillingly, perhaps more so, acquire it by doing good as harm, yet, that opportunity being past, and nothing left to be done in the way ofbuilding up, he would set boldly to the task of pulling down. 

Here then is a probable case, highly dangerous, and such an one as couldnot have well existed heretofore. 

Another reason which once was, but which, to the same extent, is now nomore, has done much in maintaining our institutions thus far. I mean thepowerful influence which the interesting scenes of the Revolution hadupon the passions of the people as distinguished from their judgment. Bythis influence, the jealousy, envy, and avarice incident to our nature, and so common to a state of peace, prosperity, and conscious strength, were for the time in a great measure smothered and rendered inactive, while the deep-rooted principles of hate, and the powerful motive ofrevenge, instead of being turned against each other, were directedexclusively against the British nation. And thus, from the force ofcircumstances, the basest principles of our nature were either made tolie dormant, or to become the active agents in the advancement ofthe noblest of causes--that of establishing and maintaining civil andreligious liberty. 

But this state of feeling must fade, is fading, has faded, with thecircumstances that produced it. 

I do not mean to say that the scenes of the Revolution are now or everwill be entirely forgotten, but that, like everything else, they mustfade upon the memory of the world, and grow more and more dim by thelapse of time. In history, we hope, they will be read of, and recounted, so long as the Bible shall be read; but even granting that they will, their influence cannot be what it heretofore has been. Even then theycannot be so universally known nor so vividly felt as they were by thegeneration just gone to rest. At the close of that struggle, nearlyevery adult male had been a participator in some of its scenes. Theconsequence was that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, afather, a son, or a brother, a living history was to be found inevery family--a history bearing the indubitable testimonies of its ownauthenticity, in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received, inthe midst of the very scenes related--a history, too, that could be readand understood alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the learned andthe unlearned. But those histories are gone. They can be read no moreforever. They were a fortress of strength; but what invading foemancould never do the silent artillery of time has done--the leveling ofits walls. They are gone. They were a forest of giant oaks; but theall-restless hurricane has swept over them, and left only here andthere a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage, unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few more gentle breezes, and tocombat with its mutilated limbs a few more ruder storms, then to sinkand be no more. 

They were pillars of the temple of liberty; and now that they havecrumbled away that temple must fall unless we, their descendants, supplytheir places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of soberreason. Passion has helped us, but can do so no more. It will in futurebe our enemy. Reason cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason--mustfurnish all the materials for our future support and defense. Let thosematerials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, andin particular, a reverence for the Constitution and laws; and that weimproved to the last, that we remained free to the last, that we reveredhis name to the last, that during his long sleep we permitted no hostilefoot to pass over or desecrate his resting place, shall be that which tolearn the last trump shall awaken our Washington. 

Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of itsbasis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. "

PROTEST IN THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE ON THE SUBJECT OF SLAVERY. 

March 3, 1837. 

The following protest was presented to the House, which was read andordered to be spread in the journals, to wit:

"Resolutions upon the subject of domestic slavery having passed bothbranches of the General Assembly at its present session, the undersignedhereby protest against the passage of the same. 

"They believe that the institution of slavery is founded on bothinjustice and bad policy, but that the promulgation of abolitiondoctrines tends rather to increase than abate its evils. 

"They believe that the Congress of the United States has no power underthe Constitution to interfere with the institution of slavery in thedifferent States. 

"They believe that the Congress of the United States has the power, under the Constitution, to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia, but that the power ought not to be exercised, unless at the request ofthe people of the District. 

"The difference between these opinions and those contained in the saidresolutions is their reason for entering this protest. 

"DAN STONE, "A. LINCOLN, "Representatives from the County of Sangamon. "

TO MISS MARY OWENS. 

SPRINGFIELD, May 7, 1837. 

MISS MARY S. OWENS. 

FRIEND MARY:--I have commenced two letters to send you before this, bothof which displeased me before I got half done, and so I tore them up. The first I thought was not serious enough, and the second was on theother extreme. I shall send this, turn out as it may. 

This thing of living in Springfield is rather a dull business, afterall; at least it is so to me. I am quite as lonesome here as I ever wasanywhere in my life. I have been spoken to by but one woman since I havebeen here, and should not have been by her if she could have avoided it. I 've never been to church yet, and probably shall not be soon. I stayaway because I am conscious I should not know how to behave myself. 

I am often thinking of what we said about your coming to live atSpringfield. I am afraid you would not be satisfied. There is a greatdeal of flourishing about in carriages here, which it would be your doomto see without sharing it. You would have to be poor, without the meansof hiding your poverty. Do you believe you could bear that patiently?Whatever woman may cast her lot with mine, should any ever do so, it ismy intention to do all in my power to make her happy and contented; andthere is nothing I can imagine that would make me more unhappy than tofail in the effort. I know I should be much happier with you than theway I am, provided I saw no signs of discontent in you. What you havesaid to me may have been in the way of jest, or I may have misunderstoodyou. If so, then let it be forgotten; if otherwise, I much wish youwould think seriously before you decide. What I have said I will mostpositively abide by, provided you wish it. My opinion is that you hadbetter not do it. You have not been accustomed to hardship, and it maybe more severe than you now imagine. I know you are capable of thinkingcorrectly on any subject, and if you deliberate maturely upon thissubject before you decide, then I am willing to abide your decision. 

You must write me a good long letter after you get this. You havenothing else to do, and though it might not seem interesting to youafter you had written it, it would be a good deal of company to me inthis "busy wilderness. " Tell your sister I don't want to hear any moreabout selling out and moving. That gives me the "hypo" whenever I thinkof it. 

Yours, etc. , LINCOLN. 

TO JOHN BENNETT. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , Aug. 5, 1837. JOHN BENNETT, ESQ. 

DEAR SIR:-Mr. Edwards tells me you wish to know whether the act to whichyour own incorporation provision was attached passed into a law. Itdid. You can organize under the general incorporation law as soon as youchoose. 

I also tacked a provision onto a fellow's bill to authorize therelocation of the road from Salem down to your town, but I am notcertain whether or not the bill passed, neither do I suppose I canascertain before the law will be published, if it is a law. BowlingGreene, Bennette Abe? and yourself are appointed to make the change. Nonews. No excitement except a little about the election of Monday next. 

I suppose, of course, our friend Dr. Heney stands no chance in yourdiggings. 

Your friend and humble servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO MARY OWENS. 

SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 16, 1837

FRIEND MARY: You will no doubt think it rather strange that I shouldwrite you a letter on the same day on which we parted, and I can onlyaccount for it by supposing that seeing you lately makes me think of youmore than usual; while at our late meeting we had but few expressionsof thoughts. You must know that I cannot see you, or think of you, withentire indifference; and yet it may be that you are mistaken in regardto what my real feelings toward you are. 

If I knew you were not, I should not have troubled you with this letter. Perhaps any other man would know enough without information; but Iconsider it my peculiar right to plead ignorance, and your bounden dutyto allow the plea. 

I want in all cases to do right; and most particularly so in all caseswith women. 

I want, at this particular time, more than any thing else to do rightwith you; and if I knew it would be doing right, as I rather suspect itwould, to let you alone I would do it. And, for the purpose of makingthe matter as plain as possible, I now say that you can drop thesubject, dismiss your thoughts (if you ever had any) from me for everand leave this letter unanswered without calling forth one accusingmurmur from me. And I will even go further and say that, if it will addanything to your comfort or peace of mind to do so, it is my sincerewish that you should. Do not understand by this that I wish to cut youracquaintance. I mean no such thing. What I do wish is that our furtheracquaintance shall depend upon yourself. If such further acquaintancewould contribute nothing to your happiness, I am sure it would not tomine. If you feel yourself in any degree bound to me, I am now willingto release you, provided you wish it; while on the other hand I amwilling and even anxious to bind you faster if I can be convincedthat it will, in any considerable degree, add to your happiness. This, indeed, is the whole question with me. Nothing would make me moremiserable than to believe you miserable, nothing more happy than to knowyou were so. 

In what I have now said, I think I cannot be misunderstood; and to makemyself understood is the only object of this letter. 

If it suits you best not to answer this, farewell. A long life anda merry one attend you. But, if you conclude to write back, speak asplainly as I do. There can neither be harm nor danger in saying to meanything you think, just in the manner you think it. My respects to yoursister. 

Your friend, LINCOLN. 

LEGAL SUIT OF WIDOW v. S. Gen. ADAMS

TO THE PEOPLE. 

"SANGAMON JOURNAL, " SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , Aug. 19, 1837. 

In accordance with our determination, as expressed last week, we presentto the reader the articles which were published in hand-bill form, inreference to the case of the heirs of Joseph Anderson vs. James Adams. These articles can now be read uninfluenced by personal or partyfeeling, and with the sole motive of learning the truth. When that isdone, the reader can pass his own judgment on the matters at issue. 

We only regret in this case, that the publications were not made someweeks before the election. Such a course might have prevented theexpressions of regret, which have often been heard since, from differentindividuals, on account of the disposition they made of their votes. 

To the Public:

It is well known to most of you, that there is existing at this timeconsiderable excitement in regard to Gen. Adams's titles to certaintracts of land, and the manner in which he acquired them. As Iunderstand, the Gen. Charges that the whole has been gotten up by a knotof lawyers to injure his election; and as I am one of the knot to whichhe refers, and as I happen to be in possession of facts connected withthe matter, I will, in as brief a manner as possible, make a statementof them, together with the means by which I arrived at the knowledge ofthem. 

Sometime in May or June last, a widow woman, by the name of Anderson, and her son, who resides in Fulton county, came to Springfield, forthe purpose as they said of selling a ten acre lot of ground lying neartown, which they claimed as the property of the deceased husband andfather. 

When they reached town they found the land was claimed by Gen. Adams. John T. Stuart and myself were employed to look into the matter, and ifit was thought we could do so with any prospect of success, to commencea suit for the land. I went immediately to the recorder's office toexamine Adams's title, and found that the land had been entered by oneDixon, deeded by Dixon to Thomas, by Thomas to one Miller, and by Millerto Gen. Adams. The oldest of these three deeds was about ten or elevenyears old, and the latest more than five, all recorded at the sametime, and that within less than one year. This I thought a suspiciouscircumstance, and I was thereby induced to examine the deeds veryclosely, with a view to the discovery of some defect by which tooverturn the title, being almost convinced then it was founded in fraud. I discovered that in the deed from Thomas to Miller, although Miller'sname stood in a sort of marginal note on the record book, it was nowherein the deed itself. I told the fact to Talbott, the recorder, andproposed to him that he should go to Gen. Adams's and get the originaldeed, and compare it with the record, and thereby ascertain whetherthe defect was in the original or there was merely an error in therecording. As Talbott afterwards told me, he went to the General's, butnot finding him at home, got the deed from his son, which, when comparedwith the record, proved what we had discovered was merely an error ofthe recorder. After Mr. Talbott corrected the record, he brought theoriginal to our office, as I then thought and think yet, to show usthat it was right. When he came into the room he handed the deed to me, remarking that the fault was all his own. On opening it, another paperfell out of it, which on examination proved to be an assignment of ajudgment in the Circuit Court of Sangamon County from Joseph Anderson, the late husband of the widow above named, to James Adams, the judgmentbeing in favor of said Anderson against one Joseph Miller. Knowing thatthis judgment had some connection with the land affair, I immediatelytook a copy of it, which is word for word, letter for letter and crossfor cross as follows:

Joseph Anderson, vs. Joseph Miller. 

Judgment in Sangamon Circuit Court against Joseph Miller obtained on anote originally 25 dolls and interest thereon accrued. I assign all myright, title and interest to James Adams which is in consideration of adebt I owe said Adams. 

his JOSEPH x ANDERSON. Mark. 

As the copy shows, it bore date May 10, 1827; although the judgmentassigned by it was not obtained until the October afterwards, as may beseen by any one on the records of the Circuit Court. Two other strangecircumstances attended it which cannot be represented by a copy. One ofthem was, that the date "1827" had first been made "1837" and, withoutthe figure "3, " being fully obliterated, the figure "2" had afterwardsbeen made on top of it; the other was that, although the date was tenyears old, the writing on it, from the freshness of its appearance, wasthought by many, and I believe by all who saw it, not to be more than aweek old. The paper on which it was written had a very old appearance;and there were some old figures on the back of it which made thefreshness of the writing on the face of it much more striking than Isuppose it otherwise might have been. The reader's curiosity is no doubtexcited to know what connection this assignment had with the land inquestion. The story is this: Dixon sold and deeded the land to Thomas;Thomas sold it to Anderson; but before he gave a deed, Anderson sold itto Miller, and took Miller's note for the purchase money. When thisnote became due, Anderson sued Miller on it, and Miller procured aninjunction from the Court of Chancery to stay the collection of themoney until he should get a deed for the land. Gen. Adams was employedas an attorney by Anderson in this chancery suit, and at the Octoberterm, 1827, the injunction was dissolved, and a judgment given in favorof Anderson against Miller; and it was provided that Thomas was toexecute a deed for the land in favor of Miller and deliver it to Gen. Adams, to be held up by him till Miller paid the judgment, and then todeliver it to him. Miller left the county without paying the judgment. Anderson moved to Fulton county, where he has since died When the widowcame to Springfield last May or June, as before mentioned, and found theland deeded to Gen. Adams by Miller, she was naturally led to inquirewhy the money due upon the judgment had not been sent to them, inasmuchas he, Gen. Adams, had no authority to deliver Thomas's deed to Milleruntil the money was paid. Then it was the General told her, or perhapsher son, who came with her, that Anderson, in his lifetime, had assignedthe judgment to him, Gen. Adams. I am now told that the General isexhibiting an assignment of the same judgment bearing date "1828" andin other respects differing from the one described; and that he isasserting that no such assignment as the one copied by me ever existed;or if there did, it was forged between Talbott and the lawyers, andslipped into his papers for the purpose of injuring him. Now, I can onlysay that I know precisely such a one did exist, and that Ben. Talbott, Wm. Butler, C. R. Matheny, John T. Stuart, Judge Logan, Robert Irwin, P. C. Canedy and S. M. Tinsley, all saw and examined it, and that at leastone half of them will swear that IT WAS IN GENERAL ADAMS'S HANDWRITING!!And further, I know that Talbott will swear that he got it out of theGeneral's possession, and returned it into his possession again. Theassignment which the General is now exhibiting purports to have been byAnderson in writing. The one I copied was signed with a cross. 

I am told that Gen. Neale says that he will swear that he heard Gen. Adams tell young Anderson that the assignment made by his father wassigned with a cross. 

The above are 'facts, ' as stated. I leave them without comment. I havegiven the names of persons who have knowledge of these facts, in orderthat any one who chooses may call on them and ascertain how far theywill corroborate my statements. I have only made these statementsbecause I am known by many to be one of the individuals against whomthe charge of forging the assignment and slipping it into the General'spapers has been made, and because our silence might be construed intoa confession of its truth. I shall not subscribe my name; but I herebyauthorize the editor of the Journal to give it up to any one that maycall for it. 

LINCOLN AND TALBOTT IN REPLY TO GEN. ADAMS. 

"SANGAMON JOURNAL, " SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , Oct. 28, 1837. 

In the Republican of this morning a publication of Gen. Adams's appears, in which my name is used quite unreservedly. For this I thank theGeneral. I thank him because it gives me an opportunity, withoutappearing obtrusive, of explaining a part of a former publication ofmine, which appears to me to have been misunderstood by many. 

In the former publication alluded to, I stated, in substance, thatMr. Talbott got a deed from a son of Gen. Adams's for the purpose ofcorrecting a mistake that had occurred on the record of the said deedin the recorder's office; that he corrected the record, and brought thedeed and handed it to me, and that on opening the deed, another paper, being the assignment of a judgment, fell out of it. This statementGen. Adams and the editor of the Republican have seized upon as a mostpalpable evidence of fabrication and falsehood. They set themselvesgravely about proving that the assignment could not have been in thedeed when Talbott got it from young Adams, as he, Talbott, would haveseen it when he opened the deed to correct the record. Now, the truthis, Talbott did see the assignment when he opened the deed, or at leasthe told me he did on the same day; and I only omitted to say so, inmy former publication, because it was a matter of such palpable andnecessary inference. I had stated that Talbott had corrected the recordby the deed; and of course he must have opened it; and, just as theGeneral and his friends argue, must have seen the assignment. I omittedto state the fact of Talbott's seeing the assignment, because itsexistence was so necessarily connected with other facts which I didstate, that I thought the greatest dunce could not but understandit. Did I say Talbott had not seen it? Did I say anything that wasinconsistent with his having seen it before? Most certainly I didneither; and if I did not, what becomes of the argument? These logicalgentlemen can sustain their argument only by assuming that I did saynegatively everything that I did not say affirmatively; and upon thesame assumption, we may expect to find the General, if a little harderpressed for argument, saying that I said Talbott came to our office withhis head downward, not that I actually said so, but because I omitted tosay he came feet downward. 

In his publication to-day, the General produces the affidavit of ReubenRadford, in which it is said that Talbott told Radford that he did notfind the assignment in the deed, in the recording of which the errorwas committed, but that he found it wrapped in another paper in therecorder's office, upon which statement the Genl. Comments as follows, to wit: "If it be true as stated by Talbott to Radford, that hefound the assignment wrapped up in another paper at his office, thatcontradicts the statement of Lincoln that it fell out of the deed. "

Is common sense to be abused with such sophistry? Did I say what Talbottfound it in? If Talbott did find it in another paper at his office, isthat any reason why he could not have folded it in a deed and broughtit to my office? Can any one be so far duped as to be made believe thatwhat may have happened at Talbot's office at one time is inconsistentwith what happened at my office at another time?

Now Talbott's statement of the case as he makes it to me is this, thathe got a bunch of deeds from young Adams, and that he knows he found theassignment in the bunch, but he is not certain which particular deed itwas in, nor is he certain whether it was folded in the same deed out ofwhich it was taken, or another one, when it was brought to my office. Isthis a mysterious story? Is there anything suspicious about it?

"But it is useless to dwell longer on this point. Any man who is notwilfully blind can see at a flash, that there is no discrepancy, andLincoln has shown that they are not only inconsistent with truth, buteach other"--I can only say, that I have shown that he has done no suchthing; and if the reader is disposed to require any other evidence thanthe General's assertion, he will be of my opinion. 

Excepting the General's most flimsy attempt at mystification, in regardto a discrepance between Talbott and myself, he has not denied a singlestatement that I made in my hand-bill. Every material statement thatI made has been sworn to by men who, in former times, were thought asrespectable as General Adams. I stated that an assignment of a judgment, a copy of which I gave, had existed--Benj. Talbott, C. R. Matheny, Wm. Butler, and Judge Logan swore to its existence. I stated that it wassaid to be in Gen. Adams's handwriting--the same men swore it was inhis handwriting. I stated that Talbott would swear that he got it out ofGen. Adams's possession--Talbott came forward and did swear it. 

Bidding adieu to the former publication, I now propose to examine theGeneral's last gigantic production. I now propose to point out somediscrepancies in the General's address; and such, too, as he shall notbe able to escape from. Speaking of the famous assignment, the Generalsays: "This last charge, which was their last resort, their dyingeffort to render my character infamous among my fellow citizens, wasmanufactured at a certain lawyer's office in the town, printed at theoffice of the Sangamon Journal, and found its way into the world sometime between two days just before the last election. " Now turn to Mr. Keys' affidavit, in which you will find the following, viz. : "Icertify that some time in May or the early part of June, 1837, I sawat Williams's corner a paper purporting to be an assignment from JosephAnderson to James Adams, which assignment was signed by a mark toAnderson's name, " etc. Now mark, if Keys saw the assignment on the lastof May or first of June, Gen. Adams tells a falsehood when he saysit was manufactured just before the election, which was on the 7th ofAugust; and if it was manufactured just before the election, Keys tellsa falsehood when he says he saw it on the last of May or first ofJune. Either Keys or the General is irretrievably in for it; and in theGeneral's very condescending language, I say "Let them settle it betweenthem. "

Now again, let the reader, bearing in mind that General Adams hasunequivocally said, in one part of his address, that the charge inrelation to the assignment was manufactured just before the election, turn to the affidavit of Peter S. Weber, where the following will befound viz. : "I, Peter S. Weber, do certify that from the best ofmy recollection, on the day or day after Gen. Adams started for theIllinois Rapids, in May last, that I was at the house of Gen. Adams, sitting in the kitchen, situated on the back part of the house, it beingin the afternoon, and that Benjamin Talbott came around the house, backinto the kitchen, and appeared wild and confused, and that he laid apackage of papers on the kitchen table and requested that they should behanded to Lucian. He made no apology for coming to the kitchen, norfor not handing them to Lucian himself, but showed the token of beingfrightened and confused both in demeanor and speech and for what cause Icould not apprehend. "

Commenting on Weber's affidavit, Gen. Adams asks, "Why this fright andconfusion?" I reply that this is a question for the General himself. Weber says that it was in May, and if so, it is most clear that Talbottwas not frightened on account of the assignment, unless the Generallies when he says the assignment charge was manufactured just before theelection. Is it not a strong evidence, that the General is not travelingwith the pole-star of truth in his front, to see him in one part ofhis address roundly asserting that the assignment was manufacturedjust before the election, and then, forgetting that position, procuringWeber's most foolish affidavit, to prove that Talbott had been engagedin manufacturing it two months before?

In another part of his address, Gen. Adams says: "That I hold anassignment of said judgment, dated the 20th of May, 1828, and signedby said Anderson, I have never pretended to deny or conceal, but statedthat fact in one of my circulars previous to the election, and alsoin answer to a bill in chancery. " Now I pronounce this statementunqualifiedly false, and shall not rely on the word or oath of anyman to sustain me in what I say; but will let the whole be decided byreference to the circular and answer in chancery of which the Generalspeaks. In his circular he did speak of an assignment; but he did notsay it bore date 20th of May, 1828; nor did he say it bore any date. Inhis answer in chancery, he did say that he had an assignment; but hedid not say that it bore date the 20th May, 1828; but so far from it, hesaid on oath (for he swore to the answer) that as well as recollected, he obtained it in 1827. If any one doubts, let him examine the circularand answer for himself. They are both accessible. 

It will readily be observed that the principal part of Adams's defenserests upon the argument that if he had been base enough to forge anassignment he would not have been fool enough to forge one that wouldnot cover the case. This argument he used in his circular before theelection. The Republican has used it at least once, since then; andAdams uses it again in his publication of to-day. Now I pledge myself toshow that he is just such a fool that he and his friends have contendedit was impossible for him to be. Recollect--he says he has a genuineassignment; and that he got Joseph Klein's affidavit, stating that hehad seen it, and that he believed the signature to have been executedby the same hand that signed Anderson's name to the answer in chancery. Luckily Klein took a copy of this genuine assignment, which I have beenpermitted to see; and hence I know it does not cover the case. In thefirst place it is headed "Joseph Anderson vs. Joseph Miller, " and headsoff "Judgment in Sangamon Circuit Court. " Now, mark, there never wasa case in Sangamon Circuit Court entitled Joseph Anderson vs. JosephMiller. The case mentioned in my former publication, and the onlyone between these parties that ever existed in the Circuit Court, wasentitled Joseph Miller vs. Joseph Anderson, Miller being the plaintiff. What then becomes of all their sophistry about Adams not being foolenough to forge an assignment that would not cover the case? It iscertain that the present one does not cover the case; and if he gotit honestly, it is still clear that he was fool enough to pay for anassignment that does not cover the case. 

The General asks for the proof of disinterested witnesses. Whom does heconsider disinterested? None can be more so than those who have alreadytestified against him. No one of them had the least interest on earth, so far as I can learn, to injure him. True, he says they had conspiredagainst him; but if the testimony of an angel from Heaven wereintroduced against him, he would make the same charge of conspiracy. And now I put the question to every reflecting man, Do you believe thatBenjamin Talbott, Chas. R. Matheny, William Butler and Stephen T. Logan, all sustaining high and spotless characters, and justly proud of them, would deliberately perjure themselves, without any motive whatever, except to injure a man's election; and that, too, a man who had been acandidate, time out of mind, and yet who had never been elected to anyoffice?

Adams's assurance, in demanding disinterested testimony, is surpassing. He brings in the affidavit of his own son, and even of Peter S. Weber, with whom I am not acquainted, but who, I suppose, is some black ormulatto boy, from his being kept in the kitchen, to prove his points;but when such a man as Talbott, a man who, but two years ago, ranagainst Gen. Adams for the office of Recorder and beat him more thanfour votes to one, is introduced against him, he asks the community, with all the consequence of a lord, to reject his testimony. 

I might easily write a volume, pointing out inconsistencies betweenthe statements in Adams's last address with one another, and with otherknown facts; but I am aware the reader must already be tired withthe length of this article. His opening statements, that he was firstaccused of being a Tory, and that he refuted that; that then theSampson's ghost story was got up, and he refuted that; that as a lastresort, a dying effort, the assignment charge was got up is all as falseas hell, as all this community must know. Sampson's ghost first madeits appearance in print, and that, too, after Keys swears he saw theassignment, as any one may see by reference to the files of papers; andGen. Adams himself, in reply to the Sampson's ghost story, was the firstman that raised the cry of toryism, and it was only by way of set-off, and never in seriousness, that it was bandied back at him. His effort isto make the impression that his enemies first made the charge of toryismand he drove them from that, then Sampson's ghost, he drove them fromthat, then finally the assignment charge was manufactured just beforeelection. Now, the only general reply he ever made to the Sampson'sghost and tory charges he made at one and the same time, and not insuccession as he states; and the date of that reply will show, that itwas made at least a month after the date on which Keys swears he saw theAnderson assignment. But enough. In conclusion I will only say that Ihave a character to defend as well as Gen. Adams, but I disdain to whineabout it as he does. It is true I have no children nor kitchen boys; andif I had, I should scorn to lug them in to make affidavits for me. 

A. LINCOLN, September 6, 1837. 

Gen. ADAMS CONTROVERSY--CONTINUED

TO THE PUBLIC. 

"SANGAMON JOURNAL, " Springfield, Ill, Oct. 28, 1837. 

Such is the turn which things have taken lately, that when Gen. Adamswrites a book, I am expected to write a commentary on it. In theRepublican of this morning he has presented the world with a new workof six columns in length; in consequence of which I must beg the room ofone column in the Journal. It is obvious that a minute reply cannotbe made in one column to everything that can be said in six; and, consequently, I hope that expectation will be answered if I reply tosuch parts of the General's publication as are worth replying to. 

It may not be improper to remind the reader that in his publication ofSept. 6th General Adams said that the assignment charge was manufacturedjust before the election; and that in reply I proved that statement tobe false by Keys, his own witness. Now, without attempting to explain, he furnishes me with another witness (Tinsley) by which the same thingis proved, to wit, that the assignment was not manufactured just beforethe election; but that it was some weeks before. Let it be borne in mindthat Adams made this statement--has himself furnished two witnesses toprove its falsehood, and does not attempt to deny or explain it. Beforegoing farther, let a pin be stuck here, labeled "One lie proved andconfessed. " On the 6th of September he said he had before stated inthe hand-bill that he held an assignment dated May 20th, 1828, which inreply I pronounced to be false, and referred to the hand-bill for thetruth of what I said. This week he forgets to make any explanation ofthis. Let another pin be stuck here, labelled as before. I mention thesethings because, if, when I convict him in one falsehood, he is permittedto shift his ground and pass it by in silence, there can be no end tothis controversy. 

The first thing that attracts my attention in the General's presentproduction is the information he is pleased to give to "those who aremade to suffer at his (my) hands. "

Under present circumstances, this cannot apply to me, for I am nota widow nor an orphan: nor have I a wife or children who might bypossibility become such. Such, however, I have no doubt, have been, and will again be made to suffer at his hands! Hands! Yes, they arethe mischievous agents. The next thing I shall notice is his favoriteexpression, "not of lawyers, doctors and others, " which he is so fond ofapplying to all who dare expose his rascality. Now, let it be rememberedthat when he first came to this country he attempted to impose himselfupon the community as a lawyer, and actually carried the attempt sofar as to induce a man who was under a charge of murder to entrust thedefence of his life in his hands, and finally took his money and gothim hanged. Is this the man that is to raise a breeze in his favor byabusing lawyers? If he is not himself a lawyer, it is for the lack ofsense, and not of inclination. If he is not a lawyer, he is a liar, forhe proclaimed himself a lawyer, and got a man hanged by depending onhim. 

Passing over such parts of the article as have neither fact nor argumentin them, I come to the question asked by Adams whether any person eversaw the assignment in his possession. This is an insult to common sense. Talbott has sworn once and repeated time and again, that he got it outof Adams's possession and returned it into the same possession. Still, as though he was addressing fools, he has assurance to ask if any personever saw it in his possession. 

Next I quote a sentence, "Now my son Lucian swears that when Talbottcalled for the deed, that he, Talbott, opened it and pointed out theerror. " True. His son Lucian did swear as he says; and in doing so, heswore what I will prove by his own affidavit to be a falsehood. Turn toLucian's affidavit, and you will there see that Talbott called for thedeed by which to correct an error on the record. Thus it appears thatthe error in question was on the record, and not in the deed. How thencould Talbott open the deed and point out the error? Where a thing isnot, it cannot be pointed out. The error was not in the deed, and ofcourse could not be pointed out there. This does not merely prove thatthe error could not be pointed out, as Lucian swore it was; but itproves, too, that the deed was not opened in his presence with a specialview to the error, for if it had been, he could not have failed to seethat there was no error in it. It is easy enough to see why Lucian sworethis. His object was to prove that the assignment was not in the deedwhen Talbott got it: but it was discovered he could not swear thissafely, without first swearing the deed was opened--and if he swore itwas opened, he must show a motive for opening it, and the conclusionwith him and his father was that the pointing out the error would appearthe most plausible. 

For the purpose of showing that the assignment was not in the bundlewhen Talbott got it, is the story introduced into Lucian's affidavitthat the deeds were counted. It is a remarkable fact, and one thatshould stand as a warning to all liars and fabricators, that in thisshort affidavit of Lucian's he only attempted to depart from the truth, so far as I have the means of knowing, in two points, to wit, in theopening the deed and pointing out the error and the counting of thedeeds, --and in both of these he caught himself. About the counting, hecaught himself thus--after saying the bundle contained five deeds anda lease, he proceeds, "and I saw no other papers than the said deed andlease. " First he has six papers, and then he saw none but two; for "myson Lucian's" benefit, let a pin be stuck here. 

Adams again adduces the argument, that he could not have forged theassignment, for the reason that he could have had no motive for it. Withthose that know the facts there is no absence of motive. Admitting thepaper which he has filed in the suit to be genuine, it is clear that itcannot answer the purpose for which he designs it. Hence his motive formaking one that he supposed would answer is obvious. His making the datetoo old is also easily enough accounted for. The records were not in hishands, and then, there being some considerable talk upon this particularsubject, he knew he could not examine the records to ascertain theprecise dates without subjecting himself to suspicion; and hence heconcluded to try it by guess, and, as it turned out, missed it a little. About Miller's deposition I have a word to say. In the first place, Miller's answer to the first question shows upon its face that he hadbeen tampered with, and the answer dictated to him. He was asked if heknew Joel Wright and James Adams; and above three-fourths of his answerconsists of what he knew about Joseph Anderson, a man about whom nothinghad been asked, nor a word said in the question--a fact that can only beaccounted for upon the supposition that Adams had secretly told him whathe wished him to swear to. 

Another of Miller's answers I will prove both by common sense and theCourt of Record is untrue. To one question he answers, "Anderson broughta suit against me before James Adams, then an acting justice of thepeace in Sangamon County, before whom he obtained a judgment. 

"Q. --Did you remove the same by injunction to the Sangamon CircuitCourt? Ans. --I did remove it. "

Now mark--it is said he removed it by injunction. The word "injunction"in common language imports a command that some person or thing shallnot move or be removed; in law it has the same meaning. An injunctionissuing out of chancery to a justice of the peace is a command to him tostop all proceedings in a named case until further orders. It is not anorder to remove but to stop or stay something that is already moving. Besides this, the records of the Sangamon Circuit Court show that thejudgment of which Miller swore was never removed into said Court byinjunction or otherwise. 

I have now to take notice of a part of Adams's address which in theorder of time should have been noticed before. It is in these words:"I have now shown, in the opinion of two competent judges, that thehandwriting of the forged assignment differed from mine, and by one ofthem that it could not be mistaken for mine. " That is false. Tinsley nodoubt is the judge referred to; and by reference to his certificate itwill be seen that he did not say the handwriting of the assignmentcould not be mistaken for Adams's--nor did he use any other expressionsubstantially, or anything near substantially, the same. But if Tinsleyhad said the handwriting could not be mistaken for Adams's, it wouldhave been equally unfortunate for Adams: for it then would havecontradicted Keys, who says, "I looked at the writing and judged it thesaid Adams's or a good imitation. "

Adams speaks with much apparent confidence of his success on attendinglawsuits, and the ultimate maintenance of his title to the land inquestion. Without wishing to disturb the pleasure of his dream, I wouldsay to him that it is not impossible that he may yet be taught to sing adifferent song in relation to the matter. 

At the end of Miller's deposition, Adams asks, "Will Mr. Lincoln now saythat he is almost convinced my title to this ten acre tract of landis founded in fraud?" I answer, I will not. I will now change thephraseology so as to make it run--I am quite convinced, &c. I cannotpass in silence Adams's assertion that he has proved that the forgedassignment was not in the deed when it came from his house by Talbott, the recorder. In this, although Talbott has sworn that the assignmentwas in the bundle of deeds when it came from his house, Adams hasthe unaccountable assurance to say that he has proved the contrary byTalbott. Let him or his friends attempt to show wherein he proved anysuch thing by Talbott. 

In his publication of the 6th of September he hinted to Talbott, thathe might be mistaken. In his present, speaking of Talbott and me he says"They may have been imposed upon. " Can any man of the least penetrationfail to see the object of this? After he has stormed and raged till hehopes and imagines he has got us a little scared he wishes to softlywhisper in our ears, "If you'll quit I will. " If he could get us to saythat some unknown, undefined being had slipped the assignment intoour hands without our knowledge, not a doubt remains but that he wouldimmediately discover that we were the purest men on earth. This is theground he evidently wishes us to understand he is willing to compromiseupon. But we ask no such charity at his hands. We are neither mistakennor imposed upon. We have made the statements we have because we knowthem to be true and we choose to live or die by them. 

Esq. Carter, who is Adams's friend, personal and political, willrecollect, that, on the 5th of this month, he (Adams), with a greataffectation of modesty, declared that he would never introduce his ownchild as a witness. Notwithstanding this affectation of modesty, he hasin his present publication introduced his child as witness; and as if toshow with how much contempt he could treat his own declaration, hehas had this same Esq. Carter to administer the oath to him. And soimportant a witness does he consider him, and so entirely does the wholeof his entire present production depend upon the testimony of his child, that in it he has mentioned "my son, " "my son Lucian, " "Lucian, my son, "and the like expressions no less than fifteen different times. Let itbe remembered here, that I have shown the affidavit of "my darling sonLucian" to be false by the evidence apparent on its own face; and I nowask if that affidavit be taken away what foundation will the fabric haveleft to stand upon?

General Adams's publications and out-door maneuvering, taken inconnection with the editorial articles of the Republican, are not morefoolish and contradictory than they are ludicrous and amusing. Oneweek the Republican notifies the public that Gen. Adams is preparingan instrument that will tear, rend, split, rive, blow up, confound, overwhelm, annihilate, extinguish, exterminate, burst asunder, and grindto powder all its slanderers, and particularly Talbott and Lincoln--allof which is to be done in due time. 

Then for two or three weeks all is calm--not a word said. Again theRepublican comes forth with a mere passing remark that "public" opinionhas decided in favor of Gen. Adams, and intimates that he will givehimself no more trouble about the matter. In the meantime Adams himselfis prowling about and, as Burns says of the devil, "For prey, and holesand corners tryin', " and in one instance goes so far as to take an oldacquaintance of mine several steps from a crowd and, apparently weigheddown with the importance of his business, gravely and solemnly asks himif "he ever heard Lincoln say he was a deist. "

Anon the Republican comes again. "We invite the attention of the publicto General Adams's communication, " &c. "The victory is a great one, thetriumph is overwhelming. " I really believe the editor of the IllinoisRepublican is fool enough to think General Adams leads off--"Authorsmost egregiously mistaken &c. Most woefully shall their presumption bepunished, " &c. (Lord have mercy on us. ) "The hour is yet to come, yea, nigh at hand--(how long first do you reckon?)--when the Journal and itsjunto shall say, I have appeared too early. " "Their infamy shall be laidbare to the public gaze. " Suddenly the General appears to relent at theseverity with which he is treating us and he exclaims: "The condemnationof my enemies is the inevitable result of my own defense. " For yourhealth's sake, dear Gen. , do not permit your tenderness of heart toafflict you so much on our account. For some reason (perhaps because weare killed so quickly) we shall never be sensible of our suffering. 

Farewell, General. I will see you again at court if not before--when andwhere we will settle the question whether you or the widow shall havethe land. 

A. LINCOLN. October 18, 1837. 

1838

TO Mrs. O. H. BROWNING--A FARCE

SPRINGFIELD, April 1, 1838. 

DEAR MADAM:--Without apologizing for being egotistical, I shall make thehistory of so much of my life as has elapsed since I saw you the subjectof this letter. And, by the way, I now discover that, in order to givea full and intelligible account of the things I have done and sufferedsince I saw you, I shall necessarily have to relate some that happenedbefore. 

It was, then, in the autumn of 1836 that a married lady of myacquaintance, and who was a great friend of mine, being about to pay avisit to her father and other relatives residing in Kentucky, proposedto me that on her return she would bring a sister of hers with her oncondition that I would engage to become her brother-in-law with allconvenient despatch. I, of course, accepted the proposal, for you knowI could not have done otherwise had I really been averse to it; butprivately, between you and me, I was most confoundedly well pleased withthe project. I had seen the said sister some three years before, thoughther intelligent and agreeable, and saw no good objection to ploddinglife through hand in hand with her. Time passed on; the lady took herjourney and in due time returned, sister in company, sure enough. Thisastonished me a little, for it appeared to me that her coming so readilyshowed that she was a trifle too willing, but on reflection it occurredto me that she might have been prevailed on by her married sister tocome without anything concerning me ever having been mentioned to her, and so I concluded that if no other objection presented itself, I wouldconsent to waive this. All this occurred to me on hearing of her arrivalin the neighborhood--for, be it remembered, I had not yet seen her, except about three years previous, as above mentioned. In a few days wehad an interview, and, although I had seen her before, she did not lookas my imagination had pictured her. I knew she was over-size, but shenow appeared a fair match for Falstaff. I knew she was called an"old maid, " and I felt no doubt of the truth of at least half of theappellation, but now, when I beheld her, I could not for my life avoidthinking of my mother; and this, not from withered features, --forher skin was too full of fat to permit of its contracting intowrinkles, --but from her want of teeth, weather-beaten appearance ingeneral, and from a kind of notion that ran in my head that nothingcould have commenced at the size of infancy and reached her present bulkin less than thirty-five or forty years; and in short, I was not atall pleased with her. But what could I do? I had told her sister that Iwould take her for better or for worse, and I made a point of honor andconscience in all things to stick to my word especially if others hadbeen induced to act on it which in this case I had no doubt they had, for I was now fairly convinced that no other man on earth would haveher, and hence the conclusion that they were bent on holding me to mybargain. 

"Well, " thought I, "I have said it, and, be the consequences what theymay, it shall not be my fault if I fail to do it. " At once I determinedto consider her my wife; and, this done, all my powers of discovery wereput to work in search of perfections in her which might be fairly setoff against her defects. I tried to imagine her handsome, which, butfor her unfortunate corpulency, was actually true. Exclusive of this nowoman that I have ever seen has a finer face. I also tried to convincemyself that the mind was much more to be valued than the person; and inthis she was not inferior, as I could discover, to any with whom I hadbeen acquainted. 

Shortly after this, without coming to any positive understanding withher, I set out for Vandalia, when and where you first saw me. Duringmy stay there I had letters from her which did not change my opinion ofeither her intellect or intention, but on the contrary confirmed it inboth. 

All this while, although I was fixed, "firm as the surge-repellingrock, " in my resolution, I found I was continually repenting therashness which had led me to make it. Through life, I have been in nobondage, either real or imaginary, from the thraldom of which I so muchdesired to be free. After my return home, I saw nothing to change myopinions of her in any particular. She was the same, and so was I. I nowspent my time in planning how I might get along through life after mycontemplated change of circumstances should have taken place, and how Imight procrastinate the evil day for a time, which I really dreaded asmuch, perhaps more, than an Irishman does the halter. 

After all my suffering upon this deeply interesting subject, here I am, wholly, unexpectedly, completely, out of the "scrape"; and now I want toknow if you can guess how I got out of it----out, clear, in every senseof the term; no violation of word, honor, or conscience. I don't believeyou can guess, and so I might as well tell you at once. As the lawyersays, it was done in the manner following, to wit: After I had delayedthe matter as long as I thought I could in honor do (which, by the way, had brought me round into the last fall), I concluded I might as wellbring it to a consummation without further delay; and so I musteredmy resolution, and made the proposal to her direct; but, shocking torelate, she answered, No. At first I supposed she did it through anaffectation of modesty, which I thought but ill became her under thepeculiar circumstances of her case; but on my renewal of the charge, I found she repelled it with greater firmness than before. I tried itagain and again but with the same success, or rather with the same wantof success. 

I finally was forced to give it up; at which I very unexpectedly foundmyself mortified almost beyond endurance. I was mortified, it seemedto me, in a hundred different ways. My vanity was deeply wounded by thereflection that I had been too stupid to discover her intentions, and atthe same time never doubting that I understood them perfectly, and alsothat she, whom I had taught myself to believe nobody else would have, had actually rejected me with all my fancied greatness. And, to cap thewhole, I then for the first time began to suspect that I was really alittle in love with her. But let it all go. I'll try and outlive it. Others have been made fools of by the girls, but this can never withtruth be said of me. I most emphatically in this instance, made a foolof myself. I have now come to the conclusion never again to think ofmarrying, and for this reason: I can never be satisfied with any one whowould be blockhead enough to have me. 

When you receive this, write me a long yarn about something to amuse me. Give my respects to Mr. Browning. 

Your sincere friend, A. LINCOLN. 

1839

REMARKS ON SALE OF PUBLIC LANDS

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 17, 1839. 

Mr. Lincoln, from Committee on Finance, to which the subject wasreferred, made a report on the subject of purchasing of the UnitedStates all the unsold lands lying within the limits of the State ofIllinois, accompanied by resolutions that this State propose to purchaseall unsold lands at twenty-five cents per acre, and pledging the faithof the State to carry the proposal into effect if the government acceptthe same within two years. 

Mr. Lincoln thought the resolutions ought to be seriously considered. Inreply to the gentleman from Adams, he said that it was not to enrich theState. The price of the lands may be raised, it was thought by some; byothers, that it would be reduced. The conclusion in his mind was thatthe representatives in this Legislature from the country in whichthe lands lie would be opposed to raising the price, because it wouldoperate against the settlement of the lands. He referred to the lands inthe military tract. They had fallen into the hands of large speculatorsin consequence of the low price. He was opposed to a low price of land. He thought it was adverse to the interests of the poor settler, becausespeculators buy them up. He was opposed to a reduction of the price ofpublic lands. 

Mr. Lincoln referred to some official documents emanating from Indiana, and compared the progressive population of the two States. Illinoishad gained upon that State under the public land system as it is. Hisconclusion was that ten years from this time Illinois would have no morepublic land unsold than Indiana now has. He referred also to Ohio. ThatState had sold nearly all her public lands. She was but twenty yearsahead of us, and as our lands were equally salable--more so, as hemaintained--we should have no more twenty years from now than she has atpresent. 

Mr. Lincoln referred to the canal lands, and supposed that the policy ofthe State would be different in regard to them, if the representativesfrom that section of country could themselves choose the policy; but therepresentatives from other parts of the State had a veto upon it, andregulated the policy. He thought that if the State had all the lands, the policy of the Legislature would be more liberal to all sections. 

He referred to the policy of the General Government. He thought thatif the national debt had not been paid, the expenses of the governmentwould not have doubled, as they had done since that debt was paid. 

TO ------ ROW. 

SPRINGFIELD, June 11, 1839 DEAR ROW:

Mr. Redman informs me that you wish me to write you the particulars ofa conversation between Dr. Felix and myself relative to you. The Dr. Overtook me between Rushville and Beardstown. 

He, after learning that I had lived at Springfield, asked if I wasacquainted with you. I told him I was. He said you had lately beenelected constable in Adams, but that you never would be again. I askedhim why. He said the people there had found out that you had beensheriff or deputy sheriff in Sangamon County, and that you came off andleft your securities to suffer. He then asked me if I did not know suchto be the fact. I told him I did not think you had ever been sheriff ordeputy sheriff in Sangamon, but that I thought you had been constable. Ifurther told him that if you had left your securities to suffer in thator any other case, I had never heard of it, and that if it had been so, I thought I would have heard of it. 

If the Dr. Is telling that I told him anything against you whatever, Iauthorize you to contradict it flatly. We have no news here. 

Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

SPEECH ON NATIONAL BANK

IN THE HALL OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 20, 1839. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--It is peculiarly embarrassing to me to attempt acontinuance of the discussion, on this evening, which has been conductedin this hall on several preceding ones. It is so because on each ofthose evenings there was a much fuller attendance than now, without anyreason for its being so, except the greater interest the community feelin the speakers who addressed them then than they do in him who is to doso now. I am, indeed, apprehensive that the few who have attendedhave done so more to spare me mortification than in the hope of beinginterested in anything I may be able to say. This circumstance castsa damp upon my spirits, which I am sure I shall be unable to overcomeduring the evening. But enough of preface. 

The subject heretofore and now to be discussed is the subtreasury schemeof the present administration, as a means of collecting, safe-keeping, transferring, and disbursing, the revenues of the nation, as contrastedwith a national bank for the same purposes. Mr. Douglas has said that we(the Whigs) have not dared to meet them (the Locos) in argument on thisquestion. I protest against this assertion. I assert that we have againand again, during this discussion, urged facts and arguments againstthe subtreasury which they have neither dared to deny nor attempted toanswer. But lest some may be led to believe that we really wish to avoidthe question, I now propose, in my humble way, to urge those argumentsagain; at the same time begging the audience to mark well the positionsI shall take and the proof I shall offer to sustain them, and that theywill not again permit Mr. Douglas or his friends to escape the force ofthem by a round and groundless assertion that we "dare not meet them inargument. "

Of the subtreasury, then, as contrasted with a national bank for thebefore-enumerated purposes, I lay down the following propositions, towit: (1) It will injuriously affect the community by its operation onthe circulating medium. (2) It will be a more expensive fiscal agent. (3) It will be a less secure depository of the public money. To showthe truth of the first proposition, let us take a short review of ourcondition under the operation of a national bank. It was the depositoryof the public revenues. Between the collection of those revenues and thedisbursement of them by the government, the bank was permitted to anddid actually loan them out to individuals, and hence the large amount ofmoney actually collected for revenue purposes, which by any otherplan would have been idle a great portion of the time, was kept almostconstantly in circulation. Any person who will reflect that money isonly valuable while in circulation will readily perceive that any devicewhich will keep the government revenues in constant circulation, insteadof being locked up in idleness, is no inconsiderable advantage. By thesubtreasury the revenue is to be collected and kept in iron boxes untilthe government wants it for disbursement; thus robbing the people of theuse of it, while the government does not itself need it, and while themoney is performing no nobler office than that of rusting in iron boxes. The natural effect of this change of policy, every one will see, isto reduce the quantity of money in circulation. But, again, bythe subtreasury scheme the revenue is to be collected in specie. Ianticipate that this will be disputed. I expect to hear it said thatit is not the policy of the administration to collect the revenuein specie. If it shall, I reply that Mr. Van Buren, in his messagerecommending the subtreasury, expended nearly a column of that documentin an attempt to persuade Congress to provide for the collection of therevenue in specie exclusively; and he concludes with these words:

"It may be safely assumed that no motive of convenience to the citizensrequires the reception of bank paper. " In addition to this, Mr. Silas Wright, Senator from New York, and the political, personal andconfidential friend of Mr. Van Buren, drafted and introduced into theSenate the first subtreasury bill, and that bill provided for ultimatelycollecting the revenue in specie. It is true, I know, that that clausewas stricken from the bill, but it was done by the votes of the Whigs, aided by a portion only of the Van Buren senators. No subtreasurybill has yet become a law, though two or three have been considered byCongress, some with and some without the specie clause; so that Iadmit there is room for quibbling upon the question of whether theadministration favor the exclusive specie doctrine or not; but I take itthat the fact that the President at first urged the specie doctrine, and that under his recommendation the first bill introduced embraced it, warrants us in charging it as the policy of the party until their headas publicly recants it as he at first espoused it. I repeat, then, thatby the subtreasury the revenue is to be collected in specie. Now markwhat the effect of this must be. By all estimates ever made there arebut between sixty and eighty millions of specie in the United States. The expenditures of the Government for the year 1838--the last for whichwe have had the report--were forty millions. Thus it is seen that if thewhole revenue be collected in specie, it will take more than half of allthe specie in the nation to do it. By this means more than half of allthe specie belonging to the fifteen millions of souls who compose thewhole population of the country is thrown into the hands of the publicoffice-holders, and other public creditors comprising in number perhapsnot more than one quarter of a million, leaving the other fourteenmillions and three quarters to get along as they best can, with lessthan one half of the specie of the country, and whatever rags andshinplasters they may be able to put, and keep, in circulation. Bythis means, every office-holder and other public creditor may, andmost likely will, set up shaver; and a most glorious harvest will thespecie-men have of it, --each specie-man, upon a fair division, having tohis share the fleecing of about fifty-nine rag-men. In all candor let meask, was such a system for benefiting the few at the expense of the manyever before devised? And was the sacred name of Democracy ever beforemade to indorse such an enormity against the rights of the people?

I have already said that the subtreasury will reduce the quantity ofmoney in circulation. This position is strengthened by the recollectionthat the revenue is to be collected in Specie, so that the mere amountof revenue is not all that is withdrawn, but the amount of papercirculation that the forty millions would serve as a basis to iswithdrawn, which would be in a sound state at least one hundredmillions. When one hundred millions, or more, of the circulation wenow have shall be withdrawn, who can contemplate without terror thedistress, ruin, bankruptcy, and beggary that must follow? The manwho has purchased any article--say a horse--on credit, at one hundreddollars, when there are two hundred millions circulating in the country, if the quantity be reduced to one hundred millions by the arrival ofpay-day, will find the horse but sufficient to pay half the debt; andthe other half must either be paid out of his other means, and therebybecome a clear loss to him, or go unpaid, and thereby become a clearloss to his creditor. What I have here said of a single case of thepurchase of a horse will hold good in every case of a debt existing atthe time a reduction in the quantity of money occurs, by whomsoever, andfor whatsoever, it may have been contracted. It may be said thatwhat the debtor loses the creditor gains by this operation; but onexamination this will be found true only to a very limited extent. It ismore generally true that all lose by it--the creditor by losing more ofhis debts than he gains by the increased value of those he collects; thedebtor by either parting with more of his property to pay his debtsthan he received in contracting them, or by entirely breaking up hisbusiness, and thereby being thrown upon the world in idleness. 

The general distress thus created will, to be sure, be temporary, because, whatever change may occur in the quantity of money in anycommunity, time will adjust the derangement produced; but while thatadjustment is progressing, all suffer more or less, and very many loseeverything that renders life desirable. Why, then, shall we suffer asevere difficulty, even though it be but temporary, unless we receivesome equivalent for it?

What I have been saying as to the effect produced by a reduction of thequantity of money relates to the whole country. I now propose toshow that it would produce a peculiar and permanent hardship upon thecitizens of those States and Territories in which the public lands lie. The land-offices in those States and Territories, as all know, form thegreat gulf by which all, or nearly all, the money in them is swallowedup. When the quantity of money shall be reduced, and consequentlyeverything under individual control brought down in proportion, theprice of those lands, being fixed by law, will remain as now. Ofnecessity it will follow that the produce or labor that now raises moneysufficient to purchase eighty acres will then raise but sufficientto purchase forty, or perhaps not that much; and this difficulty andhardship will last as long, in some degree, as any portion of theselands shall remain undisposed of. Knowing, as I well do, the difficultythat poor people now encounter in procuring homes, I hesitate not to saythat when the price of the public lands shall be doubled or trebled, or, which is the same thing, produce and labor cut down to one half or onethird of their present prices, it will be little less than impossiblefor them to procure those homes at all. .. . 

Well, then, what did become of him? (Postmaster General Barry) Why, thePresident immediately expressed his high disapprobation of his almostunequaled incapacity and corruption by appointing him to a foreignmission, with a salary and outfit of $18, 000 a year! The party nowattempt to throw Barry off, and to avoid the responsibility of his sins. Did not the President indorse those sins when, on the very heel oftheir commission, he appointed their author to the very highest and mosthonorable office in his gift, and which is but a single step behind thevery goal of American political ambition?

I return to another of Mr. Douglas's excuses for the expenditures of1838, at the same time announcing the pleasing intelligence that this isthe last one. He says that ten millions of that year's expenditure wasa contingent appropriation, to prosecute an anticipated war with GreatBritain on the Maine boundary question. Few words will settle this. First, that the ten millions appropriated was not made till 1839, andconsequently could not have been expended in 1838; second, although itwas appropriated, it has never been expended at all. Those who heard Mr. Douglas recollect that he indulged himself in a contemptuous expressionof pity for me. "Now he's got me, " thought I. But when he went on tosay that five millions of the expenditure of 1838 were payments of theFrench indemnities, which I knew to be untrue; that five millions hadbeen for the post-office, which I knew to be untrue; that ten millionshad been for the Maine boundary war, which I not only knew to be untrue, but supremely ridiculous also; and when I saw that he was stupid enoughto hope that I would permit such groundless and audacious assertions togo unexposed, --I readily consented that, on the score both of veracityand sagacity, the audience should judge whether he or I were the moredeserving of the world's contempt. 

Mr. Lamborn insists that the difference between the Van Buren party andthe Whigs is that, although the former sometimes err in practice, they are always correct in principle, whereas the latter are wrong inprinciple; and, better to impress this proposition, he uses a figurativeexpression in these words: "The Democrats are vulnerable in the heel, but they are sound in the head and the heart. " The first branch of thefigure--that is, that the Democrats are vulnerable in the heel--I admitis not merely figuratively, but literally true. Who that looks but fora moment at their Swartwouts, their Prices, their Harringtons, and theirhundreds of others, scampering away with the public money to Texas, toEurope, and to every spot of the earth where a villain may hope to findrefuge from justice, can at all doubt that they are most distressinglyaffected in their heels with a species of "running itch"? It seemsthat this malady of their heels operates on these sound-headed andhonest-hearted creatures very much like the cork leg in the comic songdid on its owner: which, when he had once got started on it, the more hetried to stop it, the more it would run away. At the hazard of wearingthis point threadbare, I will relate an anecdote which seems toostrikingly in point to be omitted. A witty Irish soldier, who was alwaysboasting of his bravery when no danger was near, but who invariablyretreated without orders at the first charge of an engagement, beingasked by his captain why he did so, replied: "Captain, I have as brave aheart as Julius Caesar ever had; but, somehow or other, wheneverdanger approaches, my cowardly legs will run away with it. " So with Mr. Lamborn's party. They take the public money into their hand for themost laudable purpose that wise heads and honest hearts can dictate; butbefore they can possibly get it out again, their rascally "vulnerableheels" will run away with them. 

Seriously this proposition of Mr. Lamborn is nothing more or less thana request that his party may be tried by their professions instead oftheir practices. Perhaps no position that the party assumes is moreliable to or more deserving of exposure than this very modest request;and nothing but the unwarrantable length to which I have alreadyextended these remarks forbids me now attempting to expose it. For thereason given, I pass it by. 

I shall advert to but one more point. Mr. Lamborn refers to the lateelections in the States, and from their results confidently predictsthat every State in the Union will vote for Mr. Van Buren at the nextPresidential election. Address that argument to cowards and to knaves;with the free and the brave it will effect nothing. It may be true; ifit must, let it. Many free countries have lost their liberty, and oursmay lose hers; but if she shall, be it my proudest plume, not that I wasthe last to desert, but that I never deserted her. I know that the greatvolcano at Washington, aroused and directed by the evil spirit thatreigns there, is belching forth the lava of political corruption in acurrent broad and deep, which is sweeping with frightful velocityover the whole length and breadth of the land, bidding fair to leaveunscathed no green spot or living thing; while on its bosom are riding, like demons on the waves of hell, the imps of that evil spirit, andfiendishly taunting all those who dare resist its destroying course withthe hopelessness of their effort; and, knowing this, I cannot deny thatall may be swept away. Broken by it I, too, may be; bow to it I neverwill. The probability that we may fall in the struggle ought not todeter us from the support of a cause we believe to be just; it shall notdeter me. If ever I feel the soul within me elevate and expand to thosedimensions not wholly unworthy of its almighty Architect, it is when Icontemplate the cause of my country deserted by all the world beside, and I standing up boldly and alone, and hurling defiance at hervictorious oppressors. Here, without contemplating consequences, beforehigh heaven and in the face of the world, I swear eternal fidelity tothe just cause, as I deem it, of the land of my life, my liberty, andmy love. And who that thinks with me will not fearlessly adopt the oaththat I take? Let none falter who thinks he is right, and we may succeed. But if, after all, we shall fail, be it so. We still shall have theproud consolation of saying to our consciences, and to the departedshade of our country's freedom, that the cause approved of our judgment, and adored of our hearts, in disaster, in chains, in torture, in death, we never faltered in defending. 

TO JOHN T. STUART. 

SPRINGFIELD, December 23, 1839. 

DEAR STUART:

Dr. Henry will write you all the political news. I write this about somelittle matters of business. You recollect you told me you had drawn theChicago Masark money, and sent it to the claimants. A hawk-billed Yankeeis here besetting me at every turn I take, saying that Robert Kinzienever received the eighty dollars to which he was entitled. Can you tellme anything about the matter? Again, old Mr. Wright, who lives up SouthFork somewhere, is teasing me continually about some deeds which he sayshe left with you, but which I can find nothing of. Can you tell me wherethey are? The Legislature is in session and has suffered the bank toforfeit its charter without benefit of clergy. There seems to be littledisposition to resuscitate it. 

Whenever a letter comes from you to Mrs. ____________ I carry it to her, and then I see Betty; she is a tolerable nice "fellow" now. Maybe I willwrite again when I get more time. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN

P. S. --The Democratic giant is here, but he is not much worth talkingabout. A. L. 

1840

CIRCULAR FROM WHIG COMMITTEE. 

Confidential. 

January [1?], 1840. 

To MESSRS ------

GENTLEMEN:--In obedience to a resolution of the Whig State convention, we have appointed you the Central Whig Committee of your county. Thetrust confided to you will be one of watchfulness and labor; but we hopethe glory of having contributed to the overthrow of the corrupt powersthat now control our beloved country will be a sufficient reward for thetime and labor you will devote to it. Our Whig brethren throughout theUnion have met in convention, and after due deliberation andmutual concessions have elected candidates for the Presidency andVice-Presidency not only worthy of our cause, but worthy of the supportof every true patriot who would have our country redeemed, and herinstitutions honestly and faithfully administered. To overthrow thetrained bands that are opposed to us whose salaried officers are everon the watch, and whose misguided followers are ever ready to obey theirsmallest commands, every Whig must not only know his duty, but mustfirmly resolve, whatever of time and labor it may cost, boldly andfaithfully to do it. Our intention is to organize the whole State, sothat every Whig can be brought to the polls in the coming Presidentialcontest. We cannot do this, however, without your co-operation; andas we do our duty, so we shall expect you to do yours. After duedeliberation, the following is the plan of organization, and the dutiesrequired of each county committee:

(1) To divide their county into small districts, and to appoint in eacha subcommittee, whose duty it shall be to make a perfect list of all thevoters in their respective districts, and to ascertain with certaintyfor whom they will vote. If they meet with men who are doubtful as tothe man they will support, such voters should be designated in separatelines, with the name of the man they will probably support. 

(2) It will be the duty of said subcommittee to keep a constant watch onthe doubtful voters, and from time to time have them talked to by thosein whom they have the most confidence, and also to place in their handssuch documents as will enlighten and influence them. 

(3) It will also be their duty to report to you, at least once a month, the progress they are making, and on election days see that every Whigis brought to the polls. 

(4) The subcommittees should be appointed immediately; and by the lastof April, at least, they should make their first report. 

(5) On the first of each month hereafter we shall expect to hear fromyou. After the first report of your subcommittees, unless there shouldbe found a great many doubtful voters, you can tell pretty accuratelythe manner in which your county will vote. In each of your letters tous, you will state the number of certain votes both for and against us, as well as the number of doubtful votes, with your opinion of the mannerin which they will be cast. 

(6) When we have heard from all the counties, we shall be able totell with similar accuracy the political complexion of the State. Thisinformation will be forwarded to you as soon as received. 

(7) Inclosed is a prospectus for a newspaper to be continued until afterthe Presidential election. It will be superintended by ourselves, andevery Whig in the State must take it. It will be published so low thatevery one can afford it. You must raise a fund and forward us for extracopies, --every county ought to send--fifty or one hundred dollars, --andthe copies will be forwarded to you for distribution among our politicalopponents. The paper will be devoted exclusively to the great causein which we are engaged. Procure subscriptions, and forward them to usimmediately. 

(8) Immediately after any election in your county, you must inform us ofits results; and as early as possible after any general election we willgive you the like information. 

(9) A senator in Congress is to be elected by our next Legislature. Letno local interests divide you, but select candidates that can succeed. 

(10) Our plan of operations will of course be concealed from every oneexcept our good friends who of right ought to know them. 

Trusting much in our good cause, the strength of our candidates, andthe determination of the Whigs everywhere to do their duty, we go tothe work of organization in this State confident of success. We havethe numbers, and if properly organized and exerted, with the gallantHarrison at our head, we shall meet our foes and conquer them in allparts of the Union. 

Address your letters to Dr. A. G. Henry, R. F, Barrett; A. Lincoln, E. D. Baker, J. F. Speed. 

TO JOHN T. STUART. 

SPRINGFIELD, March 1, 1840

DEAR STUART:

I have never seen the prospects of our party so bright in these partsas they are now. We shall carry this county by a larger majority thanwe did in 1836, when you ran against May. I do not think my prospects, individually, are very flattering, for I think it probable I shallnot be permitted to be a candidate; but the party ticket will succeedtriumphantly. Subscriptions to the "Old Soldier" pour in withoutabatement. This morning I took from the post office a letter from Duboisenclosing the names of sixty subscribers, and on carrying it to FrancisI found he had received one hundred and forty more from other quartersby the same day's mail. That is but an average specimen of every day'sreceipts. Yesterday Douglas, having chosen to consider himself insultedby something in the Journal, undertook to cane Francis in the street. Francis caught him by the hair and jammed him back against a market cartwhere the matter ended by Francis being pulled away from him. Thewhole affair was so ludicrous that Francis and everybody else (Douglassexcepted) have been laughing about it ever since. 

I send you the names of some of the V. B. Men who have come out forHarrison about town, and suggest that you send them some documents. 

Moses Coffman (he let us appoint him a delegate yesterday), AaronCoffman, George Gregory, H. M. Briggs, Johnson (at Birchall'sBookstore), Michael Glyn, Armstrong (not Hosea nor Hugh, but acarpenter), Thomas Hunter, Moses Pileher (he was always a Whig anddeserves attention), Matthew Crowder Jr. , Greenberry Smith; John Fagan, George Fagan, William Fagan (these three fell out with us about Early, and are doubtful now), John M. Cartmel, Noah Rickard, John Rickard, Walter Marsh. 

The foregoing should be addressed at Springfield. 

Also send some to Solomon Miller and John Auth at Salisbury. Also toCharles Harper, Samuel Harper, and B. C. Harper, and T. J. Scroggins, John Scroggins at Pulaski, Logan County. 

Speed says he wrote you what Jo Smith said about you as he passed here. We will procure the names of some of his people here, and send them toyou before long. Speed also says you must not fail to send us the NewYork Journal he wrote for some time since. 

Evan Butler is jealous that you never send your compliments to him. Youmust not neglect him next time. 

Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN

RESOLUTION IN THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE. 

November 28, 1840. 

In the Illinois House of Representatives, November 28, 1840, Mr. Lincolnoffered the following:

Resolved, That so much of the governor's message as relates tofraudulent voting, and other fraudulent practices at elections, bereferred to the Committee on Elections, with instructions to saidcommittee to prepare and report to the House a bill for such an act asmay in their judgment afford the greatest possible protection of theelective franchise against all frauds of all sorts whatever. 

RESOLUTION IN THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE. 

December 2, 1840. 

Resolved, That the Committee on Education be instructed to inquireinto the expediency of providing by law for the examination as to thequalification of persons offering themselves as school teachers, that noteacher shall receive any part of the public school fund who shall nothave successfully passed such examination, and that they report by billor otherwise. 

REMARKS IN THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE. 

December 4, 1840

In the House of Representatives, Illinois, December 4, 1840, onpresentation of a report respecting petition of H. N. Purple, claimingthe seat of Mr. Phelps from Peoria, Mr. Lincoln moved that the Houseresolve itself into Committee of the Whole on the question, and takeit up immediately. Mr. Lincoln considered the question of the highestimportance whether an individual had a right to sit in this House ornot. The course he should propose would be to take up the evidence anddecide upon the facts seriatim. 

Mr. Drummond wanted time; they could not decide in the heat of debate, etc. 

Mr. Lincoln thought that the question had better be gone into now. In courts of law jurors were required to decide on evidence, withoutprevious study or examination. They were required to know nothing ofthe subject until the evidence was laid before them for their immediatedecision. He thought that the heat of party would be augmented by delay. 

The Speaker called Mr. Lincoln to order as being irrelevant; no mentionhad been made of party heat. 

Mr. Drummond said he had only spoken of debate. Mr. Lincoln asked whatcaused the heat, if it was not party? Mr. Lincoln concluded by urgingthat the question would be decided now better than hereafter, and hethought with less heat and excitement. 

(Further debate, in which Lincoln participated. )

REMARKS IN THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE. 

December 4, 1840. 

In the Illinois House of Representatives, December 4, 1840, House inCommittee of the Whole on the bill providing for payment of interest onthe State debt, --Mr. Lincoln moved to strike out the body and amendmentsof the bill, and insert in lieu thereof an amendment which in substancewas that the governor be authorized to issue bonds for the payment ofthe interest; that these be called "interest bonds"; that the taxesaccruing on Congress lands as they become taxable be irrevocably setaside and devoted as a fund to the payment of the interest bonds. Mr. Lincoln went into the reasons which appeared to him to render this planpreferable to that of hypothecating the State bonds. By this course wecould get along till the next meeting of the Legislature, which wasof great importance. To the objection which might be urged that theseinterest bonds could not be cashed, he replied that if our other bondscould, much more could these, which offered a perfect security, a fundbeing irrevocably set aside to provide for their redemption. To anotherobjection, that we should be paying compound interest, he would replythat the rapid growth and increase of our resources was in so great aratio as to outstrip the difficulty; that his object was to do the bestthat could be done in the present emergency. All agreed that the faithof the State must be preserved; this plan appeared to him preferableto a hypothecation of bonds, which would have to be redeemed and theinterest paid. How this was to be done, he could not see; therefore hehad, after turning the matter over in every way, devised this measure, which would carry us on till the next Legislature. 

(Mr. Lincoln spoke at some length, advocating his measure. )

Lincoln advocated his measure, December 11, 1840. 

December 12, 1840, he had thought some permanent provision ought to bemade for the bonds to be hypothecated, but was satisfied taxation andrevenue could not be connected with it now. 

1841

TO JOHN T. STUART--ON DEPRESSION

SPRINGFIELD, Jan 23, 1841

DEAR STUART: I am now the most miserable man living. If what I feel wereequally distributed to the whole human family, there would not be onecheerful face on earth. Whether I shall ever be better, I cannot tell; Iawfully forbode I shall not. To remain as I am is impossible. I must dieor be better, as it appears to me. .. . I fear I shall be unable to attendany business here, and a change of scene might help me. If I could bemyself, I would rather remain at home with Judge Logan. I can write nomore. 

REMARKS IN THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE. 

January 23, 1841

In the House of Representatives January 23, 1841, while discussing thecontinuation of the Illinois and Michigan Canal, Mr. Moore was afraidthe holders of the "scrip" would lose. 

Mr. Napier thought there was no danger of that; and Mr. Lincoln said hehad not examined to see what amount of scrip would probably be needed. The principal point in his mind was this, that nobody was obliged totake these certificates. It is altogether voluntary on their part, andif they apprehend it will fall in their hands they will not take it. Further the loss, if any there be, will fall on the citizens of thatsection of the country. 

This scrip is not going to circulate over an extensive range of country, but will be confined chiefly to the vicinity of the canal. Now, we findthe representatives of that section of the country are all in favor ofthe bill. 

When we propose to protect their interests, they say to us: Leave usto take care of ourselves; we are willing to run the risk. And thisis reasonable; we must suppose they are competent to protect their owninterests, and it is only fair to let them do it. 

CIRCULAR FROM WHIG COMMITTEE. 

February 9, 1841. 

Appeal to the People of the State of Illinois. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--When the General Assembly, now about adjourning, assembled in November last, from the bankrupt state of the publictreasury, the pecuniary embarrassments prevailing in every departmentof society, the dilapidated state of the public works, and the impendingdanger of the degradation of the State, you had a right to expectthat your representatives would lose no time in devising and adoptingmeasures to avert threatened calamities, alleviate the distresses ofthe people, and allay the fearful apprehensions in regard to the futureprosperity of the State. It was not expected by you that the spirit ofparty would take the lead in the councils of the State, and make everyinterest bend to its demands. Nor was it expected that any party wouldassume to itself the entire control of legislation, and convert themeans and offices of the State, and the substance of the people, intoaliment for party subsistence. Neither could it have been expected byyou that party spirit, however strong its desires and unreasonableits demands, would have passed the sanctuary of the Constitution, andentered with its unhallowed and hideous form into the formation of thejudiciary system. 

At the early period of the session, measures were adopted by thedominant party to take possession of the State, to fill all publicoffices with party men, and make every measure affecting the interestsof the people and the credit of the State operate in furtherance oftheir party views. The merits of men and measures therefore became thesubject of discussion in caucus, instead of the halls of legislation, and decisions there made by a minority of the Legislature have beenexecuted and carried into effect by the force of party discipline, without any regard whatever to the rights of the people or the interestsof the State. The Supreme Court of the State was organized, and judgesappointed, according to the provisions of the Constitution, in 1824. The people have never complained of the organization of that court; noattempt has ever before been made to change that department. Respect forpublic opinion, and regard for the rights and liberties of the people, have hitherto restrained the spirit of party from attacks upon theindependence and integrity of the judiciary. The same judges havecontinued in office since 1824; their decisions have not been thesubject of complaint among the people; the integrity and honesty of thecourt have not been questioned, and it has never been supposed thatthe court has ever permitted party prejudice or party considerationsto operate upon their decisions. The court was made to consist of fourjudges, and by the Constitution two form a quorum for the transactionof business. With this tribunal, thus constituted, the people havebeen satisfied for near sixteen years. The same law which organized theSupreme Court in 1824 also established and organized circuit courtsto be held in each county in the State, and five circuit judges wereappointed to hold those courts. In 1826 the Legislature abolished thesecircuit courts, repealed the judges out of office, and required thejudges of the Supreme Court to hold the circuit courts. The reasonsassigned for this change were, first, that the business of the countrycould be better attended to by the four judges of the Supreme Court thanby the two sets of judges; and, second, the state of the public treasuryforbade the employment of unnecessary officers. In 1828 a circuit wasestablished north of the Illinois River, in order to meet the wants ofthe people, and a circuit judge was appointed to hold the courts in thatcircuit. 

In 1834 the circuit-court system was again established throughout theState, circuit judges appointed to hold the courts, and the judges ofthe Supreme Court were relieved from the performance of circuit courtduties. The change was recommended by the then acting governor of theState, General W. L. D. Ewing, in the following terms:

"The augmented population of the State, the multiplied number oforganized counties, as well as the increase of business in all, haslong since convinced every one conversant with this department ofour government of the indispensable necessity of an alteration inour judiciary system, and the subject is therefore recommended to theearnest patriotic consideration of the Legislature. The present systemhas never been exempt from serious and weighty objections. The idea ofappealing from the circuit court to the same judges in the Supreme Courtis recommended by little hopes of redress to the injured party below. The duties of the circuit, too, it may be added, consume one half of theyear, leaving a small and inadequate portion of time (when that requiredfor domestic purposes is deducted) to erect, in the decisions of theSupreme Court, a judicial monument of legal learning and research, which the talent and ability of the court might otherwise be entirelycompetent to. "

With this organization of circuit courts the people have nevercomplained. The only complaints which we have heard have come fromcircuits which were so large that the judges could not dispose of thebusiness, and the circuits in which Judges Pearson and Ralston latelypresided. 

Whilst the honor and credit of the State demanded legislation upon thesubject of the public debt, the canal, the unfinished public works, andthe embarrassments of the people, the judiciary stood upon a basiswhich required no change--no legislative action. Yet the party in power, neglecting every interest requiring legislative action, and whollydisregarding the rights, wishes, and interests of the people, has, forthe unholy purpose of providing places for its partisans and supplyingthem with large salaries, disorganized that department of thegovernment. Provision is made for the election of five party judgesof the Supreme Court, the proscription of four circuit judges, and theappointment of party clerks in more than half the counties of theState. Men professing respect for public opinion, and acknowledged to beleaders of the party, have avowed in the halls of legislation thatthe change in the judiciary was intended to produce political resultsfavorable to their party and party friends. The immutable principlesof justice are to make way for party interests, and the bonds of socialorder are to be rent in twain, in order that a desperate faction maybe sustained at the expense of the people. The change proposed in thejudiciary was supported upon grounds so destructive to the institutionsof the country, and so entirely at war with the rights and libertiesof the people, that the party could not secure entire unanimity in itssupport, three Democrats of the Senate and five of the House votingagainst the measure. They were unwilling to see the temples of justiceand the seats of independent judges occupied by the tools of faction. The declarations of the party leaders, the selection of party men forjudges, and the total disregard for the public will in the adoption ofthe measure, prove conclusively that the object has been not reform, butdestruction; not the advancement of the highest interests of the State, but the predominance of party. 

We cannot in this manner undertake to point out all the objections tothis party measure; we present you with those stated by the Councilof Revision upon returning the bill, and we ask for them a candidconsideration. 

Believing that the independence of the judiciary has been destroyed, that hereafter our courts will be independent of the people, andentirely dependent upon the Legislature; that our rights of propertyand liberty of conscience can no longer be regarded as safe from theencroachments of unconstitutional legislation; and knowing of no otherremedy which can be adopted consistently with the peace and good orderof society, we call upon you to avail yourselves of the opportunityafforded, and, at the next general election, vote for a convention ofthe people. 

 S. H. LITTLE, E. D. BAKER, J. J. HARDIN, E. B. WEBS, A. LINCOLN, J. GILLESPIE, Committee on behalf of the Whig members of the Legislature. 

AGAINST THE REORGANIZATION OF THE JUDICIARY. 

EXTRACT FROM A PROTEST IN THE ILLINOIS LEGISLATURE

February 26, 1841

For the reasons thus presented, and for others no less apparent, theundersigned cannot assent to the passage of the bill, or permit it tobecome a law, without this evidence of their disapprobation; and theynow protest against the reorganization of the judiciary, because--(1)It violates the great principles of free government by subjecting thejudiciary to the Legislature. (2) It is a fatal blow at the independenceof the judges and the constitutional term of their office. (3) It is ameasure not asked for, or wished for, by the people. (4) It will greatlyincrease the expense of our courts, or else greatly diminish theirutility. (5) It will give our courts a political and partisan character, thereby impairing public confidence in their decisions. (6) It willimpair our standing with other States and the world. (7)It is a partymeasure for party purposes, from which no practical good to the peoplecan possibly arise, but which may be the source of immeasurable evils. 

The undersigned are well aware that this protest will be altogetherunavailing with the majority of this body. The blow has already fallen, and we are compelled to stand by, the mournful spectators of the ruin itwill cause. 

[Signed by 35 members, among whom was Abraham Lincoln. ]

TO JOSHUA F. SPEED--MURDER CASE

SPRINGFIELD June 19, 1841. 

DEAR SPEED:--We have had the highest state of excitement here for a weekpast that our community has ever witnessed; and, although the publicfeeling is somewhat allayed, the curious affair which aroused it is veryfar from being even yet cleared of mystery. It would take a quire ofpaper to give you anything like a full account of it, and I thereforeonly propose a brief outline. The chief personages in the drama areArchibald Fisher, supposed to be murdered, and Archibald Trailor, HenryTrailor, and William Trailor, supposed to have murdered him. The threeTrailors are brothers: the first, Arch. , as you know, lives in town;the second, Henry, in Clary's Grove; and the third, William, in WarrenCounty; and Fisher, the supposed murdered, being without a family, hadmade his home with William. On Saturday evening, being the 29th of May, Fisher and William came to Henry's in a one-horse dearborn, and therestayed over Sunday; and on Monday all three came to Springfield (Henryon horseback) and joined Archibald at Myers's, the Dutch carpenter. That evening at supper Fisher was missing, and so next morning someineffectual search was made for him; and on Tuesday, at one o'clockP. M. , William and Henry started home without him. In a day or two Henryand one or two of his Clary-Grove neighbors came back for him again, andadvertised his disappearance in the papers. The knowledge of the matterthus far had not been general, and here it dropped entirely, till aboutthe 10th instant, when Keys received a letter from the postmaster inWarren County, that William had arrived at home, and was telling a verymysterious and improbable story about the disappearance of Fisher, whichinduced the community there to suppose he had been disposed of unfairly. Keys made this letter public, which immediately set the whole town andadjoining county agog. And so it has continued until yesterday. The massof the people commenced a systematic search for the dead body, whileWickersham was despatched to arrest Henry Trailor at the Grove, and JimMaxcy to Warren to arrest William. On Monday last, Henry was brought in, and showed an evident inclination to insinuate that he knew Fisher to bedead, and that Arch. And William had killed him. He said he guessed thebody could be found in Spring Creek, between the Beardstown road andHickox's mill. Away the people swept like a herd of buffalo, and cutdown Hickox's mill-dam nolens volens, to draw the water out of the pond, and then went up and down and down and up the creek, fishing and raking, and raking and ducking and diving for two days, and, after all, no deadbody found. 

In the meantime a sort of scuffling-ground had been found in the brushin the angle, or point, where the road leading into the woods pastthe brewery and the one leading in past the brick-yard meet. From thescuffle-ground was the sign of something about the size of a man havingbeen dragged to the edge of the thicket, where it joined the trackof some small-wheeled carriage drawn by one horse, as shown by theroad-tracks. The carriage-track led off toward Spring Creek. Near thisdrag-trail Dr. Merryman found two hairs, which, after a long scientificexamination, he pronounced to be triangular human hairs, which term, hesays, includes within it the whiskers, the hair growing under the armsand on other parts of the body; and he judged that these two were of thewhiskers, because the ends were cut, showing that they had flourished inthe neighborhood of the razor's operations. On Thursday last Jim Maxcybrought in William Trailor from Warren. On the same day Arch. Wasarrested and put in jail. Yesterday (Friday) William was put upon hisexamining trial before May and Lovely. Archibald and Henry were bothpresent. Lamborn prosecuted, and Logan, Baker, and your humble servantdefended. A great many witnesses were introduced and examined, but Ishall only mention those whose testimony seemed most important. Thefirst of these was Captain Ransdell. He swore that when William andHenry left Springfield for home on Tuesday before mentioned they did nottake the direct route, --which, you know, leads by the butcher shop, --butthat they followed the street north until they got opposite, or nearlyopposite, May's new house, after which he could not see them from wherehe stood; and it was afterwards proved that in about an hour after theystarted, they came into the street by the butcher shop from toward thebrickyard. Dr. Merryman and others swore to what is stated about thescuffle-ground, drag-trail, whiskers, and carriage tracks. Henry wasthen introduced by the prosecution. He swore that when they started forhome they went out north, as Ransdell stated, and turned down westby the brick-yard into the woods, and there met Archibald; that theyproceeded a small distance farther, when he was placed as a sentinel towatch for and announce the approach of any one that might happen thatway; that William and Arch. Took the dearborn out of the road a smalldistance to the edge of the thicket, where they stopped, and he sawthem lift the body of a man into it; that they then moved off with thecarriage in the direction of Hickox's mill, and he loitered about forsomething like an hour, when William returned with the carriage, butwithout Arch. , and said they had put him in a safe place; that they wentsomehow he did not know exactly how--into the road close to the brewery, and proceeded on to Clary's Grove. He also stated that some time duringthe day William told him that he and Arch. Had killed Fisher the eveningbefore; that the way they did it was by him William knocking him downwith a club, and Arch. Then choking him to death. 

An old man from Warren, called Dr. Gilmore, was then introduced onthe part of the defense. He swore that he had known Fisher for severalyears; that Fisher had resided at his house a long time at each of twodifferent spells--once while he built a barn for him, and once whilehe was doctored for some chronic disease; that two or three years agoFisher had a serious hurt in his head by the bursting of a gun, sincewhich he had been subject to continued bad health and occasionalaberration of mind. He also stated that on last Tuesday, being the sameday that Maxcy arrested William Trailor, he (the doctor) was from homein the early part of the day, and on his return, about eleven o'clock, found Fisher at his house in bed, and apparently very unwell; that heasked him how he came from Springfield; that Fisher said he had come byPeoria, and also told of several other places he had been at more in thedirection of Peoria, which showed that he at the time of speaking didnot know where he had been wandering about in a state of derangement. He further stated that in about two hours he received a note from one ofTrailor's friends, advising him of his arrest, and requesting him to goon to Springfield as a witness, to testify as to the state of Fisher'shealth in former times; that he immediately set off, calling up twoof his neighbors as company, and, riding all evening and all night, overtook Maxcy and William at Lewiston in Fulton County; that Maxcyrefusing to discharge Trailor upon his statement, his two neighborsreturned and he came on to Springfield. Some question being made as towhether the doctor's story was not a fabrication, several acquaintancesof his (among whom was the same postmaster who wrote Keys, as beforementioned) were introduced as sort of compurgators, who swore that theyknew the doctor to be of good character for truth and veracity, andgenerally of good character in every way. 

Here the testimony ended, and the Trailors were discharged, Arch. AndWilliam expressing both in word and manner their entire confidence thatFisher would be found alive at the doctor's by Galloway, Mallory, andMyers, who a day before had been despatched for that purpose; whichHenry still protested that no power on earth could ever show Fisheralive. Thus stands this curious affair. When the doctor's storywas first made public, it was amusing to scan and contemplate thecountenances and hear the remarks of those who had been actively insearch for the dead body: some looked quizzical, some melancholy, andsome furiously angry. Porter, who had been very active, swore he alwaysknew the man was not dead, and that he had not stirred an inch to huntfor him; Langford, who had taken the lead in cutting down Hickox'smill-dam, and wanted to hang Hickox for objecting, looked mostawfully woebegone: he seemed the "victim of unrequited affection, " asrepresented in the comic almanacs we used to laugh over; and Hart, thelittle drayman that hauled Molly home once, said it was too damned badto have so much trouble, and no hanging after all. 

I commenced this letter on yesterday, since which I received yours ofthe 13th. I stick to my promise to come to Louisville. Nothing new hereexcept what I have written. I have not seen ______ since my last trip, and I am going out there as soon as I mail this letter. 

Yours forever, LINCOLN. 

STATEMENT ABOUT HARRY WILTON. 

June 25, 1841

It having been charged in some of the public prints that Harry Wilton, late United States marshal for the district of Illinois, had used hisoffice for political effect, in the appointment of deputies for thetaking of the census for the year 1840, we, the undersigned, were calledupon by Mr. Wilton to examine the papers in his possession relativeto these appointments, and to ascertain therefrom the correctness orincorrectness of such charge. We accompanied Mr. Wilton to a room, andexamined the matter as fully as we could with the means afforded us. Theonly sources of information bearing on the subject which were submittedto us were the letters, etc. , recommending and opposing the variousappointments made, and Mr. Wilton's verbal statements concerning thesame. From these letters, etc. , it appears that in some instancesappointments were made in accordance with the recommendations of leadingWhigs, and in opposition to those of leading Democrats; among whichinstances the appointments at Scott, Wayne, Madison, and Lawrence arethe strongest. According to Mr. Wilton's statement of the seventy-sixappointments we examined, fifty-four were of Democrats, eleven of Whigs, and eleven of unknown politics. 

The chief ground of complaint against Mr. Wilton, as we had understoodit, was because of his appointment of so many Democratic candidates forthe Legislature, thus giving them a decided advantage over theirWhig opponents; and consequently our attention was directed ratherparticularly to that point. We found that there were many suchappointments, among which were those in Tazewell, McLean, Iroquois, Coles, Menard, Wayne, Washington, Fayette, etc. ; and we did notlearn that there was one instance in which a Whig candidate for theLegislature had been appointed. There was no written evidence beforeus showing us at what time those appointments were made; but Mr. Wiltonstated that they all with one exception were made before thoseappointed became candidates for the Legislature, and the letters, etc. , recommending them all bear date before, and most of them long before, those appointed were publicly announced candidates. 

We give the foregoing naked facts and draw no conclusions from them. 

BEND. S. EDWARDS, A. LINCOLN. 

TO MISS MARY SPEED--PRACTICAL SLAVERY

BLOOMINGTON, ILL. , September 27, 1841. 

Miss Mary Speed, Louisville, Ky. 

MY FRIEND: By the way, a fine example was presented on board the boatfor contemplating the effect of condition upon human happiness. Agentleman had purchased twelve negroes in different parts of Kentucky, and was taking them to a farm in the South. They were chained six andsix together. A small iron clevis was around the left wrist of each, and this fastened to the main chain by a shorter one, at a convenientdistance from the others, so that the negroes were strung togetherprecisely like so many fish upon a trotline. In this condition theywere being separated forever from the scenes of their childhood, theirfriends, their fathers and mothers, and brothers and sisters, and manyof them from their wives and children, and going into perpetualslavery where the lash of the master is proverbially more ruthlessand unrelenting than any other; and yet amid all these distressingcircumstances, as we would think them, they were the most cheerful andapparently happy creatures on board. One, whose offence for which hehad been sold was an overfondness for his wife, played the fiddle almostcontinually, and the others danced, sang, cracked jokes, and playedvarious games with cards from day to day. How true it is that 'Godtempers the wind to the shorn lamb, ' or in other words, that he rendersthe worst of human conditions tolerable, while he permits the best tobe nothing better than tolerable. To return to the narrative: When wereached Springfield I stayed but one day, when I started on this tediouscircuit where I now am. Do you remember my going to the city, while Iwas in Kentucky, to have a tooth extracted, and making a failure of it?Well, that same old tooth got to paining me so much that about a weeksince I had it torn out, bringing with it a bit of the jawbone, theconsequence of which is that my mouth is now so sore that I can neithertalk nor eat. 

Your sincere friend, A. LINCOLN. 

1842

TO JOSHUA F. SPEED--ON MARRIAGE

January 30, 1842. 

MY DEAR SPEED:--Feeling, as you know I do, the deepest solicitude forthe success of the enterprise you are engaged in, I adopt this as thelast method I can adopt to aid you, in case (which God forbid!) youshall need any aid. I do not place what I am going to say on paperbecause I can say it better that way than I could by word of mouth, but, were I to say it orally before we part, most likely you would forgetit at the very time when it might do you some good. As I think itreasonable that you will feel very badly some time between this and thefinal consummation of your purpose, it is intended that you shall readthis just at such a time. Why I say it is reasonable that you will feelvery badly yet, is because of three special causes added to the generalone which I shall mention. 

The general cause is, that you are naturally of a nervous temperament;and this I say from what I have seen of you personally, and what youhave told me concerning your mother at various times, and concerningyour brother William at the time his wife died. The first special causeis your exposure to bad weather on your journey, which my experienceclearly proves to be very severe on defective nerves. The second is theabsence of all business and conversation of friends, which might divertyour mind, give it occasional rest from the intensity of thought whichwill sometimes wear the sweetest idea threadbare and turn it to thebitterness of death. The third is the rapid and near approach of thatcrisis on which all your thoughts and feelings concentrate. 

If from all these causes you shall escape and go through triumphantly, without another "twinge of the soul, " I shall be most happily but mostegregiously deceived. If, on the contrary, you shall, as I expect youwill at sometime, be agonized and distressed, let me, who have somereason to speak with judgment on such a subject, beseech you to ascribeit to the causes I have mentioned, and not to some false and ruinoussuggestion of the Devil. 

"But, " you will say, "do not your causes apply to every one engaged ina like undertaking?" By no means. The particular causes, to a greateror less extent, perhaps do apply in all cases; but the generalone, --nervous debility, which is the key and conductor of allthe particular ones, and without which they would be utterlyharmless, --though it does pertain to you, does not pertain to one in athousand. It is out of this that the painful difference between you andthe mass of the world springs. 

I know what the painful point with you is at all times when you areunhappy; it is an apprehension that you do not love her as you should. What nonsense! How came you to court her? Was it because you thought shedeserved it, and that you had given her reason to expect it? If it wasfor that why did not the same reason make you court Ann Todd, and atleast twenty others of whom you can think, and to whom it would applywith greater force than to her? Did you court her for her wealth? Why, you know she had none. But you say you reasoned yourself into it. Whatdo you mean by that? Was it not that you found yourself unable to reasonyourself out of it? Did you not think, and partly form the purpose, ofcourting her the first time you ever saw her or heard of her? What hadreason to do with it at that early stage? There was nothing at that timefor reason to work upon. Whether she was moral, amiable, sensible, or even of good character, you did not, nor could then know, except, perhaps, you might infer the last from the company you found her in. 

All you then did or could know of her was her personal appearance anddeportment; and these, if they impress at all, impress the heart, andnot the head. 

Say candidly, were not those heavenly black eyes the whole basis of allyour early reasoning on the subject? After you and I had once been atthe residence, did you not go and take me all the way to Lexington andback, for no other purpose but to get to see her again, on our returnon that evening to take a trip for that express object? What earthlyconsideration would you take to find her scouting and despising you, andgiving herself up to another? But of this you have no apprehension; andtherefore you cannot bring it home to your feelings. 

I shall be so anxious about you that I shall want you to write by everymail. 

Your friend, LINCOLN. 

TO JOSHUA F. SPEED. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, February 3, 1842. 

DEAR SPEED:--Your letter of the 25th January came to hand to-day. Youwell know that I do not feel my own sorrows much more keenly than I doyours, when I know of them; and yet I assure you I was not much hurt bywhat you wrote me of your excessively bad feeling at the time you wrote. Not that I am less capable of sympathizing with you now than ever, notthat I am less your friend than ever, but because I hope and believethat your present anxiety and distress about her health and her lifemust and will forever banish those horrid doubts which I know yousometimes felt as to the truth of your affection for her. If they canonce and forever be removed (and I almost feel a presentiment that theAlmighty has sent your present affliction expressly for that object), surely nothing can come in their stead to fill their immeasurablemeasure of misery. The death-scenes of those we love are surely painfulenough; but these we are prepared for and expect to see: they happen toall, and all know they must happen. Painful as they are, they are notan unlooked for sorrow. Should she, as you fear, be destined to an earlygrave, it is indeed a great consolation to know that she is so wellprepared to meet it. Her religion, which you once disliked so much, I will venture you now prize most highly. But I hope your melancholybodings as to her early death are not well founded. I even hope thatere this reaches you she will have returned with improved and stillimproving health, and that you will have met her, and forgotten thesorrows of the past in the enjoyments of the present. I would say moreif I could, but it seems that I have said enough. It really appearsto me that you yourself ought to rejoice, and not sorrow, at thisindubitable evidence of your undying affection for her. Why, Speed, ifyou did not love her although you might not wish her death, you wouldmost certainly be resigned to it. Perhaps this point is no longera question with you, and my pertinacious dwelling upon it is a rudeintrusion upon your feelings. If so, you must pardon me. You know thehell I have suffered on that point, and how tender I am upon it. Youknow I do not mean wrong. I have been quite clear of "hypo" since youleft, even better than I was along in the fall. I have seen ______ butonce. She seemed very cheerful, and so I said nothing to her about whatwe spoke of. 

Old Uncle Billy Herndon is dead, and it is said this evening that UncleBen Ferguson will not live. This, I believe, is all the news, and enoughat that unless it were better. Write me immediately on the receipt ofthis. 

Your friend, as ever, LINCOLN. 

TO JOSHUA F. SPEED--ON DEPRESSION

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, February 13, 1842. 

DEAR SPEED:--Yours of the 1st instant came to hand three or four daysago. When this shall reach you, you will have been Fanny's husbandseveral days. You know my desire to befriend you is everlasting; thatI will never cease while I know how to do anything. But you will alwayshereafter be on ground that I have never occupied, and consequently, if advice were needed, I might advise wrong. I do fondly hope, however, that you will never again need any comfort from abroad. But should I bemistaken in this, should excessive pleasure still be accompanied witha painful counterpart at times, still let me urge you, as I have everdone, to remember, in the depth and even agony of despondency, that veryshortly you are to feel well again. I am now fully convinced that youlove her as ardently as you are capable of loving. Your ever being happyin her presence, and your intense anxiety about her health, if therewere nothing else, would place this beyond all dispute in my mind. Iincline to think it probable that your nerves will fail you occasionallyfor a while; but once you get them firmly guarded now that trouble isover forever. I think, if I were you, in case my mind were not exactlyright, I would avoid being idle. I would immediately engage in somebusiness, or go to making preparations for it, which would be the samething. If you went through the ceremony calmly, or even with sufficientcomposure not to excite alarm in any present, you are safe beyondquestion, and in two or three months, to say the most, will be thehappiest of men. 

I would desire you to give my particular respects to Fanny; but perhapsyou will not wish her to know you have received this, lest she shoulddesire to see it. Make her write me an answer to my last letter to her;at any rate I would set great value upon a note or letter from her. Write me whenever you have leisure. Yours forever, A. LINCOLN. P. S. --Ihave been quite a man since you left. 

TO G. B. SHELEDY. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , Feb. 16, 1842. 

G. B. SHELEDY, ESQ. :

Yours of the 10th is duly received. Judge Logan and myself are doingbusiness together now, and we are willing to attend to your cases as youpropose. As to the terms, we are willing to attend each case you prepareand send us for $10 (when there shall be no opposition) to be sent inadvance, or you to know that it is safe. It takes $5. 75 of cost tostart upon, that is, $1. 75 to clerk, and $2 to each of two publishersof papers. Judge Logan thinks it will take the balance of $20 to carrya case through. This must be advanced from time to time as the servicesare performed, as the officers will not act without. I do not knowwhether you can be admitted an attorney of the Federal court in yourabsence or not; nor is it material, as the business can be done in ournames. 

Thinking it may aid you a little, I send you one of our blank forms ofPetitions. It, you will see, is framed to be sworn to before the Federalcourt clerk, and, in your cases, will have [to] be so far changed as tobe sworn to before the clerk of your circuit court; and his certificatemust be accompanied with his official seal. The schedules, too, mustbe attended to. Be sure that they contain the creditors' names, theirresidences, the amounts due each, the debtors' names, their residences, and the amounts they owe, also all property and where located. 

Also be sure that the schedules are all signed by the applicants as wellas the Petition. Publication will have to be made here in one paper, and in one nearest the residence of the applicant. Write us in each casewhere the last advertisement is to be sent, whether to you or to whatpaper. 

I believe I have now said everything that can be of any advantage. Yourfriend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GEORGE E. PICKETT--ADVICE TO YOUTH

February 22, 1842. 

I never encourage deceit, and falsehood, especially if you have got abad memory, is the worst enemy a fellow can have. The fact is truthis your truest friend, no matter what the circumstances are. Notwithstanding this copy-book preamble, my boy, I am inclined tosuggest a little prudence on your part. You see I have a congenitalaversion to failure, and the sudden announcement to your Uncle Andrew ofthe success of your "lamp rubbing" might possibly prevent your passingthe severe physical examination to which you will be subjected in orderto enter the Military Academy. You see I should like to have a perfectsoldier credited to dear old Illinois--no broken bones, scalp wounds, etc. So I think it might be wise to hand this letter from me in toyour good uncle through his room-window after he has had a comfortabledinner, and watch its effect from the top of the pigeon-house. 

I have just told the folks here in Springfield on this 111th anniversaryof the birth of him whose name, mightiest in the cause of civil liberty, still mightiest in the cause of moral reformation, we mention in solemnawe, in naked, deathless splendor, that the one victory we can ever callcomplete will be that one which proclaims that there is not one slave orone drunkard on the face of God's green earth. Recruit for this victory. 

Now, boy, on your march, don't you go and forget the old maxim that "onedrop of honey catches more flies than a half-gallon of gall. " Load yourmusket with this maxim, and smoke it in your pipe. 

ADDRESS BEFORE THE SPRINGFIELD WASHINGTONIAN TEMPERANCE SOCIETY, FEBRUARY 22, 1842. 

Although the temperance cause has been in progress for near twentyyears, it is apparent to all that it is just now being crowned with adegree of success hitherto unparalleled. 

The list of its friends is daily swelled by the additions of fifties, ofhundreds, and of thousands. The cause itself seems suddenly transformedfrom a cold abstract theory to a living, breathing, active, and powerfulchieftain, going forth "conquering and to conquer. " The citadels of hisgreat adversary are daily being stormed and dismantled; his temple andhis altars, where the rites of his idolatrous worship have long beenperformed, and where human sacrifices have long been wont to be made, are daily desecrated and deserted. The triumph of the conqueror's fameis sounding from hill to hill, from sea to sea, and from land to land, and calling millions to his standard at a blast. 

For this new and splendid success we heartily rejoice. That that successis so much greater now than heretofore is doubtless owing to rationalcauses; and if we would have it continue, we shall do well to inquirewhat those causes are. 

The warfare heretofore waged against the demon intemperance has somehowor other been erroneous. Either the champions engaged or the tacticsthey adopted have not been the most proper. These champions for the mostpart have been preachers, lawyers, and hired agents. Between these andthe mass of mankind there is a want of approachability, if the termbe admissible, partially, at least, fatal to their success. They aresupposed to have no sympathy of feeling or interest with those verypersons whom it is their object to convince and persuade. 

And again, it is so common and so easy to ascribe motives to men ofthese classes other than those they profess to act upon. The preacher, it is said, advocates temperance because he is a fanatic, and desires aunion of the Church and State; the lawyer from his pride and vanity ofhearing himself speak; and the hired agent for his salary. But when onewho has long been known as a victim of intemperance bursts the fettersthat have bound him, and appears before his neighbors "clothed and inhis right mind, " a redeemed specimen of long-lost humanity, and standsup, with tears of joy trembling in his eyes, to tell of the miseriesonce endured, now to be endured no more forever; of his once naked andstarving children, now clad and fed comfortably; of a wife long weigheddown with woe, weeping, and a broken heart, now restored to health, happiness, and a renewed affection; and how easily it is all done, onceit is resolved to be done; how simple his language! there is a logic andan eloquence in it that few with human feelings can resist. They cannotsay that he desires a union of Church and State, for he is not a churchmember; they cannot say he is vain of hearing himself speak, for hiswhole demeanor shows he would gladly avoid speaking at all; they cannotsay he speaks for pay, for he receives none, and asks for none. Nor canhis sincerity in any way be doubted, or his sympathy for those he wouldpersuade to imitate his example be denied. 

In my judgment, it is to the battles of this new class of championsthat our late success is greatly, perhaps chiefly, owing. But, had theold-school champions themselves been of the most wise selecting, wastheir system of tactics the most judicious? It seems to me it wasnot. Too much denunciation against dram-sellers and dram-drinkerswas indulged in. This I think was both impolitic and unjust. It wasimpolitic, because it is not much in the nature of man to be driven toanything; still less to be driven about that which is exclusively hisown business; and least of all where such driving is to be submittedto at the expense of pecuniary interest or burning appetite. When thedram-seller and drinker were incessantly told not in accents of entreatyand persuasion, diffidently addressed by erring man to an erringbrother, but in the thundering tones of anathema and denunciation withwhich the lordly judge often groups together all the crimes of thefelon's life, and thrusts them in his face just ere he passes sentenceof death upon him that they were the authors of all the vice and miseryand crime in the land; that they were the manufacturers and material ofall the thieves and robbers and murderers that infest the earth; thattheir houses were the workshops of the devil; and that their personsshould be shunned by all the good and virtuous, as moral pestilences--Isay, when they were told all this, and in this way, it is not wonderfulthat they were slow to acknowledge the truth of such denunciations, and to join the ranks of their denouncers in a hue and cry againstthemselves. 

To have expected them to do otherwise than they did to have expectedthem not to meet denunciation with denunciation, crimination withcrimination, and anathema with anathema--was to expect a reversal ofhuman nature, which is God's decree and can never be reversed. 

When the conduct of men is designed to be influenced, persuasion, kind, unassuming persuasion, should ever be adopted. It is an old and a truemaxim that "a drop of honey catches more flies than a gallon of gall. "So with men. If you would win a man to your cause, first convince himthat you are his sincere friend. Therein is a drop of honey that catcheshis heart, which, say what he will, is the great highroad to hisreason; and which, when once gained, you will find but little troublein convincing his judgment of the justice of your cause, if indeed thatcause really be a just one. On the contrary, assume to dictate to hisjudgment, or to command his action, or to mark him as one to be shunnedand despised, and he will retreat within himself, close all the avenuesto his head and his heart; and though your cause be naked truth itself, transformed to the heaviest lance, harder than steel, and sharper thansteel can be made, and though you throw it with more than herculeanforce and precision, you shall be no more able to pierce him than topenetrate the hard shell of a tortoise with a rye straw. Such is man, and so must he be understood by those who would lead him, even to hisown best interests. 

On this point the Washingtonians greatly excel the temperance advocatesof former times. Those whom they desire to convince and persuade aretheir old friends and companions. They know they are not demons, noreven the worst of men; they know that generally they are kind, generous, and charitable even beyond the example of their more staid and soberneighbors. They are practical philanthropists; and they glow witha generous and brotherly zeal that mere theorizers are incapable offeeling. Benevolence and charity possess their hearts entirely; and outof the abundance of their hearts their tongues give utterance; "lovethrough all their actions runs, and all their words are mild. " In thisspirit they speak and act, and in the same they are heard and regarded. And when such is the temper of the advocate, and such of the audience, no good cause can be unsuccessful. But I have said that denunciationsagainst dramsellers and dram-drinkers are unjust, as well as impolitic. Let us see. I have not inquired at what period of time the use ofintoxicating liquors commenced; nor is it important to know. It issufficient that, to all of us who now inhabit the world, the practice ofdrinking them is just as old as the world itself that is, we have seenthe one just as long as we have seen the other. When all such of us ashave now reached the years of maturity first opened our eyes uponthe stage of existence, we found intoxicating liquor recognized byeverybody, used by everybody, repudiated by nobody. It commonly enteredinto the first draught of the infant and the last draught of the dyingman. From the sideboard of the parson down to the ragged pocket of thehouseless loafer, it was constantly found. Physicians proscribed it inthis, that, and the other disease; government provided it for soldiersand sailors; and to have a rolling or raising, a husking or "hoedown, "anywhere about without it was positively insufferable. So, too, it waseverywhere a respectable article of manufacture and merchandise. Themaking of it was regarded as an honorable livelihood, and he who couldmake most was the most enterprising and respectable. Large and smallmanufactories of it were everywhere erected, in which all the earthlygoods of their owners were invested. Wagons drew it from town to town;boats bore it from clime to clime, and the winds wafted it from nationto nation; and merchants bought and sold it, by wholesale and retail, with precisely the same feelings on the part of the seller, buyer, andbystander as are felt at the selling and buying of ploughs, beef, bacon, or any other of the real necessaries of life. Universal public opinionnot only tolerated but recognized and adopted its use. 

It is true that even then it was known and acknowledged that many weregreatly injured by it; but none seemed to think the injury arose fromthe use of a bad thing, but from the abuse of a very good thing. Thevictims of it were to be pitied and compassionated, just as are theheirs of consumption and other hereditary diseases. Their failing wastreated as a misfortune, and not as a crime, or even as a disgrace. If, then, what I have been saying is true, is it wonderful that some shouldthink and act now as all thought and acted twenty years ago? and is itjust to assail, condemn, or despise them for doing so? The universalsense of mankind on any subject is an argument, or at least aninfluence, not easily overcome. The success of the argument in favorof the existence of an overruling Providence mainly depends upon thatsense; and men ought not in justice to be denounced for yielding to itin any case, or giving it up slowly, especially when they are backed byinterest, fixed habits, or burning appetites. 

Another error, as it seems to me, into which the old reformers fell, wasthe position that all habitual drunkards were utterly incorrigible, andtherefore must be turned adrift and damned without remedy in order thatthe grace of temperance might abound, to the temperate then, and to allmankind some hundreds of years thereafter. There is in this something so repugnant to humanity, so uncharitable, so cold-blooded andfeelingless, that it, never did nor ever can enlist the enthusiasm of apopular cause. We could not love the man who taught it we could not hearhim with patience. The heart could not throw open its portals to it, the generous man could not adopt it--it could not mix with his blood. It looked so fiendishly selfish, so like throwing fathers and brothersoverboard to lighten the boat for our security, that the noble-mindedshrank from the manifest meanness of the thing. And besides this, thebenefits of a reformation to be effected by such a system were tooremote in point of time to warmly engage many in its behalf. Few canbe induced to labor exclusively for posterity, and none will do itenthusiastically. --Posterity has done nothing for us; and, theorize onit as we may, practically we shall do very little for it, unless we aremade to think we are at the same time doing something for ourselves. 

What an ignorance of human nature does it exhibit to ask or to expecta whole community to rise up and labor for the temporal happiness ofothers, after themselves shall be consigned to the dust, a majorityof which community take no pains whatever to secure their own eternalwelfare at no more distant day! Great distance in either time orspace has wonderful power to lull and render quiescent the human mind. Pleasures to be enjoyed, or pains to be endured, after we shall be deadand gone are but little regarded even in our own cases, and much lessin the cases of others. Still, in addition to this there is something soludicrous in promises of good or threats of evil a great way off as torender the whole subject with which they are connected easily turnedinto ridicule. "Better lay down that spade you are stealing, Paddy; ifyou don't you'll pay for it at the day of judgment. " "Be the powers, ifye'll credit me so long I'll take another jist. "

By the Washingtonians this system of consigning the habitual drunkardto hopeless ruin is repudiated. They adopt a more enlarged philanthropy;they go for present as well as future good. They labor for all nowliving, as well as hereafter to live. They teach hope to all-despair tonone. As applying to their cause, they deny the doctrine ofunpardonable sin; as in Christianity it is taught, so in this theyteach--"While--While the lamp holds out to burn, The vilest sinner mayreturn. " And, what is a matter of more profound congratulation, they, byexperiment upon experiment and example upon example, prove the maximto be no less true in the one case than in the other. On every hand webehold those who but yesterday were the chief of sinners, now the chiefapostles of the cause. Drunken devils are cast out by ones, by sevens, by legions; and their unfortunate victims, like the poor possessed whowere redeemed from their long and lonely wanderings in the tombs, arepublishing to the ends of the earth how great things have been done forthem. 

To these new champions and this new system of tactics our latesuccess is mainly owing, and to them we must mainly look for the finalconsummation. The ball is now rolling gloriously on, and none are soable as they to increase its speed and its bulk, to add to its momentumand its magnitude--even though unlearned in letters, for this task noneare so well educated. To fit them for this work they have been taught inthe true school. They have been in that gulf from which they would teachothers the means of escape. They have passed that prison wall whichothers have long declared impassable; and who that has not shall dare toweigh opinions with them as to the mode of passing?

But if it be true, as I have insisted, that those who have suffered byintemperance personally, and have reformed, are the most powerful andefficient instruments to push the reformation to ultimate success, itdoes not follow that those who have not suffered have no part left themto perform. Whether or not the world would be vastly benefited by atotal and final banishment from it of all intoxicating drinks seemsto me not now an open question. Three fourths of mankind confess theaffirmative with their tongues, and, I believe, all the rest acknowledgeit in their hearts. 

Ought any, then, to refuse their aid in doing what good the good of thewhole demands? Shall he who cannot do much be for that reason excusedif he do nothing? "But, " says one, "what good can I do by signing thepledge? I never drank, even without signing. " This question has alreadybeen asked and answered more than a million of times. Let it be answeredonce more. For the man suddenly or in any other way to break off fromthe use of drams, who has indulged in them for a long course of yearsand until his appetite for them has grown ten or a hundredfold strongerand more craving than any natural appetite can be, requires a mostpowerful moral effort. In such an undertaking he needs every moralsupport and influence that can possibly be brought to his aid and thrownaround him. And not only so, but every moral prop should be taken fromwhatever argument might rise in his mind to lure him to his backsliding. When he casts his eyes around him, he should be able to see all that herespects, all that he admires, all that he loves, kindly and anxiouslypointing him onward, and none beckoning him back to his former miserable"wallowing in the mire. "

But it is said by some that men will think and act for themselves; thatnone will disuse spirits or anything else because his neighbors do; andthat moral influence is not that powerful engine contended for. Let usexamine this. Let me ask the man who could maintain this position moststiffly, what compensation he will accept to go to church some Sundayand sit during the sermon with his wife's bonnet upon his head? Not atrifle, I'll venture. And why not? There would be nothing irreligiousin it, nothing immoral, nothing uncomfortable--then why not? Is it notbecause there would be something egregiously unfashionable in it? Thenit is the influence of fashion; and what is the influence of fashionbut the influence that other people's actions have on our actions--thestrong inclination each of us feels to do as we see all our neighborsdo? Nor is the influence of fashion confined to any particular thing orclass of things; it is just as strong on one subject as another. Let usmake it as unfashionable to withhold our names from the temperance causeas for husbands to wear their wives' bonnets to church, and instanceswill be just as rare in the one case as the other. 

"But, " say some, "we are no drunkards, and we shall not acknowledgeourselves such by joining a reformed drunkard's society, whatever ourinfluence might be. " Surely no Christian will adhere to this objection. If they believe as they profess, that Omnipotence condescended to takeon himself the form of sinful man, and as such to die an ignominiousdeath for their sakes, surely they will not refuse submission to theinfinitely lesser condescension, for the temporal, and perhapseternal, salvation of a large, erring, and unfortunate class of theirfellow-creatures. Nor is the condescension very great. In my judgmentsuch of us as have never fallen victims have been spared more by theabsence of appetite than from any mental or moral superiority over thosewho have. Indeed, I believe if we take habitual drunkards as a class, their heads and their hearts will bear an advantageous comparison withthose of any other class. There seems ever to have been a pronenessin the brilliant and warm-blooded to fall into this vice--the demon ofintemperance ever seems to have delighted in sucking the blood of geniusand of generosity. What one of us but can call to mind some relative, more promising in youth than all his fellows, who has fallen a sacrificeto his rapacity? He ever seems to have gone forth like the Egyptianangel of death, commissioned to slay, if not the first, the fairest bornof every family. Shall he now be arrested in his desolating career? Inthat arrest all can give aid that will; and who shall be excused thatcan and will not? Far around as human breath has ever blown he keeps ourfathers, our brothers, our sons, and our friends prostrate in the chainsof moral death. To all the living everywhere we cry, "Come sound themoral trump, that these may rise and stand up an exceeding great army. ""Come from the four winds, O breath! and breathe upon these slainthat they may live. " If the relative grandeur of revolutions shall beestimated by the great amount of human misery they alleviate, and thesmall amount they inflict, then indeed will this be the grandest theworld shall ever have seen. 

Of our political revolution of '76 we are all justly proud. It has givenus a degree of political freedom far exceeding that of any other nationof the earth. In it the world has found a solution of the long-mootedproblem as to the capability of man to govern himself. In it was thegerm which has vegetated, and still is to grow and expand into theuniversal liberty of mankind. But, with all these glorious results, past, present, and to come, it had its evils too. It breathed forthfamine, swam in blood, and rode in fire; and long, long after, theorphan's cry and the widow's wail continued to break the sad silencethat ensued. These were the price, the inevitable price, paid for theblessings it bought. 

Turn now to the temperance revolution. In it we shall find a strongerbondage broken, a viler slavery manumitted, a greater tyrant deposed; init, more of want supplied, more disease healed, more sorrow assuaged. By it no Orphans starving, no widows weeping. By it none wounded infeeling, none injured in interest; even the drammaker and dram-sellerwill have glided into other occupations so gradually as never tohave felt the change, and will stand ready to join all others in theuniversal song of gladness. And what a noble ally this to the cause ofpolitical freedom, with such an aid its march cannot fail to be onand on, till every son of earth shall drink in rich fruition thesorrow-quenching draughts of perfect liberty. Happy day when-allappetites controlled, all poisons subdued, all matter subjected-mind, all-conquering mind, shall live and move, the monarch of the world. Glorious consummation! Hail, fall of fury! Reign of reason, all hail!

And when the victory shall be complete, when there shall be neithera slave nor a drunkard on the earth, how proud the title of that landwhich may truly claim to be the birthplace and the cradle of boththose revolutions that shall have ended in that victory. How noblydistinguished that people who shall have planted and nurtured tomaturity both the political and moral freedom of their species. 

This is the one hundred and tenth anniversary of the birthday ofWashington; we are met to celebrate this day. Washington is themightiest name of earth long since mightiest in the cause of civilliberty, still mightiest in moral reformation. On that name no eulogyis expected. It cannot be. To add brightness to the sun or glory to thename of Washington is alike impossible. Let none attempt it. In solemnawe pronounce the name, and in its naked deathless splendor leave itshining on. 

TO JOSHUA F. SPEED. 

SPRINGFIELD, February 25, 1842. 

DEAR SPEED:--Yours of the 16th instant, announcing that Miss Fanny andyou are "no more twain, but one flesh, " reached me this morning. Ihave no way of telling you how much happiness I wish you both, though Ibelieve you both can conceive it. I feel somewhat jealous of both of younow: you will be so exclusively concerned for one another, that I shallbe forgotten entirely. My acquaintance with Miss Fanny (I call her this, lest you should think I am speaking of your mother) was too short for meto reasonably hope to long be remembered by her; and still I am sure Ishall not forget her soon. Try if you cannot remind her of that debt sheowes me--and be sure you do not interfere to prevent her paying it. 

I regret to learn that you have resolved to not return to Illinois. I shall be very lonesome without you. How miserably things seem to bearranged in this world! If we have no friends, we have no pleasure; andif we have them, we are sure to lose them, and be doubly pained by theloss. I did hope she and you would make your home here; but I own I haveno right to insist. You owe obligations to her ten thousand timesmore sacred than you can owe to others, and in that light let them berespected and observed. It is natural that she should desire to remainwith her relatives and friends. As to friends, however, she could notneed them anywhere: she would have them in abundance here. 

Give my kind remembrance to Mr. Williamson and his family, particularlyMiss Elizabeth; also to your mother, brother, and sisters. Ask littleEliza Davis if she will ride to town with me if I come there again. Andfinally, give Fanny a double reciprocation of all the love she sent me. Write me often, and believe me

Yours forever, LINCOLN. 

P. S. Poor Easthouse is gone at last. He died awhile before day thismorning. They say he was very loath to die. .. . 

L. 

TO JOSHUA F. SPEED--ON MARRIAGE CONCERNS

SPRINGFIELD, February 25, 1842. 

DEAR SPEED:--I received yours of the 12th written the day you went downto William's place, some days since, but delayed answering it till Ishould receive the promised one of the 16th, which came last night. I opened the letter with intense anxiety and trepidation; so much so, that, although it turned out better than I expected, I have hardly yet, at a distance of ten hours, become calm. 

I tell you, Speed, our forebodings (for which you and I are peculiar)are all the worst sort of nonsense. I fancied, from the time I receivedyour letter of Saturday, that the one of Wednesday was never to come, and yet it did come, and what is more, it is perfectly clear, both fromits tone and handwriting, that you were much happier, or, if you thinkthe term preferable, less miserable, when you wrote it than when youwrote the last one before. You had so obviously improved at thevery time I so much fancied you would have grown worse. You say thatsomething indescribably horrible and alarming still haunts you. You willnot say that three months from now, I will venture. When your nervesonce get steady now, the whole trouble will be over forever. Nor shouldyou become impatient at their being even very slow in becoming steady. Again you say, you much fear that that Elysium of which you have dreamedso much is never to be realized. Well, if it shall not, I dare swear itwill not be the fault of her who is now your wife. I now have no doubtthat it is the peculiar misfortune of both you and me to dream dreams ofElysium far exceeding all that anything earthly can realize. Far shortof your dreams as you may be, no woman could do more to realize themthan that same black-eyed Fanny. If you could but contemplate herthrough my imagination, it would appear ridiculous to you that any oneshould for a moment think of being unhappy with her. My old fatherused to have a saying that "If you make a bad bargain, hug it all thetighter"; and it occurs to me that if the bargain you have just closedcan possibly be called a bad one, it is certainly the most pleasant onefor applying that maxim to which my fancy can by any effort picture. 

I write another letter, enclosing this, which you can show her, if shedesires it. I do this because she would think strangely, perhaps, shouldyou tell her that you received no letters from me, or, telling her youdo, refuse to let her see them. I close this, entertaining the confidenthope that every successive letter I shall have from you (which I herepray may not be few, nor far between) may show you possessing a moresteady hand and cheerful heart than the last preceding it. As ever, yourfriend, LINCOLN. 

TO JOSHUA F. SPEED. 

SPRINGFIELD, March 27, 1842

DEAR SPEED:--Yours of the 10th instant was received three or four dayssince. You know I am sincere when I tell you the pleasure its contentsgave me was, and is, inexpressible. As to your farm matter, I haveno sympathy with you. I have no farm, nor ever expect to have, andconsequently have not studied the subject enough to be much interestedwith it. I can only say that I am glad you are satisfied and pleasedwith it. But on that other subject, to me of the most intense interestwhether in joy or sorrow, I never had the power to withhold my sympathyfrom you. It cannot be told how it now thrills me with joy to hear yousay you are "far happier than you ever expected to be. " That much I knowis enough. I know you too well to suppose your expectations were not, at least, sometimes extravagant, and if the reality exceeds them all, Isay, Enough, dear Lord. I am not going beyond the truth when I tell youthat the short space it took me to read your last letter gave me morepleasure than the total sum of all I have enjoyed since the fatal 1stof January, 1841. Since then it seems to me I should have been entirelyhappy, but for the never-absent idea that there is one still unhappywhom I have contributed to make so. That still kills my soul. I cannotbut reproach myself for even wishing to be happy while she is otherwise. She accompanied a large party on the railroad cars to Jacksonvillelast Monday, and on her return spoke, so that I heard of it, of havingenjoyed the trip exceedingly. God be praised for that. 

You know with what sleepless vigilance I have watched you ever since thecommencement of your affair; and although I am almost confident it isuseless, I cannot forbear once more to say that I think it is even yetpossible for your spirits to flag down and leave you miserable. If theyshould, don't fail to remember that they cannot long remain so. Onething I can tell you which I know you will be glad to hear, and that isthat I have seen--and scrutinized her feelings as well as I could, andam fully convinced she is far happier now than she has been for the lastfifteen months past. 

You will see by the last Sangamon Journal, that I made a temperancespeech on the 22d of February, which I claim that Fanny and you shallread as an act of charity to me; for I cannot learn that anybody elsehas read it, or is likely to. Fortunately it is not very long, and Ishall deem it a sufficient compliance with my request if one of youlistens while the other reads it. 

As to your Lockridge matter, it is only necessary to say that therehas been no court since you left, and that the next commences to-morrowmorning, during which I suppose we cannot fail to get a judgment. 

I wish you would learn of Everett what he would take, over and above adischarge for all the trouble we have been at, to take his business outof our hands and give it to somebody else. It is impossible to collectmoney on that or any other claim here now; and although you know I amnot a very petulant man, I declare I am almost out of patience with Mr. Everett's importunity. It seems like he not only writes all the lettershe can himself, but gets everybody else in Louisville and vicinity tobe constantly writing to us about his claim. I have always said thatMr. Everett is a very clever fellow, and I am very sorry he cannot beobliged; but it does seem to me he ought to know we are interested tocollect his claim, and therefore would do it if we could. 

I am neither joking nor in a pet when I say we would thank him totransfer his business to some other, without any compensation for whatwe have done, provided he will see the court cost paid, for which we aresecurity. 

The sweet violet you inclosed came safely to hand, but it was so dry, and mashed so flat, that it crumbled to dust at the first attemptto handle it. The juice that mashed out of it stained a place in theletter, which I mean to preserve and cherish for the sake of her whoprocured it to be sent. My renewed good wishes to her in particular, andgenerally to all such of your relations who know me. 

As ever, LINCOLN. 

TO JOSHUA F. SPEED. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, July 4, 1842. 

DEAR SPEED:--Yours of the 16th June was received only a day or twosince. It was not mailed at Louisville till the 25th. You speak of thegreat time that has elapsed since I wrote you. Let me explain that. Yourletter reached here a day or two after I started on the circuit. Iwas gone five or six weeks, so that I got the letters only a few weeksbefore Butler started to your country. I thought it scarcely worth whileto write you the news which he could and would tell you more in detail. On his return he told me you would write me soon, and so I waited foryour letter. As to my having been displeased with your advice, surelyyou know better than that. I know you do, and therefore will not laborto convince you. True, that subject is painful to me; but it is not yoursilence, or the silence of all the world, that can make me forget it. Iacknowledge the correctness of your advice too; but before I resolveto do the one thing or the other, I must gain my confidence in my ownability to keep my resolves when they are made. In that ability you knowI once prided myself as the only or chief gem of my character; that gemI lost--how and where you know too well. I have not yet regained it; anduntil I do, I cannot trust myself in any matter of much importance. Ibelieve now that had you understood my case at the time as well as Iunderstand yours afterward, by the aid you would have given me I shouldhave sailed through clear, but that does not now afford me sufficientconfidence to begin that or the like of that again. 

You make a kind acknowledgment of your obligations to me for yourpresent happiness. I am pleased with that acknowledgment. But a thousandtimes more am I pleased to know that you enjoy a degree of happinessworthy of an acknowledgment. The truth is, I am not sure that there wasany merit with me in the part I took in your difficulty; I was drawn toit by a fate. If I would I could not have done less than I did. I alwayswas superstitious; I believe God made me one of the instruments ofbringing your Fanny and you together, which union I have no doubt He hadfore-ordained. Whatever He designs He will do for me yet. "Stand still, and see the salvation of the Lord" is my text just now. If, as you say, you have told Fanny all, I should have no objection to her seeing thisletter, but for its reference to our friend here: let her seeing itdepend upon whether she has ever known anything of my affairs; and ifshe has not, do not let her. 

I do not think I can come to Kentucky this season. I am so poor and makeso little headway in the world, that I drop back in a month of idlenessas much as I gain in a year's sowing. I should like to visit you again. I should like to see that "sis" of yours that was absent when I wasthere, though I suppose she would run away again if she were to hear Iwas coming. 

My respects and esteem to all your friends there, and, by yourpermission, my love to your Fanny. 

Ever yours, LINCOLN. 

A LETTER FROM THE LOST TOWNSHIPS

Article written by Lincoln for the Sangamon Journal in ridicule of JamesShields, who, as State Auditor, had declined to receive State Bank notesin payment of taxes. The above letter purported to come from a poorwidow who, though supplied with State Bank paper, could not obtain areceipt for her tax bill. This, and another subsequent letter by MaryTodd, brought about the "Lincoln-Shields Duel. "

LOST TOWNSHIPS

August 27, 1842. 

DEAR Mr. PRINTER:

I see you printed that long letter I sent you a spell ago. I 'm quiteencouraged by it, and can't keep from writing again. I think theprinting of my letters will be a good thing all round--it will giveme the benefit of being known by the world, and give the world theadvantage of knowing what's going on in the Lost Townships, and giveyour paper respectability besides. So here comes another. Yesterdayafternoon I hurried through cleaning up the dinner dishes and steppedover to neighbor S------ to see if his wife Peggy was as well as mout beexpected, and hear what they called the baby. Well, when I got there andjust turned round the corner of his log cabin, there he was, setting onthe doorstep reading a newspaper. "How are you, Jeff?" says I. He sorterstarted when he heard me, for he hadn't seen me before. "Why, " says he, "I 'm mad as the devil, Aunt 'Becca!" "What about?" says I; "ain'tits hair the right color? None of that nonsense, Jeff; there ain't anhonester woman in the Lost Townships than. .. "--"Than who?" says he;"what the mischief are you about?" I began to see I was running thewrong trail, and so says I, "Oh! nothing: I guess I was mistaken alittle, that's all. But what is it you 're mad about?"

"Why, " says he, "I've been tugging ever since harvest, getting out wheatand hauling it to the river to raise State Bank paper enough to pay mytax this year and a little school debt I owe; and now, just as I 've gotit, here I open this infernal Extra Register, expecting to find it fullof 'Glorious Democratic Victories' and 'High Comb'd Cocks, ' when, loand behold! I find a set of fellows, calling themselves officers of theState, have forbidden the tax collectors, and school commissioners toreceive State paper at all; and so here it is dead on my hands. I don'tnow believe all the plunder I've got will fetch ready cash enough to paymy taxes and that school debt. "

I was a good deal thunderstruck myself; for that was the first I hadheard of the proclamation, and my old man was pretty much in the samefix with Jeff. We both stood a moment staring at one another withoutknowing what to say. At last says I, "Mr. S------ let me look at thatpaper. " He handed it to me, when I read the proclamation over. 

"There now, " says he, "did you ever see such a piece of impudence andimposition as that?" I saw Jeff was in a good tune for saying someill-natured things, and so I tho't I would just argue a little on thecontrary side, and make him rant a spell if I could. "Why, " says I, looking as dignified and thoughtful as I could, "it seems pretty tough, to be sure, to have to raise silver where there's none to be raised; butthen, you see, 'there will be danger of loss' if it ain't done. "

"Loss! damnation!" says he. "I defy Daniel Webster, I defy King Solomon, I defy the world--I defy--I defy--yes, I defy even you, Aunt 'Becca, to show how the people can lose anything by paying their taxes in Statepaper. "

"Well, " says I, "you see what the officers of State say about it, andthey are a desarnin' set of men. But, " says I, "I guess you 're mistakenabout what the proclamation says. It don't say the people will loseanything by the paper money being taken for taxes. It only says 'therewill be danger of loss'; and though it is tolerable plain that thepeople can't lose by paying their taxes in something they can get easierthan silver, instead of having to pay silver; and though it's just asplain that the State can't lose by taking State Bank paper, however lowit may be, while she owes the bank more than the whole revenue, andcan pay that paper over on her debt, dollar for dollar;--still there isdanger of loss to the 'officers of State'; and you know, Jeff, we can'tget along without officers of State. "

"Damn officers of State!" says he; "that's what Whigs are alwayshurrahing for. "

"Now, don't swear so, Jeff, " says I, "you know I belong to the meetin', and swearin' hurts my feelings. "

"Beg pardon, Aunt 'Becca, " says he; "but I do say it's enough to makeDr. Goddard swear, to have tax to pay in silver, for nothing onlythat Ford may get his two thousand a year, and Shields his twenty-fourhundred a year, and Carpenter his sixteen hundred a year, and allwithout 'danger of loss' by taking it in State paper. Yes, yes: it'splain enough now what these officers of State mean by 'danger of loss. 'Wash, I s'pose, actually lost fifteen hundred dollars out of the threethousand that two of these 'officers of State' let him steal from thetreasury, by being compelled to take it in State paper. Wonder if wedon't have a proclamation before long, commanding us to make up thisloss to Wash in silver. "

And so he went on till his breath run out, and he had to stop. Icouldn't think of anything to say just then, and so I begun to look overthe paper again. "Ay! here's another proclamation, or something likeit. "

"Another?" says Jeff; "and whose egg is it, pray?"

I looked to the bottom of it, and read aloud, "Your obedient servant, James Shields, Auditor. "

"Aha!" says Jeff, "one of them same three fellows again. Well read it, and let's hear what of it. "

I read on till I came to where it says, "The object of this measure isto suspend the collection of the revenue for the current year. "

"Now stop, now stop!" says he; "that's a lie a'ready, and I don't wantto hear of it. "

"Oh, maybe not, " says I. 

"I say it-is-a-lie. Suspend the collection, indeed! Will the collectors, that have taken their oaths to make the collection, dare to end it?Is there anything in law requiring them to perjure themselves at thebidding of James Shields?

"Will the greedy gullet of the penitentiary be satisfied with swallowinghim instead of all of them, if they should venture to obey him? Andwould he not discover some 'danger of loss, ' and be off about the timeit came to taking their places?

"And suppose the people attempt to suspend, by refusing to pay; whatthen? The collectors would just jerk up their horses and cows, and thelike, and sell them to the highest bidder for silver in hand, withoutvaluation or redemption. Why, Shields didn't believe that story himself;it was never meant for the truth. If it was true, why was it not writtill five days after the proclamation? Why did n't Carlin and Carpentersign it as well as Shields? Answer me that, Aunt 'Becca. I say it's alie, and not a well told one at that. It grins out like a copper dollar. Shields is a fool as well as a liar. With him truth is out of thequestion; and as for getting a good, bright, passable lie out of him, you might as well try to strike fire from a cake of tallow. I stick toit, it's all an infernal Whig lie!"

"A Whig lie! Highty tighty!"

"Yes, a Whig lie; and it's just like everything the cursed British Whigsdo. First they'll do some divilment, and then they'll tell a lie to hideit. And they don't care how plain a lie it is; they think they can cramany sort of a one down the throats of the ignorant Locofocos, as theycall the Democrats. "

"Why, Jeff, you 're crazy: you don't mean to say Shields is a Whig!"

"Yes, I do. "

"Why, look here! the proclamation is in your own Democratic paper, asyou call it. "

"I know it; and what of that? They only printed it to let us Democratssee the deviltry the Whigs are at. "

"Well, but Shields is the auditor of this Loco--I mean this DemocraticState. "

"So he is, and Tyler appointed him to office. "

"Tyler appointed him?"

"Yes (if you must chaw it over), Tyler appointed him; or, if it was n'thim, it was old Granny Harrison, and that's all one. I tell you, Aunt'Becca, there's no mistake about his being a Whig. Why, his very looksshows it; everything about him shows it: if I was deaf and blind, Icould tell him by the smell. I seed him when I was down in Springfieldlast winter. They had a sort of a gatherin' there one night among thegrandees, they called a fair. All the gals about town was there, and allthe handsome widows and married women, finickin' about trying to looklike gals, tied as tight in the middle, and puffed out at both ends, like bundles of fodder that had n't been stacked yet, but wantedstackin' pretty bad. And then they had tables all around the housekivered over with [------] caps and pincushions and ten thousand suchlittle knick-knacks, tryin' to sell 'em to the fellows that were bowin', and scrapin' and kungeerin' about 'em. They would n't let no Democratsin, for fear they'd disgust the ladies, or scare the little gals, ordirty the floor. I looked in at the window, and there was this samefellow Shields floatin' about on the air, without heft or earthlysubstances, just like a lock of cat fur where cats had been fighting. 

"He was paying his money to this one, and that one, and t' other one, and sufferin' great loss because it was n't silver instead of Statepaper; and the sweet distress he seemed to be in, --his very features, in the ecstatic agony of his soul, spoke audibly and distinctly, 'Deargirls, it is distressing, but I cannot marry you all. Too well I knowhow much you suffer; but do, do remember, it is not my fault that I amso handsome and so interesting. '

"As this last was expressed by a most exquisite contortion of his face, he seized hold of one of their hands, and squeezed, and held on to itabout a quarter of an hour. 'Oh, my good fellow!' says I to myself, 'ifthat was one of our Democratic gals in the Lost Townships, the way you'd get a brass pin let into you would be about up to the head. ' He aDemocrat! Fiddlesticks! I tell you, Aunt 'Becca, he's a Whig, and nomistake; nobody but a Whig could make such a conceity dunce of himself. "

"Well, " says I, "maybe he is; but, if he is, I 'm mistaken the worstsort. Maybe so, maybe so; but, if I am, I'll suffer by it; I'll be aDemocrat if it turns out that Shields is a Whig, considerin' you shallbe a Whig if he turns out a Democrat. "

"A bargain, by jingoes!" says he; "but how will we find out?"

"Why, " says I, "we'll just write and ax the printer. "

"Agreed again!" says he; "and by thunder! if it does turn out thatShields is a Democrat, I never will----"

"Jefferson! Jefferson!"

"What do you want, Peggy?"

"Do get through your everlasting clatter some time, and bring me a gourdof water; the child's been crying for a drink this livelong hour. "

"Let it die, then; it may as well die for water as to be taxed to deathto fatten officers of State. "

Jeff run off to get the water, though, just like he hadn't been sayinganything spiteful, for he's a raal good-hearted fellow, after all, onceyou get at the foundation of him. 

I walked into the house, and, "Why, Peggy, " says I, "I declare we liketo forgot you altogether. "

"Oh, yes, " says she, "when a body can't help themselves, everybody soonforgets 'em; but, thank God! by day after to-morrow I shall be wellenough to milk the cows, and pen the calves, and wring the contraryones' tails for 'em, and no thanks to nobody. "

"Good evening, Peggy, " says I, and so I sloped, for I seed she was madat me for making Jeff neglect her so long. 

And now, Mr. Printer, will you be sure to let us know in your next paperwhether this Shields is a Whig or a Democrat? I don't care about it formyself, for I know well enough how it is already; but I want to convinceJeff. It may do some good to let him, and others like him, know whoand what these officers of State are. It may help to send the presenthypocritical set to where they belong, and to fill the places they nowdisgrace with men who will do more work for less pay, and take fewerairs while they are doing it. It ain't sensible to think that the samemen who get us in trouble will change their course; and yet it's prettyplain if some change for the better is not made, it's not long thateither Peggy or I or any of us will have a cow left to milk, or a calf'stail to wring. 

Yours truly, REBECCA ------. 

INVITATION TO HENRY CLAY. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , Aug 29, 1842. 

HON. HENRY CLAY, Lexington, Ky. 

DEAR SIR:--We hear you are to visit Indianapolis, Indiana, on the 5th OfOctober next. If our information in this is correct we hope you willnot deny us the pleasure of seeing you in our State. We are aware of thetoil necessarily incident to a journey by one circumstanced as you are;but once you have embarked, as you have already determined to do, thetoil would not be greatly augmented by extending the journey to ourcapital. The season of the year will be most favorable for good roads, and pleasant weather; and although we cannot but believe you would behighly gratified with such a visit to the prairie-land, the pleasure itwould give us and thousands such as we is beyond all question. You havenever visited Illinois, or at least this portion of it; and should younow yield to our request, we promise you such a reception as shall beworthy of the man on whom are now turned the fondest hopes of a greatand suffering nation. 

Please inform us at the earliest convenience whether we may expect you. 

Very respectfully your obedient servants, A. G. HENRY, A. T. BLEDSOE, C. BIRCHALL, A. LINCOLN, G. M. CABANNISS, ROB'T IRWIN, P. A. SAUNDERS, J. M. ALLEN, F. N. FRANCIS. Executive Committee "Clay Club. "

(Clay's answer, September 6, 1842, declines with thanks. )

CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT THE LINCOLN-SHIELDS DUEL. 

TREMONT, September 17, 1842. 

ABRA. LINCOLN, ESQ. :--I regret that my absence on public businesscompelled me to postpone a matter of private consideration a littlelonger than I could have desired. It will only be necessary, however, toaccount for it by informing you that I have been to Quincy on businessthat would not admit of delay. I will now state briefly the reasons ofmy troubling you with this communication, the disagreeable nature ofwhich I regret, as I had hoped to avoid any difficulty with any one inSpringfield while residing there, by endeavoring to conduct myself insuch a way amongst both my political friends and opponents as to escapethe necessity of any. Whilst thus abstaining from giving provocation, I have become the object of slander, vituperation, and personal abuse, which were I capable of submitting to, I would prove myself worthy ofthe whole of it. 

In two or three of the last numbers of the Sangamon Journal, articlesof the most personal nature and calculated to degrade me have made theirappearance. On inquiring, I was informed by the editor of that paper, through the medium of my friend General Whitesides, that you are theauthor of those articles. This information satisfies me that I havebecome by some means or other the object of your secret hostility. Iwill not take the trouble of inquiring into the reason of all this;but I will take the liberty of requiring a full, positive, andabsolute retraction of all offensive allusions used by you in thesecommunications, in relation to my private character and standing as aman, as an apology for the insults conveyed in them. 

This may prevent consequences which no one will regret more than myself. 

Your obedient servant, JAS. SHIELDS. 

TO J. SHIELDS. 

TREMONT, September 17, 1842

JAS. SHIELDS, ESQ. :--Your note of to-day was handed me by GeneralWhitesides. In that note you say you have been informed, through themedium of the editor of the Journal, that I am the author of certainarticles in that paper which you deem personally abusive of you; andwithout stopping to inquire whether I really am the author, or to pointout what is offensive in them, you demand an unqualified retraction ofall that is offensive, and then proceed to hint at consequences. 

Now, sir, there is in this so much assumption of facts and so much ofmenace as to consequences, that I cannot submit to answer that note anyfurther than I have, and to add that the consequences to which I supposeyou allude would be matter of as great regret to me as it possibly couldto you. 

Respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

TO A. LINCOLN FROM JAS. SHIELDS

TREMONT, September 17, 1842. 

ABRA. LINCOLN, ESQ. :--In reply to my note of this date, you intimatethat I assume facts and menace consequences, and that you cannot submitto answer it further. As now, sir, you desire it, I will be a littlemore particular. The editor of the Sangamon Journal gave me tounderstand that you are the author of an article which appeared, Ithink, in that paper of the 2d September instant, headed "The LostTownships, " and signed Rebecca or 'Becca. I would therefore take theliberty of asking whether you are the author of said article, or anyother over the same signature which has appeared in any of the latenumbers of that paper. If so, I repeat my request of an absoluteretraction of all offensive allusions contained therein in relation tomy private character and standing. If you are not the author of any ofthese articles, your denial will be sufficient. I will say further, itis not my intention to menace, but to do myself justice. 

Your obedient servant, JAS. SHIELDS. 

MEMORANDUM OF INSTRUCTIONS TO E. H. MERRYMAN, Lincoln's Second, September 19, 1842. 

In case Whitesides shall signify a wish to adjust this affair withoutfurther difficulty, let him know that if the present papers bewithdrawn, and a note from Mr. Shields asking to know if I am the authorof the articles of which he complains, and asking that I shall make himgentlemanly satisfaction if I am the author, and this without menace, ordictation as to what that satisfaction shall be, a pledge is made thatthe following answer shall be given:

"I did write the 'Lost Townships' letter which appeared in the Journalof the 2d instant, but had no participation in any form in any otherarticle alluding to you. I wrote that wholly for political effect--I hadno intention of injuring your personal or private character or standingas a man or a gentleman; and I did not then think, and do not now think, that that article could produce or has produced that effect against you;and had I anticipated such an effect I would have forborne to write it. And I will add that your conduct toward me, so far as I know, had alwaysbeen gentlemanly; and that I had no personal pique against you, and nocause for any. "

If this should be done, I leave it with you to arrange what shalland what shall not be published. If nothing like this is done, thepreliminaries of the fight are to be--

First. Weapons: Cavalry broadswords of the largest size, preciselyequal in all respects, and such as now used by the cavalry company atJacksonville. 

Second. Position: A plank ten feet long, and from nine to twelve inchesbroad, to be firmly fixed on edge, on the ground, as the line betweenus, which neither is to pass his foot over upon forfeit of his life. Next a line drawn on the ground on either side of said plank andparallel with it, each at the distance of the whole length of the swordand three feet additional from the plank; and the passing of his ownsuch line by either party during the fight shall be deemed a surrenderof the contest. 

Third. Time: On Thursday evening at five o'clock, if you can get it so;but in no case to be at a greater distance of time than Friday eveningat five o'clock. 

Fourth. Place: Within three miles of Alton, on the opposite side of theriver, the particular spot to be agreed on by you. 

Any preliminary details coming within the above rules you are at libertyto make at your discretion; but you are in no case to swerve from theserules, or to pass beyond their limits. 

TO JOSHUA F. SPEED. 

SPRINGFIELD, October 4, 1842. 

DEAR SPEED:--You have heard of my duel with Shields, and I have nowto inform you that the dueling business still rages in this city. Daybefore yesterday Shields challenged Butler, who accepted, and proposedfighting next morning at sunrise in Bob Allen's meadow, one hundredyards' distance, with rifles. To this Whitesides, Shields's second, said"No, " because of the law. Thus ended duel No. 2. Yesterday Whitesideschose to consider himself insulted by Dr. Merryman, so sent him a kindof quasi-challenge, inviting him to meet him at the Planter's House inSt. Louis on the next Friday, to settle their difficulty. Merryman mademe his friend, and sent Whitesides a note, inquiring to know if he meanthis note as a challenge, and if so, that he would, according to thelaw in such case made and provided, prescribe the terms of the meeting. Whitesides returned for answer that if Merryman would meet him at thePlanter's House as desired, he would challenge him. Merryman replied ina note that he denied Whitesides's right to dictate time and place, butthat he (Merryman) would waive the question of time, and meet him atLouisiana, Missouri. Upon my presenting this note to Whitesides andstating verbally its contents, he declined receiving it, saying he hadbusiness in St. Louis, and it was as near as Louisiana. Merrymanthen directed me to notify Whitesides that he should publish thecorrespondence between them, with such comments as he thought fit. ThisI did. Thus it stood at bedtime last night. This morning Whitesides, byhis friend Shields, is praying for a new trial, on the ground thathe was mistaken in Merryman's proposition to meet him at Louisiana, Missouri, thinking it was the State of Louisiana. This Merryman hootsat, and is preparing his publication; while the town is in a ferment, and a street fight somewhat anticipated. 

But I began this letter not for what I have been writing, but tosay something on that subject which you know to be of such infinitesolicitude to me. The immense sufferings you endured from the first daysof September till the middle of February you never tried to conceal fromme, and I well understood. You have now been the husband of a lovelywoman nearly eight months. That you are happier now than the day youmarried her I well know, for without you could not be living. But I haveyour word for it, too, and the returning elasticity of spirits which ismanifested in your letters. But I want to ask a close question, "Areyou now in feeling as well as judgment glad that you are married as youare?" From anybody but me this would be an impudent question, not tobe tolerated; but I know you will pardon it in me. Please answer itquickly, as I am impatient to know. I have sent my love to your Fanny sooften, I fear she is getting tired of it. However, I venture to tenderit again. 

Yours forever, LINCOLN. 

TO JAMES S. IRWIN. 

SPRINGFIELD, November 2, 1842. 

JAS. S. IRWIN ESQ. :

Owing to my absence, yours of the 22nd ult. Was not received till thismoment. Judge Logan and myself are willing to attend to any businessin the Supreme Court you may send us. As to fees, it is impossible toestablish a rule that will apply in all, or even a great many cases. We believe we are never accused of being very unreasonable in thisparticular; and we would always be easily satisfied, provided we couldsee the money--but whatever fees we earn at a distance, if not paidbefore, we have noticed, we never hear of after the work is done. We, therefore, are growing a little sensitive on that point. 

Yours etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

1843

RESOLUTIONS AT A WHIG MEETING AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, MARCH 1, 1843. 

The object of the meeting was stated by Mr. Lincoln of Springfield, whooffered the following resolutions, which were unanimously adopted:

Resolved, That a tariff of duties on imported goods, producingsufficient revenue for the payment of the necessary expenditures of theNational Government, and so adjusted as to protect American industry, isindispensably necessary to the prosperity of the American people. 

Resolved, That we are opposed to direct taxation for the support of theNational Government. 

Resolved, That a national bank, properly restricted, is highly necessaryand proper to the establishment and maintenance of a sound currency, andfor the cheap and safe collection, keeping, and disbursing of the publicrevenue. 

Resolved, That the distribution of the proceeds of the sales of thepublic lands, upon the principles of Mr. Clay's bill, accords with thebest interests of the nation, and particularly with those of the Stateof Illinois. 

Resolved, That we recommend to the Whigs of each Congressional districtof the State to nominate and support at the approaching election acandidate of their own principles, regardless of the chances of success. 

Resolved, That we recommend to the Whigs of all portions of the Stateto adopt and rigidly adhere to the convention system of nominatingcandidates. 

Resolved, That we recommend to the Whigs of each Congressional districtto hold a district convention on or before the first Monday of May next, to be composed of a number of delegates from each county equal to doublethe number of its representatives in the General Assembly, provided, each county shall have at least one delegate. Said delegates to bechosen by primary meetings of the Whigs, at such times and places asthey in their respective counties may see fit. Said district conventionseach to nominate one candidate for Congress, and one delegate toa national convention for the purpose of nominating candidates forPresident and Vice-President of the United States. The seven delegatesso nominated to a national convention to have power to add two delegatesto their own number, and to fill all vacancies. 

Resolved, That A. T. Bledsoe, S. T. Logan, and A. Lincoln be appointed acommittee to prepare an address to the people of the State. 

Resolved, That N. W. Edwards, A. G. Henry, James H. Matheny, JohnC. Doremus, and James C. Conkling be appointed a Whig Central StateCommittee, with authority to fill any vacancy that may occur in thecommittee. 

CIRCULAR FROM WHIG COMMITTEE. 

Address to the People of Illinois. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS:-By a resolution of a meeting of such of the Whigs ofthe State as are now at Springfield, we, the undersigned, were appointedto prepare an address to you. The performance of that task we nowundertake. 

Several resolutions were adopted by the meeting; and the chief object ofthis address is to show briefly the reasons for their adoption. 

The first of those resolutions declares a tariff of duties upon foreignimportations, producing sufficient revenue for the support of theGeneral Government, and so adjusted as to protect American industry, tobe indispensably necessary to the prosperity of the American people;and the second declares direct taxation for a national revenue tobe improper. Those two resolutions are kindred in their nature, andtherefore proper and convenient to be considered together. The questionof protection is a subject entirely too broad to be crowded into afew pages only, together with several other subjects. On that point wetherefore content ourselves with giving the following extracts fromthe writings of Mr. Jefferson, General Jackson, and the speech of Mr. Calhoun:

"To be independent for the comforts of life, we must fabricate themourselves. We must now place the manufacturer by the side of theagriculturalist. The grand inquiry now is, Shall we make our owncomforts, or go without them at the will of a foreign nation? He, therefore, who is now against domestic manufactures must be for reducingus either to dependence on that foreign nation, or to be clothed inskins and to live like wild beasts in dens and caverns. I am not one ofthose; experience has taught me that manufactures are now as necessaryto our independence as to our comfort. " Letter of Mr. Jefferson toBenjamin Austin. 

"I ask, What is the real situation of the agriculturalist? Where has theAmerican farmer a market for his surplus produce? Except for cotton, hehas neither a foreign nor a home market. Does not this clearly prove, when there is no market at home or abroad, that there [is] too muchlabor employed in agriculture? Common sense at once points out theremedy. Take from agriculture six hundred thousand men, women, andchildren, and you will at once give a market for more breadstuffs thanall Europe now furnishes. In short, we have been too long subject to thepolicy of British merchants. It is time we should become a littlemore Americanized, and instead of feeding the paupers and laborersof England, feed our own; or else in a short time, by continuing ourpresent policy, we shall all be rendered paupers ourselves. "--GeneralJackson's Letter to Dr. Coleman. 

"When our manufactures are grown to a certain perfection, as they soonwill be, under the fostering care of government, the farmer will finda ready market for his surplus produce, and--what is of equalconsequence--a certain and cheap supply of all he wants; his prosperitywill diffuse itself to every class of the community. " Speech of Hon. J. C. Calhoun on the Tariff. 

The question of revenue we will now briefly consider. For severalyears past the revenues of the government have been unequal to itsexpenditures, and consequently loan after loan, sometimes direct andsometimes indirect in form, has been resorted to. By this means anew national debt has been created, and is still growing on us witha rapidity fearful to contemplate--a rapidity only reasonably to beexpected in time of war. This state of things has been produced by aprevailing unwillingness either to increase the tariff or resort todirect taxation. But the one or the other must come. Coming expendituresmust be met, and the present debt must be paid; and money cannot alwaysbe borrowed for these objects. The system of loans is but temporary inits nature, and must soon explode. It is a system not only ruinous whileit lasts, but one that must soon fail and leave us destitute. As anindividual who undertakes to live by borrowing soon finds his originalmeans devoured by interest, and, next, no one left to borrow from, somust it be with a government. 

We repeat, then, that a tariff sufficient for revenue, or a direct tax, must soon be resorted to; and, indeed, we believe this alternative isnow denied by no one. But which system shall be adopted? Some of ouropponents, in theory, admit the propriety of a tariff sufficient fora revenue, but even they will not in practice vote for such a tariff;while others boldly advocate direct taxation. Inasmuch, therefore, assome of them boldly advocate direct taxation, and all the rest--or sonearly all as to make exceptions needless--refuse to adopt the tariff, we think it is doing them no injustice to class them all as advocatesof direct taxation. Indeed, we believe they are only delaying an openavowal of the system till they can assure themselves that the peoplewill tolerate it. Let us, then, briefly compare the two systems. Thetariff is the cheaper system, because the duties, being collected inlarge parcels at a few commercial points, will require comparatively fewofficers in their collection; while by the direct-tax system the landmust be literally covered with assessors and collectors, going forthlike swarms of Egyptian locusts, devouring every blade of grass andother green thing. And, again, by the tariff system the whole revenue ispaid by the consumers of foreign goods, and those chiefly the luxuries, and not the necessaries, of life. By this system the man who contentshimself to live upon the products of his own country pays nothing atall. And surely that country is extensive enough, and its productsabundant and varied enough, to answer all the real wants of its people. In short, by this system the burthen of revenue falls almost entirely onthe wealthy and luxurious few, while the substantial and laboring manywho live at home, and upon home products, go entirely free. By thedirect-tax system none can escape. However strictly the citizen mayexclude from his premises all foreign luxuries, --fine cloths, finesilks, rich wines, golden chains, and diamond rings, --still, forthe possession of his house, his barn, and his homespun, he is to beperpetually haunted and harassed by the tax-gatherer. With these viewswe leave it to be determined whether we or our opponents are the moretruly democratic on the subject. 

The third resolution declares the necessity and propriety of a nationalbank. During the last fifty years so much has been said and written bothas to the constitutionality and expediency of such an institution, thatwe could not hope to improve in the least on former discussions of thesubject, were we to undertake it. We, therefore, upon the question ofconstitutionality content ourselves with remarking the facts that thefirst national bank was established chiefly by the same men who formedthe Constitution, at a time when that instrument was but two years old, and receiving the sanction, as President, of the immortal Washington;that the second received the sanction, as President, of Mr. Madison, to whom common consent has awarded the proud title of "Father of theConstitution"; and subsequently the sanction of the Supreme Court, themost enlightened judicial tribunal in the world. Upon the question ofexpediency, we only ask you to examine the history of the times duringthe existence of the two banks, and compare those times with themiserable present. 

The fourth resolution declares the expediency of Mr. Clay's land bill. Much incomprehensible jargon is often used against the constitutionalityof this measure. We forbear, in this place, attempting an answer to it, simply because, in our opinion, those who urge it are through partyzeal resolved not to see or acknowledge the truth. The question ofexpediency, at least so far as Illinois is concerned, seems to us theclearest imaginable. By the bill we are to receive annually a large sumof money, no part of which we otherwise receive. The precise annual sumcannot be known in advance; it doubtless will vary in different years. Still it is something to know that in the last year--a year of almostunparalleled pecuniary pressure--it amounted to more than forty thousanddollars. This annual income, in the midst of our almost insupportabledifficulties, in the days of our severest necessity, our politicalopponents are furiously resolving to take and keep from us. And forwhat? Many silly reasons are given, as is usual in cases where a singlegood one is not to be found. One is that by giving us the proceedsof the lands we impoverish the national treasury, and thereby rendernecessary an increase of the tariff. This may be true; but if so, theamount of it only is that those whose pride, whose abundance of means, prompt them to spurn the manufactures of our country, and to strut inBritish cloaks and coats and pantaloons, may have to pay a few centsmore on the yard for the cloth that makes them. A terrible evil, truly, to the Illinois farmer, who never wore, nor ever expects to wear, asingle yard of British goods in his whole life. Another of their reasonsis that by the passage and continuance of Mr. Clay's bill, we preventthe passage of a bill which would give us more. This, if it were soundin itself, is waging destructive war with the former position; for ifMr. Clay's bill impoverishes the treasury too much, what shall be saidof one that impoverishes it still more? But it is not sound in itself. It is not true that Mr. Clay's bill prevents the passage of one morefavorable to us of the new States. Considering the strength and oppositeinterest of the old States, the wonder is that they ever permitted oneto pass so favorable as Mr. Clay's. The last twenty-odd years' effortsto reduce the price of the lands, and to pass graduation bills andcession bills, prove the assertion to be true; and if there were noexperience in support of it, the reason itself is plain. The Statesin which none, or few, of the public lands lie, and those consequentlyinterested against parting with them except for the best price, arethe majority; and a moment's reflection will show that they must evercontinue the majority, because by the time one of the original newStates (Ohio, for example) becomes populous and gets weight in Congress, the public lands in her limits are so nearly sold out that in everypoint material to this question she becomes an old State. She does notwish the price reduced, because there is none left for her citizensto buy; she does not wish them ceded to the States in which they lie, because they no longer lie in her limits, and she will get nothingby the cession. In the nature of things, the States interested inthe reduction of price, in graduation, in cession, and in all similarprojects, never can be the majority. Nor is there reason to hope thatany of them can ever succeed as a Democratic party measure, because wehave heretofore seen that party in full power, year after year, with many of their leaders making loud professions in favor of theseprojects, and yet doing nothing. What reason, then, is there to believethey will hereafter do better? In every light in which we can view thisquestion, it amounts simply to this: Shall we accept our share of theproceeds under Mr. Clay's bill, or shall we rather reject that and getnothing?

The fifth resolution recommends that a Whig candidate for Congress berun in every district, regardless of the chances of success. We areaware that it is sometimes a temporary gratification, when a friendcannot succeed, to be able to choose between opponents; but we believethat that gratification is the seed-time which never fails to befollowed by a most abundant harvest of bitterness. By this policy weentangle ourselves. By voting for our opponents, such of us as do itin some measure estop ourselves to complain of their acts, howeverglaringly wrong we may believe them to be. By this policy no one portionof our friends can ever be certain as to what course another portionmay adopt; and by this want of mutual and perfect understanding ourpolitical identity is partially frittered away and lost. And, again, those who are thus elected by our aid ever become our bitterestpersecutors. Take a few prominent examples. In 1830 Reynolds was electedGovernor; in 1835 we exerted our whole strength to elect Judge Youngto the United States Senate, which effort, though failing, gave him theprominence that subsequently elected him; in 1836 General Ewing, was soelected to the United States Senate; and yet let us ask what three menhave been more perseveringly vindictive in their assaults upon all ourmen and measures than they? During the last summer the whole Statewas covered with pamphlet editions of misrepresentations against us, methodized into chapters and verses, written by two of these samemen, --Reynolds and Young, in which they did not stop at charging us witherror merely, but roundly denounced us as the designing enemies ofhuman liberty, itself. If it be the will of Heaven that such men shallpolitically live, be it so; but never, never again permit them to draw aparticle of their sustenance from us. 

The sixth resolution recommends the adoption of the convention systemfor the nomination of candidates. This we believe to be of the veryfirst importance. Whether the system is right in itself we do not stopto inquire; contenting ourselves with trying to show that, while ouropponents use it, it is madness in us not to defend ourselves withit. Experience has shown that we cannot successfully defend ourselveswithout it. For examples, look at the elections of last year. Ourcandidate for governor, with the approbation of a large portion of theparty, took the field without a nomination, and in open opposition tothe system. Wherever in the counties the Whigs had held conventions andnominated candidates for the Legislature, the aspirants who were notnominated were induced to rebel against the nominations, and to becomecandidates, as is said, "on their own hook. " And, go where you wouldinto a large Whig county, you were sure to find the Whigs not contendingshoulder to shoulder against the common enemy, but divided intofactions, and fighting furiously with one another. The election came, and what was the result? The governor beaten, the Whig vote beingdecreased many thousands since 1840, although the Democratic votehad not increased any. Beaten almost everywhere for members of theLegislature, --Tazewell, with her four hundred Whig majority, sending adelegation half Democratic; Vermillion, with her five hundred, doingthe same; Coles, with her four hundred, sending two out of three; andMorgan, with her two hundred and fifty, sending three out of four, --andthis to say nothing of the numerous other less glaring examples; thewhole winding up with the aggregate number of twenty-seven Democraticrepresentatives sent from Whig counties. As to the senators, too, theresult was of the same character. And it is most worthy to be rememberedthat of all the Whigs in the State who ran against the regular nominees, a single one only was elected. Although they succeeded in defeatingthe nominees almost by scores, they too were defeated, and the spoilschucklingly borne off by the common enemy. 

We do not mention the fact of many of the Whigs opposing the conventionsystem heretofore for the purpose of censuring them. Far from it. We expressly protest against such a conclusion. We know they weregenerally, perhaps universally, as good and true Whigs as we ourselvesclaim to be. 

We mention it merely to draw attention to the disastrous result itproduced, as an example forever hereafter to be avoided. That "union isstrength" is a truth that has been known, illustrated, and declared invarious ways and forms in all ages of the world. That great fabulist andphilosopher Aesop illustrated it by his fable of the bundle of sticks;and he whose wisdom surpasses that of all philosophers has declaredthat "a house divided against itself cannot stand. " It is to induce ourfriends to act upon this important and universally acknowledged truththat we urge the adoption of the convention system. Reflection willprove that there is no other way of practically applying it. In itsapplication we know there will be incidents temporarily painful; but, after all, those incidents will be fewer and less intense with thanwithout the system. If two friends aspire to the same office it iscertain that both cannot succeed. Would it not, then, be much lesspainful to have the question decided by mutual friends some time before, than to snarl and quarrel until the day of election, and then both bebeaten by the common enemy?

Before leaving this subject, we think proper to remark that we do notunderstand the resolution as intended to recommend the application ofthe convention system to the nomination of candidates for the smalloffices no way connected with politics; though we must say we do notperceive that such an application of it would be wrong. 

The seventh resolution recommends the holding of district conventionsin May next, for the purpose of nominating candidates for Congress. Thepropriety of this rests upon the same reasons with that of the sixth, and therefore needs no further discussion. 

The eighth and ninth also relate merely to the practical application ofthe foregoing, and therefore need no discussion. 

Before closing, permit us to add a few reflections on the presentcondition and future prospects of the Whig party. In almost all theStates we have fallen into the minority, and despondency seems toprevail universally among us. Is there just cause for this? In 1840 wecarried the nation by more than a hundred and forty thousand majority. Our opponents charged that we did it by fraudulent voting; but whateverthey may have believed, we know the charge to be untrue. Where, now, isthat mighty host? Have they gone over to the enemy? Let the results ofthe late elections answer. Every State which has fallen off from theWhig cause since 1840 has done so not by giving more Democratic votesthan they did then, but by giving fewer Whig. Bouck, who was electedDemocratic Governor of New York last fall by more than 15, 000 majority, had not then as many votes as he had in 1840, when he was beaten byseven or eight thousand. And so has it been in all the other Stateswhich have fallen away from our cause. From this it is evident that tensof thousands in the late elections have not voted at all. Who and whatare they? is an important question, as respects the future. They cancome forward and give us the victory again. That all, or nearly all, ofthem are Whigs is most apparent. Our opponents, stung to madness bythe defeat of 1840, have ever since rallied with more than their usualunanimity. It has not been they that have been kept from the polls. These facts show what the result must be, once the people again rallyin their entire strength. Proclaim these facts, and predict this result;and although unthinking opponents may smile at us, the sagacious oneswill "believe and tremble. " And why shall the Whigs not all rally again?Are their principles less dear now than in 1840? Have any of theirdoctrines since then been discovered to be untrue? It is true, thevictory of 1840 did not produce the happy results anticipated; but itis equally true, as we believe, that the unfortunate death of GeneralHarrison was the cause of the failure. It was not the election ofGeneral Harrison that was expected to produce happy effects, but themeasures to be adopted by his administration. By means of his death, and the unexpected course of his successor, those measures were neveradopted. How could the fruits follow? The consequences we alwayspredicted would follow the failure of those measures have followed, andare now upon us in all their horrors. By the course of Mr. Tyler thepolicy of our opponents has continued in operation, still leaving themwith the advantage of charging all its evils upon us as the results ofa Whig administration. Let none be deceived by this somewhat plausible, though entirely false charge. If they ask us for the sufficient andsound currency we promised, let them be answered that we only promisedit through the medium of a national bank, which they, aided by Mr. Tyler, prevented our establishing. And let them be reminded, too, thattheir own policy in relation to the currency has all the time been, andstill is, in full operation. Let us then again come forth in our might, and by a second victory accomplish that which death prevented in thefirst. We can do it. When did the Whigs ever fail if they were fullyaroused and united? Even in single States, under such circumstances, defeat seldom overtakes them. Call to mind the contested electionswithin the last few years, and particularly those of Moore and Letcherfrom Kentucky, Newland and Graham from North Carolina, and the famousNew Jersey case. In all these districts Locofocoism had stalkedomnipotent before; but when the whole people were aroused by itsenormities on those occasions, they put it down, never to rise again. 

We declare it to be our solemn conviction, that the Whigs are always amajority of this nation; and that to make them always successful needsbut to get them all to the polls and to vote unitedly. This is the greatdesideratum. Let us make every effort to attain it. At every election, let every Whig act as though he knew the result to depend upon hisaction. In the great contest of 1840 some more than twenty one hundredthousand votes were cast, and so surely as there shall be that many, with the ordinary increase added, cast in 1844 that surely will a Whigbe elected President of the United States. 

A. LINCOLN. S. T. LOGAN. A. T. BLEDSOE. 

March 4, 1843. 

TO JOHN BENNETT. 

SPRINGFIELD, March 7, 1843. 

FRIEND BENNETT:

Your letter of this day was handed me by Mr. Miles. It is too late nowto effect the object you desire. On yesterday morning the most of theWhig members from this district got together and agreed to hold theconvention at Tremont in Tazewell County. I am sorry to hear that anyof the Whigs of your county, or indeed of any county, should longerbe against conventions. On last Wednesday evening a meeting of all theWhigs then here from all parts of the State was held, and the questionof the propriety of conventions was brought up and fully discussed, andat the end of the discussion a resolution recommending the system ofconventions to all the Whigs of the State was unanimously adopted. Other resolutions were also passed, all of which will appear in the nextJournal. The meeting also appointed a committee to draft an addressto the people of the State, which address will also appear in the nextjournal. 

In it you will find a brief argument in favor of conventions--andalthough I wrote it myself I will say to you that it is conclusive uponthe point and can not be reasonably answered. The right way for you todo is hold your meeting and appoint delegates any how, and if there beany who will not take part, let it be so. The matter will work so wellthis time that even they who now oppose will come in next time. 

The convention is to be held at Tremont on the 5th of April andaccording to the rule we have adopted your county is to havedelegates--being double your representation. 

If there be any good Whig who is disposed to stick out againstconventions get him at least to read the arguement in their favor in theaddress. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

JOSHUA F. SPEED. 

SPRINGFIELD, March 24, 1843. 

DEAR SPEED:--We had a meeting of the Whigs of the county here on lastMonday to appoint delegates to a district convention; and Baker beat me, and got the delegation instructed to go for him. The meeting, in spiteof my attempt to decline it, appointed me one of the delegates; so thatin getting Baker the nomination I shall be fixed a good deal like afellow who is made a groomsman to a man that has cut him out and ismarrying his own dear "gal. " About the prospects of your having anamesake at our town, can't say exactly yet. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO MARTIN M. MORRIS. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , March 26, 1843. 

FRIEND MORRIS:

Your letter of the a 3 d, was received on yesterday morning, and forwhich (instead of an excuse, which you thought proper to ask) I tenderyou my sincere thanks. It is truly gratifying to me to learn that, whilethe people of Sangamon have cast me off, my old friends of Menard, whohave known me longest and best, stick to me. It would astonish, ifnot amuse, the older citizens to learn that I (a stranger, friendless, uneducated, penniless boy, working on a flatboat at ten dollars permonth) have been put down here as the candidate of pride, wealth, andaristocratic family distinction. Yet so, chiefly, it was. There was, too, the strangest combination of church influence against me. Baker isa Campbellite; and therefore, as I suppose, with few exceptions got allthat church. My wife has some relations in the Presbyterian churches, and some with the Episcopal churches; and therefore, wherever it wouldtell, I was set down as either the one or the other, while it waseverywhere contended that no Christian ought to go for me, because Ibelonged to no church, was suspected of being a deist, and had talkedabout fighting a duel. With all these things, Baker, of course, hadnothing to do. Nor do I complain of them. As to his own church goingfor him, I think that was right enough, and as to the influences Ihave spoken of in the other, though they were very strong, it would begrossly untrue and unjust to charge that they acted upon them in a bodyor were very near so. I only mean that those influences levied a taxof a considerable per cent. Upon my strength throughout the religiouscontroversy. But enough of this. 

You say that in choosing a candidate for Congress you have an equalright with Sangamon, and in this you are undoubtedly correct. Inagreeing to withdraw if the Whigs of Sangamon should go against me, Idid not mean that they alone were worth consulting, but that if she, with her heavy delegation, should be against me, it would be impossiblefor me to succeed, and therefore I had as well decline. And in relationto Menard having rights, permit me fully to recognize them, and toexpress the opinion that, if she and Mason act circumspectly, they willin the convention be able so far to enforce their rights as to decideabsolutely which one of the candidates shall be successful. Let me showthe reason of this. Hardin, or some other Morgan candidate, will getPutnam, Marshall, Woodford, Tazewell, and Logan--making sixteen. Thenyou and Mason, having three, can give the victory to either side. 

You say you shall instruct your delegates for me, unless I object. Icertainly shall not object. That would be too pleasant a compliment forme to tread in the dust. And besides, if anything should happen (which, however, is not probable) by which Baker should be thrown out of thefight, I would be at liberty to accept the nomination if I could getit. I do, however, feel myself bound not to hinder him in any way fromgetting the nomination. I should despise myself were I to attempt it. I think, then, it would be proper for your meeting to appoint threedelegates and to instruct them to go for some one as the first choice, some one else as a second, and perhaps some one as a third; and if inthose instructions I were named as the first choice, it would gratify mevery much. If you wish to hold the balance of power, it is important foryou to attend to and secure the vote of Mason also: You should be sureto have men appointed delegates that you know you can safely confide in. If yourself and James Short were appointed from your county, all wouldbe safe; but whether Jim's woman affair a year ago might not be in theway of his appointment is a question. I don't know whether you know it, but I know him to be as honorable a man as there is in the world. Youhave my permission, and even request, to show this letter to Short; butto no one else, unless it be a very particular friend who you know willnot speak of it. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S Will you write me again?

TO MARTIN M. MORRIS. 

April 14, 1843. 

FRIEND MORRIS:

I have heard it intimated that Baker has been attempting to get you orMiles, or both of you, to violate the instructions of the meeting thatappointed you, and to go for him. I have insisted, and still insist, that this cannot be true. Surely Baker would not do the like. As wellmight Hardin ask me to vote for him in the convention. Again, it is saidthere will be an attempt to get up instructions in your county requiringyou to go for Baker. This is all wrong. Upon the same rule, Whymight not I fly from the decision against me in Sangamon, and get upinstructions to their delegates to go for me? There are at least twelvehundred Whigs in the county that took no part, and yet I would as soonput my head in the fire as to attempt it. Besides, if any one should getthe nomination by such extraordinary means, all harmony in the districtwould inevitably be lost. Honest Whigs (and very nearly all of themare honest) would not quietly abide such enormities. I repeat, such anattempt on Baker's part cannot be true. Write me at Springfield how thematter is. Don't show or speak of this letter. 

A. LINCOLN

TO GEN. J. J. HARDIN. 

SPRINGFIELD, May 11, 1843. 

FRIEND HARDIN:

Butler informs me that he received a letter from you, in which youexpressed some doubt whether the Whigs of Sangamon will support youcordially. You may, at once, dismiss all fears on that subject. Wehave already resolved to make a particular effort to give you the verylargest majority possible in our county. From this, no Whig of thecounty dissents. We have many objects for doing it. We make it a matterof honor and pride to do it; we do it because we love the Whig cause; wedo it because we like you personally; and last, we wish to convince youthat we do not bear that hatred to Morgan County that you people have solong seemed to imagine. You will see by the journals of this week thatwe propose, upon pain of losing a barbecue, to give you twice as greata majority in this county as you shall receive in your own. I got up theproposal. 

Who of the five appointed is to write the district address? I did thelabor of writing one address this year, and got thunder for my reward. Nothing new here. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --I wish you would measure one of the largest of those swords wetook to Alton and write me the length of it, from tip of the point totip of the hilt, in feet and inches. I have a dispute about the length. 

A. L. A. L. 

THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

VOLUME TWO

CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION

By Abraham Lincoln

Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley

VOLUME II. , 1843-1858

1843

FIRST CHILD

TO JOSHUA F. SPEED. SPRINGFIELD, May 18, 1843. 

DEAR SPEED:--Yours of the 9th instant is duly received, which I donot meet as a "bore, " but as a most welcome visitor. I will answer thebusiness part of it first. 

In relation to our Congress matter here, you were right in supposing Iwould support the nominee. Neither Baker nor I, however, is the man, butHardin, so far as I can judge from present appearances. We shall have nosplit or trouble about the matter; all will be harmony. In relation tothe "coming events" about which Butler wrote you, I had not heard one wordbefore I got your letter; but I have so much confidence in the judgment ofButler on such a subject that I incline to think there may be some realityin it. What day does Butler appoint? By the way, how do "events" of thesame sort come on in your family? Are you possessing houses and lands, andoxen and asses, and men-servants and maid-servants, and begetting sonsand daughters? We are not keeping house, but boarding at the Globe Tavern, which is very well kept now by a widow lady of the name of Beck. Our room(the same that Dr. Wallace occupied there) and boarding only costs us fourdollars a week. Ann Todd was married something more than a year since toa fellow by the name of Campbell, and who, Mary says, is pretty much ofa "dunce, " though he has a little money and property. They live inBoonville, Missouri, and have not been heard from lately enough for me tosay anything about her health. I reckon it will scarcely be in ourpower to visit Kentucky this year. Besides poverty and the necessity ofattending to business, those "coming events, " I suspect, would be somewhatin the way. I most heartily wish you and your Fanny would not fail tocome. Just let us know the time, and we will have a room provided for youat our house, and all be merry together for a while. Be sure to give myrespects to your mother and family; assure her that if ever I come nearher, I will not fail to call and see her. Mary joins in sending love toyour Fanny and you. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

1844

TO Gen. J. J. HARDIN. 

SPRINGFIELD, May 21, 1844. 

DEAR HARDIN: Knowing that you have correspondents enough, I have forborneto trouble you heretofore; and I now only do so to get you to set a matterright which has got wrong with one of our best friends. It is old UncleThomas Campbell of Spring Creek--(Berlin P. O. ). He has received severaldocuments from you, and he says they are old newspapers and documents, having no sort of interest in them. He is, therefore, getting a strongimpression that you treat him with disrespect. This, I know, is a mistakenimpression; and you must correct it. The way, I leave to yourself. Rob'tW. Canfield says he would like to have a document or two from you. 

The Locos (Democrats) here are in considerable trouble about Van Buren'sletter on Texas, and the Virginia electors. They are growing sick of theTariff question; and consequently are much confounded at V. B. 's cuttingthem off from the new Texas question. Nearly half the leaders swear theywon't stand it. Of those are Ford, T. Campbell, Ewing, Calhoun and others. They don't exactly say they won't vote for V. B. , but they say he will notbe the candidate, and that they are for Texas anyhow. 

As ever yours, A. LINCOLN. 

1845

SELECTION OF CONGRESSIONAL CANDIDATES

TO Gen. J. J. HARDIN, SPRINGFIELD, Jany. 19, 1845. 

DEAR GENERAL:

I do not wish to join in your proposal of a new plan for the selection ofa Whig candidate for Congress because:

1st. I am entirely satisfied with the old system under which you and Bakerwere successively nominated and elected to Congress; and because the Whigsof the district are well acquainted with the system, and, so far as I knowor believe, are well satisfied with it. If the old system be thought to bevague, as to all the delegates of the county voting the same way, or asto instructions to them as to whom they are to vote for, or as to fillingvacancies, I am willing to join in a provision to make these matterscertain. 

2d. As to your proposals that a poll shall be opened in every precinct, and that the whole shall take place on the same day, I do not personallyobject. They seem to me to be not unfair; and I forbear to join inproposing them only because I choose to leave the decision in eachcounty to the Whigs of the county, to be made as their own judgment andconvenience may dictate. 

3d. As to your proposed stipulation that all the candidates shall remainin their own counties, and restrain their friends in the same it seemsto me that on reflection you will see the fact of your having been inCongress has, in various ways, so spread your name in the district asto give you a decided advantage in such a stipulation. I appreciate yourdesire to keep down excitement; and I promise you to "keep cool" under allcircumstances. 

4th. I have already said I am satisfied with the old system under whichsuch good men have triumphed and that I desire no departure from itsprinciples. But if there must be a departure from it, I shall insist upona more accurate and just apportionment of delegates, or representativevotes, to the constituent body, than exists by the old, and which youpropose to retain in your new plan. If we take the entire population ofthe counties as shown by the late census, we shall see by the old plan, and by your proposed new plan, Morgan County, with a population 16, 541, has but . .. .. .. 8 votes While Sangamon with 18, 697--2156 greater has but . .. .. .. 8 " So Scott with 6553 has . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 4 " While Tazewell with 7615 1062 greater has but . .. .. .. .. . 4 " So Mason with 3135 has . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 vote While Logan with 3907, 772 greater, has but . .. .. .. .. .. . 1 "

And so on in a less degree the matter runs through all the counties, beingnot only wrong in principle, but the advantage of it being all manifestlyin your favor with one slight exception, in the comparison of two countiesnot here mentioned. 

Again, if we take the Whig votes of the counties as shown by the latePresidential election as a basis, the thing is still worse. 

It seems to me most obvious that the old system needs adjustment innothing so much as in this; and still, by your proposal, no notice istaken of it. I have always been in the habit of acceding to almost anyproposal that a friend would make and I am truly sorry that I cannot inthis. I perhaps ought to mention that some friends at different places areendeavoring to secure the honor of the sitting of the convention at theirtowns respectively, and I fear that they would not feel much complimentedif we shall make a bargain that it should sit nowhere. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO ------ WILLIAMS, SPRINGFIELD, March 1, 1845. 

FRIEND WILLIAMS:

The Supreme Court adjourned this morning for the term. Your cases ofReinhardt vs. Schuyler, Bunce vs. Schuyler, Dickhut vs. Dunell, andSullivan vs. Andrews are continued. Hinman vs. Pope I wrote you concerningsome time ago. McNutt et al. Vs. Bean and Thompson is reversed andremanded. 

Fitzpatrick vs. Brady et al. Is reversed and remanded with leave tocomplainant to amend his bill so as to show the real consideration givenfor the land. 

Bunce against Graves the court confirmed, wherefore, in accordance withyour directions, I moved to have the case remanded to enable you to take anew trial in the court below. The court allowed the motion; of which I amglad, and I guess you are. 

This, I believe, is all as to court business. The canal men have got theirmeasure through the Legislature pretty much or quite in the shape theydesired. Nothing else now. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

ABOLITION MOVEMENT

TO WILLIAMSON DURLEY. 

SPRINGFIELD, October 3, 1845

When I saw you at home, it was agreed that I should write to you and yourbrother Madison. Until I then saw you I was not aware of your being whatis generally called an abolitionist, or, as you call yourself, a Libertyman, though I well knew there were many such in your country. 

I was glad to hear that you intended to attempt to bring about, at thenext election in Putnam, a Union of the Whigs proper and such of theLiberty men as are Whigs in principle on all questions save only that ofslavery. So far as I can perceive, by such union neither party needyield anything on the point in difference between them. If the Whigabolitionists of New York had voted with us last fall, Mr. Clay would nowbe President, Whig principles in the ascendant, and Texas not annexed;whereas, by the division, all that either had at stake in the contest waslost. And, indeed, it was extremely probable, beforehand, that such wouldbe the result. As I always understood, the Liberty men deprecated theannexation of Texas extremely; and this being so, why they should refuseto cast their votes [so] as to prevent it, even to me seemed wonderful. What was their process of reasoning, I can only judge from what a singleone of them told me. It was this: "We are not to do evil that good maycome. " This general proposition is doubtless correct; but did it apply?If by your votes you could have prevented the extension, etc. , of slaverywould it not have been good, and not evil, so to have used your votes, even though it involved the casting of them for a slaveholder? By thefruit the tree is to be known. An evil tree cannot bring forth good fruit. If the fruit of electing Mr. Clay would have been to prevent the extensionof slavery, could the act of electing have been evil?

But I will not argue further. I perhaps ought to say that individually Inever was much interested in the Texas question. I never could seemuch good to come of annexation, inasmuch as they were already a freerepublican people on our own model. On the other hand, I never couldvery clearly see how the annexation would augment the evil of slavery. It always seemed to me that slaves would be taken there in about equalnumbers, with or without annexation. And if more were taken because ofannexation, still there would be just so many the fewer left wherethey were taken from. It is possibly true, to some extent, that, withannexation, some slaves may be sent to Texas and continued in slavery thatotherwise might have been liberated. To whatever extent this may be true, I think annexation an evil. I hold it to be a paramount duty of us in thefree States, due to the Union of the States, and perhaps to liberty itself(paradox though it may seem), to let the slavery of the other Statesalone; while, on the other hand, I hold it to be equally clear that weshould never knowingly lend ourselves, directly or indirectly, to preventthat slavery from dying a natural death--to find new places for it tolive in when it can no longer exist in the old. Of course I am not nowconsidering what would be our duty in cases of insurrection among theslaves. To recur to the Texas question, I understand the Liberty men tohave viewed annexation as a much greater evil than ever I did; and I wouldlike to convince you, if I could, that they could have prevented it, ifthey had chosen. I intend this letter for you and Madison together; andif you and he or either shall think fit to drop me a line, I shall bepleased. 

Yours with respect, A. LINCOLN. 

1846

REQUEST FOR POLITICAL SUPPORT

TO Dr. ROBERT BOAL. SPRINGFIELD, January 7, 1846. 

Dr. ROBERT BOAL, Lacon, Ill. 

DEAR DOCTOR:--Since I saw you last fall, I have often thought of writingto you, as it was then understood I would, but, on reflection, I havealways found that I had nothing new to tell you. All has happened as Ithen told you I expected it would--Baker's declining, Hardin's taking thetrack, and so on. 

If Hardin and I stood precisely equal, if neither of us had been toCongress, or if we both had, it would only accord with what I have alwaysdone, for the sake of peace, to give way to him; and I expect I should doit. That I can voluntarily postpone my pretensions, when they are no morethan equal to those to which they are postponed, you have yourself seen. But to yield to Hardin under present circumstances seems to me as nothingelse than yielding to one who would gladly sacrifice me altogether. ThisI would rather not submit to. That Hardin is talented, energetic, usuallygenerous and magnanimous, I have before this affirmed to you and do notdeny. You know that my only argument is that "turn about is fair play. "This he, practically at least, denies. 

If it would not be taxing you too much, I wish you would write me, tellingthe aspect of things in your country, or rather your district; and also, send the names of some of your Whig neighbors, to whom I might, withpropriety, write. Unless I can get some one to do this, Hardin, with hisold franking list, will have the advantage of me. My reliance for a fairshake (and I want nothing more) in your country is chiefly on you, becauseof your position and standing, and because I am acquainted with so fewothers. Let me hear from you soon. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JOHN BENNETT. 

SPRINGFIELD, Jan. 15, 1846. 

JOHN BENNETT. 

FRIEND JOHN:

Nathan Dresser is here, and speaks as though the contest between Hardinand me is to be doubtful in Menard County. I know he is candid and thisalarms me some. I asked him to tell me the names of the men that weregoing strong for Hardin, he said Morris was about as strong as any-nowtell me, is Morris going it openly? You remember you wrote me that hewould be neutral. Nathan also said that some man, whom he could notremember, had said lately that Menard County was going to decide thecontest and that made the contest very doubtful. Do you know who thatwas? Don't fail to write me instantly on receiving this, telling meall--particularly the names of those who are going strong against me. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO N. J. ROCKWELL. 

SPRINGFIELD, January 21, 1846. 

DEAR SIR:--You perhaps know that General Hardin and I have a contest forthe Whig nomination for Congress for this district. 

He has had a turn and my argument is "turn about is fair play. "

I shall be pleased if this strikes you as a sufficient argument. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JAMES BERDAN. 

SPRINGFIELD, April 26, 1846. 

DEAR SIR:--I thank you for the promptness with which you answered myletter from Bloomington. I also thank you for the frankness with which youcomment upon a certain part of my letter; because that comment affordsme an opportunity of trying to express myself better than I did before, seeing, as I do, that in that part of my letter, you have not understoodme as I intended to be understood. 

In speaking of the "dissatisfaction" of men who yet mean to do no wrong, etc. , I mean no special application of what I said to the Whigs of Morgan, or of Morgan & Scott. I only had in my mind the fact that previous toGeneral Hardin's withdrawal some of his friends and some of mine hadbecome a little warm; and I felt, and meant to say, that for them now tomeet face to face and converse together was the best way to efface anyremnant of unpleasant feeling, if any such existed. 

I did not suppose that General Hardin's friends were in any greater needof having their feelings corrected than mine were. Since I saw you atJacksonville, I have had no more suspicion of the Whigs of Morgan thanof those of any other part of the district. I write this only to try toremove any impression that I distrust you and the other Whigs of yourcountry. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JAMES BERDAN. 

SPRINGFIELD, May 7, 1866. 

DEAR SIR:--It is a matter of high moral obligation, if not of necessity, for me to attend the Coles and Edwards courts. I have some cases in bothof them, in which the parties have my promise, and are depending upon me. The court commences in Coles on the second Monday, and in Edgar on thethird. Your court in Morgan commences on the fourth Monday; and it is mypurpose to be with you then, and make a speech. I mention the Coles andEdgar courts in order that if I should not reach Jacksonville at the timenamed you may understand the reason why. I do not, however, think there ismuch danger of my being detained; as I shall go with a purpose not to be, and consequently shall engage in no new cases that might delay me. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

VERSES WRITTEN BY LINCOLN AFTER A VISIT TO HIS OLD HOME IN INDIANA

(A FRAGMENT). 

[In December, 1847, when Lincoln was stumping for Clay, he crossed intoIndiana and revisited his old home. He writes: "That part of the countryis within itself as unpoetical as any spot on earth; but still seeingit and its objects and inhabitants aroused feelings in me which werecertainly poetry; though whether my expression of these feelings ispoetry, is quite another question. "]

 Near twenty years have passed away Since here I bid farewell To woods and fields, and scenes of play, And playmates loved so well. 

 Where many were, but few remain Of old familiar things; But seeing them to mind again The lost and absent brings. 

 The friends I left that parting day, How changed, as time has sped! Young childhood grown, strong manhood gray, And half of all are dead. 

 I hear the loved survivors tell How naught from death could save, Till every sound appears a knell, And every spot a grave. 

 I range the fields with pensive tread, And pace the hollow rooms, And feel (companion of the dead) I 'm living in the tombs. 

 VERSES WRITTEN BY LINCOLN CONCERNING A SCHOOL-FELLOW WHO BECAME INSANE--(A FRAGMENT). 

 And when at length the drear and long Time soothed thy fiercer woes, How plaintively thy mournful song Upon the still night rose

 I've heard it oft as if I dreamed, Far distant, sweet and lone; The funeral dirge it ever seemed Of reason dead and gone. 

 Air held her breath; trees with the spell Seemed sorrowing angels round, Whose swelling tears in dewdrops fell Upon the listening ground. 

 But this is past, and naught remains That raised thee o'er the brute; Thy piercing shrieks and soothing strains Are like, forever mute. 

 Now fare thee well! More thou the cause Than subject now of woe. All mental pangs by time's kind laws Hast lost the power to know. 

 O Death! thou awe-inspiring prince That keepst the world in fear, Why dost thou tear more blest ones hence, And leave him lingering here?

SECOND CHILD

TO JOSHUA P. SPEED

SPRINGFIELD, October 22, 1846. 

DEAR SPEED:--You, no doubt, assign the suspension of our correspondence tothe true philosophic cause; though it must be confessed by both of us thatthis is rather a cold reason for allowing a friendship such as ours todie out by degrees. I propose now that, upon receipt of this, you shall beconsidered in my debt, and under obligations to pay soon, and that neithershall remain long in arrears hereafter. Are you agreed?

Being elected to Congress, though I am very grateful to our friends forhaving done it, has not pleased me as much as I expected. 

We have another boy, born the 10th of March. He is very much such a childas Bob was at his age, rather of a longer order. Bob is "short and low, "and I expect always will be. He talks very plainly, --almost as plainly asanybody. He is quite smart enough. I sometimes fear that he is one of thelittle rare-ripe sort that are smarter at about five than ever after. Hehas a great deal of that sort of mischief that is the offspring of suchanimal spirits. Since I began this letter, a messenger came to tell me Bobwas lost; but by the time I reached the house his mother had found him andhad him whipped, and by now, very likely, he is run away again. Mary hasread your letter, and wishes to be remembered to Mrs. Speed and you, inwhich I most sincerely join her. 

As ever yours, A. LINCOLN. 

TO MORRIS AND BROWN

SPRINGFIELD, October 21, 1847. 

MESSRS. MORRIS AND BROWN. 

GENTLEMEN:--Your second letter on the matter of Thornton and others, cameto hand this morning. I went at once to see Logan, and found that heis not engaged against you, and that he has so sent you word by Mr. Butterfield, as he says. He says that some time ago, a young man (who heknows not) came to him, with a copy of the affidavit, to engage him to aidin getting the Governor to grant the warrant; and that he, Logan, toldthe man, that in his opinion, the affidavit was clearly insufficient, uponwhich the young man left, without making any engagement with him. If theGovernor shall arrive before I leave, Logan and I will both attend to thematter, and he will attend to it, if he does not come till after I leave;all upon the condition that the Governor shall not have acted upon thematter, before his arrival here. I mention this condition because, Ilearned this morning from the Secretary of State, that he is forwarding tothe Governor, at Palestine, all papers he receives in the case, as fastas he receives them. Among the papers forwarded will be your letter tothe Governor or Secretary of, I believe, the same date and about the samecontents of your last letter to me; so that the Governor will, at allevents have your points and authorities. The case is a clear one on ourside; but whether the Governor will view it so is another thing. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON

WASHINGTON, December 5, 1847. 

DEAR WILLIAM:--You may remember that about a year ago a man by the name ofWilson (James Wilson, I think) paid us twenty dollars as an advance fee toattend to a case in the Supreme Court for him, against a Mr. Campbell, therecord of which case was in the hands of Mr. Dixon of St. Louis, who neverfurnished it to us. When I was at Bloomington last fall I met a friendof Wilson, who mentioned the subject to me, and induced me to write toWilson, telling him I would leave the ten dollars with you which had beenleft with me to pay for making abstracts in the case, so that the case maygo on this winter; but I came away, and forgot to do it. What I want nowis to send you the money, to be used accordingly, if any one comes on tostart the case, or to be retained by you if no one does. 

There is nothing of consequence new here. Congress is to organizeto-morrow. Last night we held a Whig caucus for the House, and nominatedWinthrop of Massachusetts for speaker, Sargent of Pennsylvania forsergeant-at-arms, Homer of New Jersey door-keeper, and McCormick ofDistrict of Columbia postmaster. The Whig majority in the House is sosmall that, together with some little dissatisfaction, [it] leaves itdoubtful whether we will elect them all. 

This paper is too thick to fold, which is the reason I send only ahalf-sheet. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

WASHINGTON, December 13, 1847

DEAR WILLIAM:--Your letter, advising me of the receipt of our fee in thebank case, is just received, and I don't expect to hear another as good apiece of news from Springfield while I am away. I am under no obligationsto the bank; and I therefore wish you to buy bank certificates, and pay mydebt there, so as to pay it with the least money possible. I would as soonyou should buy them of Mr. Ridgely, or any other person at the bank, as ofany one else, provided you can get them as cheaply. I suppose, after thebank debt shall be paid, there will be some money left, out of which Iwould like to have you pay Lavely and Stout twenty dollars, and Priest andsomebody (oil-makers) ten dollars, for materials got for house-painting. If there shall still be any left, keep it till you see or hear from me. 

I shall begin sending documents so soon as I can get them. I wrote youyesterday about a "Congressional Globe. " As you are all so anxious for meto distinguish myself, I have concluded to do so before long. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

RESOLUTIONS IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DECEMBER 22, 1847

Whereas, The President of the United States, in his message of May 11, 1846, has declared that "the Mexican Government not only refused toreceive him [the envoy of the United States], or to listen to hispropositions, but, after a long-continued series of menaces, has at lastinvaded our territory and shed the blood of our fellow-citizens on our ownsoil";

And again, in his message of December 8, 1846, that "we had ample cause ofwar against Mexico long before the breaking out of hostilities; but eventhen we forbore to take redress into our own hands until Mexico herselfbecame the aggressor, by invading our soil in hostile array, and sheddingthe blood of our citizens";

And yet again, in his message of December 7, 1847, that "the MexicanGovernment refused even to hear the terms of adjustment which he [ourminister of peace] was authorized to propose, and finally, under whollyunjustifiable pretexts, involved the two countries in war, by invading theterritory of the State of Texas, striking the first blow, and shedding theblood of our citizens on our own soil";

And whereas, This House is desirous to obtain a full knowledge of all thefacts which go to establish whether the particular spot on which the bloodof our citizens was so shed was or was not at that time our own soil:therefore, Resolved, By the House of Representatives, that the President of theUnited States be respectfully requested to inform this House:

First. Whether the spot on which the blood of our citizens was shed, asin his message declared, was or was not within the territory of Spain, atleast after the treaty of 1819, until the Mexican revolution. 

Second. Whether that spot is or is not within the territory which waswrested from Spain by the revolutionary government of Mexico. 

Third. Whether that spot is or is not within a settlement of people, whichsettlement has existed ever since long before the Texas revolution, anduntil its inhabitants fled before the approach of the United States army. 

Fourth. Whether that settlement is or is not isolated from any and allother settlements by the Gulf and the Rio Grande on the south and west, and by wide uninhabited regions on the north and east. 

Fifth. Whether the people of that settlement, or a majority of them, orany of them, have ever submitted themselves to the government or lawsof Texas or of the United States, by consent or by compulsion, either byaccepting office, or voting at elections, or paying tax, or serving onjuries, or having process served upon them, or in any other way. 

Sixth. Whether the people of that settlement did or did not flee from theapproach of the United States army, leaving unprotected their homes andtheir growing crops, before the blood was shed, as in the message stated;and whether the first blood, so shed, was or was not shed within theinclosure of one of the people who had thus fled from it. 

Seventh. Whether our citizens, whose blood was shed, as in his messagedeclared, were or were not, at that time, armed officers and soldiers, sent into that settlement by the military order of the President, throughthe Secretary of War. 

Eighth. Whether the military force of the United States was or was notso sent into that settlement after General Taylor had more than onceintimated to the War Department that, in his opinion, no such movement wasnecessary to the defence or protection of Texas. 

REMARKS IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 5, 1848. 

Mr. Lincoln said he had made an effort, some few days since, to obtain thefloor in relation to this measure [resolution to direct Postmaster-Generalto make arrangements with railroad for carrying the mails--in Committee ofthe Whole], but had failed. One of the objects he had then had in view wasnow in a great measure superseded by what had fallen from the gentlemanfrom Virginia who had just taken his seat. He begged to assure his friendson the other side of the House that no assault whatever was meant upon thePostmaster-General, and he was glad that what the gentleman had now saidmodified to a great extent the impression which might have been createdby the language he had used on a previous occasion. He wanted to state togentlemen who might have entertained such impressions, that the Committeeon the Post-office was composed of five Whigs and four Democrats, andtheir report was understood as sustaining, not impugning, the positiontaken by the Postmaster-General. That report had met with the approbationof all the Whigs, and of all the Democrats also, with the exceptionof one, and he wanted to go even further than this. [Intimation wasinformally given Mr. Lincoln that it was not in order to mention on thefloor what had taken place in committee. ] He then observed that if he hadbeen out of order in what he had said he took it all back so far as hecould. He had no desire, he could assure gentlemen, ever to be out oforder--though he never could keep long in order. 

Mr. Lincoln went on to observe that he differed in opinion, in the presentcase, from his honorable friend from Richmond [Mr. Botts]. That gentleman, had begun his remarks by saying that if all prepossessions in thismatter could be removed out of the way, but little difficulty would beexperienced in coming to an agreement. Now, he could assure thatgentleman that he had himself begun the examination of the subject withprepossessions all in his favor. He had long and often heard of him, and, from what he had heard, was prepossessed in his favor. Of thePostmaster-General he had also heard, but had no prepossessions in hisfavor, though certainly none of an opposite kind. He differed, however, with that gentleman in politics, while in this respect he agreed with thegentleman from Virginia [Mr. Botts], whom he wished to oblige whenever itwas in his power. That gentleman had referred to the report made to theHouse by the Postmaster-General, and had intimated an apprehension thatgentlemen would be disposed to rely, on that report alone, and derivetheir views of the case from that document alone. Now it so happened thata pamphlet had been slipped into his [Mr. Lincoln's] hand before he readthe report of the Postmaster-General; so that, even in this, he had begunwith prepossessions in favor of the gentleman from Virginia. 

As to the report, he had but one remark to make: he had carefully examinedit, and he did not understand that there was any dispute as to the factstherein stated the dispute, if he understood it, was confined altogetherto the inferences to be drawn from those facts. It was a difference notabout facts, but about conclusions. The facts were not disputed. If he wasright in this, he supposed the House might assume the facts to be as theywere stated, and thence proceed to draw their own conclusions. 

The gentleman had said that the Postmaster-General had got into a personalsquabble with the railroad company. Of this Mr. Lincoln knew nothing, nordid he need or desire to know anything, because it had nothing whatever todo with a just conclusion from the premises. But the gentleman had goneon to ask whether so great a grievance as the present detention of theSouthern mail ought not to be remedied. Mr. Lincoln would assure thegentleman that if there was a proper way of doing it, no man was moreanxious than he that it should be done. The report made by the committeehad been intended to yield much for the sake of removing that grievance. That the grievance was very great there was no dispute in any quarter. Hesupposed that the statements made by the gentleman from Virginia to showthis were all entirely correct in point of fact. He did suppose that theinterruptions of regular intercourse, and all the other inconveniencesgrowing out of it, were all as that gentleman had stated them to be;and certainly, if redress could be rendered, it was proper it should berendered as soon as possible. The gentleman said that in order to effectthis no new legislative action was needed; all that was necessary was thatthe Postmaster-General should be required to do what the law, as it stood, authorized and required him to do. 

We come then, said Mr. Lincoln, to the law. Now the Postmaster-Generalsays he cannot give to this company more than two hundred and thirty-sevendollars and fifty cents per railroad mile of transportation, and twelveand a half per cent. Less for transportation by steamboats. He considershimself as restricted by law to this amount; and he says, further, that hewould not give more if he could, because in his apprehension it would notbe fair and just. 

1848

DESIRE FOR SECOND TERM IN CONGRESS

TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

WASHINGTON, January 8, 1848. 

DEAR WILLIAM:--Your letter of December 27 was received a day or two ago. Iam much obliged to you for the trouble you have taken, and promise to takein my little business there. As to speech making, by way of gettingthe hang of the House I made a little speech two or three days ago ona post-office question of no general interest. I find speaking here andelsewhere about the same thing. I was about as badly scared, and no worseas I am when I speak in court. I expect to make one within a week or two, in which I hope to succeed well enough to wish you to see it. 

It is very pleasant to learn from you that there are some who desirethat I should be reelected. I most heartily thank them for their kindpartiality; and I can say, as Mr. Clay said of the annexation of Texas, that "personally I would not object" to a reelection, although I thoughtat the time, and still think, it would be quite as well for me to returnto the law at the end of a single term. I made the declaration that Iwould not be a candidate again, more from a wish to deal fairly withothers, to keep peace among our friends, and to keep the district fromgoing to the enemy, than for any cause personal to myself; so that if itshould so happen that nobody else wishes to be elected, I could notrefuse the people the right of sending me again. But to enter myself asa competitor of others, or to authorize any one so to enter me is what myword and honor forbid. 

I got some letters intimating a probability of so much difficulty amongstour friends as to lose us the district; but I remember such letters werewritten to Baker when my own case was under consideration, and I trustthere is no more ground for such apprehension now than there was then. Remember I am always glad to receive a letter from you. 

Most truly your friend, A. LINCOLN. 

SPEECH ON DECLARATION OF WAR ON MEXICO

SPEECH IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 12, 1848. 

MR CHAIRMAN:--Some if not all the gentlemen on the other side of the Housewho have addressed the committee within the last two days have spokenrather complainingly, if I have rightly understood them, of the votegiven a week or ten days ago declaring that the war with Mexico wasunnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President. I admitthat such a vote should not be given in mere party wantonness, andthat the one given is justly censurable if it have no other or betterfoundation. I am one of those who joined in that vote; and I did so undermy best impression of the truth of the case. How I got this impression, and how it may possibly be remedied, I will now try to show. When the warbegan, it was my opinion that all those who because of knowing too little, or because of knowing too much, could not conscientiously approve theconduct of the President in the beginning of it should nevertheless, asgood citizens and patriots, remain silent on that point, at least till thewar should be ended. Some leading Democrats, including ex-President VanBuren, have taken this same view, as I understand them; and I adheredto it and acted upon it, until since I took my seat here; and I think Ishould still adhere to it were it not that the President and his friendswill not allow it to be so. Besides the continual effort of the Presidentto argue every silent vote given for supplies into an indorsement ofthe justice and wisdom of his conduct; besides that singularly candidparagraph in his late message in which he tells us that Congress withgreat unanimity had declared that "by the act of the Republic of Mexico, a state of war exists between that government and the United States, " whenthe same journals that informed him of this also informed him thatwhen that declaration stood disconnected from the question of suppliessixty-seven in the House, and not fourteen merely, voted against it;besides this open attempt to prove by telling the truth what he could notprove by telling the whole truth-demanding of all who will not submit tobe misrepresented, in justice to themselves, to speak out, besides allthis, one of my colleagues [Mr. Richardson] at a very early day in thesession brought in a set of resolutions expressly indorsing the originaljustice of the war on the part of the President. Upon these resolutionswhen they shall be put on their passage I shall be compelled to vote; sothat I cannot be silent if I would. Seeing this, I went about preparingmyself to give the vote understandingly when it should come. I carefullyexamined the President's message, to ascertain what he himself had saidand proved upon the point. The result of this examination was to make theimpression that, taking for true all the President states as facts, hefalls far short of proving his justification; and that the President wouldhave gone further with his proof if it had not been for the small matterthat the truth would not permit him. Under the impression thus made I gavethe vote before mentioned. I propose now to give concisely the processof the examination I made, and how I reached the conclusion I did. ThePresident, in his first war message of May, 1846, declares that the soilwas ours on which hostilities were commenced by Mexico, and he repeatsthat declaration almost in the same language in each successive annualmessage, thus showing that he deems that point a highly essential one. Inthe importance of that point I entirely agree with the President. Tomy judgment it is the very point upon which he should be justified, orcondemned. In his message of December, 1846, it seems to have occurred tohim, as is certainly true, that title-ownership-to soil or anything elseis not a simple fact, but is a conclusion following on one or more simplefacts; and that it was incumbent upon him to present the facts from whichhe concluded the soil was ours on which the first blood of the war wasshed. 

Accordingly, a little below the middle of page twelve in the message lastreferred to, he enters upon that task; forming an issue and introducingtestimony, extending the whole to a little below the middle of pagefourteen. Now, I propose to try to show that the whole of this--issue andevidence--is from beginning to end the sheerest deception. The issue, ashe presents it, is in these words: "But there are those who, conceding allthis to be true, assume the ground that the true western boundary of Texasis the Nueces, instead of the Rio Grande; and that, therefore, in marchingour army to the east bank of the latter river, we passed the Texas lineand invaded the territory of Mexico. " Now this issue is made up of twoaffirmatives and no negative. The main deception of it is that it assumesas true that one river or the other is necessarily the boundary; andcheats the superficial thinker entirely out of the idea that possiblythe boundary is somewhere between the two, and not actually at either. Afurther deception is that it will let in evidence which a true issue wouldexclude. A true issue made by the President would be about as follows: "Isay the soil was ours, on which the first blood was shed; there are thosewho say it was not. "

I now proceed to examine the President's evidence as applicable to such anissue. When that evidence is analyzed, it is all included in the followingpropositions:

(1) That the Rio Grande was the western boundary of Louisiana as wepurchased it of France in 1803. 

(2) That the Republic of Texas always claimed the Rio Grande as hereastern boundary. 

(3) That by various acts she had claimed it on paper. 

(4) That Santa Anna in his treaty with Texas recognized the Rio Grande asher boundary. 

(5) That Texas before, and the United States after, annexation hadexercised jurisdiction beyond the Nueces--between the two rivers. 

(6) That our Congress understood the boundary of Texas to extend beyondthe Nueces. 

Now for each of these in its turn. His first item is that the Rio Grandewas the western boundary of Louisiana, as we purchased it of France in1803; and seeming to expect this to be disputed, he argues over the amountof nearly a page to prove it true, at the end of which he lets us knowthat by the treaty of 1803 we sold to Spain the whole country from the RioGrande eastward to the Sabine. Now, admitting for the present that theRio Grande was the boundary of Louisiana, what under heaven had that todo with the present boundary between us and Mexico? How, Mr. Chairman, the line that once divided your land from mine can still be theboundary between us after I have sold my land to you is to me beyond allcomprehension. And how any man, with an honest purpose only of proving thetruth, could ever have thought of introducing such a fact to prove such anissue is equally incomprehensible. His next piece of evidence is that "theRepublic of Texas always claimed this river [Rio Grande] as her westernboundary. " That is not true, in fact. Texas has claimed it, but she hasnot always claimed it. There is at least one distinguished exception. HerState constitution the republic's most solemn and well-consideredact, that which may, without impropriety, be called her last will andtestament, revoking all others-makes no such claim. But suppose she hadalways claimed it. Has not Mexico always claimed the contrary? So thatthere is but claim against claim, leaving nothing proved until we get backof the claims and find which has the better foundation. Though not in theorder in which the President presents his evidence, I now consider thatclass of his statements which are in substance nothing more than thatTexas has, by various acts of her Convention and Congress, claimed theRio Grande as her boundary, on paper. I mean here what he says about thefixing of the Rio Grande as her boundary in her old constitution (not herState constitution), about forming Congressional districts, counties, etc. Now all of this is but naked claim; and what I have already said aboutclaims is strictly applicable to this. If I should claim your land by wordof mouth, that certainly would not make it mine; and if I were to claim itby a deed which I had made myself, and with which you had had nothing todo, the claim would be quite the same in substance--or rather, in utternothingness. I next consider the President's statement that Santa Anna inhis treaty with Texas recognized the Rio Grande as the western boundaryof Texas. Besides the position so often taken, that Santa Anna while aprisoner of war, a captive, could not bind Mexico by a treaty, which Ideem conclusive--besides this, I wish to say something in relation to thistreaty, so called by the President, with Santa Anna. If any man would liketo be amused by a sight of that little thing which the President calls bythat big name, he can have it by turning to Niles's Register, vol. 1, p. 336. And if any one should suppose that Niles's Register is a curiousrepository of so mighty a document as a solemn treaty between nations, Ican only say that I learned to a tolerable degree of certainty, by inquiryat the State Department, that the President himself never saw it anywhereelse. By the way, I believe I should not err if I were to declare thatduring the first ten years of the existence of that document it wasnever by anybody called a treaty--that it was never so called till thePresident, in his extremity, attempted by so calling it to wring somethingfrom it in justification of himself in connection with the Mexican War. It has none of the distinguishing features of a treaty. It does not callitself a treaty. Santa Anna does not therein assume to bind Mexico; heassumes only to act as the President--Commander-in-Chief of the Mexicanarmy and navy; stipulates that the then present hostilities should cease, and that he would not himself take up arms, nor influence the Mexicanpeople to take up arms, against Texas during the existence of the war ofindependence. He did not recognize the independence of Texas; he did notassume to put an end to the war, but clearly indicated his expectationof its continuance; he did not say one word about boundary, and, mostprobably, never thought of it. It is stipulated therein that the Mexicanforces should evacuate the territory of Texas, passing to the otherside of the Rio Grande; and in another article it is stipulated that, toprevent collisions between the armies, the Texas army should not approachnearer than within five leagues--of what is not said, but clearly, fromthe object stated, it is of the Rio Grande. Now, if this is a treatyrecognizing the Rio Grande as the boundary of Texas, it contains thesingular feature of stipulating that Texas shall not go within fiveleagues of her own boundary. 

Next comes the evidence of Texas before annexation, and the United Statesafterwards, exercising jurisdiction beyond the Nueces and between the tworivers. This actual exercise of jurisdiction is the very class or qualityof evidence we want. It is excellent so far as it goes; but does it go farenough? He tells us it went beyond the Nueces, but he does not tell us itwent to the Rio Grande. He tells us jurisdiction was exercised betweenthe two rivers, but he does not tell us it was exercised over all theterritory between them. Some simple-minded people think it is possible tocross one river and go beyond it without going all the way to the next, that jurisdiction may be exercised between two rivers without coveringall the country between them. I know a man, not very unlike myself, whoexercises jurisdiction over a piece of land between the Wabash and theMississippi; and yet so far is this from being all there is between thoserivers that it is just one hundred and fifty-two feet long by fifty feetwide, and no part of it much within a hundred miles of either. He has aneighbor between him and the Mississippi--that is, just across the street, in that direction--whom I am sure he could neither persuade nor force togive up his habitation; but which nevertheless he could certainly annex, if it were to be done by merely standing on his own side of the street andclaiming it, or even sitting down and writing a deed for it. 

But next the President tells us the Congress of the United Statesunderstood the State of Texas they admitted into the Union to extendbeyond the Nueces. Well, I suppose they did. I certainly so understood it. But how far beyond? That Congress did not understand it to extend clearto the Rio Grande is quite certain, by the fact of their joint resolutionsfor admission expressly leaving all questions of boundary to futureadjustment. And it may be added that Texas herself is proven to have hadthe same understanding of it that our Congress had, by the fact of theexact conformity of her new constitution to those resolutions. 

I am now through the whole of the President's evidence; and it is asingular fact that if any one should declare the President sent the armyinto the midst of a settlement of Mexican people who had never submitted, by consent or by force, to the authority of Texas or of the United States, and that there and thereby the first blood of the war was shed, there isnot one word in all the which would either admit or deny the declaration. This strange omission it does seem to me could not have occurred but bydesign. My way of living leads me to be about the courts of justice; andthere I have sometimes seen a good lawyer, struggling for his client'sneck in a desperate case, employing every artifice to work round, befog, and cover up with many words some point arising in the case which he darednot admit and yet could not deny. Party bias may help to make it appearso, but with all the allowance I can make for such bias, it stilldoes appear to me that just such, and from just such necessity, is thePresident's struggle in this case. 

Sometime after my colleague [Mr. Richardson] introduced the resolutions Ihave mentioned, I introduced a preamble, resolution, and interrogations, intended to draw the President out, if possible, on this hithertountrodden ground. To show their relevancy, I propose to state myunderstanding of the true rule for ascertaining the boundary between Texasand Mexico. It is that wherever Texas was exercising jurisdiction washers; and wherever Mexico was exercising jurisdiction was hers; and thatwhatever separated the actual exercise of jurisdiction of the one fromthat of the other was the true boundary between them. If, as is probablytrue, Texas was exercising jurisdiction along the western bank of theNueces, and Mexico was exercising it along the eastern bank of the RioGrande, then neither river was the boundary: but the uninhabited countrybetween the two was. The extent of our territory in that region dependednot on any treaty-fixed boundary (for no treaty had attempted it), but onrevolution. Any people anywhere being inclined and having the power havethe right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form anew one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacredright--a right which we hope and believe is to liberate the world. Noris this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existinggovernment may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that canmay revolutionize and make their own of so much of the territory as theyinhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people mayrevolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with or near aboutthem, who may oppose this movement. Such minority was precisely the caseof the Tories of our own revolution. It is a quality of revolutions not togo by old lines or old laws, but to break up both, and make new ones. 

As to the country now in question, we bought it of France in 1803, andsold it to Spain in 1819, according to the President's statements. Afterthis, all Mexico, including Texas, revolutionized against Spain; and stilllater Texas revolutionized against Mexico. In my view, just so far asshe carried her resolution by obtaining the actual, willing or unwilling, submission of the people, so far the country was hers, and no farther. Now, sir, for the purpose of obtaining the very best evidence as towhether Texas had actually carried her revolution to the place where thehostilities of the present war commenced, let the President answer theinterrogatories I proposed, as before mentioned, or some other similarones. Let him answer fully, fairly, and candidly. Let him answer withfacts and not with arguments. Let him remember he sits where Washingtonsat, and so remembering, let him answer as Washington would answer. Asa nation should not, and the Almighty will not, be evaded, so let himattempt no evasion--no equivocation. And if, so answering, he can showthat the soil was ours where the first blood of the war was shed, --thatit was not within an inhabited country, or, if within such, that theinhabitants had submitted themselves to the civil authority of Texas orof the United States, and that the same is true of the site of Fort Brown, then I am with him for his justification. In that case I shall be mosthappy to reverse the vote I gave the other day. I have a selfish motivefor desiring that the President may do this--I expect to gain some votes, in connection with the war, which, without his so doing, will be ofdoubtful propriety in my own judgment, but which will be free from thedoubt if he does so. But if he can not or will not do this, --if on anypretence or no pretence he shall refuse or omit it then I shall be fullyconvinced of what I more than suspect already that he is deeply consciousof being in the wrong; that he feels the blood of this war, like the bloodof Abel, is crying to heaven against him; that originally having somestrong motive--what, I will not stop now to give my opinion concerningto involve the two countries in a war, and trusting to escape scrutinyby fixing the public gaze upon the exceeding brightness of militaryglory, --that attractive rainbow that rises in showers of blood, thatserpent's eye that charms to destroy, --he plunged into it, and was swepton and on till, disappointed in his calculation of the ease with whichMexico might be subdued, he now finds himself he knows not where. How likethe half insane mumbling of a fever dream is the whole war part of hislate message! At one time telling us that Mexico has nothing whatever thatwe can get--but territory; at another showing us how we can support thewar by levying contributions on Mexico. At one time urging the nationalhonor, the security of the future, the prevention of foreign interference, and even the good of Mexico herself as among the objects of the war; atanother telling us that "to reject indemnity, by refusing to accept acession of territory, would be to abandon all our just demands, and towage the war, bearing all its expenses, without a purpose or definiteobject. " So then this national honor, security of the future, andeverything but territorial indemnity may be considered the no-purposes andindefinite objects of the war! But, having it now settled that territorialindemnity is the only object, we are urged to seize, by legislation here, all that he was content to take a few months ago, and the whole provinceof Lower California to boot, and to still carry on the war to take allwe are fighting for, and still fight on. Again, the President is resolvedunder all circumstances to have full territorial indemnity for theexpenses of the war; but he forgets to tell us how we are to get theexcess after those expenses shall have surpassed the value of the wholeof the Mexican territory. So again, he insists that the separate nationalexistence of Mexico shall be maintained; but he does not tell us howthis can be done, after we shall have taken all her territory. Lest thequestions I have suggested be considered speculative merely, let me beindulged a moment in trying to show they are not. The war has gone on sometwenty months; for the expenses of which, together with an inconsiderableold score, the President now claims about one half of the Mexicanterritory, and that by far the better half, so far as concerns our abilityto make anything out of it. It is comparatively uninhabited; so that wecould establish land-offices in it, and raise some money in that way. Butthe other half is already inhabited, as I understand it, tolerablydensely for the nature of the country, and all its lands, or all that arevaluable, already appropriated as private property. How then are we tomake anything out of these lands with this encumbrance on them? or howremove the encumbrance? I suppose no one would say we should kill thepeople, or drive them out, or make slaves of them, or confiscate theirproperty. How, then, can we make much out of this part of the territory?If the prosecution of the war has in expenses already equalled the betterhalf of the country, how long its future prosecution will be in equallingthe less valuable half is not a speculative, but a practical, question, pressing closely upon us. And yet it is a question which the Presidentseems never to have thought of. As to the mode of terminating the war andsecuring peace, the President is equally wandering and indefinite. First, it is to be done by a more vigorous prosecution of the war in the vitalparts of the enemy's country; and after apparently talking himself tiredon this point, the President drops down into a half-despairing tone, and tells us that "with a people distracted and divided by contendingfactions, and a government subject to constant changes by successiverevolutions, the continued success of our arms may fail to secure asatisfactory peace. " Then he suggests the propriety of wheedling theMexican people to desert the counsels of their own leaders, and, trustingin our protestations, to set up a government from which we can securea satisfactory peace; telling us that "this may become the only mode ofobtaining such a peace. " But soon he falls into doubt of this too; andthen drops back on to the already half-abandoned ground of "more vigorousprosecution. " All this shows that the President is in nowise satisfiedwith his own positions. First he takes up one, and in attempting to argueus into it he argues himself out of it, then seizes another and goesthrough the same process, and then, confused at being able to think ofnothing new, he snatches up the old one again, which he has some timebefore cast off. His mind, taxed beyond its power, is running hither andthither, like some tortured creature on a burning surface, finding noposition on which it can settle down and be at ease. 

Again, it is a singular omission in this message that it nowhere intimateswhen the President expects the war to terminate. At its beginning, GeneralScott was by this same President driven into disfavor if not disgrace, forintimating that peace could not be conquered in less than three or fourmonths. But now, at the end of about twenty months, during which time ourarms have given us the most splendid successes, every department and everypart, land and water, officers and privates, regulars and volunteers, doing all that men could do, and hundreds of things which it had everbefore been thought men could not do--after all this, this same Presidentgives a long message, without showing us that as to the end he himself haseven an imaginary conception. As I have before said, he knows not where heis. He is a bewildered, confounded, and miserably perplexed man. God granthe may be able to show there is not something about his conscience morepainful than his mental perplexity. 

The following is a copy of the so-called "treaty" referred to in thespeech:

 "Articles of Agreement entered into between his ExcellencyDavid G. Burnet, President of the Republic of Texas, of the one part, and his Excellency General Santa Anna, President-General-in-Chief of theMexican army, of the other part:

 "Article I. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna agrees thathe will not take up arms, nor will he exercise his influence to causethem to be taken up, against the people of Texas during the present war ofindependence. 

 "Article II. All hostilities between the Mexican and Texantroops will cease immediately, both by land and water. 

 "Article III. The Mexican troops will evacuate the territoryof Texas, passing to the other side of the Rio Grande Del Norte. 

 "Article IV. The Mexican army, in its retreat, shall nottake the property of any person without his consent and justindemnification, using only such articles as may be necessary for itssubsistence, in cases when the owner may not be present, and remittingto the commander of the army of Texas, or to the commissioners to beappointed for the adjustment of such matters, an account of the value ofthe property consumed, the place where taken, and the name of the owner, if it can be ascertained. 

 "Article V. That all private property, including cattle, horses, negro slaves, or indentured persons, of whatever denomination, that may have been captured by any portion of the Mexican army, or mayhave taken refuge in the said army, since the commencement of the lateinvasion, shall be restored to the commander of the Texan army, or to suchother persons as may be appointed by the Government of Texas to receivethem. 

 "Article VI. The troops of both armies will refrain fromcoming in contact with each other; and to this end the commander of thearmy of Texas will be careful not to approach within a shorter distancethan five leagues. 

 "Article VII. The Mexican army shall not make any otherdelay on its march than that which is necessary to take up theirhospitals, baggage, etc. , and to cross the rivers; any delay not necessaryto these purposes to be considered an infraction of this agreement. 

 "Article VIII. By an express, to be immediately despatched, this agreement shall be sent to General Vincente Filisola and to GeneralT. J. Rusk, commander of the Texan army, in order that they may beapprised of its stipulations; and to this end they will exchangeengagements to comply with the same. 

 "Article IX. That all Texan prisoners now in the possessionof the Mexican army, or its authorities, be forthwith released, andfurnished with free passports to return to their homes; in considerationof which a corresponding number of Mexican prisoners, rank and file, nowin possession of the Government of Texas shall be immediately released;the remainder of the Mexican prisoners that continue in the possessionof the Government of Texas to be treated with due humanity, --anyextraordinary comforts that may be furnished them to be at the charge ofthe Government of Mexico. 

 "Article X. General Antonio Lopez de Santa Anna will be sentto Vera Cruz as soon as it shall be deemed proper. 

 "The contracting parties sign this instrument for the abovementionedpurposes, in duplicate, at the port of Velasco, this fourteenth day ofMay, 1836. 

 "DAVID G. BURNET, President, "JAS. COLLINGSWORTH, Secretary of State, "ANTONIO LOPEZ DE SANTA ANNA, "B. HARDIMAN, Secretary of the Treasury, "P. W. GRAYSON, Attorney-General. "

REPORT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JANUARY 19, 1848. 

Mr. Lincoln, from the Committee on the Post-office and Post Roads, madethe following report:

The Committee on the Post-office and Post Roads, to whom was referred thepetition of Messrs. Saltmarsh and Fuller, report: That, as proved totheir satisfaction, the mail routes from Milledgeville to Athens, and fromWarrenton to Decatur, in the State of Georgia (numbered 2366 and 2380), were let to Reeside and Avery at $1300 per annum for the former and $1500for the latter, for the term of four years, to commence on the first dayof January, 1835; that, previous to the time for commencing the service, Reeside sold his interest therein to Avery; that on the 5th of May, 1835, Avery sold the whole to these petitioners, Saltmarsh and Fuller, totake effect from the beginning, January a 1835; that at this time, theAssistant Postmaster-General, being called on for that purpose, consentedto the transfer of the contracts from Reeside and Avery to thesepetitioners, and promised to have proper entries of the transfer made onthe books of the department, which, however, was neglected to be done;that the petitioners, supposing all was right, in good faith commenced thetransportation of the mail on these routes, and after difficulty arose, still trusting that all would be made right, continued the servicetill December a 1837; that they performed the service to the entiresatisfaction of the department, and have never been paid anything for itexcept $----; that the difficulty occurred as follows:

Mr. Barry was Postmaster-General at the times of making the contractsand the attempted transfer of them; Mr. Kendall succeeded Mr. Barry, andfinding Reeside apparently in debt to the department, and these contractsstill standing in the names of Reeside and Avery, refused to pay for theservices under them, otherwise than by credits to Reeside; afterward, however, he divided the compensation, still crediting one half to Reeside, and directing the other to be paid to the order of Avery, who disclaimedall right to it. After discontinuing the service, these petitioners, supposing they might have legal redress against Avery, brought suitagainst him in New Orleans; in which suit they failed, on the groundthat Avery had complied with his contract, having done so much toward thetransfer as they had accepted and been satisfied with. Still later thedepartment sued Reeside on his supposed indebtedness, and by a verdict ofthe jury it was determined that the department was indebted to him in asum much beyond all the credits given him on the account above stated. Under these circumstances, the committee consider the petitioners clearlyentitled to relief, and they report a bill accordingly; lest, however, there should be some mistake as to the amount which they have alreadyreceived, we so frame it as that, by adjustment at the department, theymay be paid so much as remains unpaid for services actually performed bythem not charging them with the credits given to Reeside. The committeethink it not improbable that the petitioners purchased the right of Averyto be paid for the service from the 1st of January, till their purchaseon May 11, 1835; but, the evidence on this point being very vague, theyforbear to report in favor of allowing it. 

TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON--LEGAL WORK

WASHINGTON, January 19, 1848. 

DEAR WILLIAM:--Inclosed you find a letter of Louis W. Chandler. Whatis wanted is that you shall ascertain whether the claim upon the notedescribed has received any dividend in the Probate Court of ChristianCounty, where the estate of Mr. Overbon Williams has been administeredon. If nothing is paid on it, withdraw the note and send it to me, so thatChandler can see the indorser of it. At all events write me all about it, till I can somehow get it off my hands. I have already been bored morethan enough about it; not the least of which annoyance is his cursed, unreadable, and ungodly handwriting. 

I have made a speech, a copy of which I will send you by next mail. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

REGARDING SPEECH ON MEXICAN WAR

TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

WASHINGTON, February 1, 1848. 

DEAR WILLIAM:--Your letter of the 19th ultimo was received last night, andfor which I am much obliged. The only thing in it that I wish to talk toyou at once about is that because of my vote for Ashmun's amendment youfear that you and I disagree about the war. I regret this, not because ofany fear we shall remain disagreed after you have read this letter, butbecause if you misunderstand I fear other good friends may also. That voteaffirms that the war was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced bythe President; and I will stake my life that if you had been in my placeyou would have voted just as I did. Would you have voted what you feltand knew to be a lie? I know you would not. Would you have gone out of theHouse--skulked the vote? I expect not. If you had skulked one vote, you would have had to skulk many more before the end of the session. Richardson's resolutions, introduced before I made any move or gave anyvote upon the subject, make the direct question of the justice of the war;so that no man can be silent if he would. You are compelled to speak; andyour only alternative is to tell the truth or a lie. I cannot doubt whichyou would do. 

This vote has nothing to do in determining my votes on the questions ofsupplies. I have always intended, and still intend, to vote supplies;perhaps not in the precise form recommended by the President, but in abetter form for all purposes, except Locofoco party purposes. It is inthis particular you seem mistaken. The Locos are untiring in their effortsto make the impression that all who vote supplies or take part in the wardo of necessity approve the President's conduct in the beginning ofit; but the Whigs have from the beginning made and kept the distinctionbetween the two. In the very first act nearly all the Whigs voted againstthe preamble declaring that war existed by the act of Mexico; and yetnearly all of them voted for the supplies. As to the Whig men who haveparticipated in the war, so far as they have spoken in my hearing theydo not hesitate to denounce as unjust the President's conduct in thebeginning of the war. They do not suppose that such denunciation isdirected by undying hatred to him, as The Register would have it believed. There are two such Whigs on this floor (Colonel Haskell and Major James)The former fought as a colonel by the side of Colonel Baker at CerroGordo, and stands side by side with me in the vote that you seemdissatisfied with. The latter, the history of whose capture with CassiusClay you well know, had not arrived here when that vote was given; but, as I understand, he stands ready to give just such a vote whenever anoccasion shall present. Baker, too, who is now here, says the truth isundoubtedly that way; and whenever he shall speak out, he will say so. Colonel Doniphan, too, the favorite Whig of Missouri, and who overranall Northern Mexico, on his return home in a public speech at St. Louiscondemned the administration in relation to the war. If I remember, G. T. M. Davis, who has been through almost the whole war, declares in favor ofMr. Clay; from which I infer that he adopts the sentiments of Mr. Clay, generally at least. On the other hand, I have heard of but one Whig whohas been to the war attempting to justify the President's conduct. Thatone was Captain Bishop, editor of the Charleston Courier, and a veryclever fellow. I do not mean this letter for the public, but for you. Before it reaches you, you will have seen and read my pamphlet speech, and perhaps been scared anew by it. After you get over your scare, read itover again, sentence by sentence, and tell me honestly what you think ofit. I condensed all I could for fear of being cut off by the hour rule, and when I got through I had spoken but forty-five minutes. 

Yours forever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

WASHINGTON, February 2, 1848

DEAR WILLIAM:--I just take my pen to say that Mr. Stephens, of Georgia, alittle, slim, pale-faced, consumptive man, with a voice like Logan's, hasjust concluded the very best speech of an hour's length I ever heard. Myold withered dry eyes are full of tears yet. 

If he writes it out anything like he delivered it, our people shall see agood many copies of it. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ON THE MEXICAN WAR

TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

WASHINGTON, February 15, 1848. 

DEAR WILLIAM:--Your letter of the 29th January was received last night. Being exclusively a constitutional argument, I wish to submit somereflections upon it in the same spirit of kindness that I know actuatesyou. Let me first state what I understand to be your position. It is thatif it shall become necessary to repel invasion, the President may, withoutviolation of the Constitution, cross the line and invade the territory ofanother country, and that whether such necessity exists in any given casethe President is the sole judge. 

Before going further consider well whether this is or is not yourposition. If it is, it is a position that neither the President himself, nor any friend of his, so far as I know, has ever taken. Their onlypositions are--first, that the soil was ours when the hostilitiescommenced; and second, that whether it was rightfully ours or not, Congress had annexed it, and the President for that reason was bound todefend it; both of which are as clearly proved to be false in fact as youcan prove that your house is mine. The soil was not ours, and Congress didnot annex or attempt to annex it. But to return to your position. Allowthe President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem itnecessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he maychoose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him tomake war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his powerin this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-dayhe should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to preventthe British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say tohim, --"I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will sayto you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't. "

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congresswas dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings hadalways been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretendinggenerally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kinglyoppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no oneman should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But yourview destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings havealways stood. Write soon again. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

REPORT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 9, 1848. 

Mr. Lincoln, from the Committee on the Postoffice and Post Roads, made thefollowing report:

The Committee on the Post-office and Post Roads, to whom was referred theresolution of the House of Representatives entitled "An Act authorizingpostmasters at county seats of justice to receive subscriptions fornewspapers and periodicals, to be paid through the agency of thePost-office Department, and for other purposes, " beg leave to submit thefollowing report:

The committee have reason to believe that a general wish pervades thecommunity at large that some such facility as the proposed measure shouldbe granted by express law, for subscribing, through the agency of thePost-office Department, to newspapers and periodicals which diffuse daily, weekly, or monthly intelligence of passing events. Compliance withthis general wish is deemed to be in accordance with our republicaninstitutions, which can be best sustained by the diffusion of knowledgeand the due encouragement of a universal, national spirit of inquiry anddiscussion of public events through the medium of the public press. Thecommittee, however, has not been insensible to its duty of guarding thePost-office Department against injurious sacrifices for the accomplishmentof this object, whereby its ordinary efficacy might be impaired orembarrassed. It has therefore been a subject of much consideration; butit is now confidently hoped that the bill herewith submitted effectuallyobviates all objections which might exist with regard to a less maturedproposition. 

The committee learned, upon inquiry, that the Post-office Department, in view of meeting the general wish on this subject, made the experimentthrough one if its own internal regulations, when the new postage systemwent into operation on the first of July, 1845, and that it was continueduntil the thirtieth of September, 1847. But this experiment, for reasonshereafter stated, proved unsatisfactory, and it was discontinued byorder of the Postmaster-General. As far as the committee can at presentascertain, the following seem to have been the principal grounds ofdissatisfaction in this experiment:

(1) The legal responsibility of postmasters receiving newspapersubscriptions, or of their sureties, was not defined. 

(2) The authority was open to all postmasters instead of being limited tothose of specific offices. 

(3) The consequence of this extension of authority was that, ininnumerable instances, the money, without the previous knowledge orcontrol of the officers of the department who are responsible for the goodmanagement of its finances, was deposited in offices where it was impropersuch funds should be placed; and the repayment was ordered, not bythe financial officers, but by the postmasters, at points where it wasinconvenient to the department so to disburse its funds. 

(4) The inconvenience of accumulating uncertain and fluctuating sums atsmall offices was felt seriously in consequent overpayments to contractorson their quarterly collecting orders; and, in case of private mail routes, in litigation concerning the misapplication of such funds to the specialservice of supplying mails. 

(5) The accumulation of such funds on draft offices could not be knownto the financial clerks of the department in time to control it, and toooften this rendered uncertain all their calculations of funds in hand. 

(6) The orders of payment were for the most part issued upon the principaloffices, such as New York, Philadelphia, Boston, Baltimore, etc. , wherethe large offices of publishers are located, causing an illimitable anduncontrollable drain of the department funds from those points whereit was essential to husband them for its own regular disbursements. InPhiladelphia alone this drain averaged $5000 per quarter; and in othercities of the seaboard it was proportionate. 

(7) The embarrassment of the department was increased by the illimitable, uncontrollable, and irresponsible scattering of its funds fromconcentrated points suitable for its distributions, to remote, unsafe, andinconvenient offices, where they could not be again made available tillcollected by special agents, or were transferred at considerable expenseinto the principal disbursing offices again. 

(8) There was a vast increase of duties thrown upon the limited forcebefore necessary to conduct the business of the department; and from thedelay of obtaining vouchers impediments arose to the speedy settlement ofaccounts with present or retired post-masters, causing postponements whichendangered the liability of sureties under the act of limitations, andcausing much danger of an increase of such cases. 

(9) The most responsible postmasters (at the large offices) were orderedby the least responsible (at small offices) to make payments upon theirvouchers, without having the means of ascertaining whether these voucherswere genuine or forged, or if genuine, whether the signers were in or outof office, or solvent or defaulters. 

(10) The transaction of this business for subscribers and publishers atthe public expense, an the embarrassment, inconvenience, and delay ofthe department's own business occasioned by it, were not justified by anysufficient remuneration of revenue to sustain the department, as requiredin every other respect with regard to its agency. 

The committee, in view of these objections, has been solicitous to framea bill which would not be obnoxious to them in principle or in practicaleffect. 

It is confidently believed that by limiting the offices for receivingsubscriptions to less than one tenth of the number authorized by theexperiment already tried, and designating the county seat in eachcounty for the purpose, the control of the department will be renderedsatisfactory; particularly as it will be in the power of the Auditor, who is the officer required by law to check the accounts, to approve ordisapprove of the deposits, and to sanction not only the payments, but topoint out the place of payment. If these payments should cause a drainon the principal offices of the seaboard, it will be compensated by theaccumulation of funds at county seats, where the contractors on thoseroutes can be paid to that extent by the department's drafts, with morelocal convenience to themselves than by drafts on the seaboard offices. 

The legal responsibility for these deposits is defined, and theaccumulation of funds at the point of deposit, and the repayment atpoints drawn upon, being known to and controlled by the Auditor, will notoccasion any such embarrassments as were before felt; the record keptby the Auditor on the passing of the certificates through his hands willenable him to settle accounts without the delay occasioned by vouchersbeing withheld; all doubt or uncertainty as to the genuineness ofcertificates, or the propriety of their issue, will be removed by theAuditor's examination and approval; and there can be no risk of lossof funds by transmission, as the certificate will not be payable tillsanctioned by the Auditor, and after his sanction the payor need not payit unless it is presented by the publisher or his known clerk or agent. 

The main principle of equivalent for the agency of the department issecured by the postage required to be paid upon the transmission of thecertificates, augmenting adequately the post-office revenue. 

The committee, conceiving that in this report all the difficulties of thesubject have been fully and fairly stated, and that these difficultieshave been obviated by the plan proposed in the accompanying bill, andbelieving that the measure will satisfactorily meet the wants and wishesof a very large portion of the community, beg leave to recommend itsadoption. 

REPORT IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 9, 1848. 

Mr. Lincoln, from the Committee on the Postoffice and Post Roads, made thefollowing report:

The Committee on the Post-office and Post Roads, to whom was referredthe petition of H. M. Barney, postmaster at Brimfield, Peoria County, Illinois, report: That they have been satisfied by evidence, that on the15th of December, 1847, said petitioner had his store, with some fifteenhundred dollars' worth of goods, together with all the papers of thepost-office, entirely destroyed by fire; and that the specie funds of theoffice were melted down, partially lost and partially destroyed; that thislarge individual loss entirely precludes the idea of embezzlement; thatthe balances due the department of former quarters had been only abouttwenty-five dollars; and that owing to the destruction of papers, theexact amount due for the quarter ending December 31, 1847, cannot beascertained. They therefore report a joint resolution, releasing saidpetitioner from paying anything for the quarter last mentioned. 

REMARKS IN THE UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MARCH 29, 1848. 

The bill for raising additional military force for limited time, etc. , wasreported from Committee on judiciary; similar bills had been reported fromCommittee on, Public Lands and Military Committee. 

Mr. Lincoln said if there was a general desire on the part of the House topass the bill now he should be glad to have it done--concurring, as hedid generally, with the gentleman from Arkansas [Mr. Johnson] that thepostponement might jeopard the safety of the proposition. If, however, areference was to be made, he wished to make a very few remarks in relationto the several subjects desired by the gentlemen to be embraced inamendments to the ninth section of the act of the last session ofCongress. The first amendment desired by members of this House had for itsonly object to give bounty lands to such persons as had served for a timeas privates, but had never been discharged as such, because promoted tooffice. That subject, and no other, was embraced in this bill. There weresome others who desired, while they were legislating on this subject, thatthey should also give bounty lands to the volunteers of the War of 1812. His friend from Maryland said there were no such men. He [Mr. L. ] did notsay there were many, but he was very confident there were some. His friendfrom Kentucky near him, [Mr. Gaines] told him he himself was one. 

There was still another proposition touching this matter; that was, thatpersons entitled to bounty lands should by law be entitled to locate theselands in parcels, and not be required to locate them in one body, as wasprovided by the existing law. 

Now he had carefully drawn up a bill embracing these three separatepropositions, which he intended to propose as a substitute for all thesebills in the House, or in Committee of the Whole on the State of theUnion, at some suitable time. If there was a disposition on the part ofthe House to act at once on this separate proposition, he repeated that, with the gentlemen from Arkansas, he should prefer it lest they shouldlose all. But if there was to be a reference, he desired to introduce hisbill embracing the three propositions, thus enabling the committee and theHouse to act at the same time, whether favorably or unfavorably, upon all. He inquired whether an amendment was now in order. 

The Speaker replied in the negative. 

TO ARCHIBALD WILLIAMS. 

WASHINGTON, April 30, 1848. 

DEAR WILLIAMS:--I have not seen in the papers any evidence of a movementto send a delegate from your circuit to the June convention. I wish to saythat I think it all-important that a delegate should be sent. Mr. Clay'schance for an election is just no chance at all. He might get New York, and that would have elected in 1844, but it will not now, because he mustnow, at the least, lose Tennessee, which he had then, and in addition thefifteen new votes of Florida, Texas, Iowa, and Wisconsin. I know our goodfriend Browning is a great admirer of Mr. Clay, and I therefore fear he isfavoring his nomination. If he is, ask him to discard feeling, and tryif he can possibly, as a matter of judgment, count the votes necessary toelect him. 

In my judgment we can elect nobody but General Taylor; and we cannot electhim without a nomination. Therefore don't fail to send a delegate. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

REMARKS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, MAY 11, 1848. 

A bill for the admission of Wisconsin into the Union had been passed. 

Mr. Lincoln moved to reconsider the vote by which the bill was passed. He stated to the House that he had made this motion for the purpose ofobtaining an opportunity to say a few words in relation to a point raisedin the course of the debate on this bill, which he would now proceed tomake if in order. The point in the case to which he referred arose on theamendment that was submitted by the gentleman from Vermont [Mr. Collamer]in Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, and which wasafterward renewed in the House, in relation to the question whether thereserved sections, which, by some bills heretofore passed, by which anappropriation of land had been made to Wisconsin, had been enhanced invalue, should be reduced to the minimum price of the public lands. Thequestion of the reduction in value of those sections was to him at thistime a matter very nearly of indifference. He was inclined to desire thatWisconsin should be obliged by having it reduced. But the gentleman fromIndiana [Mr. C. B. Smith], the chairman of the Committee on Territories, yesterday associated that question with the general question, which is nowto some extent agitated in Congress, of making appropriations of alternatesections of land to aid the States in making internal improvements, andenhancing the price of the sections reserved, and the gentleman fromIndiana took ground against that policy. He did not make any specialargument in favor of Wisconsin, but he took ground generally against thepolicy of giving alternate sections of land, and enhancing the price ofthe reserved sections. Now he [Mr. Lincoln] did not at this time take thefloor for the purpose of attempting to make an argument on the generalsubject. He rose simply to protest against the doctrine which thegentleman from Indiana had avowed in the course of what he [Mr. Lincoln]could not but consider an unsound argument. 

It might, however, be true, for anything he knew, that the gentlemanfrom Indiana might convince him that his argument was sound; but he [Mr. Lincoln] feared that gentleman would not be able to convince a majorityin Congress that it was sound. It was true the question appeared in adifferent aspect to persons in consequence of a difference in the pointfrom which they looked at it. It did not look to persons residing east ofthe mountains as it did to those who lived among the public lands. But, for his part, he would state that if Congress would make a donation ofalternate sections of public land for the purpose of internal improvementsin his State, and forbid the reserved sections being sold at $1. 25, heshould be glad to see the appropriation made; though he should preferit if the reserved sections were not enhanced in price. He repeated, heshould be glad to have such appropriations made, even though the reservedsections should be enhanced in price. He did not wish to be understoodas concurring in any intimation that they would refuse to receive such anappropriation of alternate sections of land because a condition enhancingthe price of the reserved sections should be attached thereto. He believedhis position would now be understood: if not, he feared he should not beable to make himself understood. 

But, before he took his seat, he would remark that the Senate during thepresent session had passed a bill making appropriations of land on thatprinciple for the benefit of the State in which he resided the Stateof Illinois. The alternate sections were to be given for the purpose ofconstructing roads, and the reserved sections were to be enhanced in valuein consequence. When that bill came here for the action of this House--ithad been received, and was now before the Committee on Public Lands--hedesired much to see it passed as it was, if it could be put in no morefavorable form for the State of Illinois. When it should be before thisHouse, if any member from a section of the Union in which these landsdid not lie, whose interest might be less than that which he felt, shouldpropose a reduction of the price of the reserved sections to $1. 25, heshould be much obliged; but he did not think it would be well for thosewho came from the section of the Union in which the lands lay to doso. --He wished it, then, to be understood that he did not join in thewarfare against the principle which had engaged the minds of some membersof Congress who were favorable to the improvements in the western country. There was a good deal of force, he admitted, in what fell from thechairman of the Committee on Territories. It might be that there was noprecise justice in raising the price of the reserved sections to $2. 50 peracre. It might be proper that the price should be enhanced to some extent, though not to double the usual price; but he should be glad to have suchan appropriation with the reserved sections at $2. 50; he should be betterpleased to have the price of those sections at something less; and heshould be still better pleased to have them without any enhancement atall. 

There was one portion of the argument of the gentleman from Indiana, thechairman of the Committee on Territories [Mr. Smith], which he wished totake occasion to say that he did not view as unsound. He alluded to thestatement that the General Government was interested in these internalimprovements being made, inasmuch as they increased the value of the landsthat were unsold, and they enabled the government to sell the lands whichcould not be sold without them. Thus, then, the government gained byinternal improvements as well as by the general good which the peoplederived from them, and it might be, therefore, that the lands shouldnot be sold for more than $1. 50 instead of the price being doubled. He, however, merely mentioned this in passing, for he only rose to state, as the principle of giving these lands for the purposes which he hadmentioned had been laid hold of and considered favorably, and as therewere some gentlemen who had constitutional scruples about giving moneyfor these purchases who would not hesitate to give land, that he wasnot willing to have it understood that he was one of those who madewar against that principle. This was all he desired to say, and havingaccomplished the object with which he rose, he withdrew his motion toreconsider. 

ON TAYLOR'S NOMINATION

TO E. B. WASHBURNE. 

WASHINGTON, April 30, 1848. 

DEAR WASHBURNE:

I have this moment received your very short note asking me if old Tayloris to be used up, and who will be the nominee. My hope of Taylor'snomination is as high--a little higher than it was when you left. Still, the case is by no means out of doubt. Mr. Clay's letter has not advancedhis interests any here. Several who were against Taylor, but not foranybody particularly, before, are since taking ground, some for Scottand some for McLean. Who will be nominated neither I nor any one else cantell. Now, let me pray to you in turn. My prayer is that you let nothingdiscourage or baffle you, but that, in spite of every difficulty, you sendus a good Taylor delegate from your circuit. Make Baker, who is now withyou, I suppose, help about it. He is a good hand to raise a breeze. 

General Ashley, in the Senate from Arkansas, died yesterday. Nothing elsenew beyond what you see in the papers. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN

DEFENSE OF MEXICAN WAR POSITION

TO REV. J. M. PECK

WASHINGTON, May 21, 1848. DEAR SIR:

. .. . Not in view of all the facts. There are facts which you have kept outof view. It is a fact that the United States army in marching to the RioGrande marched into a peaceful Mexican settlement, and frightened theinhabitants away from their homes and their growing crops. It is a factthat Fort Brown, opposite Matamoras, was built by that army within aMexican cotton-field, on which at the time the army reached it a youngcotton crop was growing, and which crop was wholly destroyed and the fielditself greatly and permanently injured by ditches, embankments, and thelike. It is a fact that when the Mexicans captured Captain Thornton andhis command, they found and captured them within another Mexican field. 

Now I wish to bring these facts to your notice, and to ascertain what isthe result of your reflections upon them. If you deny that they arefacts, I think I can furnish proofs which shall convince you that you aremistaken. If you admit that they are facts, then I shall be obliged fora reference to any law of language, law of States, law of nations, law ofmorals, law of religions, any law, human or divine, in which an authoritycan be found for saying those facts constitute "no aggression. "

Possibly you consider those acts too small for notice. Would you ventureto so consider them had they been committed by any nation on earth againstthe humblest of our people? I know you would not. Then I ask, is theprecept "Whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so tothem" obsolete? of no force? of no application?

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ON ZACHARY TAYLOR NOMINATION

TO ARCHIBALD WILLIAMS. 

WASHINGTON, June 12, 1848. 

DEAR WILLIAMS:--On my return from Philadelphia, where I had been attendingthe nomination of "Old Rough, " (Zachary Taylor) I found your letter in amass of others which had accumulated in my absence. By many, and often, ithad been said they would not abide the nomination of Taylor; but since thedeed has been done, they are fast falling in, and in my opinion we shallhave a most overwhelming, glorious triumph. One unmistakable sign is thatall the odds and ends are with us--Barnburners, Native Americans, Tylermen, disappointed office-seeking Locofocos, and the Lord knows what. Thisis important, if in nothing else, in showing which way the wind blows. Some of the sanguine men have set down all the States as certain forTaylor but Illinois, and it as doubtful. Cannot something be done even inIllinois? Taylor's nomination takes the Locos on the blind side. It turnsthe war thunder against them. The war is now to them the gallows ofHaman, which they built for us, and on which they are doomed to be hangedthemselves. 

Excuse this short letter. I have so many to write that I cannot devotemuch time to any one. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 20, 1848. 

In Committee of the Whole on the State of the Union, on the Civil andDiplomatic Appropriation Bill:

Mr. CHAIRMAN:--I wish at all times in no way to practise any fraud uponthe House or the committee, and I also desire to do nothing which may bevery disagreeable to any of the members. I therefore state in advance thatmy object in taking the floor is to make a speech on the general subjectof internal improvements; and if I am out of order in doing so, I give thechair an opportunity of so deciding, and I will take my seat. 

The Chair: I will not undertake to anticipate what the gentleman may sayon the subject of internal improvements. He will, therefore, proceed inhis remarks, and if any question of order shall be made, the chair willthen decide it. 

Mr. Lincoln: At an early day of this session the President sent us whatmay properly be called an internal improvement veto message. The lateDemocratic convention, which sat at Baltimore, and which nominated GeneralCass for the Presidency, adopted a set of resolutions, now called theDemocratic platform, among which is one in these words:

"That the Constitution does not confer upon the General Government thepower to commence and carry on a general system of internal improvements. "

General Cass, in his letter accepting the nomination, holds this language:

"I have carefully read the resolutions of the Democratic nationalconvention, laying down the platform of our political faith, and I adhereto them as firmly as I approve them cordially. "

These things, taken together, show that the question of internalimprovements is now more distinctly made--has become more intense--thanat any former period. The veto message and the Baltimore resolution Iunderstand to be, in substance, the same thing; the latter being the moregeneral statement, of which the former is the amplification the bill ofparticulars. While I know there are many Democrats, on this floor andelsewhere, who disapprove that message, I understand that all who votedfor General Cass will thereafter be counted as having approved it, ashaving indorsed all its doctrines. 

I suppose all, or nearly all, the Democrats will vote for him. Many ofthem will do so not because they like his position on this question, but because they prefer him, being wrong on this, to another whom theyconsider farther wrong on other questions. In this way the internalimprovement Democrats are to be, by a sort of forced consent, carried overand arrayed against themselves on this measure of policy. General Cass, once elected, will not trouble himself to make a constitutional argument, or perhaps any argument at all, when he shall veto a river or harbor bill;he will consider it a sufficient answer to all Democratic murmurs to pointto Mr. Polk's message, and to the Democratic platform. This being thecase, the question of improvements is verging to a final crisis; and thefriends of this policy must now battle, and battle manfully, or surrenderall. In this view, humble as I am, I wish to review, and contest as wellas I may, the general positions of this veto message. When I say generalpositions, I mean to exclude from consideration so much as relates to thepresent embarrassed state of the treasury in consequence of the MexicanWar. 

Those general positions are: that internal improvements ought not to bemade by the General Government--First. Because they would overwhelm thetreasury Second. Because, while their burdens would be general, theirbenefits would be local and partial, involving an obnoxious inequality;and Third. Because they would be unconstitutional. Fourth. Because theStates may do enough by the levy and collection of tonnage duties; or ifnot--Fifth. That the Constitution may be amended. "Do nothing at all, lestyou do something wrong, " is the sum of these positions is the sum ofthis message. And this, with the exception of what is said aboutconstitutionality, applying as forcibly to what is said about makingimprovements by State authority as by the national authority; so that wemust abandon the improvements of the country altogether, by any and everyauthority, or we must resist and repudiate the doctrines of this message. Let us attempt the latter. 

The first position is, that a system of internal improvements wouldoverwhelm the treasury. That in such a system there is a tendency to undueexpansion, is not to be denied. Such tendency is founded in the natureof the subject. A member of Congress will prefer voting for a bill whichcontains an appropriation for his district, to voting for one whichdoes not; and when a bill shall be expanded till every district shall beprovided for, that it will be too greatly expanded is obvious. But isthis any more true in Congress than in a State Legislature? If a memberof Congress must have an appropriation for his district, so a member ofa Legislature must have one for his county. And if one will overwhelmthe national treasury, so the other will overwhelm the State treasury. Gowhere we will, the difficulty is the same. Allow it to drive us from thehalls of Congress, and it will, just as easily, drive us from the StateLegislatures. Let us, then, grapple with it, and test its strength. Letus, judging of the future by the past, ascertain whether there may not be, in the discretion of Congress, a sufficient power to limit and restrainthis expansive tendency within reasonable and proper bounds. The Presidenthimself values the evidence of the past. He tells us that at a certainpoint of our history more than two hundred millions of dollars had beenapplied for to make improvements; and this he does to prove that thetreasury would be overwhelmed by such a system. Why did he not tell us howmuch was granted? Would not that have been better evidence? Let us turnto it, and see what it proves. In the message the President tells usthat "during the four succeeding years embraced by the administration ofPresident Adams, the power not only to appropriate money, but to apply it, under the direction and authority of the General Government, as well tothe construction of roads as to the improvement of harbors and rivers, was fully asserted and exercised. " This, then, was the period of greatestenormity. These, if any, must have been the days of the two hundredmillions. And how much do you suppose was really expended for improvementsduring that four years? Two hundred millions? One hundred? Fifty? Ten?Five? No, sir; less than two millions. As shown by authentic documents, the expenditures on improvements during 1825, 1826, 1827, and 1828amounted to one million eight hundred and seventy-nine thousand sixhundred and twenty-seven dollars and one cent. These four years were theperiod of Mr. Adams's administration, nearly and substantially. This factshows that when the power to make improvements "was fully asserted andexercised, " the Congress did keep within reasonable limits; and what hasbeen done, it seems to me, can be done again. 

Now for the second portion of the message--namely, that the burdens ofimprovements would be general, while their benefits would be local andpartial, involving an obnoxious inequality. That there is some degreeof truth in this position, I shall not deny. No commercial object ofgovernment patronage can be so exclusively general as to not be of somepeculiar local advantage. The navy, as I understand it, was established, and is maintained at a great annual expense, partly to be ready forwar when war shall come, and partly also, and perhaps chiefly, for theprotection of our commerce on the high seas. This latter object is, forall I can see, in principle the same as internal improvements. The drivinga pirate from the track of commerce on the broad ocean, and the removingof a snag from its more narrow path in the Mississippi River, cannot, I think, be distinguished in principle. Each is done to save life andproperty, and for nothing else. 

The navy, then, is the most general in its benefits of all this classof objects; and yet even the navy is of some peculiar advantage toCharleston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, New York, and Boston, beyond what itis to the interior towns of Illinois. The next most general object Ican think of would be improvements on the Mississippi River and itstributaries. They touch thirteen of our States-Pennsylvania, Virginia, Kentucky, Tennessee, Mississippi, Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Iowa. Now I suppose it will not be deniedthat these thirteen States are a little more interested in improvements onthat great river than are the remaining seventeen. These instances of thenavy and the Mississippi River show clearly that there is something oflocal advantage in the most general objects. But the converse is alsotrue. Nothing is so local as to not be of some general benefit. Take, for instance, the Illinois and Michigan Canal. Considered apart from itseffects, it is perfectly local. Every inch of it is within the State ofIllinois. That canal was first opened for business last April. In a veryfew days we were all gratified to learn, among other things, that sugarhad been carried from New Orleans through this canal to Buffalo in NewYork. This sugar took this route, doubtless, because it was cheaper thanthe old route. Supposing benefit of the reduction in the cost of carriageto be shared between seller and the buyer, result is that the New Orleansmerchant sold his sugar a little dearer, and the people of Buffalosweetened their coffee a little cheaper, than before, --a benefit resultingfrom the canal, not to Illinois, where the canal is, but to Louisiana andNew York, where it is not. In other transactions Illinois will, of course, have her share, and perhaps the larger share too, of the benefits of thecanal; but this instance of the sugar clearly shows that the benefits ofan improvement are by no means confined to the particular locality ofthe improvement itself. The just conclusion from all this is that if thenation refuse to make improvements of the more general kind because theirbenefits may be somewhat local, a State may for the same reason refuse tomake an improvement of a local kind because its benefits may be somewhatgeneral. A State may well say to the nation, "If you will do nothing forme, I will do nothing for you. " Thus it is seen that if this argument of"inequality" is sufficient anywhere, it is sufficient everywhere, and putsan end to improvements altogether. I hope and believe that if both thenation and the States would, in good faith, in their respective spheresdo what they could in the way of improvements, what of inequality might beproduced in one place might be compensated in another, and the sum of thewhole might not be very unequal. 

But suppose, after all, there should be some degree of inequality. Inequality is certainly never to be embraced for its own sake; but isevery good thing to be discarded which may be inseparably connected withsome degree of it? If so, we must discard all government. This Capitolis built at the public expense, for the public benefit; but does any onedoubt that it is of some peculiar local advantage to the property-holdersand business people of Washington? Shall we remove it for this reason?And if so, where shall we set it down, and be free from the difficulty?To make sure of our object, shall we locate it nowhere, and have Congresshereafter to hold its sessions, as the loafer lodged, "in spots about"?I make no allusion to the present President when I say there are fewstronger cases in this world of "burden to the many and benefit to thefew, " of "inequality, " than the Presidency itself is by some thought tobe. An honest laborer digs coal at about seventy cents a day, while thePresident digs abstractions at about seventy dollars a day. The coalis clearly worth more than the abstractions, and yet what a monstrousinequality in the prices! Does the President, for this reason, propose toabolish the Presidency? He does not, and he ought not. The true rule, indetermining to embrace or reject anything, is not whether it have any evilin it, but whether it have more of evil than of good. There are few thingswholly evil or wholly good. Almost everything, especially of governmentpolicy, is an inseparable compound of the two; so that our best judgmentof the preponderance between them is continually demanded. On thisprinciple the President, his friends, and the world generally act onmost subjects. Why not apply it, then, upon this question? Why, as toimprovements, magnify the evil, and stoutly refuse to see any good inthem?

Mr. Chairman, on the third position of the message the constitutionalquestion--I have not much to say. Being the man I am, and speaking, whereI do, I feel that in any attempt at an original constitutional argumentI should not be and ought not to be listened to patiently. The ablest andthe best of men have gone over the whole ground long ago. I shall attemptbut little more than a brief notice of what some of them have said. Inrelation to Mr. Jefferson's views, I read from Mr. Polk's veto message:

"President Jefferson, in his message to Congress in 1806, recommended anamendment of the Constitution, with a view to apply an anticipated surplusin the treasury 'to the great purposes of the public education, roads, rivers, canals, and such other objects of public improvement as it maybe thought proper to add to the constitutional enumeration of the federalpowers'; and he adds: 'I suppose an amendment to the Constitution, byconsent of the States, necessary, because the objects now recommended arenot among those enumerated in the Constitution, and to which it permitsthe public moneys to be applied. ' In 1825, he repeated in his publishedletters the opinion that no such power has been conferred upon Congress. "

I introduce this not to controvert just now the constitutional opinion, but to show that, on the question of expediency, Mr. Jefferson's opinionwas against the present President; that this opinion of Mr. Jefferson, in one branch at least, is in the hands of Mr. Polk like McFingal'sgun--"bears wide and kicks the owner over. "

But to the constitutional question. In 1826 Chancellor Kent firstpublished his Commentaries on American law. He devoted a portion of one ofthe lectures to the question of the authority of Congress to appropriatepublic moneys for internal improvements. He mentions that the subject hadnever been brought under judicial consideration, and proceeds to give abrief summary of the discussion it had undergone between the legislativeand executive branches of the government. He shows that the legislativebranch had usually been for, and the executive against, the power, tillthe period of Mr. J. Q. Adams's administration, at which point he considersthe executive influence as withdrawn from opposition, and added to thesupport of the power. In 1844 the chancellor published a new edition ofhis Commentaries, in which he adds some notes of what had transpired onthe question since 1826. I have not time to read the original text onthe notes; but the whole may be found on page 267, and the two or threefollowing pages, of the first volume of the edition of 1844. As to whatChancellor Kent seems to consider the sum of the whole, I read from one ofthe notes:

"Mr. Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution of the UnitedStates, Vol. II. , pp. 429-440, and again pp. 519-538, has stated atlarge the arguments for and against the proposition that Congress have aconstitutional authority to lay taxes and to apply the power toregulate commerce as a means directly to encourage and protect domesticmanufactures; and without giving any opinion of his own on the contesteddoctrine, he has left the reader to draw his own conclusions. I shouldthink, however, from the arguments as stated, that every mind which hastaken no part in the discussion, and felt no prejudice or territorial biason either side of the question, would deem the arguments in favor of theCongressional power vastly superior. "

It will be seen that in this extract the power to make improvements is notdirectly mentioned; but by examining the context, both of Kent and Story, it will be seen that the power mentioned in the extract and the power tomake improvements are regarded as identical. It is not to be denied thatmany great and good men have been against the power; but it is insistedthat quite as many, as great and as good, have been for it; and it isshown that, on a full survey of the whole, Chancellor Kent was of opinionthat the arguments of the latter were vastly superior. This is but theopinion of a man; but who was that man? He was one of the ablest and mostlearned lawyers of his age, or of any age. It is no disparagement toMr. Polk, nor indeed to any one who devotes much time to politics, tobe placed far behind Chancellor Kent as a lawyer. His attitude was mostfavorable to correct conclusions. He wrote coolly, and in retirement. Hewas struggling to rear a durable monument of fame; and he well knew thattruth and thoroughly sound reasoning were the only sure foundations. Canthe party opinion of a party President on a law question, as this purelyis, be at all compared or set in opposition to that of such a man, insuch an attitude, as Chancellor Kent? This constitutional question willprobably never be better settled than it is, until it shall pass underjudicial consideration; but I do think no man who is clear on thequestions of expediency need feel his conscience much pricked upon this. 

Mr. Chairman, the President seems to think that enough may be done, inthe way of improvements, by means of tonnage duties under State authority, with the consent of the General Government. Now I suppose this matterof tonnage duties is well enough in its own sphere. I suppose it may beefficient, and perhaps sufficient, to make slight improvements and repairsin harbors already in use and not much out of repair. But if I have anycorrect general idea of it, it must be wholly inefficient for any generalbeneficent purposes of improvement. I know very little, or rather nothingat all, of the practical matter of levying and collecting tonnageduties; but I suppose one of its principles must be to lay a duty for theimprovement of any particular harbor upon the tonnage coming into thatharbor; to do otherwise--to collect money in one harbor, to be expendedon improvements in another--would be an extremely aggravated form of thatinequality which the President so much deprecates. If I be right in this, how could we make any entirely new improvement by means of tonnage duties?How make a road, a canal, or clear a greatly obstructed river? The ideathat we could involves the same absurdity as the Irish bull about the newboots. "I shall niver git 'em on, " says Patrick, "till I wear 'em a dayor two, and stretch 'em a little. " We shall never make a canal by tonnageduties until it shall already have been made awhile, so the tonnage canget into it. 

After all, the President concludes that possibly there may be some greatobjects of improvement which cannot be effected by tonnage duties, andwhich it therefore may be expedient for the General Government to takein hand. Accordingly he suggests, in case any such be discovered, thepropriety of amending the Constitution. Amend it for what? If, likeMr. Jefferson, the President thought improvements expedient, but notconstitutional, it would be natural enough for him to recommend such anamendment. But hear what he says in this very message:

"In view of these portentous consequences, I cannot but think that thiscourse of legislation should be arrested, even were there nothing toforbid it in the fundamental laws of our Union. "

For what, then, would he have the Constitution amended? With him it is aproposition to remove one impediment merely to be met by others which, in his opinion, cannot be removed, to enable Congress to do what, in hisopinion, they ought not to do if they could. 

Here Mr. Meade of Virginia inquired if Mr. Lincoln understood thePresident to be opposed, on grounds of expediency, to any and everyimprovement. 

Mr. Lincoln answered: In the very part of his message of which I amspeaking, I understand him as giving some vague expression in favor ofsome possible objects of improvement; but in doing so I understand himto be directly on the teeth of his own arguments in other parts of it. Neither the President nor any one can possibly specify an improvementwhich shall not be clearly liable to one or another of the objections hehas urged on the score of expediency. I have shown, and might show again, that no work--no object--can be so general as to dispense its benefitswith precise equality; and this inequality is chief among the "portentousconsequences" for which he declares that improvements should be arrested. No, sir. When the President intimates that something in the way ofimprovements may properly be done by the General Government, he isshrinking from the conclusions to which his own arguments would force him. He feels that the improvements of this broad and goodly land are a mightyinterest; and he is unwilling to confess to the people, or perhapsto himself, that he has built an argument which, when pressed to itsconclusions, entirely annihilates this interest. 

I have already said that no one who is satisfied of the expediency ofmaking improvements needs be much uneasy in his conscience about itsconstitutionality. I wish now to submit a few remarks on the generalproposition of amending the Constitution. As a general rule, I think wewould much better let it alone. No slight occasion should tempt us totouch it. Better not take the first step, which may lead to a habitof altering it. Better, rather, habituate ourselves to think of it asunalterable. It can scarcely be made better than it is. New provisionswould introduce new difficulties, and thus create and increase appetitefor further change. No, sir; let it stand as it is. New hands have nevertouched it. The men who made it have done their work, and have passedaway. Who shall improve on what they did?

Mr. Chairman, for the purpose of reviewing this message in the leastpossible time, as well as for the sake of distinctness, I have analyzedits arguments as well as I could, and reduced them to the propositionsI have stated. I have now examined them in detail. I wish to detain thecommittee only a little while longer with some general remarks upon thesubject of improvements. That the subject is a difficult one, cannotbe denied. Still it is no more difficult in Congress than in the StateLegislatures, in the counties, or in the smallest municipal districtswhich anywhere exist. All can recur to instances of this difficulty in thecase of county roads, bridges, and the like. One man is offended becausea road passes over his land, and another is offended because it does notpass over his; one is dissatisfied because the bridge for which he istaxed crosses the river on a different road from that which leads from hishouse to town; another cannot bear that the county should be got in debtfor these same roads and bridges; while not a few struggle hard to haveroads located over their lands, and then stoutly refuse to let them beopened until they are first paid the damages. Even between the differentwards and streets of towns and cities we find this same wrangling anddifficulty. Now these are no other than the very difficulties againstwhich, and out of which, the President constructs his objections of"inequality, " "speculation, " and "crushing the treasury. " There is but asingle alternative about them: they are sufficient, or they are not. Ifsufficient, they are sufficient out of Congress as well as in it, andthere is the end. We must reject them as insufficient, or lie down and donothing by any authority. Then, difficulty though there be, let us meetand encounter it. "Attempt the end, and never stand to doubt; nothing sohard, but search will find it out. " Determine that the thing can and shallbe done, and then we shall find the way. The tendency to undue expansionis unquestionably the chief difficulty. 

How to do something, and still not do too much, is the desideratum. Leteach contribute his mite in the way of suggestion. The late Silas Wright, in a letter to the Chicago convention, contributed his, which was worthsomething; and I now contribute mine, which may be worth nothing. At allevents, it will mislead nobody, and therefore will do no harm. I would notborrow money. I am against an overwhelming, crushing system. Suppose that, at each session, Congress shall first determine how much money can, forthat year, be spared for improvements; then apportion that sum to the mostimportant objects. So far all is easy; but how shall we determine whichare the most important? On this question comes the collision of interests. I shall be slow to acknowledge that your harbor or your river is moreimportant than mine, and vice versa. To clear this difficulty, let ushave that same statistical information which the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Vinton] suggested at the beginning of this session. In that information weshall have a stern, unbending basis of facts--a basis in no wise subjectto whim, caprice, or local interest. The prelimited amount of means willsave us from doing too much, and the statistics will save us from doingwhat we do in wrong places. Adopt and adhere to this course, and, it seemsto me, the difficulty is cleared. 

One of the gentlemen from South Carolina [Mr. Rhett] very much deprecatesthese statistics. He particularly objects, as I understand him, tocounting all the pigs and chickens in the land. I do not perceive muchforce in the objection. It is true that if everything be enumerated, aportion of such statistics may not be very useful to this object. Suchproducts of the country as are to be consumed where they are produced needno roads or rivers, no means of transportation, and have no very properconnection with this subject. The surplus--that which is produced inone place to be consumed in another; the capacity of each locality forproducing a greater surplus; the natural means of transportation, andtheir susceptibility of improvement; the hindrances, delays, and losses oflife and property during transportation, and the causes of each, would beamong the most valuable statistics in this connection. From these it wouldreadily appear where a given amount of expenditure would do the most good. These statistics might be equally accessible, as they would be equallyuseful, to both the nation and the States. In this way, and by thesemeans, let the nation take hold of the larger works, and the States thesmaller ones; and thus, working in a meeting direction, discreetly, butsteadily and firmly, what is made unequal in one place may be equalized inanother, extravagance avoided, and the whole country put on that careerof prosperity which shall correspond with its extent of territory, itsnatural resources, and the intelligence and enterprise of its people. 

OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUNG POLITICIANS

TO WILLIAM H. HERNDON. 

WASHINGTON, June 22, 1848. 

DEAR WILLIAM:--Last night I was attending a sort of caucus of the Whigmembers, held in relation to the coming Presidential election. The wholefield of the nation was scanned, and all is high hope and confidence. Illinois is expected to better her condition in this race. Under thesecircumstances, judge how heartrending it was to come to my room and findand read your discouraging letter of the 15th. We have made no gains, buthave lost "H. R. Robinson, Turner, Campbell, and four or five more. "Tell Arney to reconsider, if he would be saved. Baker and I used to dosomething, but I think you attach more importance to our absence than isjust. There is another cause. In 1840, for instance, we had two senatorsand five representatives in Sangamon; now we have part of one senator andtwo representatives. With quite one third more people than we had then, wehave only half the sort of offices which are sought by men of the speakingsort of talent. This, I think, is the chief cause. Now, as to the youngmen. You must not wait to be brought forward by the older men. Forinstance, do you suppose that I should ever have got into notice if I hadwaited to be hunted up and pushed forward by older men? You young men gettogether and form a "Rough and Ready Club, " and have regular meetings andspeeches. Take in everybody you can get. Harrison Grimsley, L. A. Enos, Lee Kimball, and C. W. Matheny will do to begin the thing; but as you goalong gather up all the shrewd, wild boys about town, whether just of age, or a little under age, Chris. Logan, Reddick Ridgely, Lewis Zwizler, andhundreds such. Let every one play the part he can play best, --some speak, some sing, and all "holler. " Your meetings will be of evenings; theolder men, and the women, will go to hear you; so that it will not onlycontribute to the election of "Old Zach, " but will be an interestingpastime, and improving to the intellectual faculties of all engaged. Don'tfail to do this. 

You ask me to send you all the speeches made about "Old Zach, " the war, etc. Now this makes me a little impatient. I have regularly sent you theCongressional Globe and Appendix, and you cannot have examined them, oryou would have discovered that they contain every speech made by every manin both houses of Congress, on every subject, during the session. Can Isend any more? Can I send speeches that nobody has made? Thinking it wouldbe most natural that the newspapers would feel interested to give at leastsome of the speeches to their readers, I at the beginning of the sessionmade arrangements to have one copy of the Globe and Appendix regularlysent to each Whig paper of the district. And yet, with the exception of myown little speech, which was published in two only of the then five, nowfour, Whig papers, I do not remember having seen a single speech, or evenextract from one, in any single one of those papers. With equal and fullmeans on both sides, I will venture that the State Register has thrownbefore its readers more of Locofoco speeches in a month than all the Whigpapers of the district have done of Whig speeches during the session. 

If you wish a full understanding of the war, I repeat what I believe Isaid to you in a letter once before, that the whole, or nearly so, isto be found in the speech of Dixon of Connecticut. This I sent you inpamphlet as well as in the Globe. Examine and study every sentence of thatspeech thoroughly, and you will understand the whole subject. You ask howCongress came to declare that war had existed by the act of Mexico. Is itpossible you don't understand that yet? You have at least twenty speechesin your possession that fully explain it. I will, however, try it oncemore. The news reached Washington of the commencement of hostilitieson the Rio Grande, and of the great peril of General Taylor's army. Everybody, Whigs and Democrats, was for sending them aid, in men andmoney. It was necessary to pass a bill for this. The Locos had a majorityin both houses, and they brought in a bill with a preamble saying:Whereas, War exists by the act of Mexico, therefore we send General Taylormoney. The Whigs moved to strike out the preamble, so that they couldvote to send the men and money, without saying anything about how thewar commenced; but being in the minority, they were voted down, and thepreamble was retained. Then, on the passage of the bill, the question cameupon them, Shall we vote for preamble and bill together, or againstboth together? They did not want to vote against sending help toGeneral Taylor, and therefore they voted for both together. Is there anydifficulty in understanding this? Even my little speech shows how thiswas; and if you will go to the library, you may get the Journal of1845-46, in which you will find the whole for yourself. 

We have nothing published yet with special reference to the Taylor race;but we soon will have, and then I will send them to everybody. I made aninternal-improvement speech day before yesterday, which I shall send homeas soon as I can get it written out and printed, --and which I supposenobody will read. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

SALARY OF JUDGE IN WESTERN VIRGINIA

REMARKS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JUNE 28, 1848. 

Discussion as to salary of judge of western Virginia:--Wishing to increaseit from $1800 to $2500. 

Mr. Lincoln said he felt unwilling to be either unjust or ungenerous, and he wanted to understand the real case of this judicial officer. Thegentleman from Virginia had stated that he had to hold eleven courts. Noweverybody knew that it was not the habit of the district judges of theUnited States in other States to hold anything like that number ofcourts; and he therefore took it for granted that this must happen under apeculiar law which required that large number of courts to be holden everyyear; and these laws, he further supposed, were passed at the request ofthe people of that judicial district. It came, then, to this: that thepeople in the western district of Virginia had got eleven courts to beheld among them in one year, for their own accommodation; and being thusbetter accommodated than neighbors elsewhere, they wanted their judgeto be a little better paid. In Illinois there had been until the presentseason but one district court held in the year. There were now to be two. Could it be that the western district of Virginia furnished more businessfor a judge than the whole State of Illinois?

NATIONAL BANK

JULY, 1848, [FRAGMENT]

The question of a national bank is at rest. Were I President, I should noturge its reagitation upon Congress; but should Congress see fit to pass anact to establish such an institution, I should not arrest it by the veto, unless I should consider it subject to some constitutional objection fromwhich I believe the two former banks to have been free. 

YOUNG v. S. OLD--POLITICAL JEALOUSY

TO W. H. HERNDON. 

WASHINGTON, July 10, 1848. 

DEAR WILLIAM:

Your letter covering the newspaper slips was received last night. Thesubject of that letter is exceedingly painful to me, and I cannot butthink there is some mistake in your impression of the motives of the oldmen. I suppose I am now one of the old men; and I declare on my veracity, which I think is good with you, that nothing could afford me moresatisfaction than to learn that you and others of my young friends at homewere doing battle in the contest and endearing themselves to the peopleand taking a stand far above any I have ever been able to reach in theiradmiration. I cannot conceive that other men feel differently. Of courseI cannot demonstrate what I say; but I was young once, and I am sure I wasnever ungenerously thrust back. I hardly know what to say. The way for ayoung man to rise is to improve himself every way he can, never suspectingthat anybody wishes to hinder him. Allow me to assure you that suspicionand jealousy never did help any man in any situation. There may sometimesbe ungenerous attempts to keep a young man down; and they will succeed, too, if he allows his mind to be diverted from its true channel to broodover the attempted injury. Cast about and see if this feeling has notinjured every person you have ever known to fall into it. 

Now, in what I have said I am sure you will suspect nothing but sincerefriendship. I would save you from a fatal error. You have been a studiousyoung man. You are far better informed on almost all subjects than I everhave been. You cannot fail in any laudable object unless you allow yourmind to be improperly directed. I have some the advantage of you in theworld's experience, merely by being older; and it is this that induces meto advise. You still seem to be a little mistaken about the CongressionalGlobe and Appendix. They contain all of the speeches that are published inany way. My speech and Dayton's speech which you say you got in pamphletform are both word for word in the Appendix. I repeat again, all arethere. 

Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

GENERAL TAYLOR AND THE VETO

SPEECH IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, JULY 27, 1848. 

Mr. SPEAKER, our Democratic friends seem to be in a great distress becausethey think our candidate for the Presidency don't suit us. Most of themcannot find out that General Taylor has any principles at all; some, however, have discovered that he has one, but that one is entirely wrong. This one principle is his position on the veto power. The gentleman fromTennessee [Mr. Stanton] who has just taken his seat, indeed, has saidthere is very little, if any, difference on this question between GeneralTaylor and all the Presidents; and he seems to think it sufficientdetraction from General Taylor's position on it that it has nothing newin it. But all others whom I have heard speak assail it furiously. A newmember from Kentucky [Mr. Clark], of very considerable ability, wasin particular concerned about it. He thought it altogether novel andunprecedented for a President or a Presidential candidate to think ofapproving bills whose constitutionality may not be entirely clear to hisown mind. He thinks the ark of our safety is gone unless Presidentsshall always veto such bills as in their judgment may be of doubtfulconstitutionality. However clear Congress may be on their authority topass any particular act, the gentleman from Kentucky thinks the Presidentmust veto it if he has doubts about it. Now I have neither time norinclination to argue with the gentleman on the veto power as an originalquestion; but I wish to show that General Taylor, and not he, agrees withthe earlier statesmen on this question. When the bill chartering thefirst Bank of the United States passed Congress, its constitutionality wasquestioned. Mr. Madison, then in the House of Representatives, as well asothers, had opposed it on that ground. General Washington, as President, was called on to approve or reject it. He sought and obtained on theconstitutionality question the separate written opinions of Jefferson, Hamilton, and Edmund Randolph, --they then being respectively Secretary ofState, Secretary of the Treasury, and Attorney general. Hamilton's opinionwas for the power; while Randolph's and Jefferson's were both againstit. Mr. Jefferson, after giving his opinion deciding only against theconstitutionality of the bill, closes his letter with the paragraph whichI now read:

"It must be admitted, however, that unless the President's mind, on a viewof everything which is urged for and against this bill, is tolerably clearthat it is unauthorized by the Constitution, --if the pro and con hangso even as to balance his judgment, a just respect for the wisdom of thelegislature would naturally decide the balance in favor of their opinion. It is chiefly for cases where they are clearly misled by error, ambition, or interest, that the Constitution has placed a check in the negative ofthe President. 

"THOMAS JEFFERSON. 

"February 15, 1791. "

General Taylor's opinion, as expressed in his Allison letter, is as I nowread:

"The power given by the veto is a high conservative power; but, in myopinion, should never be exercised except in cases of clear violationof the Constitution, or manifest haste and want of consideration byCongress. "

It is here seen that, in Mr. Jefferson's opinion, if on theconstitutionality of any given bill the President doubts, he is not toveto it, as the gentleman from Kentucky would have him do, but is to deferto Congress and approve it. And if we compare the opinion of Jefferson andTaylor, as expressed in these paragraphs, we shall find them more exactlyalike than we can often find any two expressions having any literaldifference. None but interested faultfinders, I think, can discover anysubstantial variation. 

But gentlemen on the other side are unanimously agreed that General Taylorhas no other principles. They are in utter darkness as to his opinions onany of the questions of policy which occupy the public attention. Butis there any doubt as to what he will do on the prominent questions ifelected? Not the least. It is not possible to know what he will or woulddo in every imaginable case, because many questions have passed away, andothers doubtless will arise which none of us have yet thought of; but onthe prominent questions of currency, tariff, internal improvements, andWilmot Proviso, General Taylor's course is at least as well defined as isGeneral Cass's. Why, in their eagerness to get at General Taylor, severalDemocratic members here have desired to know whether, in case of hiselection, a bankrupt law is to be established. Can they tell us GeneralCass's opinion on this question?

[Some member answered, "He is against it. "]

Aye, how do you know he is? There is nothing about it in the platform, norelsewhere, that I have seen. If the gentleman knows of anything which Ido not know he can show it. But to return. General Taylor, in his Allisonletter, says:

"Upon the subject of the tariff, the currency, the improvement of ourgreat highways, rivers, lakes, and harbors, the will of the people, asexpressed through their representatives in Congress, ought to be respectedand carried out by the executive. "

Now this is the whole matter. In substance, it is this: The people say toGeneral Taylor, "If you are elected, shall we have a national bank?" Heanswers, "Your will, gentlemen, not mine. " "What about the tariff?" "Sayyourselves. " "Shall our rivers and harbors be improved?" "Just as youplease. If you desire a bank, an alteration of the tariff, internalimprovements, any or all, I will not hinder you. If you do not desirethem, I will not attempt to force them on you. Send up your members ofCongress from the various districts, with opinions according to your own, and if they are for these measures, or any of them, I shall have nothingto oppose; if they are not for them, I shall not, by any applianceswhatever, attempt to dragoon them into their adoption. "

Now can there be any difficulty in understanding this? To you Democratsit may not seem like principle; but surely you cannot fail to perceive theposition plainly enough. The distinction between it and the position ofyour candidate is broad and obvious, and I admit you have a clear right toshow it is wrong if you can; but you have no right to pretend you cannotsee it at all. We see it, and to us it appears like principle, and thebest sort of principle at that--the principle of allowing the people todo as they please with their own business. My friend from Indiana (C. B. Smith) has aptly asked, "Are you willing to trust the people?" Some ofyou answered substantially, "We are willing to trust the people; but thePresident is as much the representative of the people as Congress. " In acertain sense, and to a certain extent, he is the representative of thepeople. He is elected by them, as well as Congress is; but can he, in thenature of things know the wants of the people as well as three hundredother men, coming from all the various localities of the nation? If so, where is the propriety of having a Congress? That the Constitution givesthe President a negative on legislation, all know; but that this negativeshould be so combined with platforms and other appliances as to enablehim, and in fact almost compel him, to take the whole of legislation intohis own hands, is what we object to, is what General Taylor objects to, and is what constitutes the broad distinction between you and us. To thustransfer legislation is clearly to take it from those who understand withminuteness the interests of the people, and give it to one who doesnot and cannot so well understand it. I understand your idea that if aPresidential candidate avow his opinion upon a given question, or ratherupon all questions, and the people, with full knowledge of this, electhim, they thereby distinctly approve all those opinions. By means of it, measures are adopted or rejected contrary to the wishes of the whole ofone party, and often nearly half of the other. Three, four, or half adozen questions are prominent at a given time; the party selects itscandidate, and he takes his position on each of these questions. On allbut one his positions have already been indorsed at former elections, and his party fully committed to them; but that one is new, and a largeportion of them are against it. But what are they to do? The whole wasstrung together; and they must take all, or reject all. They cannot takewhat they like, and leave the rest. What they are already committedto being the majority, they shut their eyes, and gulp the whole. Nextelection, still another is introduced in the same way. If we run our eyesalong the line of the past, we shall see that almost if not quite all thearticles of the present Democratic creed have been at first forced uponthe party in this very way. And just now, and just so, opposition tointernal improvements is to be established if General Cass shall beelected. Almost half the Democrats here are for improvements; but theywill vote for Cass, and if he succeeds, their vote will have aided inclosing the doors against improvements. Now this is a process which wethink is wrong. We prefer a candidate who, like General Taylor, will allowthe people to have their own way, regardless of his private opinions;and I should think the internal-improvement Democrats, at least, ought toprefer such a candidate. He would force nothing on them which theydon't want, and he would allow them to have improvements which their owncandidate, if elected, will not. 

Mr. Speaker, I have said General Taylor's position is as well defined asis that of General Cass. In saying this, I admit I do not certainly knowwhat he would do on the Wilmot Proviso. I am a Northern man or rathera Western Free-State man, with a constituency I believe to be, and withpersonal feelings I know to be, against the extension of slavery. As such, and with what information I have, I hope and believe General Taylor, ifelected, would not veto the proviso. But I do not know it. Yet if Iknew he would, I still would vote for him. I should do so because, in myjudgment, his election alone can defeat General Cass; and because, should slavery thereby go to the territory we now have, just so much willcertainly happen by the election of Cass, and in addition a course ofpolicy leading to new wars, new acquisitions of territory and stillfurther extensions of slavery. One of the two is to be President. Which ispreferable?

But there is as much doubt of Cass on improvements as there is of Tayloron the proviso. I have no doubt myself of General Cass on this question;but I know the Democrats differ among themselves as to his position. Myinternal-improvement colleague [Mr. Wentworth] stated on this floor theother day that he was satisfied Cass was for improvements, because he hadvoted for all the bills that he [Mr. Wentworth] had. So far so good. ButMr. Polk vetoed some of these very bills. The Baltimore convention passeda set of resolutions, among other things, approving these vetoes, andGeneral Cass declares, in his letter accepting the nomination, that he hascarefully read these resolutions, and that he adheres to them as firmlyas he approves them cordially. In other words, General Cass voted for thebills, and thinks the President did right to veto them; and his friendshere are amiable enough to consider him as being on one side or theother, just as one or the other may correspond with their own respectiveinclinations. My colleague admits that the platform declares against theconstitutionality of a general system of improvements, and that GeneralCass indorses the platform; but he still thinks General Cass is in favorof some sort of improvements. Well, what are they? As he is againstgeneral objects, those he is for must be particular and local. Now this istaking the subject precisely by the wrong end. Particularity expending themoney of the whole people for an object which will benefit only a portionof them--is the greatest real objection to improvements, and has been soheld by General Jackson, Mr. Polk, and all others, I believe, tillnow. But now, behold, the objects most general--nearest free from thisobjection--are to be rejected, while those most liable to it are to beembraced. To return: I cannot help believing that General Cass, when hewrote his letter of acceptance, well understood he was to be claimed bythe advocates of both sides of this question, and that he then closed thedoor against all further expressions of opinion purposely to retainthe benefits of that double position. His subsequent equivocation atCleveland, to my mind, proves such to have been the case. 

One word more, and I shall have done with this branch of the subject. YouDemocrats, and your candidate, in the main are in favor of laying downin advance a platform--a set of party positions--as a unit, and then offorcing the people, by every sort of appliance, to ratify them, howeverunpalatable some of them may be. We and our candidate are in favor ofmaking Presidential elections and the legislation of the country distinctmatters; so that the people can elect whom they please, and afterwardlegislate just as they please, without any hindrance, save only so much asmay guard against infractions of the Constitution, undue haste, and wantof consideration. The difference between us is clear as noonday. Thatwe are right we cannot doubt. We hold the true Republican position. Inleaving the people's business in their hands, we cannot be wrong. We arewilling, and even anxious, to go to the people on this issue. 

But I suppose I cannot reasonably hope to convince you that we have anyprinciples. The most I can expect is to assure you that we think we haveand are quite contented with them. The other day one of the gentlemen fromGeorgia [Mr. Iverson], an eloquent man, and a man of learning, so far asI can judge, not being learned myself, came down upon us astonishingly. Hespoke in what the 'Baltimore American' calls the "scathing and witheringstyle. " At the end of his second severe flash I was struck blind, andfound myself feeling with my fingers for an assurance of my continuedexistence. A little of the bone was left, and I gradually revived. Heeulogized Mr. Clay in high and beautiful terms, and then declared that wehad deserted all our principles, and had turned Henry Clay out, like anold horse, to root. This is terribly severe. It cannot be answeredby argument--at least I cannot so answer it. I merely wish to ask thegentleman if the Whigs are the only party he can think of who sometimesturn old horses out to root. Is not a certain Martin Van Buren an oldhorse which your own party have turned out to root? and is he not rootinga little to your discomfort about now? But in not nominating Mr. Claywe deserted our principles, you say. Ah! In what? Tell us, ye men ofprinciple, what principle we violated. We say you did violate principle indiscarding Van Buren, and we can tell you how. You violated theprimary, the cardinal, the one great living principle of all democraticrepresentative government--the principle that the representative is boundto carry out the known will of his constituents. A large majority of theBaltimore convention of 1844 were, by their constituents, instructed toprocure Van Buren 's nomination if they could. In violation--in utterglaring contempt of this, you rejected him; rejected him, as the gentlemanfrom New York [Mr. Birdsall] the other day expressly admitted, foravailability--that same "general availability" which you charge uponus, and daily chew over here, as something exceedingly odious andunprincipled. But the gentleman from Georgia [Mr. Iverson] gave us asecond speech yesterday, all well considered and put down in writing, inwhich Van Buren was scathed and withered a "few" for his present positionand movements. I cannot remember the gentleman's precise language; butI do remember he put Van Buren down, down, till he got him where he wasfinally to "stink" and "rot. "

Mr. Speaker, it is no business or inclination of mine to defend MartinVan Buren in the war of extermination now waging between him and his oldadmirers. I say, "Devil take the hindmost"--and the foremost. But there isno mistaking the origin of the breach; and if the curse of "stinking" and"rotting" is to fall on the first and greatest violators of principle inthe matter, I disinterestedly suggest that the gentleman from Georgiaand his present co-workers are bound to take it upon themselves. But thegentleman from Georgia further says we have deserted all our principles, and taken shelter under General Taylor's military coat-tail, and he seemsto think this is exceedingly degrading. Well, as his faith is, so be itunto him. But can he remember no other military coat-tail under which acertain other party have been sheltering for near a quarter of a century?Has he no acquaintance with the ample military coat tail of GeneralJackson? Does he not know that his own party have run the five lastPresidential races under that coat-tail, and that they are now running thesixth under the same cover? Yes, sir, that coat-tail was used not only forGeneral Jackson himself, but has been clung to, with the grip of death, by every Democratic candidate since. You have never ventured, and dare notnow venture, from under it. Your campaign papers have constantly been "OldHickories, " with rude likenesses of the old general upon them; hickorypoles and hickory brooms your never-ending emblems; Mr. Polk himself was"Young Hickory, " or something so; and even now your campaign paper hereis proclaiming that Cass and Butler are of the true "Hickory stripe. " Now, sir, you dare not give it up. Like a horde of hungry ticks you have stuckto the tail of the Hermitage Lion to the end of his life; and you arestill sticking to it, and drawing a loathsome sustenance from it, after heis dead. A fellow once advertised that he had made a discovery by which hecould make a new man out of an old one, and have enough of the stuff leftto make a little yellow dog. Just such a discovery has General Jackson'spopularity been to you. You not only twice made President of him outof it, but you have had enough of the stuff left to make Presidents ofseveral comparatively small men since; and it is your chief reliance nowto make still another. 

Mr. Speaker, old horses and military coat-tails, or tails of any sort, are not figures of speech such as I would be the first to introduce intodiscussions here; but as the gentleman from Georgia has thought fit tointroduce them, he and you are welcome to all you have made, or can makeby them. If you have any more old horses, trot them out; any more tails, just cock them and come at us. I repeat, I would not introduce this modeof discussion here; but I wish gentlemen on the other side to understandthat the use of degrading figures is a game at which they may not findthemselves able to take all the winnings. 

["We give it up!"]

Aye, you give it up, and well you may; but for a very different reasonfrom that which you would have us understand. The point--the power tohurt--of all figures consists in the truthfulness of their application;and, understanding this, you may well give it up. They are weapons whichhit you, but miss us. 

But in my hurry I was very near closing this subject of military tailsbefore I was done with it. There is one entire article of the sort I havenot discussed yet, --I mean the military tail you Democrats are now engagedin dovetailing into the great Michigander [Cass]. Yes, sir; all hisbiographies (and they are legion) have him in hand, tying him to amilitary tail, like so many mischievous boys tying a dog to a bladder ofbeans. True, the material they have is very limited, but they drive at itmight and main. He invaded Canada without resistance, and he outvaded itwithout pursuit. As he did both under orders, I suppose there was to himneither credit nor discredit in them; but they constitute a large partof the tail. He was not at Hull's surrender, but he was close by; he wasvolunteer aid to General Harrison on the day of the battle of the Thames;and as you said in 1840 Harrison was picking huckleberries two miles offwhile the battle was fought, I suppose it is a just conclusion with youto say Cass was aiding Harrison to pick huckleberries. This is about all, except the mooted question of the broken sword. Some authors say he brokeit, some say he threw it away, and some others, who ought to know, saynothing about it. Perhaps it would be a fair historical compromise to say, if he did not break it, he did not do anything else with it. 

By the way, Mr. Speaker, did you know I am a military hero? Yes, sir; inthe days of the Black Hawk war I fought, bled, and came away. Speakingof General Cass's career reminds me of my own. I was not at Stiliman'sdefeat, but I was about as near it as Cass was to Hull's surrender; and, like him, I saw the place very soon afterward. It is quite certain I didnot break my sword, for I had none to break; but I bent a musket prettybadly on one occasion. If Cass broke his sword, the idea is he broke itin desperation; I bent the musket by accident. If General Cass went inadvance of me in picking huckleberries, I guess I surpassed him in chargesupon the wild onions. If he saw any live, fighting Indians, it was morethan I did; but I had a good many bloody struggles with the mosquitoes, and although I never fainted from the loss of blood, I can truly say I wasoften very hungry. Mr. Speaker, if I should ever conclude to doff whateverour Democratic friends may suppose there is of black-cockade federalismabout me, and therefore they shall take me up as their candidate forthe Presidency, I protest they shall not make fun of me, as they have ofGeneral Cass, by attempting to write me into a military hero. 

While I have General Cass in hand, I wish to say a word about hispolitical principles. As a specimen, I take the record of his progress inthe Wilmot Proviso. In the Washington Union of March 2, 1847, there is areport of a speech of General Cass, made the day before in the Senate, onthe Wilmot Proviso, during the delivery of which Mr. Miller of New Jerseyis reported to have interrupted him as follows, to wit:

"Mr. Miller expressed his great surprise at the change in the sentimentsof the Senator from Michigan, who had been regarded as the great championof freedom in the Northwest, of which he was a distinguished ornament. Last year the Senator from Michigan was understood to be decidedly infavor of the Wilmot Proviso; and as no reason had been stated for thechange, he [Mr. Miller] could not refrain from the expression of hisextreme surprise. "

To this General Cass is reported to have replied as follows, to wit:

"Mr. Cass said that the course of the Senator from New Jersey wasmost extraordinary. Last year he [Mr. Cass] should have voted for theproposition, had it come up. But circumstances had altogether changed. Thehonorable Senator then read several passages from the remarks, as givenabove, which he had committed to writing, in order to refute such a chargeas that of the Senator from New Jersey. "

In the "remarks above reduced to writing" is one numbered four, asfollows, to wit:

"Fourth. Legislation now would be wholly inoperative, because no territoryhereafter to be acquired can be governed without an act of Congressproviding for its government; and such an act, on its passage, would openthe whole subject, and leave the Congress called on to pass it free toexercise its own discretion, entirely uncontrolled by any declarationfound on the statute-book. "

In Niles's Register, vol. Lxxiii. , p. 293, there is a letter of GeneralCass to ------ Nicholson, of Nashville, Tennessee, dated December 24, 1847, from which the following are correct extracts:

"The Wilmot Proviso has been before the country some time. It has beenrepeatedly discussed in Congress and by the public press. I am stronglyimpressed with the opinion that a great change has been going on in thepublic mind upon this subject, --in my own as well as others', --and thatdoubts are resolving themselves into convictions that the principle itinvolves should be kept out of the national legislature, and left tothe people of the confederacy in their respective local governments. .. . Briefly, then, I am opposed to the exercise of any jurisdiction byCongress over this matter; and I am in favor of leaving the people ofany territory which may be hereafter acquired the right to regulateit themselves, under the general principles of the Constitution. Because--'First. I do not see in the Constitution any grant of therequisite power to Congress; and I am not disposed to extend a doubtfulprecedent beyond its necessity, --the establishment of territorialgovernments when needed, --leaving to the inhabitants all the rightcompatible with the relations they bear to the confederation. "

These extracts show that in 1846 General Cass was for the proviso at once;that in March, 1847, he was still for it, but not just then; and that inDecember, 1847, he was against it altogether. This is a true index to thewhole man. When the question was raised in 1846, he was in a blusteringhurry to take ground for it. He sought to be in advance, and to avoidthe uninteresting position of a mere follower; but soon he began to seeglimpses of the great Democratic ox-goad waving in his face, and to hearindistinctly a voice saying, "Back! Back, sir! Back a little!" He shakeshis head, and bats his eyes, and blunders back to his position of March, 1847; but still the goad waves, and the voice grows more distinct andsharper still, "Back, sir! Back, I say! Further back!"--and back he goesto the position of December, 1847, at which the goad is still, and thevoice soothingly says, "So! Stand at that!"

Have no fears, gentlemen, of your candidate. He exactly suits you, andwe congratulate you upon it. However much you may be distressed about ourcandidate, you have all cause to be contented and happy with your own. Ifelected, he may not maintain all or even any of his positions previouslytaken; but he will be sure to do whatever the party exigency for the timebeing may require; and that is precisely what you want. He and Van Burenare the same "manner of men"; and, like Van Buren, he will never desertyou till you first desert him. 

Mr. Speaker, I adopt the suggestion of a friend, that General Cass is ageneral of splendidly successful charges--charges, to be sure, notupon the public enemy, but upon the public treasury. He was Governor ofMichigan territory, and ex-officio Superintendent of Indian Affairs, from the 9th of October, 1813, till the 31st of July, 1831--a period ofseventeen years, nine months, and twenty-two days. During this periodhe received from the United States treasury, for personal services andpersonal expenses, the aggregate sum of ninety-six thousand and twentyeight dollars, being an average of fourteen dollars and seventy-nine centsper day for every day of the time. This large sum was reached by assumingthat he was doing service at several different places, and in severaldifferent capacities in the same place, all at the same time. By a correctanalysis of his accounts during that period, the following propositionsmay be deduced:

First. He was paid in three different capacities during the whole of thetime: that is to say--(1) As governor a salary at the rate per yearof $2000. (2) As estimated for office rent, clerk hire, fuel, etc. , insuperintendence of Indian affairs in Michigan, at the rate per year of$1500. (3) As compensation and expenses for various miscellaneous items ofIndian service out of Michigan, an average per year of $625. 

Second. During part of the time--that is, from the 9th of October, 1813, to the 29th of May, 1822 he was paid in four different capacities; that isto say, the three as above, and, in addition thereto, the commutation often rations per day, amounting per year to $730. 

Third. During another part of the time--that is, from the beginningof 1822 to the 31st of July, '83 he was also paid in four differentcapacities; that is to say, the first three, as above (the rations beingdropped after the 29th of May, 1822), and, in addition thereto, forsuperintending Indian Agencies at Piqua, Ohio; Fort Wayne, Indiana; andChicago, Illinois, at the rate per year of $1500. It should be observedhere that the last item, commencing at the beginning of 1822, and the itemof rations, ending on the 29th of May, 1822, lap on each other during somuch of the time as lies between those two dates. 

Fourth. Still another part of the time--that is, from the 31st of October, 1821, to the 29th of May, 1822--he was paid in six different capacities;that is to say, the three first, as above; the item of rations, as above;and, in addition thereto, another item of ten rations per day while atWashington settling his accounts, being at the rate per year of $730; andalso an allowance for expenses traveling to and from Washington, and whilethere, of $1022, being at the rate per year of $1793. 

Fifth. And yet during the little portion of the time which lies betweenthe 1st of January, 1822, and the 29th of May, 1822, he was paid in sevendifferent capacities; that is to say, the six last mentioned, and also, at the rate of $1500 per year, for the Piqua, Fort Wayne, and Chicagoservice, as mentioned above. 

These accounts have already been discussed some here; but when we areamongst them, as when we are in the Patent Office, we must peep about agood deal before we can see all the curiosities. I shall not be tediouswith them. As to the large item of $1500 per year--amounting in theaggregate to $26, 715 for office rent, clerk hire, fuel, etc. , I barelywish to remark that, so far as I can discover in the public documents, there is no evidence, by word or inference, either from any disinterestedwitness or of General Cass himself, that he ever rented or kept a separateoffice, ever hired or kept a clerk, or even used any extra amount of fuel, etc. , in consequence of his Indian services. Indeed, General Cass's entiresilence in regard to these items, in his two long letters urging hisclaims upon the government, is, to my mind, almost conclusive that no suchclaims had any real existence. 

But I have introduced General Cass's accounts here chiefly to show thewonderful physical capacities of the man. They show that he not only didthe labor of several men at the same time, but that he often did it atseveral places, many hundreds of miles apart, at the same time. And ateating, too, his capacities are shown to be quite as wonderful. FromOctober, 1821, to May, 1822, he eat ten rations a day in Michigan, tenrations a day here in Washington, and near five dollars' worth a day onthe road between the two places! And then there is an important discoveryin his example--the art of being paid for what one eats, instead of havingto pay for it. Hereafter if any nice young man should owe a bill whichhe cannot pay in any other way, he can just board it out. Mr. Speaker, wehave all heard of the animal standing in doubt between two stacks of hayand starving to death. The like of that would never happen to GeneralCass. Place the stacks a thousand miles apart, he would stand stock-stillmidway between them, and eat them both at once, and the green grass alongthe line would be apt to suffer some, too, at the same time. By all meansmake him President, gentlemen. He will feed you bounteously--if--if thereis any left after he shall have helped himself. 

But, as General Taylor is, par excellence, the hero of the Mexican War, and as you Democrats say we Whigs have always opposed the war, you thinkit must be very awkward and embarrassing for us to go for General Taylor. The declaration that we have always opposed the war is true or false, according as one may understand the term "oppose the war. " If to say "thewar was unnecessarily and unconstitutionally commenced by the President"by opposing the war, then the Whigs have very generally opposed it. Whenever they have spoken at all, they have said this; and they have saidit on what has appeared good reason to them. The marching an army into themidst of a peaceful Mexican settlement, frightening the inhabitants away, leaving their growing crops and other property to destruction, to you mayappear a perfectly amiable, peaceful, unprovoking procedure; but it doesnot appear so to us. So to call such an act, to us appears no other thana naked, impudent absurdity, and we speak of it accordingly. But if, whenthe war had begun, and had become the cause of the country, the givingof our money and our blood, in common with yours, was support of thewar, then it is not true that we have always opposed the war. With fewindividual exceptions, you have constantly had our votes here for all thenecessary supplies. And, more than this, you have had the services, theblood, and the lives of our political brethren in every trial and onevery field. The beardless boy and the mature man, the humble and thedistinguished--you have had them. Through suffering and death, by diseaseand in battle they have endured and fought and fell with you. Clay andWebster each gave a son, never to be returned. From the State of myown residence, besides other worthy but less known Whig names, we sentMarshall, Morrison, Baker, and Hardin; they all fought, and one fell, andin the fall of that one we lost our best Whig man. Nor were the Whigsfew in number, or laggard in the day of danger. In that fearful, bloody, breathless struggle at Buena Vista, where each man's hard task was to beatback five foes or die himself, of the five high officers who perished, four were Whigs. 

In speaking of this, I mean no odious comparison between the lion-heartedWhigs and the Democrats who fought there. On other occasions, andamong the lower officers and privates on that occasion, I doubt not theproportion was different. I wish to do justice to all. I think of allthose brave men as Americans, in whose proud fame, as an American, I toohave a share. Many of them, Whigs and Democrats are my constituents andpersonal friends; and I thank them, --more than thank them, --one and all, for the high imperishable honor they have conferred on our common State. 

But the distinction between the cause of the President in beginning thewar, and the cause of the country after it was begun, is a distinctionwhich you cannot perceive. To you the President and the country seem tobe all one. You are interested to see no distinction between them; and Iventure to suggest that probably your interest blinds you a little. Wesee the distinction, as we think, clearly enough; and our friends who havefought in the war have no difficulty in seeing it also. What those whohave fallen would say, were they alive and here, of course we can neverknow; but with those who have returned there is no difficulty. ColonelHaskell and Major Gaines, members here, both fought in the war, and bothof them underwent extraordinary perils and hardships; still they, like allother Whigs here, vote, on the record, that the war was unnecessarily andunconstitutionally commenced by the President. And even General Taylorhimself, the noblest Roman of them all, has declared that as a citizen, and particularly as a soldier, it is sufficient for him to know that hiscountry is at war with a foreign nation, to do all in his power tobring it to a speedy and honorable termination by the most vigorous andenergetic operations, without inquiry about its justice, or anything elseconnected with it. 

Mr. Speaker, let our Democratic friends be comforted with the assurancethat we are content with our position, content with our company, andcontent with our candidate; and that although they, in their generoussympathy, think we ought to be miserable, we really are not, and that theymay dismiss the great anxiety they have on our account. 

Mr. Speaker, I see I have but three minutes left, and this forces me tothrow out one whole branch of my subject. A single word on still another. The Democrats are keen enough to frequently remind us that we have somedissensions in our ranks. Our good friend from Baltimore immediatelybefore me [Mr. McLane] expressed some doubt the other day as to whichbranch of our party General Taylor would ultimately fall into the handsof. That was a new idea to me. I knew we had dissenters, but I did notknow they were trying to get our candidate away from us. I would liketo say a word to our dissenters, but I have not the time. Some such wecertainly have; have you none, gentlemen Democrats? Is it all union andharmony in your ranks? no bickerings? no divisions? If there be doubt asto which of our divisions will get our candidate, is there no doubt asto which of your candidates will get your party? I have heard some thingsfrom New York; and if they are true, one might well say of your partythere, as a drunken fellow once said when he heard the reading of anindictment for hog-stealing. The clerk read on till he got to and throughthe words, "did steal, take, and carry away ten boars, ten sows, tenshoats, and ten pigs, " at which he exclaimed, "Well, by golly, that isthe most equally divided gang of hogs I ever did hear of!" If there is anyother gang of hogs more equally divided than the Democrats of New York areabout this time, I have not heard of it. 

SPEECH DELIVERED AT WORCESTER, MASS. , ON SEPT. 12, 1848. 

(From the Boston Advertiser. )

Mr. Kellogg then introduced to the meeting the Hon. Abram Lincoln, Whigmember of Congress from Illinois, a representative of free soil. 

Mr. Lincoln has a very tall and thin figure, with an intellectual face, showing a searching mind, and a cool judgment. He spoke in a clear andcool and very eloquent manner, for an hour and a half, carrying theaudience with him in his able arguments and brilliant illustrations--onlyinterrupted by warm and frequent applause. He began by expressing a realfeeling of modesty in addressing an audience "this side of the mountains, "a part of the country where, in the opinion of the people of his section, everybody was supposed to be instructed and wise. But he had devoted hisattention to the question of the coming Presidential election, and wasnot unwilling to exchange with all whom he might the ideas to which hehad arrived. He then began to show the fallacy of some of the argumentsagainst Gen. Taylor, making his chief theme the fashionable statement ofall those who oppose him ("the old Locofocos as well as the new") that hehas no principles, and that the Whig party have abandoned their principlesby adopting him as their candidate. He maintained that Gen. Tayloroccupied a high and unexceptionable Whig ground, and took for his firstinstance and proof of this the statement in the Allison letter--withregard to the bank, tariff, rivers and harbors, etc. --that the will of thepeople should produce its own results, without executive influence. Theprinciple that the people should do what--under the Constitution--as theyplease, is a Whig principle. All that Gen. Taylor is not only to consentto, but appeal to the people to judge and act for themselves. And this wasno new doctrine for Whigs. It was the "platform" on which they hadfought all their battles, the resistance of executive influence, and theprinciple of enabling the people to frame the government according totheir will. Gen. Taylor consents to be the candidate, and to assist thepeople to do what they think to be their duty, and think to be best intheir national affairs, but because he don't want to tell what we ought todo, he is accused of having no principles. The Whigs here maintained foryears that neither the influence, the duress, or the prohibition of theexecutive should control the legitimately expressed will of the people;and now that, on that very ground, Gen. Taylor says that he should use thepower given him by the people to do, to the best of his judgment, the willof the people, he is accused of want of principle, and of inconsistency inposition. 

Mr. Lincoln proceeded to examine the absurdity of an attempt to make aplatform or creed for a national party, to all parts of which allmust consent and agree, when it was clearly the intention and the truephilosophy of our government, that in Congress all opinions and principlesshould be represented, and that when the wisdom of all had been comparedand united, the will of the majority should be carried out. On this groundhe conceived (and the audience seemed to go with him) that Gen. Taylorheld correct, sound republican principles. 

Mr. Lincoln then passed to the subject of slavery in the States, saying that the people of Illinois agreed entirely with the people ofMassachusetts on this subject, except perhaps that they did not keep soconstantly thinking about it. All agreed that slavery was an evil, butthat we were not responsible for it and cannot affect it in States of thisUnion where we do not live. But the question of the extension of slaveryto new territories of this country is a part of our responsibility andcare, and is under our control. In opposition to this Mr. L. Believed thatthe self-named "Free Soil" party was far behind the Whigs. Both partiesopposed the extension. As he understood it the new party had no principleexcept this opposition. If their platform held any other, it was in sucha general way that it was like the pair of pantaloons the Yankee pedlaroffered for sale, "large enough for any man, small enough for any boy. "They therefore had taken a position calculated to break down their singleimportant declared object. They were working for the election of eitherGen. Cass or Gen. Taylor. The speaker then went on to show, clearly andeloquently, the danger of extension of slavery, likely to result from theelection of Gen. Cass. To unite with those who annexed the new territoryto prevent the extension of slavery in that territory seemed to him tobe in the highest degree absurd and ridiculous. Suppose these gentlemensucceed in electing Mr. Van Buren, they had no specific means to preventthe extension of slavery to New Mexico and California, and Gen. Taylor, heconfidently believed, would not encourage it, and would not prohibit itsrestriction. But if Gen. Cass was elected, he felt certain that the plansof farther extension of territory would be encouraged, and those of theextension of slavery would meet no check. The "Free Soil" mart in claimingthat name indirectly attempts a deception, by implying that Whigs werenot Free Soil men. Declaring that they would "do their duty and leave theconsequences to God" merely gave an excuse for taking a course they werenot able to maintain by a fair and full argument. To make this declarationdid not show what their duty was. If it did we should have no use forjudgment, we might as well be made without intellect; and when divine orhuman law does not clearly point out what is our duty, we have no means offinding out what it is but by using our most intelligent judgment of theconsequences. If there were divine law or human law for voting for MartinVan Buren, or if a fair examination of the consequences and just reasoningwould show that voting for him would bring about the ends they pretendedto wish--then he would give up the argument. But since there was no fixedlaw on the subject, and since the whole probable result of their actionwould be an assistance in electing Gen. Cass, he must say that they werebehind the Whigs in their advocacy of the freedom of the soil. 

Mr. Lincoln proceeded to rally the Buffalo convention for forbearing tosay anything--after all the previous declarations of those members whowere formerly Whigs--on the subject of the Mexican War, because the VanBurens had been known to have supported it. He declared that of all theparties asking the confidence of the country, this new one had less ofprinciple than any other. 

He wondered whether it was still the opinion of these Free Soil gentlemen, as declared in the "whereas" at Buffalo, that the Whig and Democraticparties were both entirely dissolved and absorbed into their own body. Hadthe Vermont election given them any light? They had calculated on makingas great an impression in that State as in any part of the Union, andthere their attempts had been wholly ineffectual. Their failure was agreater success than they would find in any other part of the Union. 

Mr. Lincoln went on to say that he honestly believed that all those whowished to keep up the character of the Union; who did not believein enlarging our field, but in keeping our fences where they are andcultivating our present possessions, making it a garden, improving themorals and education of the people, devoting the administrations to thispurpose; all real Whigs, friends of good honest government--the race wasours. He had opportunities of hearing from almost every part of the Unionfrom reliable sources and had not heard of a county in which we had notreceived accessions from other parties. If the true Whigs come forwardand join these new friends, they need not have a doubt. We had a candidatewhose personal character and principles he had already described, whomhe could not eulogize if he would. Gen. Taylor had been constantly, perseveringly, quietly standing up, doing his duty and asking no praiseor reward for it. He was and must be just the man to whom the interests, principles, and prosperity of the country might be safely intrusted. He had never failed in anything he had undertaken, although many of hisduties had been considered almost impossible. 

Mr. Lincoln then went into a terse though rapid review of the originof the Mexican War and the connection of the administration and GeneralTaylor with it, from which he deduced a strong appeal to the Whigs presentto do their duty in the support of General Taylor, and closed with thewarmest aspirations for and confidence in a deserved success. 

At the close of his truly masterly and convincing speech, the audiencegave three enthusiastic cheers for Illinois, and three more for theeloquent Whig member from the State. 

HIS FATHER'S REQUEST FOR MONEY

TO THOMAS LINCOLN

WASHINGTON, Dec. 24, 1848. 

MY DEAR FATHER:--Your letter of the 7th was received night before last. I very cheerfully send you the twenty dollars, which sum you say isnecessary to save your land from sale. It is singular that you shouldhave forgotten a judgment against you; and it is more singular that theplaintiff should have let you forget it so long; particularly as I supposeyou always had property enough to satisfy a judgment of that amount. Before you pay it, it would be well to be sure you have not paid, or atleast, that you cannot prove you have paid it. 

Give my love to mother and all the connections. Affectionately your son, A. LINCOLN. 

1849

BILL TO ABOLISH SLAVERY IN THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

Resolved, That the Committee on the District of Columbia be instructed toreport a bill in substance as follows:

Sec. 1. Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of theUnited States, in Congress assembled, That no person not now within theDistrict of Columbia, nor now owned by any person or persons now residentwithin it, nor hereafter born within it, shall ever be held in slaverywithin said District. 

Sec. 2. That no person now within said District, or now owned by anyperson or persons now resident within the same, or hereafter born withinit, shall ever be held in slavery without the limits of said District:Provided, That officers of the Government of the United States, beingcitizens of the slaveholding States, coming into said District on publicbusiness, and remaining only so long as may be reasonably necessary forthat object, may be attended into and out of said District, and whilethere, by the necessary servants of themselves and their families, withouttheir right to hold such servants in service being thereby impaired. 

Sec. 3. That all children born of slave mothers within said District, on or after the first day of January, in the year of our Lord eighteenhundred and fifty, shall be free; but shall be reasonably supported andeducated by the respective owners of their mothers, or by their heirs orrepresentatives, and shall owe reasonable service as apprentices to suchowners, heirs, or representatives, until they respectively arrive atthe age of __ years, when they shall be entirely free; and the municipalauthorities of Washington and Georgetown, within their respectivejurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered and required to make allsuitable and necessary provision for enforcing obedience to this section, on the part of both masters and apprentices. 

Sec. 4. That all persons now within this District, lawfully held asslaves, or now owned by any person or persons now resident within saidDistrict, shall remain such at the will of their respective owners, theirheirs, and legal representatives: Provided, That such owner, or his legalrepresentative, may at any time receive from the Treasury of the UnitedStates the full value of his or her slave, of the class in this sectionmentioned, upon which such slave shall be forthwith and forever free: Andprovided further, That the President of the United States, the Secretaryof State, and the Secretary of the Treasury shall be a board fordetermining the value of such slaves as their owners may desire toemancipate under this section, and whose duty it shall be to hold asession for the purpose on the first Monday of each calendar month, toreceive all applications, and, on satisfactory evidence in each case thatthe person presented for valuation is a slave, and of the class in thissection mentioned, and is owned by the applicant, shall value such slaveat his or her full cash value, and give to the applicant an order on theTreasury for the amount, and also to such slave a certificate of freedom. 

Sec. 5. That the municipal authorities of Washington and Georgetown, within their respective jurisdictional limits, are hereby empowered andrequired to provide active and efficient means to arrest and deliver up totheir owners all fugitive slaves escaping into said District. 

Sec. 6. That the election officers within said District of Columbia arehereby empowered and required to open polls, at all the usual places ofholding elections, on the first Monday of April next, and receive the voteof every free white male citizen above the age of twenty-one years, havingresided within said District for the period of one year or more nextpreceding the time of such voting for or against this act, to proceed intaking said votes, in all respects not herein specified, as at electionsunder the municipal laws, and with as little delay as possible to transmitcorrect statements of the votes so cast to the President of the UnitedStates; and it shall be the duty of the President to canvass said votesimmediately, and if a majority of them be found to be for this act, toforthwith issue his proclamation giving notice of the fact; and thisact shall only be in full force and effect on and after the day of suchproclamation. 

Sec. 7. That involuntary servitude for the punishment of crime, whereofthe party shall have been duly convicted, shall in no wise be prohibitedby this act. 

Sec. 8. That for all the purposes of this act, the jurisdictional limitsof Washington are extended to all parts of the District of Columbia notnow included within the present limits of Georgetown. 

BILL GRANTING LANDS TO THE STATES TO MAKE RAILWAYS AND CANALS

REMARKS IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, FEBRUARY 13, 1849. 

Mr. Lincoln said he had not risen for the purpose of making a speech, butonly for the purpose of meeting some of the objections to the bill. If heunderstood those objections, the first was that if the bill were to becomea law, it would be used to lock large portions of the public lands fromsale, without at last effecting the ostensible object of the bill--theconstruction of railroads in the new States; and secondly, that Congresswould be forced to the abandonment of large portions of the public landsto the States for which they might be reserved, without their paying forthem. This he understood to be the substance of the objections of thegentleman from Ohio to the passage of the bill. 

If he could get the attention of the House for a few minutes, he would askgentlemen to tell us what motive could induce any State Legislature, orindividual, or company of individuals, of the new States, to expend moneyin surveying roads which they might know they could not make. 

(A voice: They are not required to make the road. )

Mr. Lincoln continued: That was not the case he was making. What motivewould tempt any set of men to go into an extensive survey of a railroadwhich they did not intend to make? What good would it do? Did men actwithout motive? Did business men commonly go into an expenditure of moneywhich could be of no account to them? He generally found that men who havemoney were disposed to hold on to it, unless they could see something tobe made by its investment. He could not see what motive of advantage tothe new States could be subserved by merely keeping the public lands outof market, and preventing their settlement. As far as he could see, thenew States were wholly without any motive to do such a thing. This, then, he took to be a good answer to the first objection. 

In relation to the fact assumed, that after a while, the new States havinggot hold of the public lands to a certain extent, they would turn roundand compel Congress to relinquish all claim to them, he had a word to say, by way of recurring to the history of the past. When was the time to come(he asked) when the States in which the public lands were situated wouldcompose a majority of the representation in Congress, or anything likeit? A majority of Representatives would very soon reside west of themountains, he admitted; but would they all come from States in whichthe public lands were situated? They certainly would not; for, as theseWestern States grew strong in Congress, the public lands passed away fromthem, and they got on the other side of the question; and the gentlemanfrom Ohio [Mr. Vinton] was an example attesting that fact. 

Mr. Vinton interrupted here to say that he had stood on this question justwhere he was now, for five and twenty years. 

Mr. Lincoln was not making an argument for the purpose of convicting thegentleman of any impropriety at all. He was speaking of a fact in history, of which his State was an example. He was referring to a plain principlein the nature of things. The State of Ohio had now grown to be a giant. She had a large delegation on that floor; but was she now in favor ofgranting lands to the new States, as she used to be? The New EnglandStates, New York, and the Old Thirteen were all rather quiet upon thesubject; and it was seen just now that a member from one of the new Stateswas the first man to rise up in opposition. And such would be with thehistory of this question for the future. There never would come a timewhen the people residing in the States embracing the public lands wouldhave the entire control of this subject; and so it was a matter ofcertainty that Congress would never do more in this respect than whatwould be dictated by a just liberality. The apprehension, therefore, that the public lands were in danger of being wrested from the GeneralGovernment by the strength of the delegation in Congress from the newStates, was utterly futile. There never could be such a thing. If we takethese lands (said he) it will not be without your consent. We can neveroutnumber you. The result is that all fear of the new States turningagainst the right of Congress to the public domain must be effectuallyquelled, as those who are opposed to that interest must always hold a vastmajority here, and they will never surrender the whole or any part ofthe public lands unless they themselves choose to do so. That was all hedesired to say. 

ON FEDERAL POLITICAL APPOINTMENTS

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

WASHINGTON, March 9, 1849. 

HON. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

DEAR SIR: Colonel R. D. Baker and myself are the only Whig members ofCongress from Illinois of the Thirtieth, and he of the Thirty-first. Wehave reason to think the Whigs of that State hold us responsible, to someextent, for the appointments which may be made of our citizens. We do notknow you personally, and our efforts to you have so far been unavailing. I therefore hope I am not obtrusive in saying in this way, for himand myself, that when a citizen of Illinois is to be appointed inyour department, to an office either in or out of the State, we mostrespectfully ask to be heard. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

MORE POLITICAL PATRONAGE REQUESTS

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 

WASHINGTON, March 10, 1849. 

HON. SECRETARY OF STATE. 

SIR:--There are several applicants for the office of United StatesMarshal for the District of Illinois. Among the most prominent of them areBenjamin Bond, Esq. , of Carlyle, and Thomas, Esq. , of Galena. Mr. BondI know to be personally every way worthy of the office; and he is verynumerously and most respectably recommended. His papers I send to you; andI solicit for his claims a full and fair consideration. 

Having said this much, I add that in my individual judgment theappointment of Mr. Thomas would be the better. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

(Indorsed on Mr. Bond's papers. )

In this and the accompanying envelope are the recommendations of abouttwo hundred good citizens of all parts of Illinois, that Benjamin Bond beappointed marshal for that district. They include the names of nearlyall our Whigs who now are, or have ever been, members of the StateLegislature, besides forty-six of the Democratic members of the presentLegislature, and many other good citizens. I add that from personalknowledge I consider Mr. Bond every way worthy of the office, andqualified to fill it. Holding the individual opinion that the appointmentof a different gentleman would be better, I ask especial attention andconsideration for his claims, and for the opinions expressed in his favorby those over whom I can claim no superiority. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, April 7, 1849

HON. SECRETARY OF THE HOME DEPARTMENT. 

DEAR SIR:--I recommend that Walter Davis be appointed receiver of theland-office at this place, whenever there shall be a vacancy. I cannotsay that Mr. Herndon, the present incumbent, has failed in the properdischarge of any of the duties of the office. He is a very warm partisan, and openly and actively opposed to the election of General Taylor. Ialso understand that since General Taylor's election he has receiveda reappointment from Mr. Polk, his old commission not having expired. Whether this is true the records of the department will show. I may addthat the Whigs here almost universally desire his removal. 

I give no opinion of my own, but state the facts, and express the hopethat the department will act in this as in all other cases on some propergeneral rule. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --The land district to which this office belongs is very nearly ifnot entirely within my district; so that Colonel Baker, the other Whigrepresentative, claims no voice in the appointment. A. L. 

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, April 7, 1849. 

HON. SECRETARY OF THE HOME DEPARTMENT. 

DEAR SIR:--I recommend that Turner R. King, now of Pekin, Illinois, beappointed register of the land-office at this place whenever there shallbe a vacancy. 

I do not know that Mr. Barret, the present incumbent, has failed in theproper discharge of any of his duties in the office. He is a decidedpartisan, and openly and actively opposed the election of General Taylor. I understand, too, that since the election of General Taylor, Mr. Barrethas received a reappointment from Mr. Polk, his old commission not havingexpired. Whether this be true, the records of the department will show. 

Whether he should be removed I give no opinion, but merely express thewish that the department may act upon some proper general rule, and thatMr. Barret's case may not be made an exception to it. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. -The land district to which this office belongs is very nearly ifnot entirely within my district; so that Colonel Baker, the other Whigrepresentative, claims no voice in the appointment. A. L. 

TO THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, April 7, 1849. 

HON. POSTMASTER-GENERAL. 

DEAR Sir:--I recommend that Abner Y. Ellis be appointed postmaster atthis place, whenever there shall be a vacancy. J. R. Diller, the presentincumbent, I cannot say has failed in the proper discharge of any ofthe duties of the office. He, however, has been an active partisan inopposition to us. 

Located at the seat of government of the State, he has been, for partif not the whole of the time he has held the office, a member of theDemocratic State Central Committee, signing his name to their addressesand manifestoes; and has been, as I understand, reappointed by Mr. Polksince General Taylor's election. These are the facts of the case as Iunderstand them, and I give no opinion of mine as to whether he shouldor should not be removed. My wish is that the department may adopt someproper general rule for such cases, and that Mr. Diller may not be made anexception to it, one way or the other. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --This office, with its delivery, is entirely within my district; sothat Colonel Baker, the other Whig representative, claims no voice in theappointment. L. 

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, April 7, 1849. 

HON. SECRETARY OF THE HOME DEPARTMENT. 

DEAR SIR:--I recommend that William Butler be appointed pension agentfor the Illinois agency, when the place shall be vacant. Mr. Hurst, thepresent incumbent, I believe has performed the duties very well. He is adecided partisan, and I believe expects to be removed. Whether he shall, Isubmit to the department. This office is not confined to my district, butpertains to the whole State; so that Colonel Baker has an equal right withmyself to be heard concerning it. However, the office is located here;and I think it is not probable that any one would desire to remove from adistance to take it. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO THOMPSON. 

SPRINGFIELD, April 25, 1849. 

DEAR THOMPSON: A tirade is still kept up against me here for recommendingT. R. King. This morning it is openly avowed that my supposed influence atWashington shall be broken down generally, and King's prospects defeatedin particular. Now, what I have done in this matter I have done at therequest of you and some other friends in Tazewell; and I therefore ask youto either admit it is wrong or come forward and sustain me. If the truthwill permit, I propose that you sustain me in the following manner: copythe inclosed scrap in your own handwriting and get everybody (not three orfour, but three or four hundred) to sign it, and then send it to me. Also, have six, eight or ten of our best known Whig friends there write to meindividual letters, stating the truth in this matter as they understandit. Don't neglect or delay in the matter. I understand information of anindictment having been found against him about three years ago, for gamingor keeping a gaming house, has been sent to the department. I shall tryto take care of it at the department till your action can be had andforwarded on. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

SPRINGFIELD ILLINOIS. May 10, 1849. 

HON. SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

DEAR SIR:--I regret troubling you so often in relation to the land-officeshere, but I hope you will perceive the necessity of it, and excuse me. Onthe 7th of April I wrote you recommending Turner R. King for register, andWalter Davis for receiver. Subsequently I wrote you that, for a privatereason, I had concluded to transpose them. That private reason was therequest of an old personal friend who himself desired to be receiver, but whom I felt it my duty to refuse a recommendation. He said if I wouldtranspose King and Davis he would be satisfied. I thought it a whim, but, anxious to oblige him, I consented. Immediately he commenced an assaultupon King's character, intending, as I suppose, to defeat his appointment, and thereby secure another chance for himself. This double offence of badfaith to me and slander upon a good man is so totally outrageous that Inow ask to have King and Davis placed as I originally recommended, --thatis, King for register and Davis for receiver. 

An effort is being made now to have Mr. Barret, the present register, retained. I have already said he has done the duties of the office well, and I now add he is a gentleman in the true sense. Still, he submits to bethe instrument of his party to injure us. His high character enables himto do it more effectually. Last year he presided at the convention whichnominated the Democratic candidate for Congress in this district, andafterward ran for the State Senate himself, not desiring the seat, butavowedly to aid and strengthen his party. He made speech after speech witha degree of fierceness and coarseness against General Taylor not quiteconsistent with his habitually gentlemanly deportment. At least one (andI think more) of those who are now trying to have him retained was himselfan applicant for this very office, and, failing to get my recommendation, now takes this turn. 

In writing you a third time in relation to these offices, I stated that Isupposed charges had been forwarded to you against King, and that I wouldinquire into the truth of them. I now send you herewith what I supposewill be an ample defense against any such charges. I ask attention to allthe papers, but particularly to the letters of Mr. David Mack, and thepaper with the long list of names. There is no mistake about King's beinga good man. After the unjust assault upon him, and considering the justclaims of Tazewell County, as indicated in the letters I inclose you, itwould in my opinion be injustice, and withal a blunder, not to appointhim, at least as soon as any one is appointed to either of the officeshere. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. GILLESPIE. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , May 19, 1849. 

DEAR GILLESPIE:

Butterfield will be commissioner of the Gen'l Land Office, unlessprevented by strong and speedy efforts. Ewing is for him, and he is onlynot appointed yet because Old Zach. Hangs fire. 

I have reliable information of this. Now, if you agree with me that thisappointment would dissatisfy rather than gratify the Whigs of thisState, that it would slacken their energies in future contests, that hisappointment in '41 is an old sore with them which they will not patientlyhave reopened, --in a word that his appointment now would be a fatalblunder to the administration and our political men here in Illinois, write Crittenden to that effect. He can control the matter. Were you towrite Ewing I fear the President would never hear of your letter. This maybe mere suspicion. You might write directly to Old Zach. You will be thebest judge of the propriety of that. Not a moment's time is to be lost. 

Let this be confidential except with Mr. Edwards and a few others whom youknow I would trust just as I do you. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

REQUEST FOR GENERAL LAND-OFFICE APPPOINTMENT

TO E. EMBREE. 

[Confidential]

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, May 25, 1849. 

HON. E. EMBREE

DEAR SIR:--I am about to ask a favor of you, one which I hope will notcost you much. I understand the General Land-Office is about to be givento Illinois, and that Mr. Ewing desires Justin Butterfield, of Chicago, tobe the man. I give you my word, the appointment of Mr. Butterfield willbe an egregious political blunder. It will give offence to the whole Whigparty here, and be worse than a dead loss to the administration of so muchof its patronage. Now, if you can conscientiously do so, I wish you towrite General Taylor at once, saying that either I or the man I recommendshould in your opinion be appointed to that office, if any one fromIllinois shall be. I restrict my request to Illinois because you may havea man from your own State, and I do not ask to interfere with that. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

REQUEST FOR A PATENT

IMPROVED METHOD OF LIFTING VESSELS OVER SHOALS. 

Application for Patent:

What I claim as my invention, and desire to secure by letters patent, isthe combination of expansible buoyant chambers placed at the sides of avessel with the main shaft or shafts by means of the sliding spars, whichpass down through the buoyant chambers and are made fast to their bottomsand the series of ropes and pulleys or their equivalents in such a mannerthat by turning the main shaft or shafts in one direction the buoyantchambers will be forced downward into the water, and at the same timeexpanded and filled with air for buoying up the vessel by the displacementof water, and by turning the shafts in an opposite direction the buoyantchambers will be contracted into a small space and secured against injury. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE SECRETARY OF INTERIOR. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , June 3, 1849

HON. SECRETARY OF INTERIOR. 

DEAR SIR:--Vandalia, the receiver's office at which place is the subjectof the within, is not in my district; and I have been much perplexed toexpress any preference between Dr. Stapp and Mr. Remann. If any one manis better qualified for such an office than all others, Dr. Stapp is thatman; still, I believe a large majority of the Whigs of the district preferMr. Remann, who also is a good man. Perhaps the papers on file will enableyou to judge better than I can. The writers of the within are good men, residing within the land district. 

Your obt. Servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO W. H. HERNDON. 

SPRINGFIELD, June 5, 1849. 

DEAR WILLIAM:--Your two letters were received last night. I have a greatmany letters to write, and so cannot write very long ones. There must besome mistake about Walter Davis saying I promised him the post-office. I did not so promise him. I did tell him that if the distribution of theoffices should fall into my hands, he should have something; and ifI shall be convinced he has said any more than this, I shall bedisappointed. I said this much to him because, as I understand, he is ofgood character, is one of the young men, is of the mechanics, and alwaysfaithful and never troublesome; a Whig, and is poor, with the support of awidow mother thrown almost exclusively on him by the death of his brother. If these are wrong reasons, then I have been wrong; but I have certainlynot been selfish in it, because in my greatest need of friends he wasagainst me, and for Baker. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. Let the above be confidential. 

TO J. GILLESPIE. 

DEAR GILLESPIE:

Mr. Edwards is unquestionably offended with me in connection with thematter of the General Land-Office. He wrote a letter against me which wasfiled at the department. 

The better part of one's life consists of his friendships; and, of them, mine with Mr. Edwards was one of the most cherished. I have not beenfalse to it. At a word I could have had the office any time before thedepartment was committed to Mr. Butterfield, at least Mr. Ewing and thePresident say as much. That word I forbore to speak, partly for otherreasons, but chiefly for Mr. Edwards' sake, losing the office (that hemight gain it) I was always for; but to lose his friendship, by the effortfor him, would oppress me very much, were I not sustained by the utmostconsciousness of rectitude. I first determined to be an applicant, unconditionally, on the 2nd of June; and I did so then upon being informedby a telegraphic despatch that the question was narrowed down to Mr. B andmyself, and that the Cabinet had postponed the appointment three weeks, for my benefit. Not doubting that Mr. Edwards was wholly out of thequestion I, nevertheless, would not then have become an applicant had Isupposed he would thereby be brought to suspect me of treachery to him. Two or three days afterwards a conversation with Levi Davis convinced meMr. Edwards was dissatisfied; but I was then too far in to get out. Hisown letter, written on the 25th of April, after I had fully informedhim of all that had passed, up to within a few days of that time, gaveassurance I had that entire confidence from him which I felt my uniformand strong friendship for him entitled me to. Among other things it says, "Whatever course your judgment may dictate as proper to be pursued, shallnever be excepted to by me. " I also had had a letter from Washington, saying Chambers, of the Republic, had brought a rumor then, that Mr. E haddeclined in my favor, which rumor I judged came from Mr. E himself, as Ihad not then breathed of his letter to any living creature. In sayingI had never, before the 2nd of June, determined to be an applicant, unconditionally, I mean to admit that, before then, I had saidsubstantially I would take the office rather than it should be lost tothe State, or given to one in the State whom the Whigs did not want; butI aver that in every instance in which I spoke of myself, I intended tokeep, and now believe I did keep, Mr. E above myself. Mr. Edwards' firstsuspicion was that I had allowed Baker to overreach me, as his friend, in behalf of Don Morrison. I knew this was a mistake; and the result hasproved it. I understand his view now is, that if I had gone to open warwith Baker I could have ridden him down, and had the thing all my own way. I believe no such thing. With Baker and some strong man from the Militarytract & elsewhere for Morrison, and we and some strong man from theWabash & elsewhere for Mr. E, it was not possible for either to succeed. I believed this in March, and I know it now. The only thing which gaveeither any chance was the very thing Baker & I proposed, --an adjustmentwith themselves. 

You may wish to know how Butterfield finally beat me. I can not tellyou particulars now, but will when I see you. In the meantime let it beunderstood I am not greatly dissatisfied, --I wish the offer had been sobestowed as to encourage our friends in future contests, and I regretexceedingly Mr. Edwards' feelings towards me. These two things away, Ishould have no regrets, --at least I think I would not. 

Write me soon. 

Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

RESOLUTIONS OF SYMPATHY WITH THE CAUSE OF HUNGARIAN FREEDOM, SEPTEMBER [1??], 1849. 

At a meeting to express sympathy with the cause of Hungarian freedom, Dr. Todd, Thos. Lewis, Hon. A. Lincoln, and Wm. Carpenter were appointed acommittee to present appropriate resolutions, which reported through Hon. A. Lincoln the following:

Resolved, That, in their present glorious struggle for liberty, theHungarians command our highest admiration and have our warmest sympathy. 

Resolved, That they have our most ardent prayers for their speedy triumphand final success. 

Resolved, That the Government of the United States should acknowledge theindependence of Hungary as a nation of freemen at the very earliest momentconsistent with our amicable relations with the government against whichthey are contending. 

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this meeting, the immediateacknowledgment of the independence of Hungary by our government is duefrom American freemen to their struggling brethren, to the general causeof republican liberty, and not violative of the just rights of any nationor people. 

TO Dr. WILLIAM FITHIAN. 

SPRINGFIELD, Sept. 14, 1849. 

Dr. WILLIAM FITHIAN, Danville, Ill. 

DEAR DOCTOR:--Your letter of the 9th was received a day or two ago. Thenotes and mortgages you enclosed me were duly received. I also got theoriginal Blanchard mortgage from Antrim Campbell, with whom Blanchard hadleft it for you. I got a decree of foreclosure on the whole; but, owing tothere being no redemption on the sale to be under the Blanchard mortgage, the court allowed Mobley till the first of March to pay the money, beforeadvertising for sale. Stuart was empowered by Mobley to appear for him, and I had to take such decree as he would consent to, or none at all. Icast the matter about in my mind and concluded that as I could not geta decree we would put the accrued interest at interest, and thereby morethan match the fact of throwing the Blanchard debt back from twelve to sixper cent. , it was better to do it. This is the present state of the case. 

I can well enough understand and appreciate your suggestions about theLand-Office at Danville; but in my present condition, I can do nothing. 

Yours, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 15, 1849. 

------ ESQ. 

DEAR SIR:--On my return from Kentucky I found your letter of the 7th ofNovember, and have delayed answering it till now for the reason I nowbriefly state. From the beginning of our acquaintance I had felt thegreatest kindness for you and had supposed it was reciprocated on yourpart. Last summer, under circumstances which I mentioned to you, I waspainfully constrained to withhold a recommendation which you desired, andshortly afterwards I learned, in such a way as to believe it, that youwere indulging in open abuse of me. Of course my feelings were wounded. On receiving your last letter the question occurred whether you wereattempting to use me at the same time you would injure me, or whether youmight not have been misrepresented to me. If the former, I ought not toanswer you; if the latter, I ought, and so I have remained in suspense. Inow enclose you the letter, which you may use if you see fit. 

Yours, etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

1850

RESOLUTIONS ON THE DEATH OF JUDGE NATHANIEL POPE. 

Circuit and District Court of the U. S. In and for the State and Districtof Illinois. Monday, June 3, 1850. 

On the opening of the Court this morning, the Hon. A. Lincoln, a memberof the Bar of this Court, suggested the death of the Hon. NathanielPope, late a judge of this Court, since the adjournment of the last term;whereupon, in token of respect for the memory of the deceased, it isordered that the Court do now adjourn until to-morrow morning at teno'clock. 

The Hon. Stephen T. Logan, the Hon. Norman H. Purple, the Hon. David L. Gregg, the Hon. A. Lincoln, and George W. Meeker, Esq. , were appointed aCommittee to prepare resolutions. 

Whereupon, the Hon. Stephen T. Logan, in behalf of the Committee, presented the following preamble and resolutions:

Whereas The Hon. Nathaniel Pope, District Judge of the United States Courtfor the District of Illinois, having departed this life during thelast vacation of said Court, and the members of the Bar of said Court, entertaining the highest veneration for his memory, a profound respect forhis ability, great experience, and learning as a judge, and cherishing forhis many virtues, public and private, his earnest simplicity of characterand unostentatious deportment, both in his public and private relations, the most lively and affectionate recollections, have

Resolved, That, as a manifestation of their deep sense of the losswhich has been sustained in his death, they will wear the usual badge ofmourning during the residue of the term. 

Resolved, That the Chairman communicate to the family of the deceased acopy of these proceedings, with an assurance of our sincere condolence onaccount of their heavy bereavement. 

Resolved, That the Hon. A. Williams, District Attorney of this Court, berequested in behalf of the meeting to present these proceedings to theCircuit Court, and respectfully to ask that they may be entered on therecords. 

E. N. POWELL, Sec'y. SAMUEL H. TREAT, Ch'n. 

NOTES FOR LAW LECTURE

(fragments)

JULY 1, 1850

DISCOURAGE LITIGATION. Persuade your neighbors to compromise whenever youcan. Point out to them how the nominal winner is often a real loser--infees, expenses, and waste of time. As a peace-maker the lawyer has asuperior opportunity of being a good man. There will still be businessenough. 

Never stir up litigation. A worse man can scarcely be found than onewho does this. Who can be more nearly a fiend than he who habituallyover-hauls the register of deeds in search of defects in titles, whereonto stir up strife, and put money in his pocket? A moral tone ought to beinfused into the profession which should drive such men out of it. 

The matter of fees is important, far beyond the mere question of breadand butter involved. Properly attended to, fuller justice is done to bothlawyer and client. An exorbitant fee should never be claimed. As a generalrule never take your whole fee in advance, nor any more than a smallretainer. When fully paid beforehand, you are more than a common mortalif you can feel the same interest in the case as if something was still inprospect for you, as well as for your client. And when you lack interestin the case the job will very likely lack skill and diligence in theperformance. Settle the amount of fee and take a note in advance. Then youwill feel that you are working for something, and you are sure to do yourwork faithfully and well. Never sell a fee note--at least not beforethe consideration service is performed. It leads to negligence anddishonesty--negligence by losing interest in the case, and dishonesty inrefusing to refund when you have allowed the consideration to fail. 

This idea of a refund or reduction of charges from the lawyer in a failedcase is a new one to me--but not a bad one. 

1851

LETTERS TO FAMILY MEMBERS

TO JOHN D. JOHNSTON. 

January 2, 1851

DEAR JOHNSTON:--Your request for eighty dollars I do not think it best tocomply with now. At the various times when I have helped you a little youhave said to me, "We can get along very well now"; but in a very shorttime I find you in the same difficulty again. Now, this can only happen bysome defect in your conduct. What that defect is, I think I know. You arenot lazy, and still you are an idler. I doubt whether, since I saw you, you have done a good whole day's work in any one day. You do not very muchdislike to work, and still you do not work much merely because it doesnot seem to you that you could get much for it. This habit of uselesslywasting time is the whole difficulty; it is vastly important to you, andstill more so to your children, that you should break the habit. It ismore important to them, because they have longer to live, and can keep outof an idle habit before they are in it, easier than they can get out afterthey are in. 

You are now in need of some money; and what I propose is, that you shallgo to work, "tooth and nail, " for somebody who will give you money for it. Let father and your boys take charge of your things at home, prepare fora crop, and make the crop, and you go to work for the best money wages, orin discharge of any debt you owe, that you can get; and, to secure you afair reward for your labor, I now promise you, that for every dollar youwill, between this and the first of May, get for your own labor, either inmoney or as your own indebtedness, I will then give you one other dollar. By this, if you hire yourself at ten dollars a month, from me you will getten more, making twenty dollars a month for your work. In this I do notmean you shall go off to St. Louis, or the lead mines, or the gold minesin California, but I mean for you to go at it for the best wages you canget close to home in Coles County. Now, if you will do this, you will besoon out of debt, and, what is better, you will have a habit that willkeep you from getting in debt again. But, if I should now clear you outof debt, next year you would be just as deep in as ever. You say you wouldalmost give your place in heaven for seventy or eighty dollars. Then youvalue your place in heaven very cheap, for I am sure you can, with theoffer I make, get the seventy or eighty dollars for four or five months'work. You say if I will furnish you the money you will deed me theland, and, if you don't pay the money back, you will deliver possession. Nonsense! If you can't now live with the land, how will you then livewithout it? You have always been kind to me, and I do not mean to beunkind to you. On the contrary, if you will but follow my advice, you willfind it worth more than eighty times eighty dollars to you. 

Affectionately your brother, A. LINCOLN. 

TO C. HOYT. 

SPRINGFIELD, Jan. 11, 1851. 

C. HOYT, ESQ. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Our case is decided against us. The decision was announcedthis morning. Very sorry, but there is no help. The history of the casesince it came here is this. On Friday morning last, Mr. Joy filed hispapers, and entered his motion for a mandamus, and urged me to take up themotion as soon as possible. I already had the points and authority sent meby you and by Mr. Goodrich, but had not studied them. I began preparing asfast as possible. 

The evening of the same day I was again urged to take up the case. Irefused on the ground that I was not ready, and on which plea I alsogot off over Saturday. But on Monday (the 14th) I had to go into it. Weoccupied the whole day, I using the large part. I made every point andused every authority sent me by yourself and by Mr. Goodrich; and inaddition all the points I could think of and all the authorities I couldfind myself. When I closed the argument on my part, a large package washanded me, which proved to be the plat you sent me. 

The court received it of me, but it was not different from the platalready on the record. I do not think I could ever have argued the casebetter than I did. I did nothing else, but prepare to argue and argue thiscase, from Friday morning till Monday evening. Very sorry for the result;but I do not think it could have been prevented. 

Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JOHN D. JOHNSTON. 

SPRINGFIELD, January 12, 1851

DEAR BROTHER:--On the day before yesterday I received a letter fromHarriet, written at Greenup. She says she has just returned from yourhouse, and that father is very low and will hardly recover. She also saysyou have written me two letters, and that, although you do not expect meto come now, you wonder that I do not write. 

I received both your letters, and although I have not answered them it isnot because I have forgotten them, or been uninterested about them, butbecause it appeared to me that I could write nothing which would do anygood. You already know I desire that neither father nor mother shall be inwant of any comfort, either in health or sickness, while they live; and Ifeel sure you have not failed to use my name, if necessary, to procure adoctor, or anything else for father in his present sickness. My businessis such that I could hardly leave home now, if it was not as it is, thatmy own wife is sick abed. (It is a case of baby-sickness, and I suppose isnot dangerous. ) I sincerely hope father may recover his health, but atall events, tell him to remember to call upon and confide in our great andgood and merciful Maker, who will not turn away from him in any extremity. He notes the fall of a sparrow, and numbers the hairs of our heads, and Hewill not forget the dying man who puts his trust in Him. Say to him thatif we could meet now it is doubtful whether it would not be more painfulthan pleasant, but that if it be his lot to go now, he will soon have ajoyous meeting with many loved ones gone before, and where the rest of us, through the help of God, hope ere long to join them. 

Write to me again when you receive this. 

Affectionately, A. LINCOLN. 

PETITION ON BEHALF OF ONE JOSHUA GIPSON

TO THE JUDGE OF THE SANGAMON COUNTY COURT, MAY 13, 1851. 

TO THE HONORABLE, THE JUDGE OF THE COUNTY COURT

IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SANGAMON AND STATE OF ILLINOIS:

Your Petitioner, Joshua Gipson, respectfully represents that on or aboutthe 21st day of December, 1850, a judgment was rendered against yourPetitioner for costs, by J. C. Spugg, one of the Justices of the Peacein and for said County of Sangamon, in a suit wherein your Petitionerwas plaintiff and James L. And C. B. Gerard were defendants; that saidjudgment was not the result of negligence on the part of your Petitioner;that said judgment, in his opinion, is unjust and erroneous in this, thatthe defendants were at that time and are indebted to this Petitioner inthe full amount of the principal and interest of the note sued on, theprincipal being, as affiant remembers and believes, thirty-one dollarsand eighty two cents; and that, as affiant is informed and believes, thedefendants succeeded in the trial of said cause by proving old claimsagainst your petitioner, in set-off against said note, which claimshad been settled, adjusted and paid before said note was executed. YourPetitioner further states that the reasons of his not being present atsaid trial, as he was not, and of its not being in his power to take anappeal in the ordinary way, as it was not, were that your Petitioner thenresided in Edgar County about one hundred and twenty miles from wheredefendants resided; that a very short time before the suit was commencedyour Petitioner was in Sangamon County for the purpose of collecting debtsdue him, and with the rest, the note in question, which note had then beengiven more than a year, that your Petitioner then saw the defendant J. L. Gerard who is the principal in said note, and solicited payment of thesame; that said defendant then made no pretense that he did not owe thesame, but on the contrary expressly promised that he would come intoSpringfield, in a very few days and either pay the money, or give a newnote, payable by the then next Christmas; that your Petitioner accordinglyleft said note with said J. C. Spugg, with directions to give defendantfull time to pay the money or give the new note as above, and if he didneither to sue; and then affiant came home to Edgar County, not having theslightest suspicion that if suit should be brought, the defendants wouldmake any defense whatever; and your Petitioner never did in any way learnthat said suit had been commenced until more than twenty days after it hadbeen decided against him. He therefore prays for a writ of Certiorari. 

 HIS JOSHUA x GIPSON MARK

TO J. D. JOHNSTON. 

SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 31, 1851

DEAR BROTHER: Inclosed is the deed for the land. We are all well, andhave nothing in the way of news. We have had no Cholera here for about twoweeks. 

Give my love to all, and especially to Mother. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. D. JOHNSTON. 

SHELBYVILLE, Nov. 4, 1851

DEAR BROTHER:

When I came into Charleston day before yesterday I learned that you areanxious to sell the land where you live, and move to Missouri. I have beenthinking of this ever since, and cannot but think such a notion is utterlyfoolish. What can you do in Missouri better than here? Is the land richer?Can you there, any more than here, raise corn and wheat and oats withoutwork? Will anybody there, any more than here, do your work for you? If youintend to go to work, there is no better place than right where youare; if you do not intend to go to work you cannot get along anywhere. Squirming and crawling about from place to place can do no good. You haveraised no crop this year, and what you really want is to sell the land, get the money and spend it. Part with the land you have, and, my life uponit, you will never after own a spot big enough to bury you in. Half youwill get for the land you spend in moving to Missouri, and the other halfyou will eat and drink and wear out, and no foot of land will be bought. Now I feel it is my duty to have no hand in such a piece of foolery. Ifeel that it is so even on your own account, and particularly on Mother'saccount. The eastern forty acres I intend to keep for Mother while shelives; if you will not cultivate it, it will rent for enough to supporther; at least it will rent for something. Her dower in the other twoforties she can let you have, and no thanks to me. 

Now do not misunderstand this letter. I do not write it in any unkindness. I write it in order, if possible, to get you to face the truth, whichtruth is, you are destitute because you have idled away all your time. Your thousand pretenses for not getting along better are all nonsense;they deceive nobody but yourself. Go to work is the only cure for yourcase. 

A word for Mother: Chapman tells me he wants you to go and live with him. If I were you I would try it awhile. If you get tired of it (as I thinkyou will not) you can return to your own home. Chapman feels very kindlyto you; and I have no doubt he will make your situation very pleasant. 

Sincerely yours, A. LINCOLN. 

Nov. 4, 1851

DEAR MOTHER:

Chapman tells me he wants you to go and live with him. If I were you Iwould try it awhile. If you get tired of it (as I think you will not) youcan return to your own home. Chapman feels very kindly to you; and I haveno doubt he will make your situation very pleasant. 

Sincerely your son, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JOHN D. JOHNSTON. 

SHELBYVILLE, November 9, 1851

DEAR BROTHER:--When I wrote you before, I had not received your letter. I still think as I did, but if the land can be sold so that I get threehundred dollars to put to interest for Mother, I will not object, if shedoes not. But before I will make a deed, the money must be had, or securedbeyond all doubt, at ten per cent. 

As to Abram, I do not want him, on my own account; but I understand hewants to live with me, so that he can go to school and get a fair start inthe world, which I very much wish him to have. When I reach home, if I canmake it convenient to take, I will take him, provided there is no mistakebetween us as to the object and terms of my taking him. In haste, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JOHN D. JOHNSTON. 

SPRINGFIELD, November 25, 1851. 

DEAR BROTHER:--Your letter of the 22d is just received. Your proposalabout selling the east forty acres of land is all that I want or couldclaim for myself; but I am not satisfied with it on Mother's account--Iwant her to have her living, and I feel that it is my duty, to someextent, to see that she is not wronged. She had a right of dower (that is, the use of one-third for life) in the other two forties; but, it seems, she has already let you take that, hook and line. She now has the use ofthe whole of the east forty, as long as she lives; and if it be sold, ofcourse she is entitled to the interest on all the money it brings, as longas she lives; but you propose to sell it for three hundred dollars, takeone hundred away with you, and leave her two hundred at 8 per cent. , making her the enormous sum of 16 dollars a year. Now, if you aresatisfied with treating her in that way, I am not. It is true that you areto have that forty for two hundred dollars, at Mother's death, but you arenot to have it before. I am confident that land can be made to produce forMother at least $30 a year, and I can not, to oblige any living person, consent that she shall be put on an allowance of sixteen dollars a year. 

Yours, etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

1852

EULOGY ON HENRY CLAY, DELIVERED IN THE STATE HOUSE AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, JULY 16, 1852. 

On the fourth day of July, 1776, the people of a few feeble and oppressedcolonies of Great Britain, inhabiting a portion of the Atlantic coast ofNorth America, publicly declared their national independence, and madetheir appeal to the justice of their cause and to the God of battles forthe maintenance of that declaration. That people were few in number andwithout resources, save only their wise heads and stout hearts. Within thefirst year of that declared independence, and while its maintenance wasyet problematical, while the bloody struggle between those resolute rebelsand their haughty would-be masters was still waging, --of undistinguishedparents and in an obscure district of one of those colonies Henry Claywas born. The infant nation and the infant child began the race of lifetogether. For three quarters of a century they have travelled hand inhand. They have been companions ever. The nation has passed its perils, and it is free, prosperous, and powerful. The child has reached hismanhood, his middle age, his old age, and is dead. In all that hasconcerned the nation the man ever sympathized; and now the nation mournsthe man. 

The day after his death one of the public journals, opposed to himpolitically, held the following pathetic and beautiful language, which Iadopt partly because such high and exclusive eulogy, originating with apolitical friend, might offend good taste, but chiefly because I could notin any language of my own so well express my thoughts:

"Alas, who can realize that Henry Clay is dead! Who can realize that neveragain that majestic form shall rise in the council-chambers of his countryto beat back the storms of anarchy which may threaten, or pour the oil ofpeace upon the troubled billows as they rage and menace around! Whocan realize that the workings of that mighty mind have ceased, that thethrobbings of that gallant heart are stilled, that the mighty sweep ofthat graceful arm will be felt no more, and the magic of that eloquenttongue, which spake as spake no other tongue besides, is hushed hushed forever! Who can realize that freedom's champion, the champion of a civilizedworld and of all tongues and kindreds of people, has indeed fallen! Alas, in those dark hours of peril and dread which our land has experienced, andwhich she may be called to experience again, to whom now may her peoplelook up for that counsel and advice which only wisdom and experience andpatriotism can give, and which only the undoubting confidence of a nationwill receive? Perchance in the whole circle of the great and gifted ofour land there remains but one on whose shoulders the mighty mantle ofthe departed statesman may fall; one who while we now write is doubtlesspouring his tears over the bier of his brother and friend brother, friend, ever, yet in political sentiment as far apart as party could make them. Ah, it is at times like these that the petty distinctions of mere partydisappear. We see only the great, the grand, the noble features of thedeparted statesman; and we do not even beg permission to bow at hisfeet and mingle our tears with those who have ever been his politicaladherents--we do [not] beg this permission, we claim it as a right, thoughwe feel it as a privilege. Henry Clay belonged to his country--to theworld; mere party cannot claim men like him. His career has been national, his fame has filled the earth, his memory will endure to the last syllableof recorded time. 

"Henry Clay is dead! He breathed his last on yesterday, at twenty minutesafter eleven, in his chamber at Washington. To those who followed his leadin public affairs, it more appropriately belongs to pronounce his eulogyand pay specific honors to the memory of the illustrious dead. But allAmericans may show the grief which his death inspires, for his characterand fame are national property. As on a question of liberty he knew noNorth, no South, no East, no West, but only the Union which held them allin its sacred circle, so now his countrymen will know no grief that is notas wide-spread as the bounds of the confederacy. The career of Henry Claywas a public career. From his youth he has been devoted to the publicservice, at a period, too, in the world's history justly regarded as aremarkable era in human affairs. He witnessed in the beginning the throesof the French Revolution. He saw the rise and fall of Napoleon. He wascalled upon to legislate for America and direct her policy when all Europewas the battlefield of contending dynasties, and when the struggle forsupremacy imperilled the rights of all neutral nations. His voice spokewar and peace in the contest with Great Britain. 

"When Greece rose against the Turks and struck for liberty, his name wasmingled with the battle-cry of freedom. When South America threw off thethraldom of Spain, his speeches were read at the head of her armies byBolivar. His name has been, and will continue to be, hallowed in twohemispheres, for it is

 "'One of the few, the immortal names That were not born to die!'

"To the ardent patriot and profound statesman he added a quality possessedby few of the gifted on earth. His eloquence has not been surpassed. Inthe effective power to move the heart of man, Clay was without an equal, and the heaven-born endowment, in the spirit of its origin, has beenmost conspicuously exhibited against intestine feud. On at least threeimportant occasions he has quelled our civil commotions by a power andinfluence which belonged to no other statesman of his age and times. Andin our last internal discord, when this Union trembled to its centre, inold age he left the shades of private life, and gave the death-blow tofraternal strife, with the vigor of his earlier years, in a seriesof senatorial efforts which in themselves would bring immortality bychallenging comparison with the efforts of any statesman in any age. Heexorcised the demon which possessed the body politic, and gave peace to adistracted land. Alas! the achievement cost him his life. He sank day byday to the tomb his pale but noble brow bound with a triple wreath, putthere by a grateful country. May his ashes rest in peace, while his spiritgoes to take its station among the great and good men who preceded him. "

While it is customary and proper upon occasions like the present to givea brief sketch of the life of the deceased, in the case of Mr. Clay it isless necessary than most others; for his biography has been written andrewritten and read and reread for the last twenty-five years; so that, with the exception of a few of the latest incidents of his life, all isas well known as it can be. The short sketch which I give is, therefore, merely to maintain the connection of this discourse. 

Henry Clay was born on the twelfth day of April, 1777, in Hanover County, Virginia. Of his father, who died in the fourth or fifth year of Henry'sage, little seems to be known, except that he was a respectable man anda preacher of the Baptist persuasion. Mr. Clay's education to the end oflife was comparatively limited. I say "to the end of life, " because Ihave understood that from time to time he added something to his educationduring the greater part of his whole life. Mr. Clay's lack of a moreperfect early education, however it may be regretted generally, teachesat least one profitable lesson: it teaches that in this country onecan scarcely be so poor but that, if he will, he can acquire sufficienteducation to get through the world respectably. In his twenty-thirdyear Mr. Clay was licensed to practise law, and emigrated to Lexington, Kentucky. Here he commenced and continued the practice till the year1803, when he was first elected to the Kentucky Legislature. By successiveelections he was continued in the Legislature till the latter part of1806, when he was elected to fill a vacancy of a single session in theUnited States Senate. In 1807 he was again elected to the Kentucky Houseof Representatives, and by that body chosen Speaker. In 1808 he wasre-elected to the same body. In 1809 he was again chosen to fill a vacancyof two years in the United States Senate. In 1811 he was elected to theUnited States House of Representatives, and on the first day of taking hisseat in that body he was chosen its Speaker. In 1813 he was again electedSpeaker. Early in 1814, being the period of our last British war, Mr. Claywas sent as commissioner, with others, to negotiate a treaty of peace, which treaty was concluded in the latter part of the same year. On hisreturn from Europe he was again elected to the lower branch of Congress, and on taking his seat in December, 1815, was called to his old post-theSpeaker's chair, a position in which he was retained by successiveelections, with one brief intermission, till the inauguration of JohnQuincy Adams, in March, 1825. He was then appointed Secretary of State, and occupied that important station till the inauguration of GeneralJackson, in March, 1829. After this he returned to Kentucky, resumed thepractice of law, and continued it till the autumn of 1831, when he was bythe Legislature of Kentucky again placed in the United States Senate. Bya reelection he was continued in the Senate till he resigned his seat andretired, in March, 1848. In December, 1849, he again took his seat in theSenate, which he again resigned only a few months before his death. 

By the foregoing it is perceived that the period from the beginning of Mr. Clay's official life in 1803 to the end of 1852 is but one year shortof half a century, and that the sum of all the intervals in it will notamount to ten years. But mere duration of time in office constitutes thesmallest part of Mr. Clay's history. Throughout that long period he hasconstantly been the most loved and most implicitly followed by friends, and the most dreaded by opponents, of all living American politicians. Inall the great questions which have agitated the country, and particularlyin those fearful crises, the Missouri question, the nullificationquestion, and the late slavery question, as connected with the newlyacquired territory, involving and endangering the stability of the Union, his has been the leading and most conspicuous part. In 1824 he was firsta candidate for the Presidency, and was defeated; and, although he wassuccessively defeated for the same office in 1832 and in 1844, there hasnever been a moment since 1824 till after 1848 when a very large portionof the American people did not cling to him with an enthusiastic hope andpurpose of still elevating him to the Presidency. With other men, tobe defeated was to be forgotten; but with him defeat was but a triflingincident, neither changing him nor the world's estimate of him. Even thoseof both political parties who have been preferred to him for the highestoffice have run far briefer courses than he, and left him still shininghigh in the heavens of the political world. Jackson, Van Buren, Harnson, Polk, and Taylor all rose after, and set long before him. The spell--thelong-enduring spell--with which the souls of men were bound to him is amiracle. Who can compass it? It is probably true he owed his pre-eminenceto no one quality, but to a fortunate combination of several. He wassurpassingly eloquent; but many eloquent men fail utterly, and they arenot, as a class, generally successful. His judgment was excellent;but many men of good judgment live and die unnoticed. His will wasindomitable; but this quality often secures to its owner nothing betterthan a character for useless obstinacy. These, then, were Mr. Clay'sleading qualities. No one of them is very uncommon; but all together arerarely combined in a single individual, and this is probably the reasonwhy such men as Henry Clay are so rare in the world. 

Mr. Clay's eloquence did not consist, as many fine specimens of eloquencedo, of types and figures, of antithesis and elegant arrangement of wordsand sentences, but rather of that deeply earnest and impassioned toneand manner which can proceed only from great sincerity, and a thoroughconviction in the speaker of the justice and importance of his cause. Thisit is that truly touches the chords of sympathy; and those who heardMr. Clay never failed to be moved by it, or ever afterward forgot theimpression. All his efforts were made for practical effect. He never spokemerely to be heard. He never delivered a Fourth of July oration, or aeulogy on an occasion like this. As a politician or statesman, no one wasso habitually careful to avoid all sectional ground. Whatever he did hedid for the whole country. In the construction of his measures, heever carefully surveyed every part of the field, and duly weighed everyconflicting interest. Feeling as he did, and as the truth surely is, thatthe world's best hope depended on the continued union of these States, he was ever jealous of and watchful for whatever might have the slightesttendency to separate them. 

Mr. Clay's predominant sentiment, from first to last, was a deep devotionto the cause of human liberty--a strong sympathy with the oppressedeverywhere, and an ardent wish for their elevation. With him this was aprimary and all-controlling passion. Subsidiary to this was the conductof his whole life. He loved his country partly because it was his owncountry, and mostly because it was a free country; and he burned with azeal for its advancement, prosperity, and glory, because he saw in suchthe advancement, prosperity, and glory of human liberty, human right, andhuman nature. He desired the prosperity of his countrymen, partly becausethey were his countrymen, but chiefly to show to the world that free mencould be prosperous. 

That his views and measures were always the wisest needs not to beaffirmed; nor should it be on this occasion, where so many thinkingdifferently join in doing honor to his memory. A free people in times ofpeace and quiet when pressed by no common danger-naturally divide intoparties. At such times the man who is of neither party is not, cannot be, of any consequence. Mr. Clay therefore was of a party. Taking a prominentpart, as he did, in all the great political questions of his country forthe last half century, the wisdom of his course on many is doubted anddenied by a large portion of his countrymen; and of such it is not nowproper to speak particularly. But there are many others, about his courseupon which there is little or no disagreement amongst intelligent andpatriotic Americans. Of these last are the War of 1812, the Missouriquestion, nullification, and the now recent compromise measures. In 1812Mr. Clay, though not unknown, was still a young man. Whether we shouldgo to war with Great Britain being the question of the day, a minorityopposed the declaration of war by Congress, while the majority, thoughapparently inclined to war, had for years wavered, and hesitated to actdecisively. Meanwhile British aggressions multiplied, and grew more daringand aggravated. By Mr. Clay more than any other man the struggle wasbrought to a decision in Congress. The question, being now fully beforeCongress, came up in a variety of ways in rapid succession, on most ofwhich occasions Mr. Clay spoke. Adding to all the logic of which thesubject was susceptible that noble inspiration which came to him as itcame to no other, he aroused and nerved and inspired his friends, andconfounded and bore down all opposition. Several of his speeches on theseoccasions were reported and are still extant, but the best of them allnever was. During its delivery the reporters forgot their vocation, dropped their pens, and sat enchanted from near the beginning to quite theclose. The speech now lives only in the memory of a few old men, and theenthusiasm with which they cherish their recollection of it is absolutelyastonishing. The precise language of this speech we shall never know; butwe do know we cannot help knowing--that with deep pathos it pleaded thecause of the injured sailor, that it invoked the genius of the Revolution, that it apostrophized the names of Otis, of Henry, and of Washington, thatit appealed to the interests, the pride, the honor, and the glory ofthe nation, that it shamed and taunted the timidity of friends, that itscorned and scouted and withered the temerity of domestic foes, thatit bearded and defied the British lion, and, rising and swelling andmaddening in its course, it sounded the onset, till the charge, the shock, the steady struggle, and the glorious victory all passed in vivid reviewbefore the entranced hearers. 

Important and exciting as was the war question of 1812, it never soalarmed the sagacious statesmen of the country for the safety of theRepublic as afterward did the Missouri question. This sprang fromthat unfortunate source of discord--negro slavery. When our FederalConstitution was adopted, we owned no territory beyond the limits orownership of the States, except the territory northwest of the River Ohioand east of the Mississippi. What has since been formed into the Statesof Maine, Kentucky and Tennessee, was, I believe, within the limits ofor owned by Massachusetts, Virginia, and North Carolina. As to theNorthwestern Territory, provision had been made even before the adoptionof the Constitution that slavery should never go there. On the admissionof States into the Union, carved from the territory we owned before theConstitution, no question, or at most no considerable question, aroseabout slavery--those which were within the limits of or owned by the oldStates following respectively the condition of the parent State, and thosewithin the Northwest Territory following the previously made provision. But in 1803 we purchased Louisiana of the French, and it included withmuch more what has since been formed into the State of Missouri. Withregard to it, nothing had been done to forestall the question of slavery. When, therefore, in 1819, Missouri, having formed a State constitutionwithout excluding slavery, and with slavery already actually existingwithin its limits, knocked at the door of the Union for admission, almostthe entire representation of the non-slaveholding States objected. Afearful and angry struggle instantly followed. This alarmed thinkingmen more than any previous question, because, unlike all the former, it divided the country by geographical lines. Other questions had theiropposing partisans in all localities of the country and in almost everyfamily, so that no division of the Union could follow such without aseparation of friends to quite as great an extent as that of opponents. Not so with the Missouri question. On this a geographical line could betraced, which in the main would separate opponents only. This was thedanger. Mr. Jefferson, then in retirement, wrote:

"I had for a long time ceased to read newspapers or to pay any attentionto public affairs, confident they were in good hands and content to be apassenger in our bark to the shore from which I am not distant. But thismomentous question, like a firebell in the night, awakened and filledme with terror. I considered it at once as the knell of the Union. It ishushed, indeed, for the moment. But this is a reprieve only, not a finalsentence. A geographical line coinciding with a marked principle, moraland political, once conceived and held up to the angry passions of men, will never be obliterated, and every irritation will mark it deeper anddeeper. I can say with conscious truth that there is not a man on earthwho would sacrifice more than I would to relieve us from this heavyreproach in any practicable way. 

"The cession of that kind of property--for it is so misnamed--is abagatelle which would not cost me a second thought if in that way ageneral emancipation and expatriation could be effected, and gradually andwith due sacrifices I think it might be. But as it is, we have the wolf bythe ears, and we can neither hold him nor safely let him go. Justice is inone scale, and self-preservation in the other. "

Mr. Clay was in Congress, and, perceiving the danger, at once engaged hiswhole energies to avert it. It began, as I have said, in 1819; and it didnot terminate till 1821. Missouri would not yield the point; and Congressthat is, a majority in Congress--by repeated votes showed a determinationnot to admit the State unless it should yield. After several failures, and great labor on the part of Mr. Clay to so present the question that amajority could consent to the admission, it was by a vote rejected, and, as all seemed to think, finally. A sullen gloom hung over the nation. Allfelt that the rejection of Missouri was equivalent to a dissolution of theUnion, because those States which already had what Missouri was rejectedfor refusing to relinquish would go with Missouri. All deprecated anddeplored this, but none saw how to avert it. For the judgment of membersto be convinced of the necessity of yielding was not the whole difficulty;each had a constituency to meet and to answer to. Mr. Clay, though worndown and exhausted, was appealed to by members to renew his efforts atcompromise. He did so, and by some judicious modifications of his plan, coupled with laborious efforts with individual members and his ownovermastering eloquence upon that floor, he finally secured the admissionof the State. Brightly and captivating as it had previously shown, it wasnow perceived that his great eloquence was a mere embellishment, or atmost but a helping hand to his inventive genius and his devotion to hiscountry in the day of her extreme peril. 

After the settlement of the Missouri question, although a portion of theAmerican people have differed with Mr. Clay, and a majority evenappear generally to have been opposed to him on questions of ordinaryadministration, he seems constantly to have been regarded by all as theman for the crisis. Accordingly, in the days of nullification, and morerecently in the reappearance of the slavery question connected withour territory newly acquired of Mexico, the task of devising a mode ofadjustment seems to have been cast upon Mr. Clay by common consent--andhis performance of the task in each case was little else than a literalfulfilment of the public expectation. 

Mr. Clay's efforts in behalf of the South Americans, and afterward inbehalf of the Greeks, in the times of their respective struggles for civilliberty, are among the finest on record, upon the noblest of all themes, and bear ample corroboration of what I have said was his ruling passion--alove of liberty and right, unselfishly, and for their own sakes. 

Having been led to allude to domestic slavery so frequently already, I amunwilling to close without referring more particularly to Mr. Clay'sviews and conduct in regard to it. He ever was on principle and in feelingopposed to slavery. The very earliest, and one of the latest, publicefforts of his life, separated by a period of more than fifty years, wereboth made in favor of gradual emancipation. He did not perceive that ona question of human right the negroes were to be excepted from the humanrace. And yet Mr. Clay was the owner of slaves. Cast into life whenslavery was already widely spread and deeply seated, he did not perceive, as I think no wise man has perceived, how it could be at once eradicatedwithout producing a greater evil even to the cause of human libertyitself. His feeling and his judgment, therefore, ever led him to opposeboth extremes of opinion on the subject. Those who would shiver intofragments the Union of these States, tear to tatters its now veneratedConstitution, and even burn the last copy of the Bible, rather thanslavery should continue a single hour, together with all their morehalting sympathizers, have received, and are receiving, their justexecration; and the name and opinions and influence of Mr. Clay are fullyand, as I trust, effectually and enduringly arrayed against them. But Iwould also, if I could, array his name, opinions, and influence againstthe opposite extreme--against a few but an increasing number of men who, for the sake of perpetuating slavery, are beginning to assail and toridicule the white man's charter of freedom, the declaration that "all menare created free and equal. " So far as I have learned, the first Americanof any note to do or attempt this was the late John C. Calhoun; and if Imistake not, it soon after found its way into some of the messages of theGovernor of South Carolina. We, however, look for and are not much shockedby political eccentricities and heresies in South Carolina. But onlylast year I saw with astonishment what purported to be a letter of a verydistinguished and influential clergyman of Virginia, copied, with apparentapprobation, into a St. Louis newspaper, containing the following to mevery unsatisfactory language:

"I am fully aware that there is a text in some Bibles that is not in mine. Professional abolitionists have made more use of it than of any passage inthe Bible. It came, however, as I trace it, from Saint Voltaire, and wasbaptized by Thomas Jefferson, and since almost universally regarded ascanonical authority`All men are born free and equal. '

"This is a genuine coin in the political currency of our generation. I amsorry to say that I have never seen two men of whom it is true. But I mustadmit I never saw the Siamese Twins, and therefore will not dogmaticallysay that no man ever saw a proof of this sage aphorism. "

This sounds strangely in republican America. The like was not heard in thefresher days of the republic. Let us contrast with it the language of thattruly national man whose life and death we now commemorate and lament: Iquote from a speech of Mr. Clay delivered before the American ColonizationSociety in 1827:

"We are reproached with doing mischief by the agitation of this question. The society goes into no household to disturb its domestic tranquillity. It addresses itself to no slaves to weaken their obligations of obedience. It seeks to affect no man's property. It neither has the power nor thewill to affect the property of any one contrary to his consent. Theexecution of its scheme would augment instead of diminishing the value ofproperty left behind. The society, composed of free men, conceals itselfonly with the free. Collateral consequences we are not responsible for. It is not this society which has produced the great moral revolution whichthe age exhibits. What would they who thus reproach us have done? If theywould repress all tendencies toward liberty and ultimate emancipation, they must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of this society. They must go back to the era of our liberty and independence, and muzzlethe cannon which thunders its annual joyous return. They must renew theslave trade, with all its train of atrocities. They must suppress theworkings of British philanthropy, seeking to meliorate the condition ofthe unfortunate West Indian slave. They must arrest the career of SouthAmerican deliverance from thraldom. They must blow out the moral lightsaround us and extinguish that greatest torch of all which America presentsto a benighted world--pointing the way to their rights, their liberties, and their happiness. And when they have achieved all those purposes theirwork will be yet incomplete. They must penetrate the human soul, anderadicate the light of reason and the love of liberty. Then, and not tillthen, when universal darkness and despair prevail, can you perpetuateslavery and repress all sympathy and all humane and benevolent effortsamong free men in behalf of the unhappy portion of our race doomed tobondage. "

The American Colonization Society was organized in 1816. Mr. Clay, thoughnot its projector, was one of its earliest members; and he died, as formany preceding years he had been, its president. It was one of themost cherished objects of his direct care and consideration, and theassociation of his name with it has probably been its very greatestcollateral support. He considered it no demerit in the society that ittended to relieve the slave-holders from the troublesome presence ofthe free negroes; but this was far from being its whole merit in hisestimation. In the same speech from which we have quoted he says:

"There is a moral fitness in the idea of returning to Africa her children, whose ancestors have been torn from her by the ruthless hand of fraud andviolence. Transplanted in a foreign land, they will carry back to theirnative soil the rich fruits of religion, civilization, law, and liberty. May it not be one of the great designs of the Ruler of the universe, whoseways are often inscrutable by short-sighted mortals, thus to transform anoriginal crime into a signal blessing to that most unfortunate portion ofthe globe?"

This suggestion of the possible ultimate redemption of the African raceand African continent was made twenty-five years ago. Every succeedingyear has added strength to the hope of its realization. May it indeed berealized. Pharaoh's country was cursed with plagues, and his hosts werelost in the Red Sea, for striving to retain a captive people who hadalready served them more than four hundred years. May like disasters neverbefall us! If, as the friends of colonization hope, the present and cominggenerations of our countrymen shall by any means succeed in freeing ourland from the dangerous presence of slavery, and at the same time inrestoring a captive people to their long-lost fatherland with brightprospects for the future, and this too so gradually that neither racesnor individuals shall have suffered by the change, it will indeed be aglorious consummation. And if to such a consummation the efforts of Mr. Clay shall have contributed, it will be what he most ardently wished, andnone of his labors will have been more valuable to his country and hiskind. 

But Henry Clay is dead. His long and eventful life is closed. Our countryis prosperous and powerful; but could it have been quite all it hasbeen, and is, and is to be, without Henry Clay? Such a man the times havedemanded, and such in the providence of God was given us. But he is gone. Let us strive to deserve, as far as mortals may, the continued care ofDivine Providence, trusting that in future national emergencies He willnot fail to provide us the instruments of safety and security. 

NOTE. We are indebted for a copy of this speech to the courtesy of MajorWm. H. Bailhache, formerly one of the proprietors of the Illinois StateJournal. 

CHALLENGED VOTERS

OPINION ON THE ILLINOIS ELECTION LAW. 

SPRINGFIELD, November 1, 1852

A leading article in the Daily Register of this morning has induced someof our friends to request our opinion on the election laws as applicableto challenged voters. We have examined the present constitution of theState, the election law of 1849, and the unrepealed parts of the electionlaw in the revised code of 1845; and we are of the opinion that any persontaking the oath prescribed in the act of 1849 is entitled to vote unlesscounter-proof be made satisfactory to a majority of the judges that suchoath is untrue; and that for the purpose of obtaining such counter-proof, the proposed voter may be asked questions in the way of cross-examination, and other independent testimony may be received. We base our opinion asto receiving counter-proof upon the unrepealed Section nineteen of theelection law in the revised code. 

 A. LINCOLN, B. S. EDWARDS S. T. LOGAN. S. H. TREAT

1853

LEGAL OFFICE WORK

TO JOSHUA R. STANFORD. 

PEKIN, MAY 12, 1853

Mr. JOSHUA R. STANFORD. 

SIR:--I hope the subject-matter of this letter will appear a sufficientapology to you for the liberty I, a total stranger, take in addressingyou. The persons here holding two lots under a conveyance made by you, asthe attorney of Daniel M. Baily, now nearly twenty-two years ago, are ingreat danger of losing the lots, and very much, perhaps all, is to dependon the testimony you give as to whether you did or did not account toBaily for the proceeds received by you on this sale of the lots. I, therefore, as one of the counsel, beg of you to fully refresh yourrecollection by any means in your power before the time you may be calledon to testify. If persons should come about you, and show a disposition topump you on the subject, it may be no more than prudent to remember thatit may be possible they design to misrepresent you and embarrass the realtestimony you may ultimately give. It may be six months or a year beforeyou are called on to testify. 

Respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

1854

TO O. L. DAVIS. 

SPRINGFIELD, June 22, 1854. 

O. L. DAVIS, ESQ. 

DEAR SIR:--You, no doubt, remember the enclosed memorandum being handed mein your office. I have just made the desired search, and find that no suchdeed has ever been here. Campbell, the auditor, says that if it were here, it would be in his office, and that he has hunted for it a dozen times, and could never find it. He says that one time and another, he has heardmuch about the matter, that it was not a deed for Right of Way, but adeed, outright, for Depot-ground--at least, a sale for Depot-ground, andthere may never have been a deed. He says, if there is a deed, it is mostprobable General Alexander, of Paris, has it. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

NEBRASKA MEASURE

TO J. M. PALMER

[Confidential]

SPRINGFIELD, Sept. 7, 1854. 

HON. J. M. PALMER. 

DEAR SIR:--You know how anxious I am that this Nebraska measure shall berebuked and condemned everywhere. Of course I hope something from yourposition; yet I do not expect you to do anything which may be wrong inyour own judgment; nor would I have you do anything personally injuriousto yourself. You are, and always have been, honestly and sincerely aDemocrat; and I know how painful it must be to an honest, sincere man tobe urged by his party to the support of a measure which in his consciencehe believes to be wrong. You have had a severe struggle with yourself, andyou have determined not to swallow the wrong. Is it not just to yourselfthat you should, in a few public speeches, state your reasons, and thusjustify yourself? I wish you would; and yet I say, don't do it, if youthink it will injure you. You may have given your word to vote for MajorHarris; and if so, of course you will stick to it. But allow me to suggestthat you should avoid speaking of this; for it probably would induce someof your friends in like manner to cast their votes. You understand. Andnow let me beg your pardon for obtruding this letter upon you, to whomI have ever been opposed in politics. Had your party omitted to makeNebraska a test of party fidelity, you probably would have been theDemocratic candidate for Congress in the district. You deserved it, andI believe it would have been given you. In that case I should have beenquite happy that Nebraska was to be rebuked at all events. I still shouldhave voted for the Whig candidate; but I should have made no speeches, written no letters; and you would have been elected by at least a thousandmajority. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO A. B. MOREAU. 

SPRINGFIELD, September 7, 1854

A. B. MOREAU, ESQ. 

SIR:--Stranger though I am, personally, being a brother in the faith, Iventure to write you. Yates can not come to your court next week. Heis obliged to be at Pike court where he has a case, with a fee of fivehundred dollars, two hundred dollars already paid. To neglect it would beunjust to himself, and dishonest to his client. Harris will be with you, head up and tail up, for Nebraska. You must have some one to make ananti-Nebraska speech. Palmer is the best, if you can get him, I think. Jo. Gillespie, if you can not get Palmer, and somebody anyhow, if you canget neither. But press Palmer hard. It is in his Senatorial district, Ibelieve. 

Yours etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

REPLY TO SENATOR DOUGLAS--PEORIA SPEECH

SPEECH AT PEORIA, ILLINOIS, IN REPLY TO SENATOR DOUGLAS, OCTOBER 16, 1854. 

I do not rise to speak now, if I can stipulate with the audience to meetme here at half-past six or at seven o'clock. It is now several minutespast five, and Judge Douglas has spoken over three hours. If you hear meat all, I wish you to hear me through. It will take me as long as it hastaken him. That will carry us beyond eight o'clock at night. Now, everyone of you who can remain that long can just as well get his supper, meet me at seven, and remain an hour or two later. The Judge has alreadyinformed you that he is to have an hour to reply to me. I doubt not butyou have been a little surprised to learn that I have consented to giveone of his high reputation and known ability this advantage of me. Indeed, my consenting to it, though reluctant, was not wholly unselfish, for Isuspected, if it were understood that the Judge was entirely done, youDemocrats would leave and not hear me; but by giving him the close, I feltconfident you would stay for the fun of hearing him skin me. 

The audience signified their assent to the arrangement, and adjourned toseven o'clock P. M. , at which time they reassembled, and Mr. Lincoln spokesubstantially as follows:

The repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and the propriety of itsrestoration, constitute the subject of what I am about to say. As I desireto present my own connected view of this subject, my remarks will notbe specifically an answer to Judge Douglas; yet, as I proceed, the mainpoints he has presented will arise, and will receive such respectfulattention as I may be able to give them. I wish further to say that I donot propose to question the patriotism or to assail the motives of any manor class of men, but rather to confine myself strictly to the nakedmerits of the question. I also wish to be no less than national in allthe positions I may take, and whenever I take ground which others havethought, or may think, narrow, sectional, and dangerous to the Union, Ihope to give a reason which will appear sufficient, at least to some, whyI think differently. 

And as this subject is no other than part and parcel of the larger generalquestion of domestic slavery, I wish to make and to keep the distinctionbetween the existing institution and the extension of it so broad andso clear that no honest man can misunderstand me, and no dishonest onesuccessfully misrepresent me. 

In order to a clear understanding of what the Missouri Compromise is, ashort history of the preceding kindred subjects will perhaps be proper. 

When we established our independence, we did not own or claim thecountry to which this compromise applies. Indeed, strictly speaking, theConfederacy then owned no country at all; the States respectively ownedthe country within their limits, and some of them owned territorybeyond their strict State limits. Virginia thus owned the NorthwesternTerritory--the country out of which the principal part of Ohio, allIndiana, all Illinois, all Michigan, and all Wisconsin have since beenformed. She also owned (perhaps within her then limits) what has sincebeen formed into the State of Kentucky. North Carolina thus owned whatis now the State of Tennessee; and South Carolina and Georgia owned, in separate parts, what are now Mississippi and Alabama. Connecticut, Ithink, owned the little remaining part of Ohio, being the same where theynow send Giddings to Congress and beat all creation in making cheese. 

These territories, together with the States themselves, constitute all thecountry over which the Confederacy then claimed any sort of jurisdiction. We were then living under the Articles of Confederation, which weresuperseded by the Constitution several years afterward. The question ofceding the territories to the General Government was set on foot. Mr. Jefferson, --the author of the Declaration of Independence, and otherwisea chief actor in the Revolution; then a delegate in Congress; afterward, twice President; who was, is, and perhaps will continue to be, themost distinguished politician of our history; a Virginian by birth andcontinued residence, and withal a slaveholder, --conceived the idea oftaking that occasion to prevent slavery ever going into the NorthwesternTerritory. He prevailed on the Virginia Legislature to adopt his views, and to cede the Territory, making the prohibition of slavery thereina condition of the deed. (Jefferson got only an understanding, not acondition of the deed to this wish. ) Congress accepted the cession withthe condition; and the first ordinance (which the acts of Congress werethen called) for the government of the Territory provided that slaveryshould never be permitted therein. This is the famed "Ordinance of '87, "so often spoken of. 

Thenceforward for sixty-one years, and until, in 1848, the last scrap ofthis Territory came into the Union as the State of Wisconsin, all partiesacted in quiet obedience to this ordinance. It is now what Jeffersonforesaw and intended--the happy home of teeming millions of free, white, prosperous people, and no slave among them. 

Thus, with the author of the Declaration of Independence, the policy ofprohibiting slavery in new territory originated. Thus, away back to theConstitution, in the pure, fresh, free breath of the Revolution, the Stateof Virginia and the national Congress put that policy into practice. Thus, through more than sixty of the best years of the republic, did that policysteadily work to its great and beneficent end. And thus, in those fiveStates, and in five millions of free, enterprising people, we have beforeus the rich fruits of this policy. 

But now new light breaks upon us. Now Congress declares this ought neverto have been, and the like of it must never be again. The sacred right ofself-government is grossly violated by it. We even find some men who drewtheir first breath--and every other breath of their lives--under this veryrestriction, now live in dread of absolute suffocation if they shouldbe restricted in the "sacred right" of taking slaves to Nebraska. Thatperfect liberty they sigh for--the liberty of making slaves of otherpeople, Jefferson never thought of, their own fathers never thought of, they never thought of themselves, a year ago. How fortunate for them theydid not sooner become sensible of their great misery! Oh, how difficult itis to treat with respect such assaults upon all we have ever really heldsacred!

But to return to history. In 1803 we purchased what was then calledLouisiana, of France. It included the present States of Louisiana, Arkansas, Missouri, and Iowa; also the Territory of Minnesota, and thepresent bone of contention, Kansas and Nebraska. Slavery already existedamong the French at New Orleans, and to some extent at St. Louis. In 1812Louisiana came into the Union as a slave State, without controversy. In1818 or '19, Missouri showed signs of a wish to come in with slavery. Thiswas resisted by Northern members of Congress; and thus began the firstgreat slavery agitation in the nation. This controversy lasted severalmonths, and became very angry and exciting--the House of Representativesvoting steadily for the prohibition of slavery in Missouri, and the Senatevoting as steadily against it. Threats of the breaking up of the Unionwere freely made, and the ablest public men of the day became seriouslyalarmed. At length a compromise was made, in which, as in all compromises, both sides yielded something. It was a law, passed on the 6th of March, 1820, providing that Missouri might come into the Union with slavery, butthat in all the remaining part of the territory purchased of Francewhich lies north of thirty-six degrees and thirty minutes north latitude, slavery should never be permitted. This provision of law is the "MissouriCompromise. " In excluding slavery north of the line, the same languageis employed as in the Ordinance of 1787. It directly applied to Iowa, Minnesota, and to the present bone of contention, Kansas and Nebraska. Whether there should or should not be slavery south of that line, nothingwas said in the law. But Arkansas constituted the principal remainingpart south of the line; and it has since been admitted as a slave State, without serious controversy. More recently, Iowa, north of the line, camein as a free State without controversy. Still later, Minnesota, northof the line, had a territorial organization without controversy. Texas, principally south of the line, and west of Arkansas, though originallywithin the purchase from France, had, in 1819, been traded off to Spainin our treaty for the acquisition of Florida. It had thus become a partof Mexico. Mexico revolutionized and became independent of Spain. Americancitizens began settling rapidly with their slaves in the southern partof Texas. Soon they revolutionized against Mexico, and established anindependent government of their own, adopting a constitution with slavery, strongly resembling the constitutions of our slave States. By stillanother rapid move, Texas, claiming a boundary much farther west than whenwe parted with her in 1819, was brought back to the United States, andadmitted into the Union as a slave State. Then there was little or nosettlement in the northern part of Texas, a considerable portion of whichlay north of the Missouri line; and in the resolutions admitting her intothe Union, the Missouri restriction was expressly extended westward acrossher territory. This was in 1845, only nine years ago. 

Thus originated the Missouri Compromise; and thus has it been respecteddown to 1845. And even four years later, in 1849, our distinguishedSenator, in a public address, held the following language in relation toit:

"The Missouri Compromise has been in practical operation for about aquarter of a century, and has received the sanction and approbation of menof all parties in every section of the Union. It has allayed all sectionaljealousies and irritations growing out of this vexed question, andharmonized and tranquillized the whole country. It has given to HenryClay, as its prominent champion, the proud sobriquet of the 'GreatPacificator, ' and by that title, and for that service, his politicalfriends had repeatedly appealed to the people to rally under his standardas a Presidential candidate, as the man who had exhibited the patriotismand power to suppress an unholy and treasonable agitation, and preservethe Union. He was not aware that any man or any party, from any sectionof the Union, had ever urged as an objection to Mr. Clay that he was thegreat champion of the Missouri Compromise. On the contrary, the effort wasmade by the opponents of Mr. Clay to prove that he was not entitled to theexclusive merit of that great patriotic measure, and that the honor wasequally due to others, as well as to him, for securing its adoption;that it had its origin in the hearts of all patriotic men, who desiredto preserve and perpetuate the blessings of our glorious Union--an originakin to that of the Constitution of the United States, conceived in thesame spirit of fraternal affection, and calculated to remove forever theonly danger which seemed to threaten, at some distant day, to sever thesocial bond of union. All the evidences of public opinion at that dayseemed to indicate that this compromise had been canonized in the heartsof the American people, as a sacred thing which no ruthless hand wouldever be reckless enough to disturb. "

I do not read this extract to involve Judge Douglas in an inconsistency. If he afterward thought he had been wrong, it was right for him to change. I bring this forward merely to show the high estimate placed on theMissouri Compromise by all parties up to so late as the year 1849. 

But going back a little in point of time. Our war with Mexico broke outin 1846. When Congress was about adjourning that session, President Polkasked them to place two millions of dollars under his control, to be usedby him in the recess, if found practicable and expedient, in negotiatinga treaty of peace with Mexico, and acquiring some part of her territory. Abill was duly gotten up for the purpose, and was progressing swimmingly inthe House of Representatives, when a member by the name of David Wilmot, aDemocrat from Pennsylvania, moved as an amendment, "Provided, that in anyterritory thus acquired there never shall be slavery. "

This is the origin of the far-famed Wilmot Proviso. It created a greatflutter; but it stuck like wax, was voted into the bill, and the billpassed with it through the House. The Senate, however, adjourned withoutfinal action on it, and so both appropriation and proviso were lost forthe time. The war continued, and at the next session the President renewedhis request for the appropriation, enlarging the amount, I think, tothree millions. Again came the proviso, and defeated the measure. Congressadjourned again, and the war went on. In December, 1847, the new Congressassembled. I was in the lower House that term. The Wilmot Proviso, or theprinciple of it, was constantly coming up in some shape or other, and Ithink I may venture to say I voted for it at least forty times duringthe short time I was there. The Senate, however, held it in check, and itnever became a law. In the spring of 1848 a treaty of peace was madewith Mexico, by which we obtained that portion of her country which nowconstitutes the Territories of New Mexico and Utah and the present Stateof California. By this treaty the Wilmot Proviso was defeated, in so faras it was intended to be a condition of the acquisition of territory. Its friends, however, were still determined to find some way to restrainslavery from getting into the new country. This new acquisition laydirectly west of our old purchase from France, and extended west to thePacific Ocean, and was so situated that if the Missouri line should beextended straight west, the new country would be divided by such extendedline, leaving some north and some south of it. On Judge Douglas's motion, a bill, or provision of a bill, passed the Senate to so extend theMissouri line. The proviso men in the House, including myself, voted itdown, because, by implication, it gave up the southern part to slavery, while we were bent on having it all free. 

In the fall of 1848 the gold-mines were discovered in California. Thisattracted people to it with unprecedented rapidity, so that on, or soonafter, the meeting of the new Congress in December, 1849, she already hada population of nearly a hundred thousand, had called a convention, formeda State constitution excluding slavery, and was knocking for admissioninto the Union. The proviso men, of course, were for letting her in, but the Senate, always true to the other side, would not consent to heradmission, and there California stood, kept out of the Union becauseshe would not let slavery into her borders. Under all the circumstances, perhaps, this was not wrong. There were other points of dispute connectedwith the general question of Slavery, which equally needed adjustment. TheSouth clamored for a more efficient fugitive slave law. The North clamoredfor the abolition of a peculiar species of slave trade in the Districtof Columbia, in connection with which, in view from the windows of theCapitol, a sort of negro livery-stable, where droves of negroes werecollected, temporarily kept, and finally taken to Southern markets, precisely like droves of horses, had been openly maintained for fiftyyears. Utah and New Mexico needed territorial governments; and whetherslavery should or should not be prohibited within them was anotherquestion. The indefinite western boundary of Texas was to be settled. Shewas a slave State, and consequently the farther west the slavery men couldpush her boundary, the more slave country they secured; and the farthereast the slavery opponents could thrust the boundary back, the less slaveground was secured. Thus this was just as clearly a slavery question asany of the others. 

These points all needed adjustment, and they were held up, perhaps wisely, to make them help adjust one another. The Union now, as in 1820, wasthought to be in danger, and devotion to the Union rightfully inclinedmen to yield somewhat in points where nothing else could have so inclinedthem. A compromise was finally effected. The South got their new fugitiveslave law, and the North got California, (by far the best part of ouracquisition from Mexico) as a free State. The South got a provision thatNew Mexico and Utah, when admitted as States, may come in with or withoutslavery as they may then choose; and the North got the slave tradeabolished in the District of Columbia. . The North got the western boundaryof Texas thrown farther back eastward than the South desired; but, inturn, they gave Texas ten millions of dollars with which to pay her olddebts. This is the Compromise of 1850. 

Preceding the Presidential election of 1852, each of the great politicalparties, Democrats and Whigs, met in convention and adopted resolutionsindorsing the Compromise of '50, as a "finality, " a final settlement, sofar as these parties could make it so, of all slavery agitation. Previousto this, in 1851, the Illinois Legislature had indorsed it. 

During this long period of time, Nebraska (the Nebraska Territory, notthe State of as we know it now) had remained substantially an uninhabitedcountry, but now emigration to and settlement within it began to takeplace. It is about one third as large as the present United States, and its importance, so long overlooked, begins to come into view. Therestriction of slavery by the Missouri Compromise directly applies toit--in fact was first made, and has since been maintained expressly forit. In 1853, a bill to give it a territorial government passed the Houseof Representatives, and, in the hands of Judge Douglas, failed of passingonly for want of time. This bill contained no repeal of the MissouriCompromise. Indeed, when it was assailed because it did not contain suchrepeal, Judge Douglas defended it in its existing form. On January 4, 1854, Judge Douglas introduces a new bill to give Nebraska territorialgovernment. He accompanies this bill with a report, in which last heexpressly recommends that the Missouri Compromise shall neither beaffirmed nor repealed. Before long the bill is so modified as to make twoterritories instead of one, calling the southern one Kansas. 

Also, about a month after the introduction of the bill, on the Judge's ownmotion it is so amended as to declare the Missouri Compromise inoperativeand void; and, substantially, that the people who go and settle there mayestablish slavery, or exclude it, as they may see fit. In this shape thebill passed both branches of Congress and became a law. 

This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The foregoing historymay not be precisely accurate in every particular, but I am sure it issufficiently so for all the use I shall attempt to make of it, and init we have before us the chief material enabling us to judge correctlywhether the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is right or wrong. I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong--wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, and wrong in its prospectiveprinciple, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide worldwhere men can be found inclined to take it. 

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal, for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of themonstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives ourrepublican example of its just influence in the world; enables the enemiesof free institutions with plausibility to taunt us as hypocrites; causesthe real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity; and especially becauseit forces so many good men among ourselves into an open war with the veryfundamental principles of civil liberty, criticizing the Declaration ofIndependence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action butself-interest. 

Before proceeding let me say that I think I have no prejudice against theSouthern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. Ifslavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If itdid now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believeof the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on bothsides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances, and others whowould gladly introduce slavery anew if it were out of existence. We knowthat some Southern men do free their slaves, go North and become tip-topabolitionists, while some Northern ones go South and become most cruelslave masters. 

When Southern people tell us that they are no more responsible for theorigin of slavery than we are, I acknowledge the fact. When it is saidthat the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid ofit in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. Isurely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to domyself. If all earthly power were given me, I should not know what to doas to the existing institution. My first impulse would be to free all theslaves, and send them to Liberia, to their own native land. But a moment'sreflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I thinkthere is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution isimpossible. If they were all landed there in a day, they would all perishin the next ten days; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus moneyenough to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free themall, and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that thisbetters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at anyrate, yet the point is not clear enough for me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals?My own feelings will not admit of this, and if mine would, we well knowthat those of the great mass of whites will not. Whether this feelingaccords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, ifindeed it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or illfounded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot then make them equals. Itdoes seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted, butfor their tardiness in this I will not undertake to judge our brethren ofthe South. 

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledgethem--not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them anylegislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives which should not inits stringency be more likely to carry a free man into slavery than ourordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. 

But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permittingslavery to go into our own free territory than it would for reviving theAfrican slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slavesfrom Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of theminto Nebraska, can hardy be distinguished on any moral principle, and therepeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of thelatter. 

The arguments by which the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is sought tobe justified are these:

First. That the Nebraska country needed a territorial government. 

Second. That in various ways the public had repudiated that compromise anddemanded the repeal, and therefore should not now complain of it. 

 And, lastly, That the repeal establishes a principle which isintrinsically right. 

I will attempt an answer to each of them in its turn. 

First, then: If that country was in need of a territorial organization, could it not have had it as well without as with a repeal? Iowa andMinnesota, to both of which the Missouri restriction applied, had, withoutits repeal, each in succession, territorial organizations. And even theyear before, a bill for Nebraska itself was within an ace of passingwithout the repealing clause, and this in the hands of the same men whoare now the champions of repeal. Why no necessity then for repeal? Butstill later, when this very bill was first brought in, it containedno repeal. But, say they, because the people had demanded, or rathercommanded, the repeal, the repeal was to accompany the organizationwhenever that should occur. 

Now, I deny that the public ever demanded any such thing--ever repudiatedthe Missouri Compromise, ever commanded its repeal. I deny it, and callfor the proof. It is not contended, I believe, that any such command hasever been given in express terms. It is only said that it was done inprinciple. The support of the Wilmot Proviso is the first fact mentionedto prove that the Missouri restriction was repudiated in principle, andthe second is the refusal to extend the Missouri line over the countryacquired from Mexico. These are near enough alike to be treated together. The one was to exclude the chances of slavery from the whole newacquisition by the lump, and the other was to reject a division of it, bywhich one half was to be given up to those chances. Now, whether this wasa repudiation of the Missouri line in principle depends upon whether theMissouri law contained any principle requiring the line to be extendedover the country acquired from Mexico. I contend it did not. I insistthat it contained no general principle, but that it was, in every sense, specific. That its terms limit it to the country purchased from France isundenied and undeniable. It could have no principle beyond the intentionof those who made it. They did not intend to extend the line to countrywhich they did not own. If they intended to extend it in the event ofacquiring additional territory, why did they not say so? It was just aseasy to say that "in all the country west of the Mississippi which we nowown, or may hereafter acquire, there shall never be slavery, " as to saywhat they did say; and they would have said it if they had meant it. Anintention to extend the law is not only not mentioned in the law, but isnot mentioned in any contemporaneous history. Both the law itself, and thehistory of the times, are a blank as to any principle of extension; andby neither the known rules of construing statutes and contracts, nor bycommon sense, can any such principle be inferred. 

Another fact showing the specific character of the Missouri law--showingthat it intended no more than it expressed, showing that the line was notintended as a universal dividing line between Free and Slave territory, present and prospective, north of which slavery could never go--is thefact that by that very law Missouri came in as a slave State, north of theline. If that law contained any prospective principle, the whole law mustbe looked to in order to ascertain what the principle was. And by thisrule the South could fairly contend that, inasmuch as they got one slaveState north of the line at the inception of the law, they have the rightto have another given them north of it occasionally, now and then, in theindefinite westward extension of the line. This demonstrates the absurdityof attempting to deduce a prospective principle from the MissouriCompromise line. 

When we voted for the Wilmot Proviso we were voting to keep slavery outof the whole Mexican acquisition, and little did we think we were therebyvoting to let it into Nebraska lying several hundred miles distant. Whenwe voted against extending the Missouri line, little did we think we werevoting to destroy the old line, then of near thirty years' standing. 

To argue that we thus repudiated the Missouri Compromise is no less absurdthan it would be to argue that because we have so far forborne to acquireCuba, we have thereby, in principle, repudiated our former acquisitionsand determined to throw them out of the Union. No less absurd than itwould be to say that because I may have refused to build an addition tomy house, I thereby have decided to destroy the existing house! And ifI catch you setting fire to my house, you will turn upon me and say Iinstructed you to do it!

The most conclusive argument, however, that while for the Wilmot Proviso, and while voting against the extension of the Missouri line, we neverthought of disturbing the original Missouri Compromise, is found in thefact that there was then, and still is, an unorganized tract of finecountry, nearly as large as the State of Missouri, lying immediately westof Arkansas and south of the Missouri Compromise line, and that we neverattempted to prohibit slavery as to it. I wish particular attention tothis. It adjoins the original Missouri Compromise line by its northernboundary, and consequently is part of the country into which byimplication slavery was permitted to go by that compromise. There it haslain open ever s, and there it still lies, and yet no effort has been madeat any time to wrest it from the South. In all our struggles to prohibitslavery within our Mexican acquisitions, we never so much as lifted afinger to prohibit it as to this tract. Is not this entirely conclusivethat at all times we have held the Missouri Compromise as a sacred thing, even when against ourselves as well as when for us?

Senator Douglas sometimes says the Missouri line itself was in principleonly an extension of the line of the Ordinance of '87--that is to say, anextension of the Ohio River. I think this is weak enough on its face. Iwill remark, however, that, as a glance at the map will show, the Missouriline is a long way farther south than the Ohio, and that if our Senator inproposing his extension had stuck to the principle of jogging southward, perhaps it might not have been voted down so readily. 

But next it is said that the compromises of '50, and the ratification ofthem by both political parties in '52, established a new principle whichrequired the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. This again I deny. I denyit, and demand the proof. I have already stated fully what the compromisesof '50 are. That particular part of those measures from which the virtualrepeal of the Missouri Compromise is sought to be inferred (for it isadmitted they contain nothing about it in express terms) is the provisionin the Utah and New Mexico laws which permits them when they seekadmission into the Union as States to come in with or without slavery, asthey shall then see fit. Now I insist this provision was made for Utahand New Mexico, and for no other place whatever. It had no more directreference to Nebraska than it had to the territories of the moon. But, say they, it had reference to Nebraska in principle. Let us see. TheNorth consented to this provision, not because they considered it right initself, but because they were compensated--paid for it. 

They at the same time got California into the Union as a free State. Thiswas far the best part of all they had struggled for by the Wilmot Proviso. They also got the area of slavery somewhat narrowed in the settlementof the boundary of Texas. Also they got the slave trade abolished in theDistrict of Columbia. 

For all these desirable objects the North could afford to yield something;and they did yield to the South the Utah and New Mexico provision. I donot mean that the whole North, or even a majority, yielded, when the lawpassed; but enough yielded--when added to the vote of the South, tocarry the measure. Nor can it be pretended that the principle of thisarrangement requires us to permit the same provision to be applied toNebraska, without any equivalent at all. Give us another free State; pressthe boundary of Texas still farther back; give us another step toward thedestruction of slavery in the District, and you present us a similar case. But ask us not to repeat, for nothing, what you paid for in the firstinstance. If you wish the thing again, pay again. That is the principle ofthe compromises of '50, if, indeed, they had any principles beyond theirspecific terms--it was the system of equivalents. 

Again, if Congress, at that time, intended that all future Territoriesshould, when admitted as States, come in with or without slavery at theirown option, why did it not say so? With such a universal provision, allknow the bills could not have passed. Did they, then--could they-establisha principle contrary to their own intention? Still further, if theyintended to establish the principle that, whenever Congress had control, it should be left to the people to do as they thought fit with slavery, why did they not authorize the people of the District of Columbia, attheir option, to abolish slavery within their limits?

I personally know that this has not been left undone because it wasunthought of. It was frequently spoken of by members of Congress, and bycitizens of Washington, six years ago; and I heard no one express a doubtthat a system of gradual emancipation, with compensation to owners, would meet the approbation of a large majority of the white people of theDistrict. But without the action of Congress they could say nothing; andCongress said "No. " In the measures of 1850, Congress had the subject ofslavery in the District expressly on hand. If they were then establishingthe principle of allowing the people to do as they please with slavery, why did they not apply the principle to that people?

Again it is claimed that by the resolutions of the Illinois Legislature, passed in 1851, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was demanded. ThisI deny also. Whatever may be worked out by a criticism of the language ofthose resolutions, the people have never understood them as being anymore than an indorsement of the compromises of 1850, and a release of oursenators from voting for the Wilmot Proviso. The whole people are livingwitnesses that this only was their view. Finally, it is asked, "If wedid not mean to apply the Utah and New Mexico provision to all futureterritories, what did we mean when we, in 1852, indorsed the compromisesof 1850?"

For myself I can answer this question most easily. I meant not to ask arepeal or modification of the Fugitive Slave law. I meant not to askfor the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. I meant not toresist the admission of Utah and New Mexico, even should they ask to comein as slave States. I meant nothing about additional Territories, because, as I understood, we then had no Territory whose character as to slaverywas not already settled. As to Nebraska, I regarded its character as beingfixed by the Missouri Compromise for thirty years--as unalterably fixedas that of my own home in Illinois. As to new acquisitions, I said, "Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. " When we make newacquisitions, we will, as heretofore, try to manage them somehow. That ismy answer; that is what I meant and said; and I appeal to the people tosay each for himself whether that is not also the universal meaning of thefree States. 

And now, in turn, let me ask a few questions. If, by any or all thesematters, the repeal of the Missouri Compromise was commanded, why was notthe command sooner obeyed? Why was the repeal omitted in the NebraskaBill of 1853? Why was it omitted in the original bill of 1854? Why in theaccompanying report was such a repeal characterized as a departure fromthe course pursued in 1850 and its continued omission recommended?

I am aware Judge Douglas now argues that the subsequent express repeal isno substantial alteration of the bill. This argument seems wonderful tome. It is as if one should argue that white and black are not different. He admits, however, that there is a literal change in the bill, and thathe made the change in deference to other senators who would not supportthe bill without. This proves that those other senators thought thechange a substantial one, and that the Judge thought their opinions worthdeferring to. His own opinions, therefore, seem not to rest on a very firmbasis, even in his own mind; and I suppose the world believes, and willcontinue to believe, that precisely on the substance of that change thiswhole agitation has arisen. 

I conclude, then, that the public never demanded the repeal of theMissouri Compromise. 

I now come to consider whether the appeal with its avowed principles, isintrinsically right. I insist that it is not. Take the particular case. Acontroversy had arisen between the advocates and opponents of slavery, in relation to its establishment within the country we had purchased ofFrance. The southern, and then best, part of the purchase was already inas a slave State. The controversy was settled by also letting Missouriin as a slave State; but with the agreement that within all the remainingpart of the purchase, north of a certain line, there should never beslavery. As to what was to be done with the remaining part, south of theline, nothing was said; but perhaps the fair implication was, it shouldcome in with slavery if it should so choose. The southern part, except aportion heretofore mentioned, afterward did come in with slavery, as theState of Arkansas. All these many years, since 1820, the northern parthad remained a wilderness. At length settlements began in it also. In duecourse Iowa came in as a free State, and Minnesota was given a territorialgovernment, without removing the slavery restriction. Finally, thesole remaining part north of the line--Kansas and Nebraska--was to beorganized; and it is proposed, and carried, to blot out the old dividingline of thirty-four years' standing, and to open the whole of that countryto the introduction of slavery. Now this, to my mind, is manifestlyunjust. After an angry and dangerous controversy, the parties made friendsby dividing the bone of contention. The one party first appropriates herown share, beyond all power to be disturbed in the possession of it, andthen seizes the share of the other party. It is as if two starving men haddivided their only loaf, the one had hastily swallowed his half, and thengrabbed the other's half just as he was putting it to his mouth. 

Let me here drop the main argument, to notice what I consider ratheran inferior matter. It is argued that slavery will not go to Kansas andNebraska, in any event. This is a palliation, a lullaby. I have some hopethat it will not; but let us not be too confident. As to climate, a glanceat the map shows that there are five slave States--Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri, and also the District of Columbia, allnorth of the Missouri Compromise line. The census returns of 1850 showthat within these there are eight hundred and sixty-seven thousand twohundred and seventy-six slaves, being more than one fourth of all theslaves in the nation. 

It is not climate, then, that will keep slavery out of these Territories. Is there anything in the peculiar nature of the country? Missouri adjoinsthese Territories by her entire western boundary, and slavery is alreadywithin every one of her western counties. I have even heard it said thatthere are more slaves in proportion to whites in the northwestern countyof Missouri than within any other county in the State. Slavery pressedentirely up to the old western boundary of the State, and when ratherrecently a part of that boundary at the northwest was moved out a littlefarther west, slavery followed on quite up to the new line. Now, when therestriction is removed, what is to prevent it from going still farther?Climate will not, no peculiarity of the country will, nothing in naturewill. Will the disposition of the people prevent it? Those nearest thescene are all in favor of the extension. The Yankees who are opposed to itmay be most flumerous; but, in military phrase, the battlefield is too farfrom their base of operations. 

But it is said there now is no law in Nebraska on the subject of slavery, and that, in such case, taking a slave there operates his freedom. That isgood book-law, but it is not the rule of actual practice. Wherever slaveryis it has been first introduced without law. The oldest laws we findconcerning it are not laws introducing it, but regulating it as an alreadyexisting thing. A white man takes his slave to Nebraska now. Who willinform the negro that he is free? Who will take him before court to testthe question of his freedom? In ignorance of his legal emancipation he iskept chopping, splitting, and plowing. Others are brought, and move on inthe same track. At last, if ever the time for voting comes on the questionof slavery the institution already, in fact, exists in the country, andcannot well be removed. The fact of its presence, and the difficulty ofits removal, will carry the vote in its favor. Keep it out until a vote istaken, and a vote in favor of it cannot be got in any population of fortythousand on earth, who have been drawn together by the ordinary motives ofemigration and settlement. To get slaves into the Territory simultaneouslywith the whites in the incipient stages of settlement is the precise stakeplayed for and won in this Nebraska measure. 

The question is asked us: "If slaves will go in notwithstanding thegeneral principle of law liberates them, why would they not equally go inagainst positive statute law--go in, even if the Missouri restriction weremaintained!" I answer, because it takes a much bolder man to venturein with his property in the latter case than in the former; because thepositive Congressional enactment is known to and respected by all, ornearly all, whereas the negative principle that no law is free law is notmuch known except among lawyers. We have some experience of this practicaldifference. In spite of the Ordinance of '87, a few negroes were broughtinto Illinois, and held in a state of quasi-slavery, not enough, however, to carry a vote of the people in favor of the institution when they cameto form a constitution. But into the adjoining Missouri country, wherethere was no Ordinance of '87, --was no restriction, --they were carriedten times, nay, a hundred times, as fast, and actually made a slave State. This is fact-naked fact. 

Another lullaby argument is that taking slaves to new countries does notincrease their number, does not make any one slave who would otherwisebe free. There is some truth in this, and I am glad of it; but it is notwholly true. The African slave trade is not yet effectually suppressed;and, if we make a reasonable deduction for the white people among us whoare foreigners and the descendants of foreigners arriving here since 1808, we shall find the increase of the black population outrunning that of thewhite to an extent unaccountable, except by supposing that some of them, too, have been coming from Africa. If this be so, the opening of newcountries to the institution increases the demand for and augments theprice of slaves, and so does, in fact, make slaves of freemen, by causingthem to be brought from Africa and sold into bondage. 

But however this may be, we know the opening of new countries to slaverytends to the perpetuation of the institution, and so does keep men inslavery who would otherwise be free. This result we do not feel likefavoring, and we are under no legal obligation to suppress our feelings inthis respect. 

Equal justice to the South, it is said, requires us to consent to theextension of slavery to new countries. That is to say, inasmuch as you donot object to my taking my hog to Nebraska, therefore I must not objectto your taking your slave. Now, I admit that this is perfectly logicalif there is no difference between hogs and negroes. But while you thusrequire me to deny the humanity of the negro, I wish to ask whether you ofthe South, yourselves, have ever been willing to do as much? It is kindlyprovided that of all those who come into the world only a small percentageare natural tyrants. That percentage is no larger in the slave Statesthan in the free. The great majority South, as well as North, have humansympathies, of which they can no more divest themselves than they can oftheir sensibility to physical pain. These sympathies in the bosoms ofthe Southern people manifest, in many ways, their sense of the wrong ofslavery, and their consciousness that, after all, there is humanity in thenegro. If they deny this, let me address them a few plain questions. In1820 you (the South) joined the North, almost unanimously, in declaringthe African slave trade piracy, and in annexing to it the punishment ofdeath. Why did you do this? If you did not feel that it was wrong, why didyou join in providing that men should be hung for it? The practice was nomore than bringing wild negroes from Africa to such as would buy them. But you never thought of hanging men for catching and selling wild horses, wild buffaloes, or wild bears. 

Again, you have among you a sneaking individual of the class of nativetyrants known as the "slavedealer. " He watches your necessities, andcrawls up to buy your slave, at a speculating price. If you cannot helpit, you sell to him; but if you can help it, you drive him from your door. You despise him utterly. You do not recognize him as a friend, or evenas an honest man. Your children must not play with his; they may rollickfreely with the little negroes, but not with the slave-dealer's children. If you are obliged to deal with him, you try to get through the jobwithout so much as touching him. It is common with you to join handswith the men you meet, but with the slave-dealer you avoid theceremony--instinctively shrinking from the snaky contact. If he grows richand retires from business, you still remember him, and still keep up theban of non-intercourse upon him and his family. Now, why is this? You donot so treat the man who deals in corn, cotton, or tobacco. 

And yet again: There are in the United States and Territories, includingthe District of Columbia, 433, 643 free blacks. At five hundred dollars perhead they are worth over two hundred millions of dollars. How comes thisvast amount of property to be running about without owners? We do not seefree horses or free cattle running at large. How is this? All these freeblacks are the descendants of slaves, or have been slaves themselves; andthey would be slaves now but for something which has operated on theirwhite owners, inducing them at vast pecuniary sacrifice to liberate them. What is that something? Is there any mistaking it? In all these cases itis your sense of justice and human sympathy continually telling you thatthe poor negro has some natural right to himself--that those who deny itand make mere merchandise of him deserve kickings, contempt, and death. 

And now why will you ask us to deny the humanity of the slave, andestimate him as only the equal of the hog? Why ask us to do what you willnot do yourselves? Why ask us to do for nothing what two hundred millionsof dollars could not induce you to do?

But one great argument in support of the repeal of the Missouri Compromiseis still to come. That argument is "the sacred right of self-government. "It seems our distinguished Senator has found great difficulty in gettinghis antagonists, even in the Senate, to meet him fairly on this argument. Some poet has said:

"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. "

At the hazard of being thought one of the fools of this quotation, Imeet that argument--I rush in--I take that bull by the horns. I trust Iunderstand and truly estimate the right of self-government. My faith inthe proposition that each man should do precisely as he pleases withall which is exclusively his own lies at the foundation of the sense ofjustice there is in me. I extend the principle to communities of men aswell as to individuals. I so extend it because it is politically wise, aswell as naturally just; politically wise in saving us from broils aboutmatters which do not concern us. Here, or at Washington, I would nottrouble myself with the oyster laws of Virginia, or the cranberry lawsof Indiana. The doctrine of self-government is right, --absolutely andeternally right, --but it has no just application as here attempted. Orperhaps I should rather say that whether it has such application dependsupon whether a negro is or is not a man. If he is not a man, in that casehe who is a man may as a matter of self-government do just what he pleaseswith him. But if the negro is a man, is it not to that extent a totaldestruction of self-government to say that he too shall not governhimself? When the white man governs himself, that is self-government; butwhen he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more thanself-government--that is despotism. If the negro is a man, why, then, myancient faith teaches me that "all men are created equal, " and that therecan be no moral right in connection with one man's making a slave ofanother. 

Judge Douglas frequently, with bitter irony and sarcasm, paraphrasesour argument by saying: "The white people of Nebraska are good enough togovern themselves, but they are not good enough to govern a few miserablenegroes!"

Well, I doubt not that the people of Nebraska are and will continue tobe as good as the average of people elsewhere. I do not say the contrary. What I do say is that no man is good enough to govern another manwithout that other's consent. I say this is the leading principle, thesheet-anchor of American republicanism. Our Declaration of Independencesays:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal;that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That tosecure these rights, governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIRJUST POWERS PROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED. "

I have quoted so much at this time merely to show that, according to ourancient faith, the just powers of government are derived from the consentof the governed. Now the relation of master and slave is pro tanto a totalviolation of this principle. The master not only governs the slave withouthis consent, but he governs him by a set of rules altogether differentfrom those which he prescribes for himself. Allow all the governedan equal voice in the government, and that, and that only, isself-government. 

Let it not be said that I am contending for the establishment of politicaland social equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said thecontrary. I am not combating the argument of necessity, arising from thefact that the blacks are already among us; but I am combating what is setup as moral argument for allowing them to be taken where they have neveryet been--arguing against the extension of a bad thing, which, where italready exists, we must of necessity manage as we best can. 

In support of his application of the doctrine of self-government, SenatorDouglas has sought to bring to his aid the opinions and examples of ourRevolutionary fathers. I am glad he has done this. I love the sentimentsof those old-time men, and shall be most happy to abide by their opinions. He shows us that when it was in contemplation for the colonies to breakoff from Great Britain, and set up a new government for themselves, several of the States instructed their delegates to go for the measure, provided each State should be allowed to regulate its domestic concerns inits own way. I do not quote; but this in substance. This was right; I seenothing objectionable in it. I also think it probable that it had somereference to the existence of slavery among them. I will not deny thatit had. But had it any reference to the carrying of slavery into newcountries? That is the question, and we will let the fathers themselvesanswer it. 

This same generation of men, and mostly the same individuals of thegeneration who declared this principle, who declared independence, who fought the war of the Revolution through, who afterward made theConstitution under which we still live--these same men passed theOrdinance of '87, declaring that slavery should never go to the NorthwestTerritory. 

I have no doubt Judge Douglas thinks they were very inconsistent in this. It is a question of discrimination between them and him. But there isnot an inch of ground left for his claiming that their opinions, theirexample, their authority, are on his side in the controversy. 

Again, is not Nebraska, while a Territory, a part of us? Do we not own thecountry? And if we surrender the control of it, do we not surrender theright of self-government? It is part of ourselves. If you say we shall notcontrol it, because it is only part, the same is true of every other part;and when all the parts are gone, what has become of the whole? Whatis then left of us? What use for the General Government, when there isnothing left for it to govern?

But you say this question should be left to the people of Nebraska, because they are more particularly interested. If this be the rule, youmust leave it to each individual to say for himself whether he will haveslaves. What better moral right have thirty-one citizens of Nebraska tosay that the thirty-second shall not hold slaves than the people ofthe thirty-one States have to say that slavery shall not go into thethirty-second State at all?

But if it is a sacred right for the people of Nebraska to take and holdslaves there, it is equally their sacred right to buy them where they canbuy them cheapest; and that, undoubtedly, will be on the coast of Africa, provided you will consent not to hang them for going there to buythem. You must remove this restriction, too, from the sacred right ofself-government. I am aware you say that taking slaves from the States toNebraska does not make slaves of freemen; but the African slave-trader cansay just as much. He does not catch free negroes and bring them here. He finds them already slaves in the hands of their black captors, and hehonestly buys them at the rate of a red cotton handkerchief a head. This is very cheap, and it is a great abridgment of the sacred right ofself-government to hang men for engaging in this profitable trade. 

Another important objection to this application of the right ofself-government is that it enables the first few to deprive the succeedingmany of a free exercise of the right of self-government. The first fewmay get slavery in, and the subsequent many cannot easily get it out. Howcommon is the remark now in the slave States, "If we were only clearof our slaves, how much better it would be for us. " They are actuallydeprived of the privilege of governing themselves as they would, by theaction of a very few in the beginning. The same thing was true of thewhole nation at the time our Constitution was formed. 

Whether slavery shall go into Nebraska, or other new Territories, is nota matter of exclusive concern to the people who may go there. The wholenation is interested that the best use shall be made of these Territories. We want them for homes of free white people. This they cannot be, to anyconsiderable extent, if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave Statesare places for poor white people to remove from, not to remove to. Newfree States are the places for poor people to go to, and better theircondition. For this use the nation needs these Territories. 

Still further: there are constitutional relations between the slaveand free States which are degrading to the latter. We are under legalobligations to catch and return their runaway slaves to them: a sortof dirty, disagreeable job, which, I believe, as a general rule, theslaveholders will not perform for one another. Then again, in the controlof the government--the management of the partnership affairs--they havegreatly the advantage of us. By the Constitution each State has twosenators, each has a number of representatives in proportion to the numberof its people, and each has a number of Presidential electors equal tothe whole number of its senators and representatives together. But inascertaining the number of the people for this purpose, five slaves arecounted as being equal to three whites. The slaves do not vote; they areonly counted and so used as to swell the influence of the white people'svotes. The practical effect of this is more aptly shown by a comparisonof the States of South Carolina and Maine. South Carolina has sixrepresentatives, and so has Maine; South Carolina has eight Presidentialelectors, and so has Maine. This is precise equality so far; and of coursethey are equal in senators, each having two. Thus in the control of thegovernment the two States are equals precisely. But how are they in thenumber of their white people? Maine has 581, 813, while South Carolina has274, 567; Maine has twice as many as South Carolina, and 32, 679 over. Thus, each white man in South Carolina is more than the double of any man inMaine. This is all because South Carolina, besides her free people, has384, 984 slaves. The South Carolinian has precisely the same advantage overthe white man in every other free State as well as in Maine. He is morethan the double of any one of us in this crowd. The same advantage, butnot to the same extent, is held by all the citizens of the slave Statesover those of the free; and it is an absolute truth, without an exception, that there is no voter in any slave State but who has more legal power inthe government than any voter in any free State. There is no instanceof exact equality; and the disadvantage is against us the whole chapterthrough. This principle, in the aggregate, gives the slave States in thepresent Congress twenty additional representatives, being seven more thanthe whole majority by which they passed the Nebraska Bill. 

Now all this is manifestly unfair; yet I do not mention it to complain ofit, in so far as it is already settled. It is in the Constitution, and Ido not for that cause, or any other cause, propose to destroy, or alter, or disregard the Constitution. I stand to it, fairly, fully, and firmly. 

But when I am told I must leave it altogether to other people to saywhether new partners are to be bred up and brought into the firm, onthe same degrading terms against me, I respectfully demur. I insist thatwhether I shall be a whole man or only the half of one, in comparison withothers is a question in which I am somewhat concerned, and one which noother man can have a sacred right of deciding for me. If I am wrong inthis, if it really be a sacred right of self-government in the man whoshall go to Nebraska to decide whether he will be the equal of me or thedouble of me, then, after he shall have exercised that right, and therebyshall have reduced me to a still smaller fraction of a man than I alreadyam, I should like for some gentleman, deeply skilled in the mysteries ofsacred rights, to provide himself with a microscope, and peep about, andfind out, if he can, what has become of my sacred rights. They will surelybe too small for detection with the naked eye. 

Finally, I insist that if there is anything which it is the duty of thewhole people to never intrust to any hands but their own, that thing isthe preservation and perpetuity of their own liberties and institutions. And if they shall think as I do, that the extension of slavery endangersthem more than any or all other causes, how recreant to themselves ifthey submit The question, and with it the fate of their country, to a merehandful of men bent only on seif-interest. If this question of slaveryextension were an insignificant one, one having no power to do harm--itmight be shuffled aside in this way; and being, as it is, the greatBehemoth of danger, shall the strong grip of the nation be loosened uponhim, to intrust him to the hands of such feeble keepers?

I have done with this mighty argument of self-government. Go, sacredthing! Go in peace. 

But Nebraska is urged as a great Union-saving measure. Well, I too go forsaving the Union. Much as I hate slavery, I would consent to the extensionof it rather than see the Union dissolved, just as I would consent to anygreat evil to avoid a greater one. But when I go to Union-saving, I mustbelieve, at least, that the means I employ have some adaptation to theend. To my mind, Nebraska has no such adaptation. 

"It hath no relish of salvation in it. "

It is an aggravation, rather, of the only one thing which ever endangersthe Union. When it came upon us, all was peace and quiet. The nation waslooking to the forming of new bends of union, and a long course of peaceand prosperity seemed to lie before us. In the whole range of possibility, there scarcely appears to me to have been anything out of which theslavery agitation could have been revived, except the very project ofrepealing the Missouri Compromise. Every inch of territory we ownedalready had a definite settlement of the slavery question, by which allparties were pledged to abide. Indeed, there was no uninhabited country onthe continent which we could acquire, if we except some extreme northernregions which are wholly out of the question. 

In this state of affairs the Genius of Discord himself could scarcely haveinvented a way of again setting us by the ears but by turning back anddestroying the peace measures of the past. The counsels of that Geniusseem to have prevailed. The Missouri Compromise was repealed; and herewe are in the midst of a new slavery agitation, such, I think, as we havenever seen before. Who is responsible for this? Is it those who resistthe measure, or those who causelessly brought it forward, and pressed itthrough, having reason to know, and in fact knowing, it must and would beso resisted? It could not but be expected by its author that it would belooked upon as a measure for the extension of slavery, aggravated by agross breach of faith. 

Argue as you will and long as you will, this is the naked front and aspectof the measure. And in this aspect it could not but produce agitation. Slavery is founded in the selfishness of man's nature--opposition to it inhis love of justice. These principles are at eternal antagonism, andwhen brought into collision so fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks and throes and convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal theMissouri Compromise, repeal all compromises, repeal the Declaration ofIndependence, repeal all past history, you still cannot repeal humannature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart that slaveryextension is wrong, and out of the abundance of his heart his mouth willcontinue to speak. 

The structure, too, of the Nebraska Bill is very peculiar. The people areto decide the question of slavery for themselves; but when they are todecide, or how they are to decide, or whether, when the question isonce decided, it is to remain so or is to be subject to an indefinitesuccession of new trials, the law does not say. Is it to be decided by thefirst dozen settlers who arrive there, or is it to await the arrival ofa hundred? Is it to be decided by a vote of the people or a vote of theLegislature, or, indeed, by a vote of any sort? To these questions the lawgives no answer. There is a mystery about this; for when a member proposedto give the Legislature express authority to exclude slavery, it washooted down by the friends of the bill. This fact is worth remembering. Some Yankees in the East are sending emigrants to Nebraska to excludeslavery from it; and, so far as I can judge, they expect the question tobe decided by voting in some way or other. But the Missourians are awake, too. They are within a stone's-throw of the contested ground. They holdmeetings and pass resolutions, in which not the slightest allusion tovoting is made. They resolve that slavery already exists in the Territory;that more shall go there; that they, remaining in Missouri, will protectit, and that abolitionists shall be hung or driven away. Through all thisbowie knives and six-shooters are seen plainly enough, but never a glimpseof the ballot-box. 

And, really, what is the result of all this? Each party within havingnumerous and determined backers without, is it not probable that thecontest will come to blows and bloodshed? Could there be a more aptinvention to bring about collision and violence on the slavery questionthan this Nebraska project is? I do not charge or believe that such wasintended by Congress; but if they had literally formed a ring and placedchampions within it to fight out the controversy, the fight could be nomore likely to come off than it is. And if this fight should begin, is itlikely to take a very peaceful, Union-saving turn? Will not the first dropof blood so shed be the real knell of the Union?

The Missouri Compromise ought to be restored. For the sake of the Union, it ought to be restored. We ought to elect a House of Representativeswhich will vote its restoration. If by any means we omit to do this, whatfollows? Slavery may or may not be established in Nebraska. But whetherit be or not, we shall have repudiated--discarded from the councils of thenation--the spirit of compromise; for who, after this, will ever trust ina national compromise? The spirit of mutual concession--that spirit whichfirst gave us the Constitution, and which has thrice saved the Union--weshall have strangled and cast from us forever. And what shall we havein lieu of it? The South flushed with triumph and tempted to excess;the North, betrayed as they believe, brooding on wrong and burning forrevenge. One side will provoke, the other resent. The one will taunt, the other defy; one aggresses, the other retaliates. Already a few inthe North defy all constitutional restraints, resist the execution ofthe Fugitive Slave law, and even menace the institution of slavery inthe States where it exists. Already a few in the South claim theconstitutional right to take and to hold slaves in the free States, demandthe revival of the slave trade, and demand a treaty with Great Britain bywhich fugitive slaves may be reclaimed from Canada. As yet they are butfew on either side. It is a grave question for lovers of the union whetherthe final destruction of the Missouri Compromise, and with it the spiritof all compromise, will or will not embolden and embitter each of these, and fatally increase the number of both. 

But restore the compromise, and what then? We thereby restore the nationalfaith, the national confidence, the national feeling of brotherhood. Wethereby reinstate the spirit of concession and compromise, that spiritwhich has never failed us in past perils, and which may be safely trustedfor all the future. The South ought to join in doing this. The peace ofthe nation is as dear to them as to us. In memories of the past and hopesof the future, they share as largely as we. It would be on their part agreat act--great in its spirit, and great in its effect. It would be worthto the nation a hundred years purchase of peace and prosperity. And whatof sacrifice would they make? They only surrender to us what they gaveus for a consideration long, long ago; what they have not now asked for, struggled or cared for; what has been thrust upon them, not less to theirastonishment than to ours. 

But it is said we cannot restore it; that though we elect every member ofthe lower House, the Senate is still against us. It is quite true that ofthe senators who passed the Nebraska Bill a majority of the whole Senatewill retain their seats in spite of the elections of this and the nextyear. But if at these elections their several constituencies shall clearlyexpress their will against Nebraska, will these senators disregard theirwill? Will they neither obey nor make room for those who will?

But even if we fail to technically restore the compromise, it is still agreat point to carry a popular vote in favor of the restoration. Themoral weight of such a vote cannot be estimated too highly. The authorsof Nebraska are not at all satisfied with the destruction of thecompromise--an indorsement of this principle they proclaim to be thegreat object. With them, Nebraska alone is a small matter--to establish aprinciple for future use is what they particularly desire. 

The future use is to be the planting of slavery wherever in the wide worldlocal and unorganized opposition cannot prevent it. Now, if you wish togive them this indorsement, if you wish to establish this principle, doso. I shall regret it, but it is your right. On the contrary, if you areopposed to the principle, --intend to give it no such indorsement, let nowheedling, no sophistry, divert you from throwing a direct vote againstit. 

Some men, mostly Whigs, who condemn the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, nevertheless hesitate to go for its restoration, lest they be thrown incompany with the abolitionists. Will they allow me, as an old Whig, totell them, good-humoredly, that I think this is very silly? Stand withanybody that stands right. Stand with him while he is right, and partwith him when he goes wrong. Stand with the abolitionist in restoring theMissouri Compromise, and stand against him when he attempts to repealthe Fugitive Slave law. In the latter case you stand with the Southerndisunionist. What of that? You are still right. In both cases you areright. In both cases you oppose the dangerous extremes. In both you standon middle ground, and hold the ship level and steady. In both you arenational, and nothing less than national. This is the good old Whigground. To desert such ground because of any company is to be less than aWhig--less than a man--less than an American. 

I particularly object to the new position which the avowed principle ofthis Nebraska law gives to slavery in the body politic. I object to itbecause it assumes that there can be moral right in the enslaving ofone man by another. I object to it as a dangerous dalliance for a freepeople--a sad evidence that, feeling prosperity, we forget right; thatliberty, as a principle, we have ceased to revere. I object to it becausethe fathers of the republic eschewed and rejected it. The argument of"necessity" was the only argument they ever admitted in favor of slavery;and so far, and so far only, as it carried them did they ever go. Theyfound the institution existing among us, which they could not help, and they cast blame upon the British king for having permitted itsintroduction. 

The royally appointed Governor of Georgia in the early 1700's wasthreatened by the King with removal if he continued to oppose slavery inhis colony--at that time the King of England made a small profit on everyslave imported to the colonies. The later British criticism of the UnitedStates for not eradicating slavery in the early 1800's, combined withtheir tacit support of the 'Confederacy' during the Civil War is a primeexample of the irony and hypocrisy of politics: that self-interest willever overpower right. 

Before the Constitution they prohibited its introduction into theNorthwestern Territory, the only country we owned then free from it. Atthe framing and adoption of the Constitution, they forbore to so muchas mention the word "slave" or "slavery" in the whole instrument. Inthe provision for the recovery of fugitives, the slave is spoken of as a"person held to service or labor. " In that prohibiting the abolition ofthe African slave trade for twenty years, that trade is spoken of as "themigration or importation of such persons as any of the States now existingshall think proper to admit, " etc. These are the only provisions alludingto slavery. Thus the thing is hid away in the Constitution, just as anafflicted man hides away a wen or cancer which he dares not cut out atonce, lest he bleed to death, --with the promise, nevertheless, that thecutting may begin at a certain time. Less than this our fathers could notdo, and more they would not do. Necessity drove them so far, and fartherthey would not go. But this is not all. The earliest Congress under theConstitution took the same view of slavery. They hedged and hemmed it into the narrowest limits of necessity. 

In 1794 they prohibited an outgoing slave trade--that is, the takingof slaves from the United States to sell. In 1798 they prohibited thebringing of slaves from Africa into the Mississippi Territory, thisTerritory then comprising what are now the States of Mississippi andAlabama. This was ten years before they had the authority to do the samething as to the States existing at the adoption of the Constitution. In1800 they prohibited American citizens from trading in slaves betweenforeign countries, as, for instance, from Africa to Brazil. In 1803 theypassed a law in aid of one or two slave-State laws in restraint of theinternal slave trade. In 1807, in apparent hot haste, they passed the law, nearly a year in advance, --to take effect the first day of 1808, the veryfirst day the Constitution would permit, prohibiting the African slavetrade by heavy pecuniary and corporal penalties. In 1820, finding theseprovisions ineffectual, they declared the slave trade piracy, and annexedto it the extreme penalty of death. While all this was passing in theGeneral Government, five or six of the original slave States had adoptedsystems of gradual emancipation, by which the institution was rapidlybecoming extinct within their limits. Thus we see that the plain, unmistakable spirit of that age toward slavery was hostility to theprinciple and toleration only by necessity. 

But now it is to be transformed into a "sacred right. " Nebraska brings itforth, places it on the highroad to extension and perpetuity, and with apat on its back says to it, "Go, and God speed you. " Henceforth it isto be the chief jewel of the nation the very figure-head of the ship ofstate. Little by little, but steadily as man's march to the grave, we havebeen giving up the old for the new faith. Near eighty years ago we beganby declaring that all men are created equal; but now from that beginningwe have run down to the other declaration, that for some men to enslaveothers is a "sacred right of self-government. " These principles cannotstand together. They are as opposite as God and Mammon; and who ever holdsto the one must despise the other. When Pettit, in connection with hissupport of the Nebraska Bill, called the Declaration of Independence "aself-evident lie, " he only did what consistency and candor require allother Nebraska men to do. Of the forty-odd Nebraska senators who satpresent and heard him, no one rebuked him. Nor am I apprised that anyNebraska newspaper, or any Nebraska orator, in the whole nation has everyet rebuked him. If this had been said among Marion's men, Southernersthough they were, what would have become of the man who said it? If thishad been said to the men who captured Andre, the man who said it wouldprobably have been hung sooner than Andre was. If it had been said in oldIndependence Hall seventy-eight years ago, the very doorkeeper would havethrottled the man and thrust him into the street. Let no one bedeceived. The spirit of seventy-six and the spirit of Nebraska are utterantagonisms; and the former is being rapidly displaced by the latter. 

Fellow-countrymen, Americans, South as well as North, shall we make noeffort to arrest this? Already the liberal party throughout the worldexpress the apprehension that "the one retrograde institution in Americais undermining the principles of progress, and fatally violating thenoblest political system the world ever saw. " This is not the taunt ofenemies, but the warning of friends. Is it quite safe to disregardit--to despise it? Is there no danger to liberty itself in discarding theearliest practice and first precept of our ancient faith? In our greedychase to make profit of the negro, let us beware lest we "cancel and tearin pieces" even the white man's charter of freedom. 

Our republican robe is soiled and trailed in the dust. Let us repurifyit. Let us turn and wash it white in the spirit, if not the blood, of theRevolution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of "moral right, " backupon its existing legal rights and its arguments of "necessity. " Let usreturn it to the position our fathers gave it, and there let it rest inpeace. Let us readopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it thepractices and policy which harmonize with it. Let North and South, let allAmericans--let all lovers of liberty everywhere join in the great and goodwork. If we do this, we shall not only have saved the Union, but we shallhave so saved it as to make and to keep it forever worthy of the saving. We shall have so saved it that the succeeding millions of free happypeople the world over shall rise up and call us blessed to the latestgenerations. 

At Springfield, twelve days ago, where I had spoken substantially as Ihave here, Judge Douglas replied to me; and as he is to reply to me here, I shall attempt to anticipate him by noticing some of the points he madethere. He commenced by stating I had assumed all the way through that theprinciple of the Nebraska Bill would have the effect of extending slavery. He denied that this was intended or that this effect would follow. 

I will not reopen the argument upon this point. That such was theintention the world believed at the start, and will continue to believe. This was the countenance of the thing, and both friends and enemiesinstantly recognized it as such. That countenance cannot now be changed byargument. You can as easily argue the color out of the negro's skin. Likethe "bloody hand, " you may wash it and wash it, the red witness of guiltstill sticks and stares horribly at you. 

Next he says that Congressional intervention never prevented slaveryanywhere; that it did not prevent it in the Northwestern Territory, norin Illinois; that, in fact, Illinois came into the Union as a slave State;that the principle of the Nebraska Bill expelled it from Illinois, fromseveral old States, from everywhere. 

Now this is mere quibbling all the way through. If the Ordinance of '87did not keep slavery out of the Northwest Territory, how happens it thatthe northwest shore of the Ohio River is entirely free from it, while thesoutheast shore, less than a mile distant, along nearly the whole lengthof the river, is entirely covered with it?

If that ordinance did not keep it out of Illinois, what was it that madethe difference between Illinois and Missouri? They lie side by side, theMississippi River only dividing them, while their early settlements werewithin the same latitude. Between 1810 and 1820 the number of slaves inMissouri increased 7211, while in Illinois in the same ten years theydecreased 51. This appears by the census returns. During nearly all ofthat ten years both were Territories, not States. During this time theordinance forbade slavery to go into Illinois, and nothing forbade it togo into Missouri. It did go into Missouri, and did not go into Illinois. That is the fact. Can any one doubt as to the reason of it? But he saysIllinois came into the Union as a slave State. Silence, perhaps, wouldbe the best answer to this flat contradiction of the known history of thecountry. What are the facts upon which this bold assertion is based? Whenwe first acquired the country, as far back as 1787, there were some slaveswithin it held by the French inhabitants of Kaskaskia. The territoriallegislation admitted a few negroes from the slave States as indenturedservants. One year after the adoption of the first State constitution, the whole number of them was--what do you think? Just one hundred andseventeen, while the aggregate free population was 55, 094, --about fourhundred and seventy to one. Upon this state of facts the people framedtheir constitution prohibiting the further introduction of slavery, witha sort of guaranty to the owners of the few indentured servants, givingfreedom to their children to be born thereafter, and making no mentionwhatever of any supposed slave for life. Out of this small matter theJudge manufactures his argument that Illinois came into the Union as aslave State. Let the facts be the answer to the argument. 

The principles of the Nebraska Bill, he says, expelled slavery fromIllinois. The principle of that bill first planted it here--that is, itfirst came because there was no law to prevent it, first came before weowned the country; and finding it here, and having the Ordinance of '87 toprevent its increasing, our people struggled along, and finally got rid ofit as best they could. 

But the principle of the Nebraska Bill abolished slavery in several of theold States. Well, it is true that several of the old States, in the lastquarter of the last century, did adopt systems of gradual emancipation bywhich the institution has finally become extinct within their limits; butit may or may not be true that the principle of the Nebraska Bill wasthe cause that led to the adoption of these measures. It is now morethan fifty years since the last of these States adopted its system ofemancipation. 

If the Nebraska Bill is the real author of the benevolent works, itis rather deplorable that it has for so long a time ceased workingaltogether. Is there not some reason to suspect that it was the principleof the Revolution, and not the principle of the Nebraska Bill, that ledto emancipation in these old States? Leave it to the people of these oldemancipating States, and I am quite certain they will decide that neitherthat nor any other good thing ever did or ever will come of the NebraskaBill. 

In the course of my main argument, Judge Douglas interrupted me to saythat the principle of the Nebraska Bill was very old; that it originatedwhen God made man, and placed good and evil before him, allowing him tochoose for himself, being responsible for the choice he should make. Atthe time I thought this was merely playful, and I answered it accordingly. But in his reply to me he renewed it as a serious argument. Inseriousness, then, the facts of this proposition are not true as stated. God did not place good and evil before man, telling him to make hischoice. On the contrary, he did tell him there was one tree of the fruitof which he should not eat, upon pain of certain death. I should scarcelywish so strong a prohibition against slavery in Nebraska. 

But this argument strikes me as not a little remarkable in anotherparticular--in its strong resemblance to the old argument for the "divineright of kings. " By the latter, the king is to do just as he pleases withhis white subjects, being responsible to God alone. By the former, the white man is to do just as he pleases with his black slaves, beingresponsible to God alone. The two things are precisely alike, and it isbut natural that they should find similar arguments to sustain them. 

I had argued that the application of the principle of self-government, ascontended for, would require the revival of the African slave trade; thatno argument could be made in favor of a man's right to take slaves toNebraska which could not be equally well made in favor of his rightto bring them from the coast of Africa. The Judge replied that theConstitution requires the suppression of the foreign slave trade, butdoes not require the prohibition of slavery in the Territories. That is amistake in point of fact. The Constitution does not require the action ofCongress in either case, and it does authorize it in both. And so there isstill no difference between the cases. 

In regard to what I have said of the advantage the slave States have overthe free in the matter of representation, the Judge replied that we inthe free States count five free negroes as five white people, while inthe slave States they count five slaves as three whites only; and that theadvantage, at last, was on the side of the free States. 

Now, in the slave States they count free negroes just as we do; and it sohappens that, besides their slaves, they have as many free negroes as wehave, and thirty thousand over. Thus, their free negroes more than balanceours; and their advantage over us, in consequence of their slaves, stillremains as I stated it. 

In reply to my argument that the compromise measures of 1850 were a systemof equivalents, and that the provisions of no one of them could fairlybe carried to other subjects without its corresponding equivalent beingcarried with it, the Judge denied outright that these measures had anyconnection with or dependence upon each other. This is mere desperation. If they had no connection, why are they always spoken of in connection?Why has he so spoken of them a thousand times? Why has he constantlycalled them a series of measures? Why does everybody call them acompromise? Why was California kept out of the Union six or seven months, if it was not because of its connection with the other measures? Webster'sleading definition of the verb "to compromise" is "to adjust and settlea difference, by mutual agreement, with concessions of claims by theparties. " This conveys precisely the popular understanding of the word"compromise. "

We knew, before the Judge told us, that these measures passed separately, and in distinct bills, and that no two of them were passed by the votes ofprecisely the same members. But we also know, and so does he know, thatno one of them could have passed both branches of Congress but for theunderstanding that the others were to pass also. Upon this understanding, each got votes which it could have got in no other way. It is this factwhich gives to the measures their true character; and it is the universalknowledge of this fact that has given them the name of "compromises, " soexpressive of that true character. 

I had asked: "If, in carrying the Utah and New Mexico laws to Nebraska, you could clear away other objection, how could you leave Nebraska'perfectly free' to introduce slavery before she forms a constitution, during her territorial government, while the Utah and New Mexico lawsonly authorize it when they form constitutions and are admitted into theUnion?" To this Judge Douglas answered that the Utah and New Mexico lawsalso authorized it before; and to prove this he read from one of theirlaws, as follows: "That the legislative power of said Territory shallextend to all rightful subjects of legislation, consistent with theConstitution of the United States and the provisions of this act. "

Now it is perceived from the reading of this that there is nothing expressupon the subject, but that the authority is sought to be implied merelyfor the general provision of "all rightful subjects of legislation. " Inreply to this I insist, as a legal rule of construction, as well as theplain, popular view of the matter, that the express provision for Utah andNew Mexico coming in with slavery, if they choose, when they shall formconstitutions, is an exclusion of all implied authority on the samesubject; that Congress having the subject distinctly in their mindswhen they made the express provision, they therein expressed their wholemeaning on that subject. 

The Judge rather insinuated that I had found it convenient to forget theWashington territorial law passed in 1853. This was a division of Oregon, organizing the northern part as the Territory of Washington. He assertedthat by this act the Ordinance of '87, theretofore existing in Oregon, wasrepealed; that nearly all the members of Congress voted for it, beginningin the House of Representatives with Charles Allen of Massachusetts, andending with Richard Yates of Illinois; and that he could not understandhow those who now opposed the Nebraska Bill so voted there, unless it wasbecause it was then too soon after both the great political parties hadratified the compromises of 1850, and the ratification therefore was toofresh to be then repudiated. 

Now I had seen the Washington act before, and I have carefully examined itsince; and I aver that there is no repeal of the Ordinance of '87, or ofany prohibition of slavery, in it. In express terms, there is absolutelynothing in the whole law upon the subject--in fact, nothing to lead areader to think of the subject. To my judgment it is equally free fromeverything from which repeal can be legally implied; but, however thismay be, are men now to be entrapped by a legal implication, extracted fromcovert language, introduced perhaps for the very purpose of entrappingthem? I sincerely wish every man could read this law quite through, carefully watching every sentence and every line for a repeal of theOrdinance of '87, or anything equivalent to it. 

Another point on the Washington act: If it was intended to be modeledafter the Utah and New Mexico acts, as Judge Douglas insists, why was itnot inserted in it, as in them, that Washington was to come in with orwithout slavery as she may choose at the adoption of her constitution?It has no such provision in it; and I defy the ingenuity of man to give areason for the omission, other than that it was not intended to follow theUtah and New Mexico laws in regard to the question of slavery. 

The Washington act not only differs vitally from the Utah and New Mexicoacts, but the Nebraska act differs vitally from both. By the latteract the people are left "perfectly free" to regulate their own domesticconcerns, etc. ; but in all the former, all their laws are to be submittedto Congress, and if disapproved are to be null. The Washington act goeseven further; it absolutely prohibits the territorial Legislature, by verystrong and guarded language, from establishing banks or borrowing money onthe faith of the Territory. Is this the sacred right of self-governmentwe hear vaunted so much? No, sir; the Nebraska Bill finds no model in theacts of '50 or the Washington act. It finds no model in any law from Adamtill to-day. As Phillips says of Napoleon, the Nebraska act is grand, gloomy and peculiar, wrapped in the solitude of its own originality, without a model and without a shadow upon the earth. 

In the course of his reply Senator Douglas remarked in substance that hehad always considered this government was made for the white people andnot for the negroes. Why, in point of mere fact, I think so too. But inthis remark of the Judge there is a significance which I think is the keyto the great mistake (if there is any such mistake) which he has madein this Nebraska measure. It shows that the Judge has no very vividimpression that the negro is human, and consequently has no idea thatthere can be any moral question in legislating about him. In his view thequestion of whether a new country shall be slave or free is a matter of asutter indifference as it is whether his neighbor shall plant his farm withtobacco or stock it with horned cattle. Now, whether this view is rightor wrong, it is very certain that the great mass of mankind take a totallydifferent view. They consider slavery a great moral wrong, and theirfeeling against it is not evanescent, but eternal. It lies at the veryfoundation of their sense of justice, and it cannot be trifled with. Itis a great and durable element of popular action, and I think no statesmancan safely disregard it. 

Our Senator also objects that those who oppose him in this matter do notentirely agree with one another. He reminds me that in my firm adherenceto the constitutional rights of the slave States I differ widely fromothers who are cooperating with me in opposing the Nebraska Bill, and hesays it is not quite fair to oppose him in this variety of ways. He shouldremember that he took us by surprise--astounded us by this measure. Wewere thunderstruck and stunned, and we reeled and fell in utter confusion. But we rose, each fighting, grasping whatever he could first reach--ascythe, a pitchfork, a chopping-ax, or a butcher's cleaver. We struck inthe direction of the sound, and we were rapidly closing in upon him. Hemust not think to divert us from our purpose by showing us that our drill, our dress, and our weapons are not entirely perfect and uniform. When thestorm shall be past he shall find us still Americans, no less devoted tothe continued union and prosperity of the country than heretofore. 

Finally, the Judge invokes against me the memory of Clay and Webster, Theywere great men, and men of great deeds. But where have I assailed them?For what is it that their lifelong enemy shall now make profit by assumingto defend them against me, their lifelong friend? I go against the repealof the Missouri Compromise; did they ever go for it? They went for theCompromise of 1850; did I ever go against them? They were greatly devotedto the Union; to the small measure of my ability was I ever less so? Clayand Webster were dead before this question arose; by what authority shallour Senator say they would espouse his side of it if alive? Mr. Clay wasthe leading spirit in making the Missouri Compromise; is it very crediblethat if now alive he would take the lead in the breaking of it? The truthis that some support from Whigs is now a necessity with the Judge, and forthis it is that the names of Clay and Webster are invoked. His old friendshave deserted him in such numbers as to leave too few to live by. Hecame to his own, and his own received him not; and lo! he turns unto theGentiles. 

A word now as to the Judge's desperate assumption that the compromises of1850 had no connection with one another; that Illinois came into the Unionas a slave State, and some other similar ones. This is no other than abold denial of the history of the country. If we do not know that thecompromises of 1850 were dependent on each other; if we do not know thatIllinois came into the Union as a free State, --we do not know anything. If we do not know these things, we do not know that we ever had aRevolutionary War or such a chief as Washington. To deny these things isto deny our national axioms, --or dogmas, at least, --and it puts an end toall argument. If a man will stand up and assert, and repeat and reassert, that two and two do not make four, I know nothing in the power of argumentthat can stop him. I think I can answer the Judge so long as he sticks tothe premises; but when he flies from them, I cannot work any argument intothe consistency of a mental gag and actually close his mouth with it. Insuch a case I can only commend him to the seventy thousand answers just infrom Pennsylvania, Ohio, and Indiana. 

REQUEST FOR SENATE SUPPORT

TO CHARLES HOYT

CLINTON, De WITT Co. , Nov. 10, 1854

DEAR SIR:--You used to express a good deal of partiality for me, and ifyou are still so, now is the time. Some friends here are really for me forthe U. S. Senate, and I should be very grateful if you could make a markfor me among your members. Please write me at all events, giving me thenames, post-offices, and "political position" of members round about you. Direct to Springfield. 

Let this be confidential. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO T. J. HENDERSON. 

SPRINGFIELD, November 27, 1854 T. J. HENDERSON, ESQ. 

MY DEAR SIR:--It has come round that a whig may, by possibility, beelected to the United States Senate, and I want the chance of being theman. You are a member of the Legislature, and have a vote to give. Thinkit over, and see whether you can do better than to go for me. 

Write me, at all events; and let this be confidential. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. GILLESPIE. 

SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 1, 1854. 

DEAR SIR:--I have really got it into my head to try to be United StatesSenator, and, if I could have your support, my chances would be reasonablygood. But I know, and acknowledge, that you have as just claims to theplace as I have; and therefore I cannot ask you to yield to me, if you arethinking of becoming a candidate, yourself. If, however, you are not, thenI should like to be remembered affectionately by you; and also to have youmake a mark for me with the Anti-Nebraska members down your way. 

If you know, and have no objection to tell, let me know whether Trumbullintends to make a push. If he does, I suppose the two men in St. Clair, and one, or both, in Madison, will be for him. We have the Legislature, clearly enough, on joint ballot, but the Senate is very close, and Cullomtold me to-day that the Nebraska men will stave off the election, if theycan. Even if we get into joint vote, we shall have difficulty to unite ourforces. Please write me, and let this be confidential. 

Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

POLITICAL REFERENCES

TO JUSTICE MCLEAN. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , December 6, 1854. 

SIR:--I understand it is in contemplation to displace the present clerkand appoint a new one for the Circuit and District Courts of Illinois. Iam very friendly to the present incumbent, and, both for his own sake andthat of his family, I wish him to be retained so long as it is possiblefor the court to do so. 

In the contingency of his removal, however, I have recommended WilliamButler as his successor, and I do not wish what I write now to be taken asany abatement of that recommendation. 

William J. Black is also an applicant for the appointment, and I writethis at the solicitation of his friends to say that he is every way worthyof the office, and that I doubt not the conferring it upon him will givegreat satisfaction. 

Your ob't servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO T. J. HENDERSON. 

SPRINGFIELD, December 15. 1854

HON. T. J. HENDERSON. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 11th was received last night, and for which Ithank you. Of course I prefer myself to all others; yet it is neither inmy heart nor my conscience to say I am any better man than Mr. Williams. We shall have a terrible struggle with our adversaries. They are desperateand bent on desperate deeds. I accidentally learned of one of the leadershere writing to a member south of here, in about the following language:

We are beaten. They have a clean majority of at least nine, on jointballot. They outnumber us, but we must outmanage them. Douglas must besustained. We must elect the Speaker; and we must elect a Nebraska UnitedStates Senator, or "elect none at all. " Similar letters, no doubt, arewritten to every Nebraska member. Be considering how we can best meet, andfoil, and beat them. I send you, by mail, a copy of my Peoria speech. Youmay have seen it before, or you may not think it worth seeing now. 

Do not speak of the Nebraska letter mentioned above; I do not wish it tobecome public, that I received such information. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

1855

LOSS OF PRIMARY FOR SENATOR

TO E. B. WASHBURNE. 

SPRINGFIELD, February 9, 1855 MY DEAR SIR:

I began with 44 votes, Shields 41, and Trumbull 5, --yet Trumbull waselected. In fact 47 different members voted for me, --getting three newones on the second ballot, and losing four old ones. How came my 47to yield to Trumbull's 5? It was Governor Matteson's work. He has beensecretly a candidate ever since (before, even) the fall election. 

All the members round about the canal were Anti-Nebraska, but werenevertheless nearly all Democrats and old personal friends of his. Hisplan was to privately impress them with the belief that he was as goodAnti-Nebraska as any one else--at least could be secured to be so byinstructions, which could be easily passed. 

The Nebraska men, of course, were not for Matteson; but when they foundthey could elect no avowed Nebraska man, they tardily determined to lethim get whomever of our men he could, by whatever means he could, and askhim no questions. 

The Nebraska men were very confident of the election of Matteson, thoughdenying that he was a candidate, and we very much believing also that theywould elect him. But they wanted first to make a show of good faith toShields by voting for him a few times, and our secret Matteson men alsowanted to make a show of good faith by voting with us a few times. Sowe led off. On the seventh ballot, I think, the signal was given to theNebraska men to turn to Matteson, which they acted on to a man, with oneexception. . . Next ballot the remaining Nebraska man and one pretendedAnti went over to him, giving him 46. The next still another, giving him47, wanting only three of an election. In the meantime our friends, witha view of detaining our expected bolters, had been turning from me toTrumbull till he had risen to 35 and I had been reduced to 15. These wouldnever desert me except by my direction; but I became satisfied that if wecould prevent Matteson's election one or two ballots more, we could notpossibly do so a single ballot after my friends should begin to returnto me from Trumbull. So I determined to strike at once, and accordinglyadvised my remaining friends to go for him, which they did and elected himon the tenth ballot. 

Such is the way the thing was done. I think you would have done the sameunder the circumstances. 

I could have headed off every combination and been elected, had it notbeen for Matteson's double game--and his defeat now gives me more pleasurethan my own gives me pain. On the whole, it is perhaps as well for ourgeneral cause that Trumbull is elected. The Nebraska men confess thatthey hate it worse than anything that could have happened. It is a greatconsolation to see them worse whipped than I am. 

Yours forever, A. LINCOLN. 

RETURN TO LAW PROFESSION

TO SANFORD, PORTER, AND STRIKER, NEW YORK. 

SPRINGFIELD, MARCH 10, 1855

GENTLEMEN:--Yours of the 5th is received, as also was that of 15th Dec, last, inclosing bond of Clift to Pray. When I received the bond I wasdabbling in politics, and of course neglecting business. Having since beenbeaten out I have gone to work again. 

As I do not practice in Rushville, I to-day open a correspondence withHenry E. Dummer, Esq. , of Beardstown, Ill. , with the view of getting thejob into his hands. He is a good man if he will undertake it. 

Write me whether I shall do this or return the bond to you. 

Yours respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

TO O. H. BROWNING. 

SPRINGFIELD, March 23, 1855. 

HON. O. H. BROWNING. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your letter to Judge Logan has been shown to us by him; and, with his consent, we answer it. When it became probable that there wouldbe a vacancy on the Supreme Bench, public opinion, on this side of theriver, seemed to be universally directed to Logan as the proper man tofill it. I mean public opinion on our side in politics, with very smallmanifestation in any different direction by the other side. The result is, that he has been a good deal pressed to allow his name to be used, and hehas consented to it, provided it can be done with perfect cordiality andgood feeling on the part of all our own friends. We, the undersigned, arevery anxious for it; and the more so now that he has been urged, untilhis mind is turned upon the matter. We, therefore are very glad of yourletter, with the information it brings us, mixed only with a regret thatwe can not elect Logan and Walker both. We shall be glad, if you willhoist Logan's name, in your Quincy papers. 

Very truly your friends, A. LINCOLN, B. S. EWARDS, JOHN T. STUART. 

TO H. C. WHITNEY. 

SPRINGFIELD, June 7, 1855. 

H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your note containing election news is received; and forwhich I thank you. It is all of no use, however. Logan is worse beatenthan any other man ever was since elections were invented--beaten morethan twelve hundred in this county. It is conceded on all hands that theProhibitory law is also beaten. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO A PRO-SLAVERY FRIEND

TO JOSHUA. F. SPEED. 

SPRINGFIELD, August 24, 1855

DEAR SPEED:--You know what a poor correspondent I am. Ever since Ireceived your very agreeable letter of the 22d of May, I have beenintending to write you an answer to it. You suggest that in politicalaction, now, you and I would differ. I suppose we would; not quite asmuch, however, as you may think. You know I dislike slavery, and you fullyadmit the abstract wrong of it. So far there is no cause of difference. But you say that sooner than yield your legal right to the slave, especially at the bidding of those who are not themselves interested, youwould see the Union dissolved. I am not aware that any one is bidding youyield that right; very certainly I am not. I leave that matter entirelyto yourself. I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations under theConstitution in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poorcreatures hunted down and caught and carried back to their stripes andunrequited toil; but I bite my lips and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I hadtogether a tedious low-water trip on a steamboat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I well do, that from Louisville to the mouthof the Ohio there were on board ten or a dozen slaves shackled togetherwith irons. That sight was a continued torment to me, and I see somethinglike it every time I touch the Ohio or any other slave border. It is notfair for you to assume that I have no interest in a thing which has, andcontinually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought ratherto appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucifytheir feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the Constitution andthe Union. I do oppose the extension of slavery because my judgment andfeeling so prompt me, and I am under no obligations to the contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must. You say, if you werePresident, you would send an army and hang the leaders of the Missourioutrages upon the Kansas elections; still, if Kansas fairly votes herselfa slave State she must be admitted or the Union must be dissolved. But howif she votes herself a slave State unfairly, that is, by the very meansfor which you say you would hang men? Must she still be admitted, or theUnion dissolved? That will be the phase of the question when it firstbecomes a practical one. In your assumption that there may be a fairdecision of the slavery question in Kansas, I plainly see you and I woulddiffer about the Nebraska law. I look upon that enactment not as a law, but as a violence from the beginning. It was conceived in violence, ismaintained in violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it wasconceived in violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise, under the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was passed inviolence because it could not have passed at all but for the votes ofmany members in violence of the known will of their constituents. It ismaintained in violence, because the elections since clearly demand itsrepeal; and the demand is openly disregarded. 

You say men ought to be hung for the way they are executing the law; I saythe way it is being executed is quite as good as any of its antecedents. It is being executed in the precise way which was intended from the first, else why does no Nebraska man express astonishment or condemnation? PoorReeder is the only public man who has been silly enough to believethat anything like fairness was ever intended, and he has been bravelyundeceived. 

That Kansas will form a slave constitution, and with it will ask to beadmitted into the Union, I take to be already a settled question, and sosettled by the very means you so pointedly condemn. By every principle oflaw ever held by any court North or South, every negro taken to Kansasis free; yet, in utter disregard of this, --in the spirit of violencemerely, --that beautiful Legislature gravely passes a law to hang anyman who shall venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is thesubject and real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang uponthe gallows of their own building, I shall not be among the mourners fortheir fate. In my humble sphere, I shall advocate the restoration of theMissouri Compromise so long as Kansas remains a Territory, and when, byall these foul means, it seeks to come into the Union as a slave State, Ishall oppose it. I am very loath in any case to withhold my assent tothe enjoyment of property acquired or located in good faith; but I do notadmit that good faith in taking a negro to Kansas to be held in slaveryis a probability with any man. Any man who has sense enough to be thecontroller of his own property has too much sense to misunderstand theoutrageous character of the whole Nebraska business. But I digress. In myopposition to the admission of Kansas I shall have some company, but wemay be beaten. If we are, I shall not on that account attempt to dissolvethe Union. I think it probable, however, we shall be beaten. Standing asa unit among yourselves, You can, directly and indirectly, bribe enoughof our men to carry the day, as you could on the open proposition toestablish a monarchy. Get hold of some man in the North whose position andability is such that he can make the support of your measure, whatever itmay be, a Democratic party necessity, and the thing is done. Apropos ofthis, let me tell you an anecdote. Douglas introduced the Nebraska Bill inJanuary. In February afterward there was a called session of the IllinoisLegislature. Of the one hundred members composing the two branches of thatbody, about seventy were Democrats. These latter held a caucus in whichthe Nebraska Bill was talked of, if not formally discussed. It was therebydiscovered that just three, and no more, were in favor of the measure. Ina day or two Douglas's orders came on to have resolutions passed approvingthe bill; and they were passed by large majorities!!!! The truth of thisis vouched for by a bolting Democratic member. The masses, too, Democraticas well as Whig, were even nearer unanimous against it; but, as soonas the party necessity of supporting it became apparent, the way theDemocrats began to see the wisdom and justice of it was perfectlyastonishing. 

You say that if Kansas fairly votes herself a free State, as a Christianyou will rejoice at it. All decent slaveholders talk that way, and Ido not doubt their candor. But they never vote that way. Although ina private letter or conversation you will express your preference thatKansas shall be free, you would vote for no man for Congress who would saythe same thing publicly. No such man could be elected from any districtin a slave State. You think Stringfellow and company ought to be hung; andyet at the next Presidential election you will vote for the exact type andrepresentative of Stringfellow. The slave-breeders and slave-traders area small, odious, and detested class among you; and yet in politics theydictate the course of all of you, and are as completely your masters asyou are the master of your own negroes. You inquire where I now stand. That is a disputed point. I think I am a Whig; but others say there areno Whigs, and that I am an Abolitionist. When I was at Washington, I votedfor the Wilmot Proviso as good as forty times; and I never heard of anyone attempting to un-Whig me for that. I now do no more than oppose theextension of slavery. I am not a Know-Nothing; that is certain. How couldI be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes be in favor ofdegrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears tome to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that "all menare created equal. " We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes. " When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all menare created equal, except negroes and foreigners and Catholics. " When itcomes to this, I shall prefer emigrating to some country where they makeno pretense of loving liberty, --to Russia, for instance, where despotismcan be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocrisy. 

Mary will probably pass a day or two in Louisville in October. My kindestregards to Mrs. Speed. On the leading subject of this letter I have moreof her sympathy than I have of yours; and yet let me say I am, Your friend forever, A. LINCOLN. 

1856

REQUEST FOR A RAILWAY PASS

TO R. P. MORGAN

SPRINGFIELD, February 13, 1856. 

R. P. MORGAN, ESQ. :

Says Tom to John, "Here's your old rotten wheelbarrow. I've broke it usin'on it. I wish you would mend it, 'case I shall want to borrow it thisarternoon. " Acting on this as a precedent, I say, "Here's your old'chalked hat, --I wish you would take it and send me a new one, 'case Ishall want to use it the first of March. "

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

(A 'chalked hat' was the common term, at that time, for a railroad pass. )

SPEECH DELIVERED BEFORE THE FIRST REPUBLICAN STATE CONVENTION

OF ILLINOIS, HELD AT BLOOMINGTON, ON MAY 29, 1856. 

[From the Report by William C. Whitney. ]

(Mr. Whitney's notes were made at the time, but not written out until1896. He does not claim that the speech, as here reported, is literallycorrect only that he has followed the argument, and that in many cases thesentences are as Mr. Lincoln spoke them. )

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN: I was over at [Cries of "Platform!" "Takethe platform!"]--I say, that while I was at Danville Court, some of ourfriends of Anti-Nebraska got together in Springfield and elected me as onedelegate to represent old Sangamon with them in this convention, and Iam here certainly as a sympathizer in this movement and by virtue of thatmeeting and selection. But we can hardly be called delegates strictly, inasmuch as, properly speaking, we represent nobody but ourselves. I thinkit altogether fair to say that we have no Anti-Nebraska party in Sangamon, although there is a good deal of Anti-Nebraska feeling there; but I sayfor myself, and I think I may speak also for my colleagues, that we whoare here fully approve of the platform and of all that has been done [Avoice, "Yes!"], and even if we are not regularly delegates, it will beright for me to answer your call to speak. I suppose we truly stand forthe public sentiment of Sangamon on the great question of the repeal, although we do not yet represent many numbers who have taken a distinctposition on the question. 

We are in a trying time--it ranges above mere party--and this movementto call a halt and turn our steps backward needs all the help and goodcounsels it can get; for unless popular opinion makes itself very stronglyfelt, and a change is made in our present course, blood will flow onaccount of Nebraska, and brother's hands will be raised against brother!

[The last sentence was uttered in such an earnest, impressive, if not, indeed, tragic, manner, as to make a cold chill creep over me. Others gavea similar experience. ]

I have listened with great interest to the earnest appeal made to Illinoismen by the gentleman from Lawrence [James S. Emery] who has just addressedus so eloquently and forcibly. I was deeply moved by his statement of thewrongs done to free-State men out there. I think it just to say that alltrue men North should sympathize with them, and ought to be willing todo any possible and needful thing to right their wrongs. But we must notpromise what we ought not, lest we be called on to perform what we cannot;we must be calm and moderate, and consider the whole difficulty, anddetermine what is possible and just. We must not be led by excitementand passion to do that which our sober judgments would not approve in ourcooler moments. We have higher aims; we will have more serious businessthan to dally with temporary measures. 

We are here to stand firmly for a principle--to stand firmly for a right. We know that great political and moral wrongs are done, and outragescommitted, and we denounce those wrongs and outrages, although we cannot, at present, do much more. But we desire to reach out beyond those personaloutrages and establish a rule that will apply to all, and so prevent anyfuture outrages. 

We have seen to-day that every shade of popular opinion is representedhere, with Freedom, or rather Free Soil, as the basis. We have cometogether as in some sort representatives of popular opinion against theextension of slavery into territory now free in fact as well as by law, and the pledged word of the statesmen of the nation who are now no more. We come--we are here assembled together--to protest as well as we canagainst a great wrong, and to take measures, as well as we now can, tomake that wrong right; to place the nation, as far as it may be possiblenow, as it was before the repeal of the Missouri Compromise; and the plainway to do this is to restore the Compromise, and to demand and determinethat Kansas shall be free! [Immense applause. ] While we affirm, andreaffirm, if necessary, our devotion to the principles of the Declarationof Independence, let our practical work here be limited to the above. Weknow that there is not a perfect agreement of sentiment here on the publicquestions which might be rightfully considered in this convention, andthat the indignation which we all must feel cannot be helped; but all ofus must give up something for the good of the cause. There is one desirewhich is uppermost in the mind, one wish common to us all, to which nodissent will be made; and I counsel you earnestly to bury all resentment, to sink all personal feeling, make all things work to a common purpose inwhich we are united and agreed about, and which all present will agree isabsolutely necessary--which must be done by any rightful mode if therebe such: Slavery must be kept out of Kansas! [Applause. ] The test--thepinch--is right there. If we lose Kansas to freedom, an example will beset which will prove fatal to freedom in the end. We, therefore, inthe language of the Bible, must "lay the axe to the root of the tree. "Temporizing will not do longer; now is the time for decision--for firm, persistent, resolute action. [Applause. ]

The Nebraska Bill, or rather Nebraska law, is not one of wholesomelegislation, but was and is an act of legislative usurpation, whoseresult, if not indeed intention, is to make slavery national; and unlessheaded off in some effective way, we are in a fair way to see this landof boasted freedom converted into a land of slavery in fact. [Sensation. ]Just open your two eyes, and see if this be not so. I need do no more thanstate, to command universal approval, that almost the entire North, aswell as a large following in the border States, is radically opposed tothe planting of slavery in free territory. Probably in a popular votethroughout the nation nine tenths of the voters in the free States, andat least one-half in the border States, if they could express theirsentiments freely, would vote NO on such an issue; and it is safe to saythat two thirds of the votes of the entire nation would be opposed to it. And yet, in spite of this overbalancing of sentiment in this free country, we are in a fair way to see Kansas present itself for admission as a slaveState. Indeed, it is a felony, by the local law of Kansas, to deny thatslavery exists there even now. By every principle of law, a negro inKansas is free; yet the bogus Legislature makes it an infamous crime totell him that he is free!

Statutes of Kansas, 1555, chapter 151, Sec. 12: If any free person, byspeaking or by writing, assert or maintain that persons have not the rightto hold slaves in this Territory, or shall introduce into this Territory, print, publish, write, circulate . . . Any book, paper, magazine, pamphlet, or circular containing any denial of the right of personsto hold slaves in this Territory such person shall be deemed guilty offelony, and punished by imprisonment at hard labor for a term of notless than two years. Sec. 13. No person who is conscientiously opposedto holding slaves, or who does not admit the right to hold slaves in thisTerritory, shall sit as a juror on the trial of any prosecution for anyviolation of any Sections of this Act. 

The party lash and the fear of ridicule will overawe justice and liberty;for it is a singular fact, but none the less a fact, and well known by themost common experience, that men will do things under the terror of theparty lash that they would not on any account or for any considerationdo otherwise; while men who will march up to the mouth of a loaded cannonwithout shrinking will run from the terrible name of "Abolitionist, "even when pronounced by a worthless creature whom they, with good reason, despise. For instance--to press this point a little--Judge Douglasintroduced his Nebraska Bill in January; and we had an extra session ofour Legislature in the succeeding February, in which were seventy-fiveDemocrats; and at a party caucus, fully attended, there were just threevotes, out of the whole seventy-five, for the measure. But in a few daysorders came on from Washington, commanding them to approve the measure;the party lash was applied, and it was brought up again in caucus, and passed by a large majority. The masses were against it, but partynecessity carried it; and it was passed through the lower house ofCongress against the will of the people, for the same reason. Here iswhere the greatest danger lies that, while we profess to be a governmentof law and reason, law will give way to violence on demand of thisawful and crushing power. Like the great Juggernaut--I think that is thename--the great idol, it crushes everything that comes in its way, andmakes a [?]--or, as I read once, in a blackletter law book, "a slave isa human being who is legally not a person but a thing. " And if thesafeguards to liberty are broken down, as is now attempted, when they havemade things of all the free negroes, how long, think you, before theywill begin to make things of poor white men? [Applause. ] Be not deceived. Revolutions do not go backward. The founder of the Democratic partydeclared that all men were created equal. His successor in the leadershiphas written the word "white" before men, making it read "all white men arecreated equal. " Pray, will or may not the Know-Nothings, if they shouldget in power, add the word "Protestant, " making it read "all Protestantwhite men. .. ?"

Meanwhile the hapless negro is the fruitful subject of reprisals in otherquarters. John Pettit, whom Tom Benton paid his respects to, you willrecollect, calls the immortal Declaration "a self-evident lie"; while atthe birthplace of freedom--in the shadow of Bunker Hill and of the "cradleof liberty, " at the home of the Adamses and Warren and Otis--Choate, from our side of the house, dares to fritter away the birthday promiseof liberty by proclaiming the Declaration to be "a string of glitteringgeneralities"; and the Southern Whigs, working hand in hand withproslavery Democrats, are making Choate's theories practical. ThomasJefferson, a slaveholder, mindful of the moral element in slavery, solemnly declared that he trembled for his country when he remembered thatGod is just; while Judge Douglas, with an insignificant wave of the hand, "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down. " Now, if slaveryis right, or even negative, he has a right to treat it in this triflingmanner. But if it is a moral and political wrong, as all Christendomconsiders it to be, how can he answer to God for this attempt to spreadand fortify it? [Applause. ]

But no man, and Judge Douglas no more than any other, can maintain anegative, or merely neutral, position on this question; and, accordingly, he avows that the Union was made by white men and for white men and theirdescendants. As matter of fact, the first branch of the proposition ishistorically true; the government was made by white men, and they wereand are the superior race. This I admit. But the corner-stone of thegovernment, so to speak, was the declaration that "all men are createdequal, " and all entitled to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. "[Applause. ]

And not only so, but the framers of the Constitution were particularto keep out of that instrument the word "slave, " the reason being thatslavery would ultimately come to an end, and they did not wish to have anyreminder that in this free country human beings were ever prostituted toslavery. [Applause. ] Nor is it any argument that we are superior and thenegro inferior--that he has but one talent while we have ten. Let thenegro possess the little he has in independence; if he has but one talent, he should be permitted to keep the little he has. [Applause:] But slaverywill endure no test of reason or logic; and yet its advocates, likeDouglas, use a sort of bastard logic, or noisy assumption it might betterbe termed, like the above, in order to prepare the mind for the gradual, but none the less certain, encroachments of the Moloch of slavery upon thefair domain of freedom. But however much you may argue upon it, or smotherit in soft phrase, slavery can only be maintained by force--by violence. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise was by violence. It was a violationof both law and the sacred obligations of honor, to overthrow and trampleunder foot a solemn compromise, obtained by the fearful loss to freedom ofone of the fairest of our Western domains. Congress violated the will andconfidence of its constituents in voting for the bill; and while publicsentiment, as shown by the elections of 1854, demanded the restoration ofthis compromise, Congress violated its trust by refusing simply because ithad the force of numbers to hold on to it. And murderous violence is beingused now, in order to force slavery on to Kansas; for it cannot be done inany other way. [Sensation. ]

The necessary result was to establish the rule of violence--force, insteadof the rule of law and reason; to perpetuate and spread slavery, andin time to make it general. We see it at both ends of the line. InWashington, on the very spot where the outrage was started, the fearlessSumner is beaten to insensibility, and is now slowly dying; while senatorswho claim to be gentlemen and Christians stood by, countenancing theact, and even applauding it afterward in their places in the Senate. EvenDouglas, our man, saw it all and was within helping distance, yet let themurderous blows fall unopposed. Then, at the other end of the line, at thevery time Sumner was being murdered, Lawrence was being destroyed forthe crime of freedom. It was the most prominent stronghold of liberty inKansas, and must give way to the all-dominating power of slavery. Onlytwo days ago, Judge Trumbull found it necessary to propose a bill in theSenate to prevent a general civil war and to restore peace in Kansas. 

We live in the midst of alarms; anxiety beclouds the future; we expectsome new disaster with each newspaper we read. Are we in a healthfulpolitical state? Are not the tendencies plain? Do not the signs of thetimes point plainly the way in which we are going? [Sensation. ]

In the early days of the Constitution slavery was recognized, by South andNorth alike, as an evil, and the division of sentiment about it was notcontrolled by geographical lines or considerations of climate, but bymoral and philanthropic views. Petitions for the abolition of slavery werepresented to the very first Congress by Virginia and Massachusetts alike. To show the harmony which prevailed, I will state that a fugitive slavelaw was passed in 1793, with no dissenting voice in the Senate, andbut seven dissenting votes in the House. It was, however, a wise law, moderate, and, under the Constitution, a just one. Twenty-five yearslater, a more stringent law was proposed and defeated; and thirty-fiveyears after that, the present law, drafted by Mason of Virginia, waspassed by Northern votes. I am not, just now, complaining of this law, butI am trying to show how the current sets; for the proposed law of 1817 wasfar less offensive than the present one. In 1774 the Continental Congresspledged itself, without a dissenting vote, to wholly discontinue the slavetrade, and to neither purchase nor import any slave; and less than threemonths before the passage of the Declaration of Independence, the sameCongress which adopted that declaration unanimously resolved "that noslave be imported into any of the thirteen United Colonies. " [Greatapplause. ]

On the second day of July, 1776, the draft of a Declaration ofIndependence was reported to Congress by the committee, and in it theslave trade was characterized as "an execrable commerce, " as "a piraticalwarfare, " as the "opprobrium of infidel powers, " and as "a cruel waragainst human nature. " [Applause. ] All agreed on this except SouthCarolina and Georgia, and in order to preserve harmony, and from thenecessity of the case, these expressions were omitted. Indeed, abolitionsocieties existed as far south as Virginia; and it is a well-known factthat Washington, Jefferson, Madison, Lee, Henry, Mason, and Pendleton werequalified abolitionists, and much more radical on that subject than weof the Whig and Democratic parties claim to be to-day. On March 1, 1784, Virginia ceded to the confederation all its lands lying northwest of theOhio River. Jefferson, Chase of Maryland, and Howell of Rhode Island, asa committee on that and territory thereafter to be ceded, reported thatno slavery should exist after the year 1800. Had this report been adopted, not only the Northwest, but Kentucky, Tennessee, Alabama, and Mississippialso would have been free; but it required the assent of nine States toratify it. North Carolina was divided, and thus its vote was lost; andDelaware, Georgia, and New Jersey refused to vote. In point of fact, as itwas, it was assented to by six States. Three years later on a square voteto exclude slavery from the Northwest, only one vote, and that from NewYork, was against it. And yet, thirty-seven years later, five thousandcitizens of Illinois, out of a voting mass of less than twelve thousand, deliberately, after a long and heated contest, voted to introduce slaveryin Illinois; and, to-day, a large party in the free State of Illinois arewilling to vote to fasten the shackles of slavery on the fair domain ofKansas, notwithstanding it received the dowry of freedom long before itsbirth as a political community. I repeat, therefore, the question: Is itnot plain in what direction we are tending? [Sensation. ] In the colonialtime, Mason, Pendleton, and Jefferson were as hostile to slavery inVirginia as Otis, Ames, and the Adamses were in Massachusetts; andVirginia made as earnest an effort to get rid of it as old Massachusettsdid. But circumstances were against them and they failed; but not that thegood will of its leading men was lacking. Yet within less than fifty yearsVirginia changed its tune, and made negro-breeding for the cotton andsugar States one of its leading industries. [Laughter and applause. ]

In the Constitutional Convention, George Mason of Virginia made a moreviolent abolition speech than my friends Lovejoy or Codding would desireto make here to-day--a speech which could not be safely repeated anywhereon Southern soil in this enlightened year. But, while there were somedifferences of opinion on this subject even then, discussion was allowed;but as you see by the Kansas slave code, which, as you know, is theMissouri slave code, merely ferried across the river, it is a felonyto even express an opinion hostile to that foul blot in the land ofWashington and the Declaration of Independence. [Sensation. ]

In Kentucky--my State--in 1849, on a test vote, the mighty influenceof Henry Clay and many other good then there could not get a symptom ofexpression in favor of gradual emancipation on a plain issue of marchingtoward the light of civilization with Ohio and Illinois; but the State ofBoone and Hardin and Henry Clay, with a nigger under each arm, took theblack trail toward the deadly swamps of barbarism. Is there--can therebe--any doubt about this thing? And is there any doubt that we must alllay aside our prejudices and march, shoulder to shoulder, in the greatarmy of Freedom? [Applause. ]

Every Fourth of July our young orators all proclaim this to be "the landof the free and the home of the brave!" Well, now, when you orators getthat off next year, and, may be, this very year, how would you like someold grizzled farmer to get up in the grove and deny it? [Laughter. ] Howwould you like that? But suppose Kansas comes in as a slave State, andall the "border ruffians" have barbecues about it, and free-State men cometrailing back to the dishonored North, like whipped dogs with their tailsbetween their legs, it is--ain't it?--evident that this is no more the"land of the free"; and if we let it go so, we won't dare to say "home ofthe brave" out loud. [Sensation and confusion. ]

Can any man doubt that, even in spite of the people's will, slavery willtriumph through violence, unless that will be made manifest and enforced?Even Governor Reeder claimed at the outset that the contest in Kansas wasto be fair, but he got his eyes open at last; and I believe that, as aresult of this moral and physical violence, Kansas will soon apply foradmission as a slave State. And yet we can't mistake that the peopledon't want it so, and that it is a land which is free both by naturaland political law. No law, is free law! Such is the understanding of allChristendom. In the Somerset case, decided nearly a century ago, the greatLord Mansfield held that slavery was of such a nature that it must takeits rise in positive (as distinguished from natural) law; and that in nocountry or age could it be traced back to any other source. Will someone please tell me where is the positive law that establishes slavery inKansas? [A voice: "The bogus laws. "] Aye, the bogus laws! And, on the sameprinciple, a gang of Missouri horse-thieves could come into Illinois anddeclare horse-stealing to be legal [Laughter], and it would be just aslegal as slavery is in Kansas. But by express statute, in the land ofWashington and Jefferson, we may soon be brought face to face with thediscreditable fact of showing to the world by our acts that we preferslavery to freedom--darkness to light! [Sensation. ]

It is, I believe, a principle in law that when one party to a contractviolates it so grossly as to chiefly destroy the object for which it ismade, the other party may rescind it. I will ask Browning if that ain'tgood law. [Voices: "Yes!"] Well, now if that be right, I go for rescindingthe whole, entire Missouri Compromise and thus turning Missouri into afree State; and I should like to know the difference--should like forany one to point out the difference--between our making a free State ofMissouri and their making a slave State of Kansas. [Great applause. ] Thereain't one bit of difference, except that our way would be a great mercyto humanity. But I have never said, and the Whig party has never said, andthose who oppose the Nebraska Bill do not as a body say, that theyhave any intention of interfering with slavery in the slave States. Ourplatform says just the contrary. We allow slavery to exist in the slaveStates, not because slavery is right or good, but from the necessities ofour Union. We grant a fugitive slave law because it is so "nominated inthe bond"; because our fathers so stipulated--had to--and we are bound tocarry out this agreement. But they did not agree to introduce slavery inregions where it did not previously exist. On the contrary, they said bytheir example and teachings that they did not deem it expedient--did n'tconsider it right--to do so; and it is wise and right to do just asthey did about it. [Voices: "Good!"] And that it what we propose--not tointerfere with slavery where it exists (we have never tried to do it), and to give them a reasonable and efficient fugitive slave law. [A voice:"No!"] I say YES! [Applause. ] It was part of the bargain, and I 'm forliving up to it; but I go no further; I'm not bound to do more, and Iwon't agree any further. [Great applause. ]

We, here in Illinois, should feel especially proud of the provision ofthe Missouri Compromise excluding slavery from what is now Kansas; for anIllinois man, Jesse B. Thomas, was its father. Henry Clay, who is creditedwith the authorship of the Compromise in general terms, did not even votefor that provision, but only advocated the ultimate admission by a secondcompromise; and Thomas was, beyond all controversy, the real author of the"slavery restriction" branch of the Compromise. To show the generosity ofthe Northern members toward the Southern side: on a test vote to excludeslavery from Missouri, ninety voted not to exclude, and eighty-seven toexclude, every vote from the slave States being ranged with the former andfourteen votes from the free States, of whom seven were from New Englandalone; while on a vote to exclude slavery from what is now Kansas, thevote was one hundred and thirty-four for, to forty-two against. Thescheme, as a whole, was, of course, a Southern triumph. It is idle tocontend otherwise, as is now being done by the Nebraskites; it wasso shown by the votes and quite as emphatically by the expressions ofrepresentative men. Mr. Lowndes of South Carolina was never known tocommit a political mistake; his was the great judgment of that section;and he declared that this measure "would restore tranquillity to thecountry--a result demanded by every consideration of discretion, ofmoderation, of wisdom, and of virtue. " When the measure came beforePresident Monroe for his approval, he put to each member of his cabinetthis question: "Has Congress the constitutional power to prohibit slaveryin a Territory?" And John C. Calhoun and William H. Crawford from theSouth, equally with John Quincy Adams, Benjamin Rush, and SmithThompson from the North, alike answered, "Yes!" without qualification orequivocation; and this measure, of so great consequence to the South, waspassed; and Missouri was, by means of it, finally enabled to knock at thedoor of the Republic for an open passage to its brood of slaves. And, inspite of this, Freedom's share is about to be taken by violence--by theforce of misrepresentative votes, not called for by the popular will. What name can I, in common decency, give to this wicked transaction?[Sensation. ]

But even then the contest was not over; for when the Missouri constitutioncame before Congress for its approval, it forbade any free negro ormulatto from entering the State. In short, our Illinois "black laws" werehidden away in their constitution [Laughter], and the controversy was thusrevived. Then it was that Mr. Clay's talents shone out conspicuously, andthe controversy that shook the union to its foundation was finally settledto the satisfaction of the conservative parties on both sides of the line, though not to the extremists on either, and Missouri was admitted by thesmall majority of six in the lower House. How great a majority, do youthink, would have been given had Kansas also been secured for slavery?[A voice: "A majority the other way. "] "A majority the other way, " isanswered. Do you think it would have been safe for a Northern man to haveconfronted his constituents after having voted to consign bothMissouri and Kansas to hopeless slavery? And yet this man Douglas, whomisrepresents his constituents and who has exerted his highest talents inthat direction, will be carried in triumph through the State and hailedwith honor while applauding that act. [Three groans for "Dug!"] And thisshows whither we are tending. This thing of slavery is more powerful thanits supporters--even than the high priests that minister at its altar. It debauches even our greatest men. It gathers strength, like a rollingsnowball, by its own infamy. Monstrous crimes are committed in its name bypersons collectively which they would not dare to commit as individuals. Its aggressions and encroachments almost surpass belief. In a despotism, one might not wonder to see slavery advance steadily and remorselesslyinto new dominions; but is it not wonderful, is it not even alarming, tosee its steady advance in a land dedicated to the proposition that "allmen are created equal"? [Sensation. ]

It yields nothing itself; it keeps all it has, and gets all it canbesides. It really came dangerously near securing Illinois in 1824; itdid get Missouri in 1821. The first proposition was to admit what is nowArkansas and Missouri as one slave State. But the territory was dividedand Arkansas came in, without serious question, as a slave State; andafterwards Missouri, not, as a sort of equality, free, but also as a slaveState. Then we had Florida and Texas; and now Kansas is about to be forcedinto the dismal procession. [Sensation. ] And so it is wherever you look. We have not forgotten--it is but six years since--how dangerously nearCalifornia came to being a slave State. Texas is a slave State, and fourother slave States may be carved from its vast domain. And yet, in theyear 1829, slavery was abolished throughout that vast region by a royaldecree of the then sovereign of Mexico. Will you please tell me by whatright slavery exists in Texas to-day? By the same right as, and no higheror greater than, slavery is seeking dominion in Kansas: by politicalforce--peaceful, if that will suffice; by the torch (as in Kansas) and thebludgeon (as in the Senate chamber), if required. And so history repeatsitself; and even as slavery has kept its course by craft, intimidation, and violence in the past, so it will persist, in my judgment, until metand dominated by the will of a people bent on its restriction. 

We have, this very afternoon, heard bitter denunciations of Brooks inWashington, and Titus, Stringfellow, Atchison, Jones, and Shannon inKansas--the battle-ground of slavery. I certainly am not going to advocateor shield them; but they and their acts are but the necessary outcome ofthe Nebraska law. We should reserve our highest censure for the authorsof the mischief, and not for the catspaws which they use. I believe it wasShakespeare who said, "Where the offence lies, there let the axe fall";and, in my opinion, this man Douglas and the Northern men in Congresswho advocate "Nebraska" are more guilty than a thousand Joneses andStringfellows, with all their murderous practices, can be. [Applause. ]

We have made a good beginning here to-day. As our Methodist friends wouldsay, "I feel it is good to be here. " While extremists may find some faultwith the moderation of our platform, they should recollect that "thebattle is not always to the strong, nor the race to the swift. " In graveemergencies, moderation is generally safer than radicalism; and as thisstruggle is likely to be long and earnest, we must not, by our action, repel any who are in sympathy with us in the main, but rather win all thatwe can to our standard. We must not belittle nor overlook the facts of ourcondition--that we are new and comparatively weak, while our enemies areentrenched and relatively strong. They have the administration and thepolitical power; and, right or wrong, at present they have the numbers. Our friends who urge an appeal to arms with so much force and eloquenceshould recollect that the government is arrayed against us, and that thenumbers are now arrayed against us as well; or, to state it nearer to thetruth, they are not yet expressly and affirmatively for us; and we shouldrepel friends rather than gain them by anything savoring of revolutionarymethods. As it now stands, we must appeal to the sober sense andpatriotism of the people. We will make converts day by day; we will growstrong by calmness and moderation; we will grow strong by the violence andinjustice of our adversaries. And, unless truth be a mockery and justicea hollow lie, we will be in the majority after a while, and then therevolution which we will accomplish will be none the less radical frombeing the result of pacific measures. The battle of freedom is to befought out on principle. Slavery is a violation of the eternal right. Wehave temporized with it from the necessities of our condition; but as sureas God reigns and school children read, THAT BLACK FOUL LIE CAN NEVERBE CONSECRATED INTO GOD'S HALLOWED TRUTH! [Immense applause lasting sometime. ]

One of our greatest difficulties is, that men who know that slavery is adetestable crime and ruinous to the nation are compelled, by our peculiarcondition and other circumstances, to advocate it concretely, thoughdamning it in the raw. Henry Clay was a brilliant example of thistendency; others of our purest statesmen are compelled to do so; and thusslavery secures actual support from those who detest it at heart. YetHenry Clay perfected and forced through the compromise which secured toslavery a great State as well as a political advantage. Not that he hatedslavery less, but that he loved the whole Union more. As long as slaveryprofited by his great compromise, the hosts of proslavery could notsufficiently cover him with praise; but now that this compromise stands intheir way--

 ". .. . They never mention him, His name is never heard: Their lips are now forbid to speak That once familiar word. "

They have slaughtered one of his most cherished measures, and his ghostwould arise to rebuke them. [Great applause. ]

Now, let us harmonize, my friends, and appeal to the moderation andpatriotism of the people: to the sober second thought; to the awakenedpublic conscience. The repeal of the sacred Missouri Compromise hasinstalled the weapons of violence: the bludgeon, the incendiary torch, thedeath-dealing rifle, the bristling cannon--the weapons of kingcraft, ofthe inquisition, of ignorance, of barbarism, of oppression. We see itsfruits in the dying bed of the heroic Sumner; in the ruins of the "FreeState" hotel; in the smoking embers of the Herald of Freedom; in thefree-State Governor of Kansas chained to a stake on freedom's soil like ahorse-thief, for the crime of freedom. [Applause. ] We see it in Christianstatesmen, and Christian newspapers, and Christian pulpits applauding thecowardly act of a low bully, WHO CRAWLED UPON HIS VICTIM BEHIND HIS BACKAND DEALT THE DEADLY BLOW. [Sensation and applause. ] We note our politicaldemoralization in the catch-words that are coming into such common use;on the one hand, "freedom-shriekers, " and sometimes "freedom-screechers"[Laughter], and, on the other hand, "border-ruffians, " and that fullydeserved. And the significance of catch-words cannot pass unheeded, forthey constitute a sign of the times. Everything in this world "jibes" inwith everything else, and all the fruits of this Nebraska Bill are likethe poisoned source from which they come. I will not say that we may notsooner or later be compelled to meet force by force; but the time has notyet come, and, if we are true to ourselves, may never come. Do not mistakethat the ballot is stronger than the bullet. Therefore let the legionsof slavery use bullets; but let us wait patiently till November and fireballots at them in return; and by that peaceful policy I believe we shallultimately win. [Applause. ]

It was by that policy that here in Illinois the early fathers fought thegood fight and gained the victory. In 1824 the free men of our State, ledby Governor Coles (who was a native of Maryland and President Madison'sprivate secretary), determined that those beautiful groves should neverre-echo the dirge of one who has no title to himself. By their resolutedetermination, the winds that sweep across our broad prairies shall nevercool the parched brow, nor shall the unfettered streams that bring joy andgladness to our free soil water the tired feet, of a slave; but so long asthose heavenly breezes and sparkling streams bless the land, or the grovesand their fragrance or memory remain, the humanity to which they ministerSHALL BE FOREVER FREE! [Great applause] Palmer, Yates, Williams, Browning, and some more in this convention came from Kentucky to Illinois (insteadof going to Missouri), not only to better their conditions, but also toget away from slavery. They have said so to me, and it is understood amongus Kentuckians that we don't like it one bit. Now, can we, mindful of theblessings of liberty which the early men of Illinois left to us, refuse alike privilege to the free men who seek to plant Freedom's banner on ourWestern outposts? ["No!" "No!"] Should we not stand by our neighbors whoseek to better their conditions in Kansas and Nebraska? ["Yes!" "Yes!"]Can we as Christian men, and strong and free ourselves, wield the sledgeor hold the iron which is to manacle anew an already oppressed race?["No!" "No!"] "Woe unto them, " it is written, "that decree unrighteousdecrees and that write grievousness which they have prescribed. " Can weafford to sin any more deeply against human liberty? ["No!" "No!"]

One great trouble in the matter is, that slavery is an insidious andcrafty power, and gains equally by open violence of the brutal as well asby sly management of the peaceful. Even after the Ordinance of 1787, thesettlers in Indiana and Illinois (it was all one government then) tried toget Congress to allow slavery temporarily, and petitions to that end weresent from Kaskaskia, and General Harrison, the Governor, urged it fromVincennes, the capital. If that had succeeded, good-bye to liberty here. But John Randolph of Virginia made a vigorous report against it; andalthough they persevered so well as to get three favorable reports for it, yet the United States Senate, with the aid of some slave States, finallysquelched if for good. [Applause. ] And that is why this hall is to-day atemple for free men instead of a negro livery-stable. [Great applause andlaughter. ] Once let slavery get planted in a locality, by ever so weak ordoubtful a title, and in ever so small numbers, and it is like the Canadathistle or Bermuda grass--you can't root it out. You yourself may detestslavery; but your neighbor has five or six slaves, and he is an excellentneighbor, or your son has married his daughter, and they beg you to helpsave their property, and you vote against your interests and principle toaccommodate a neighbor, hoping that your vote will be on the losing side. And others do the same; and in those ways slavery gets a sure foothold. And when that is done the whole mighty Union--the force of the nation--iscommitted to its support. And that very process is working in Kansasto-day. And you must recollect that the slave property is worth a billionof dollars; while free-State men must work for sentiment alone. Then thereare "blue lodges"--as they call them--everywhere doing their secret anddeadly work. 

It is a very strange thing, and not solvable by any moral law that I knowof, that if a man loses his horse, the whole country will turn out tohelp hang the thief; but if a man but a shade or two darker than I am ishimself stolen, the same crowd will hang one who aids in restoring him toliberty. Such are the inconsistencies of slavery, where a horse is moresacred than a man; and the essence of squatter or popular sovereignty--Idon't care how you call it--is that if one man chooses to make a slave ofanother, no third man shall be allowed to object. And if you can do thisin free Kansas, and it is allowed to stand, the next thing you will see isshiploads of negroes from Africa at the wharf at Charleston, for one thingis as truly lawful as the other; and these are the bastard notions we havegot to stamp out, else they will stamp us out. [Sensation and applause. ]

Two years ago, at Springfield, Judge Douglas avowed that Illinois cameinto the Union as a slave State, and that slavery was weeded out bythe operation of his great, patent, everlasting principle of "popularsovereignty. " [Laughter. ] Well, now, that argument must be answered, forit has a little grain of truth at the bottom. I do not mean that it istrue in essence, as he would have us believe. It could not be essentiallytrue if the Ordinance of '87 was valid. But, in point of fact, therewere some degraded beings called slaves in Kaskaskia and the other Frenchsettlements when our first State constitution was adopted; that is a fact, and I don't deny it. Slaves were brought here as early as 1720, and werekept here in spite of the Ordinance of 1787 against it. But slavery didnot thrive here. On the contrary, under the influence of the ordinance thenumber decreased fifty-one from 1810 to 1820; while under the influence ofsquatter sovereignty, right across the river in Missouri, they increasedseven thousand two hundred and eleven in the same time; and slaveryfinally faded out in Illinois, under the influence of the law of freedom, while it grew stronger and stronger in Missouri, under the law or practiceof "popular sovereignty. " In point of fact there were but one hundred andseventeen slaves in Illinois one year after its admission, or one to everyfour hundred and seventy of its population; or, to state it in anotherway, if Illinois was a slave State in 1820, so were New York and NewJersey much greater slave States from having had greater numbers, slaveryhaving been established there in very early times. But there is this vitaldifference between all these States and the Judge's Kansas experiment:that they sought to disestablish slavery which had been alreadyestablished, while the Judge seeks, so far as he can, to disestablishfreedom, which had been established there by the Missouri Compromise. [Voices: "Good!"]

The Union is under-going a fearful strain; but it is a stout old ship, andhas weathered many a hard blow, and "the stars in their courses, " aye, aninvisible Power, greater than the puny efforts of men, will fight for us. But we ourselves must not decline the burden of responsibility, nor takecounsel of unworthy passions. Whatever duty urges us to do or to omit mustbe done or omitted; and the recklessness with which our adversaries breakthe laws, or counsel their violation, should afford no example for us. Therefore, let us revere the Declaration of Independence; let us continueto obey the Constitution and the laws; let us keep step to the music ofthe Union. Let us draw a cordon, so to speak, around the slave States, andthe hateful institution, like a reptile poisoning itself, will perish byits own infamy. [Applause. ]

But we cannot be free men if this is, by our national choice, to be aland of slavery. Those who deny freedom to others deserve it not forthemselves; and, under the rule of a just God, cannot long retain it. [Loudapplause. ]

Did you ever, my friends, seriously reflect upon the speed with which weare tending downwards? Within the memory of men now present the leadingstatesman of Virginia could make genuine, red-hot abolitionist speeches inold Virginia! and, as I have said, now even in "free Kansas" it is a crimeto declare that it is "free Kansas. " The very sentiments that I and othershave just uttered would entitle us, and each of us, to the ignominy andseclusion of a dungeon; and yet I suppose that, like Paul, we were "freeborn. " But if this thing is allowed to continue, it will be but one stepfurther to impress the same rule in Illinois. [Sensation. ]

The conclusion of all is, that we must restore the Missouri Compromise. We must highly resolve that Kansas must be free! [Great applause. ] Wemust reinstate the birthday promise of the Republic; we must reaffirm theDeclaration of Independence; we must make good in essence as well as inform Madison's avowal that "the word slave ought not to appear in theConstitution"; and we must even go further, and decree that only locallaw, and not that time-honored instrument, shall shelter a slaveholder. Wemust make this a land of liberty in fact, as it is in name. But in seekingto attain these results--so indispensable if the liberty which is ourpride and boast shall endure--we will be loyal to the Constitution andto the "flag of our Union, " and no matter what our grievance--even thoughKansas shall come in as a slave State; and no matter what theirs--even ifwe shall restore the compromise--WE WILL SAY TO THE SOUTHERN DISUNIONISTS, WE WON'T GO OUT OF THE UNION, AND YOU SHAN'T!

[This was the climax; the audience rose to its feet en masse, applauded, stamped, waved handkerchiefs, threw hats in the air, and ran riot forseveral minutes. The arch-enchanter who wrought this transformationlooked, meanwhile, like the personification of political justice. ]

But let us, meanwhile, appeal to the sense and patriotism of the people, and not to their prejudices; let us spread the floods of enthusiasm herearoused all over these vast prairies, so suggestive of freedom. Let uscommence by electing the gallant soldier Governor (Colonel) Bissellwho stood for the honor of our State alike on the plains and amidst thechaparral of Mexico and on the floor of Congress, while he defied theSouthern Hotspur; and that will have a greater moral effect than all theborder ruffians can accomplish in all their raids on Kansas. There is botha power and a magic in popular opinion. To that let us now appeal;and while, in all probability, no resort to force will be needed, ourmoderation and forbearance will stand US in good stead when, if ever, WEMUST MAKE AN APPEAL TO BATTLE AND TO THE GOD OF HOSTS! [Immense applauseand a rush for the orator. ]

One can realize with this ability to move people's minds that the SouthernConspiracy were right to hate this man. He, better than any at the timewas able to uncover their stratagems and tear down their sophisms andcontradictions. 

POLITICAL CORRESPONDENCE

TO W. C. WHITNEY. 

SPRINGFIELD, July 9, 1856. 

DEAR WHITNEY:--I now expect to go to Chicago on the 15th, and I probablyshall remain there or thereabouts for about two weeks. 

It turned me blind when I first heard Swett was beaten and Lovejoynominated; but, after much reflection, I really believe it is best to letit stand. This, of course, I wish to be confidential. 

Lamon did get your deeds. I went with him to the office, got them, and putthem in his hands myself. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ON OUT-OF-STATE CAMPAIGNERS

TO WILLIAM GRIMES. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, July 12, 1856

Your's of the 29th of June was duly received. I did not answer it becauseit plagued me. This morning I received another from Judd and Peck, writtenby consultation with you. Now let me tell you why I am plagued:

1. I can hardly spare the time. 

2. I am superstitious. I have scarcely known a party preceding an electionto call in help from the neighboring States but they lost the State. Lastfall, our friends had Wade, of Ohio, and others, in Maine; and they lostthe State. Last spring our adversaries had New Hampshire full of SouthCarolinians, and they lost the State. And so, generally, it seems to stirup more enemies than friends. 

Have the enemy called in any foreign help? If they have a foreign championthere I should have no objection to drive a nail in his track. I shallreach Chicago on the night of the 15th, to attend to a little businessin court. Consider the things I have suggested, and write me at Chicago. Especially write me whether Browning consents to visit you. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN SPEECH

FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT GALENA, ILLINOIS, IN THE FREMONT CAMPAIGN, AUGUST 1, 1856. 

You further charge us with being disunionists. If you mean that it isour aim to dissolve the Union, I for myself answer that it is untrue; forthose who act with me I answer that it is untrue. Have you heard us assertthat as our aim? Do you really believe that such is our aim? Do you findit in our platform, our speeches, our conventions, or anywhere? If not, withdraw the charge. 

But you may say that, though it is not our aim, it will be the resultif we succeed, and that we are therefore disunionists in fact. This is agrave charge you make against us, and we certainly have a right to demandthat you specify in what way we are to dissolve the Union. How are we toeffect this?

The only specification offered is volunteered by Mr. Fillmore inhis Albany speech. His charge is that if we elect a President andVice-President both from the free States, it will dissolve the Union. This is open folly. The Constitution provides that the President andVice-President of the United States shall be of different States, but saysnothing as to the latitude and longitude of those States. In 1828 AndrewJackson, of Tennessee, and John C. Calhoun, of South Carolina, wereelected President and Vice-President, both from slave States; but no onethought of dissolving the Union then on that account. In 1840 Harrison, ofOhio, and Tyler, of Virginia, were elected. In 1841 Harrison died and JohnTyler succeeded to the Presidency, and William R. King, of Alabama, waselected acting Vice-President by the Senate; but no one supposed that theUnion was in danger. In fact, at the very time Mr. Fillmore uttered thisidle charge, the state of things in the United States disproved it. Mr. Pierce, of New Hampshire, and Mr. Bright, of Indiana, both from freeStates, are President and Vice-President, and the Union stands and willstand. You do not pretend that it ought to dissolve the Union, and thefacts show that it won't; therefore the charge may be dismissed withoutfurther consideration. 

No other specification is made, and the only one that could be made isthat the restoration of the restriction of 1820, making the United Statesterritory free territory, would dissolve the Union. Gentlemen, it willrequire a decided majority to pass such an act. We, the majority, beingable constitutionally to do all that we purpose, would have no desire todissolve the Union. Do you say that such restriction of slavery wouldbe unconstitutional, and that some of the States would not submit to itsenforcement? I grant you that an unconstitutional act is not a law; butI do not ask and will not take your construction of the Constitution. The Supreme Court of the United States is the tribunal to decide such aquestion, and we will submit to its decisions; and if you do also, there will be an end of the matter. Will you? If not, who are thedisunionists--you or we? We, the majority, would not strive to dissolvethe Union; and if any attempt is made, it must be by you, who so loudlystigmatize us as disunionists. But the Union, in any event, will not bedissolved. We don't want to dissolve it, and if you attempt it we won'tlet you. With the purse and sword, the army and navy and treasury, in ourhands and at our command, you could not do it. This government would bevery weak indeed if a majority with a disciplined army and navy anda well-filled treasury could not preserve itself when attacked by anunarmed, undisciplined, unorganized minority. All this talk about thedissolution of the Union is humbug, nothing but folly. We do not want todissolve the Union; you shall not. 

ON THE DANGER OF THIRD-PARTIES

TO JOHN BENNETT. 

SPRINGFIELD, AUG. 4, 1856

DEAR SIR:--I understand you are a Fillmore man. If, as between Fremontand Buchanan, you really prefer the election of Buchanan, then burn thiswithout reading a line further. But if you would like to defeat Buchananand his gang, allow me a word with you: Does any one pretend that Fillmorecan carry the vote of this State? I have not heard a single man pretendso. Every vote taken from Fremont and given to Fillmore is just so muchin favor of Buchanan. The Buchanan men see this; and hence their greatanxiety in favor of the Fillmore movement. They know where the shoepinches. They now greatly prefer having a man of your character go forFillmore than for Buchanan because they expect several to go with you, whowould go for Fremont if you were to go directly for Buchanan. 

I think I now understand the relative strength of the three parties inthis State as well as any one man does, and my opinion is that to-dayBuchanan has alone 85, 000, Fremont 78, 000, and Fillmore 21, 000. 

This gives B. The State by 7000 and leaves him in the minority of thewhole 14, 000. 

Fremont and Fillmore men being united on Bissell, as they already are, he cannot be beaten. This is not a long letter, but it contains the wholestory. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JESSE K. DUBOIS. 

SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 19, 1856. 

DEAR DUBOIS: Your letter on the same sheet with Mr. Miller's is justreceived. I have been absent four days. I do not know when your courtsits. 

Trumbull has written the committee here to have a set of appointmentsmade for him commencing here in Springfield, on the 11th of Sept. , andto extend throughout the south half of the State. When he goes toLawrenceville, as he will, I will strain every nerve to be with you andhim. More than that I cannot promise now. 

Yours as truly as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO HARRISON MALTBY. 

[Confidential]

SPRINGFIELD, September 8, 1856. 

DEAR SIR:--I understand you are a Fillmore man. Let me prove to you thatevery vote withheld from Fremont and given to Fillmore in this Stateactually lessens Fillmore's chance of being President. Suppose Buchanangets all the slave States and Pennsylvania, and any other one Statebesides; then he is elected, no matter who gets all the rest. But supposeFillmore gets the two slave States of Maryland and Kentucky; then Buchananis not elected; Fillmore goes into the House of Representatives, and maybe made President by a compromise. But suppose, again, Fillmore's friendsthrow away a few thousand votes on him in Indiana and Illinois; it willinevitably give these States to Buchanan, which will more than compensatehim for the loss of Maryland and Kentucky, will elect him, and leaveFillmore no chance in the House of Representatives or out of it. 

This is as plain as adding up the weight of three small hogs. As Mr. Fillmore has no possible chance to carry Illinois for himself, it isplainly to his interest to let Fremont take it, and thus keep it out ofthe hands of Buchanan. Be not deceived. Buchanan is the hard horse to beatin this race. Let him have Illinois, and nothing can beat him; and he willget Illinois if men persist in throwing away votes upon Mr. Fillmore. Does some one persuade you that Mr. Fillmore can carry Illinois? Nonsense!There are over seventy newspapers in Illinois opposing Buchanan, onlythree or four of which support Mr. Fillmore, all the rest going forFremont. Are not these newspapers a fair index of the proportion of thevotes? If not, tell me why. 

Again, of these three or four Fillmore newspapers, two, at least, aresupported in part by the Buchanan men, as I understand. Do not they knowwhere the shoe pinches? They know the Fillmore movement helps them, andtherefore they help it. Do think these things over, and then act accordingto your judgment. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO Dr. R. BOAL. 

Sept. 14, 1856. 

Dr. R. BOAL, Lacon, Ill. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 8th inviting me to be with [you] at Lacon onthe 30th is received. I feel that I owe you and our friends of Marshall agood deal, and I will come if I can; and if I do not get there, it will bebecause I shall think my efforts are now needed farther south. 

Present my regards to Mrs. Boal, and believe [me], as ever, Your friend, A. LINCOLN. 

TO HENRY O'CONNER, MUSCATINE, IOWA. 

SPRINGFIELD, Sept. 14, 1856. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours, inviting me to attend a mass-meeting on the 23d inst. , is received. It would be very pleasant to strike hands with the Fremontersof Iowa, who have led the van so splendidly, in this grand charge whichwe hope and believe will end in a most glorious victory. All thanks, allhonor to Iowa! But Iowa is out of all danger, and it is no time for us, when the battle still rages, to pay holiday visits to Iowa. I am sure youwill excuse me for remaining in Illinois, where much hard work is still tobe done. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

AFTER THE DEMOCRATIC VICTORY OF BUCHANAN

FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT A REPUBLICAN BANQUET IN CHICAGO, DECEMBER 10, 1856. 

We have another annual Presidential message. Like a rejected lover makingmerry at the wedding of his rival, the President felicitates himselfhugely over the late Presidential election. He considers the result asignal triumph of good principles and good men, and a very pointed rebukeof bad ones. He says the people did it. He forgets that the "people, " ashe complacently calls only those who voted for Buchanan, are in a minorityof the whole people by about four hundred thousand votes--one full tenthof all the votes. Remembering this, he might perceive that the "rebuke"may not be quite as durable as he seems to think--that the majority maynot choose to remain permanently rebuked by that minority. 

The President thinks the great body of us Fremonters, being ardentlyattached to liberty, in the abstract, were duped by a few wicked anddesigning men. There is a slight difference of opinion on this. We thinkhe, being ardently attached to the hope of a second term, in the concrete, was duped by men who had liberty every way. He is the cat's-paw. By muchdragging of chestnuts from the fire for others to eat, his claws are burntoff to the gristle, and he is thrown aside as unfit for further use. As the fool said of King Lear, when his daughters had turned him out ofdoors, "He 's a shelled peascod" ("That 's a sheal'd peascod"). 

So far as the President charges us "with a desire to change the domesticinstitutions of existing States, " and of "doing everything in our power todeprive the Constitution and the laws of moral authority, " for the wholeparty on belief, and for myself on knowledge, I pronounce the charge anunmixed and unmitigated falsehood. 

Our government rests in public opinion. Whoever can change public opinioncan change the government practically just so much. Public opinion, on anysubject, always has a "central idea, " from which all its minor thoughtsradiate. That "central idea" in our political public opinion at thebeginning was, and until recently has continued to be, "the equalityof men. " And although it has always submitted patiently to whatever ofinequality there seemed to be as matter of actual necessity, its constantworking has been a steady progress toward the practical equality of allmen. The late Presidential election was a struggle by one party to discardthat central idea and to substitute for it the opposite idea that slaveryis right in the abstract, the workings of which as a central idea may bethe perpetuity of human slavery and its extension to all countries andcolors. Less than a year ago the Richmond Enquirer, an avowed advocate ofslavery, regardless of color, in order to favor his views, invented thephrase "State equality, " and now the President, in his message, adoptsthe Enquirer's catch-phrase, telling us the people "have asserted theconstitutional equality of each and all of the States of the Union asStates. " The President flatters himself that the new central idea iscompletely inaugurated; and so indeed it is, so far as the mere fact of aPresidential election can inaugurate it. To us it is left to know that themajority of the people have not yet declared for it, and to hope that theynever will. 

All of us who did not vote for Mr. Buchanan, taken together, are amajority of four hundred thousand. But in the late contest we were dividedbetween Fremont and Fillmore. Can we not come together for the future? Letevery one who really believes and is resolved that free society is not andshall not be a failure, and who can conscientiously declare that in thelast contest he has done only what he thought best--let every such onehave charity to believe that every other one can say as much. Thus letbygones be bygones; let past differences as nothing be; and with steadyeye on the real issue let us reinaugurate the good old "central idea" ofthe republic. We can do it. The human heart is with us; God is with us. Weshall again be able, not to declare that "all States as States are equal, "nor yet that "all citizens as citizens are equal, " but to renew thebroader, better declaration, including both these and much more, that "allmen are created equal. "

TO Dr. R. BOAL. 

SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 25, 1856. 

DEAR SIR:-When I was at Chicago two weeks ago I saw Mr. Arnold, and froma remark of his I inferred he was thinking of the speakership, thoughI think he was not anxious about it. He seemed most anxious for harmonygenerally, and particularly that the contested seats from Peoria andMcDonough might be rightly determined. Since I came home I had a talk withCullom, one of our American representatives here, and he says he is foryou for Speaker and also that he thinks all the Americans will be for you, unless it be Gorin, of Macon, of whom he cannot speak. If you would liketo be Speaker go right up and see Arnold. He is talented, a practiseddebater, and, I think, would do himself more credit on the floor than inthe Speaker's seat. Go and see him; and if you think fit, show him thisletter. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

1857

TO JOHN E. ROSETTE. Private. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , February 10, 1857. 

DEAR SIR:--Your note about the little paragraph in the Republican wasreceived yesterday, since which time I have been too unwell to noticeit. I had not supposed you wrote or approved it. The whole originatedin mistake. You know by the conversation with me that I thought theestablishment of the paper unfortunate, but I always expected to throwno obstacle in its way, and to patronize it to the extent of taking andpaying for one copy. When the paper was brought to my house, my wife saidto me, "Now are you going to take another worthless little paper?" I saidto her evasively, "I have not directed the paper to be left. " From this, in my absence, she sent the message to the carrier. This is the wholestory. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO A DOUGLAS SPEECH

SPEECH IN SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, JUNE 26, 1857. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I am here to-night partly by the invitation of some ofyou, and partly by my own inclination. Two weeks ago Judge Douglas spokehere on the several subjects of Kansas, the Dred Scott decision, and Utah. I listened to the speech at the time, and have the report of it since. It was intended to controvert opinions which I think just, and to assail(politically, not personally) those men who, in common with me, entertainthose opinions. For this reason I wished then, and still wish, to makesome answer to it, which I now take the opportunity of doing. 

I begin with Utah. If it prove to be true, as is probable, that the peopleof Utah are in open rebellion to the United States, then Judge Douglas isin favor of repealing their territorial organization, and attaching themto the adjoining States for judicial purposes. I say, too, if they are inrebellion, they ought to be somehow coerced to obedience; and I am not nowprepared to admit or deny that the Judge's mode of coercing them is notas good as any. The Republicans can fall in with it without taking backanything they have ever said. To be sure, it would be a considerablebacking down by Judge Douglas from his much-vaunted doctrine ofself-government for the Territories; but this is only additional proofof what was very plain from the beginning, that that doctrine was a meredeceitful pretense for the benefit of slavery. Those who could notsee that much in the Nebraska act itself, which forced governors, andsecretaries, and judges on the people of the Territories without theirchoice or consent, could not be made to see, though one should rise fromthe dead. 

But in all this it is very plain the Judge evades the only question theRepublicans have ever pressed upon the Democracy in regard to Utah. Thatquestion the Judge well knew to be this: "If the people of Utah peacefullyform a State constitution tolerating polygamy, will the Democracy admitthem into the Union?" There is nothing in the United States Constitutionor law against polygamy; and why is it not a part of the Judge's "sacredright of self-government" for the people to have it, or rather to keepit, if they choose? These questions, so far as I know, the Judge neveranswers. It might involve the Democracy to answer them either way, andthey go unanswered. 

As to Kansas. The substance of the Judge's speech on Kansas is an effortto put the free-State men in the wrong for not voting at the election ofdelegates to the constitutional convention. He says:

"There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will be fairlyinterpreted and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fideinhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise. "

It appears extraordinary that Judge Douglas should make such a statement. He knows that, by the law, no one can vote who has not been registered;and he knows that the free-State men place their refusal to vote on theground that but few of them have been registered. It is possible that thisis not true, but Judge Douglas knows it is asserted to be true in letters, newspapers, and public speeches, and borne by every mail and blown byevery breeze to the eyes and ears of the world. He knows it is boldlydeclared that the people of many whole counties, and many wholeneighborhoods in others, are left unregistered; yet he does not ventureto contradict the declaration, or to point out how they can vote withoutbeing registered; but he just slips along, not seeming to know there isany such question of fact, and complacently declares:

 "There is every reason to hope and believe that the law will befairly and impartially executed, so as to insure to every bona fideinhabitant the free and quiet exercise of the elective franchise. "

I readily agree that if all had a chance to vote they ought to have voted. If, on the contrary, as they allege, and Judge Douglas ventures not toparticularly contradict, few only of the free-State men had a chance tovote, they were perfectly right in staying from the polls in a body. 

By the way, since the Judge spoke, the Kansas election has come off. TheJudge expressed his confidence that all the Democrats in Kansas woulddo their duty-including "free-State Democrats, " of course. The returnsreceived here as yet are very incomplete; but so far as they go, theyindicate that only about one sixth of the registered voters have reallyvoted; and this, too, when not more, perhaps, than one half of therightful voters have been registered, thus showing the thing to havebeen altogether the most exquisite farce ever enacted. I am watching withconsiderable interest to ascertain what figure "the free-State Democrats"cut in the concern. Of course they voted, --all Democrats do theirduty, --and of course they did not vote for slave-State candidates. We soonshall know how many delegates they elected, how many candidates they hadpledged to a free State, and how many votes were cast for them. 

Allow me to barely whisper my suspicion that there were no such things inKansas as "free-State Democrats"--that they were altogether mythical, goodonly to figure in newspapers and speeches in the free States. If thereshould prove to be one real living free-State Democrat in Kansas, Isuggest that it might be well to catch him, and stuff and preserve hisskin as an interesting specimen of that soon-to-be extinct variety of thegenus Democrat. 

And now as to the Dred Scott decision. That decision declares twopropositions--first, that a negro cannot sue in the United States courts;and secondly, that Congress cannot prohibit slavery in the Territories. Itwas made by a divided court dividing differently on the different points. Judge Douglas does not discuss the merits of the decision, and in thatrespect I shall follow his example, believing I could no more improve onMcLean and Curtis than he could on Taney. 

He denounces all who question the correctness of that decision, asoffering violent resistance to it. But who resists it? Who has, in spiteof the decision, declared Dred Scott free, and resisted the authority ofhis master over him?

Judicial decisions have two uses--first, to absolutely determine the casedecided, and secondly, to indicate to the public how other similar caseswill be decided when they arise. For the latter use, they are called"precedents" and "authorities. "

We believe as much as Judge Douglas (perhaps more) in obedience to, andrespect for, the judicial department of government. We think its decisionson constitutional questions, when fully settled, should control not onlythe particular cases decided, but the general policy of the country, subject to be disturbed only by amendments of the Constitution as providedin that instrument itself. More than this would be revolution. But wethink the Dred Scott decision is erroneous. We know the court that made ithas often overruled its own decisions, and we shall do what we can to haveit to overrule this. We offer no resistance to it. 

Judicial decisions are of greater or less authority as precedentsaccording to circumstances. That this should be so accords both withcommon sense and the customary understanding of the legal profession. 

If this important decision had been made by the unanimous concurrence ofthe judges, and without any apparent partisan bias, and in accordance withlegal public expectation and with the steady practice of the departmentsthroughout our history, and had been in no part based on assumedhistorical facts which are not really true; or, if wanting in some ofthese, it had been before the court more than once, and had there beenaffirmed and reaffirmed through a course of years, it then might be, perhaps would be, factious, nay, even revolutionary, not to acquiesce init as a precedent. 

But when, as is true, we find it wanting in all these claims to the publicconfidence, it is not resistance, it is not factious, it is not evendisrespectful, to treat it as not having yet quite established a settleddoctrine for the country. But Judge Douglas considers this view awful. Hear him:

"The courts are the tribunals prescribed by the Constitution and createdby the authority of the people to determine, expound, and enforce the law. Hence, whoever resists the final decision of the highest judicial tribunalaims a deadly blow at our whole republican system of government--a blowwhich, if successful, would place all our rights and liberties at themercy of passion, anarchy, and violence. I repeat, therefore, that ifresistance to the decisions of the Supreme Court of the United States, ina matter like the points decided in the Dred Scott case, clearly withintheir jurisdiction as defined by the Constitution, shall be forced uponthe country as a political issue, it will become a distinct and nakedissue between the friends and enemies of the Constitution--the friends andthe enemies of the supremacy of the laws. "

Why, this same Supreme Court once decided a national bank to beconstitutional; but General Jackson, as President of the United States, disregarded the decision, and vetoed a bill for a recharter, partly onconstitutional ground, declaring that each public functionary must supportthe Constitution "as he understands it. " But hear the General's own words. Here they are, taken from his veto message:

"It is maintained by the advocates of the bank that its constitutionality, in all its features, ought to be considered as settled by precedent, andby the decision of the Supreme Court. To this conclusion I cannot assent. Mere precedent is a dangerous source of authority, and should not beregarded as deciding questions of constitutional power, except wherethe acquiescence of the people and the States can be considered as wellsettled. So far from this being the case on this subject, an argumentagainst the bank might be based on precedent. One Congress, in 1791, decided in favor of a bank; another, in 1811, decided against it. OneCongress, in 1815, decided against a bank; another, in 1816, decided inits favor. Prior to the present Congress, therefore, the precedents drawnfrom that course were equal. If we resort to the States, the expressionsof legislative, judicial, and executive opinions against the bank havebeen probably to those in its favor as four to one. There is nothing inprecedent, therefore, which, if its authority were admitted, ought toweigh in favor of the act before me. "

I drop the quotations merely to remark that all there ever was in the wayof precedent up to the Dred Scott decision, on the points therein decided, had been against that decision. But hear General Jackson further:

"If the opinion of the Supreme Court covered the whole ground of this act, it ought not to control the coordinate authorities of this government. TheCongress, the executive, and the courts must, each for itself, be guidedby its own opinion of the Constitution. Each public officer who takesan oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as heunderstands it, and not as it is understood by others. "

Again and again have I heard Judge Douglas denounce that bank decision andapplaud General Jackson for disregarding it. It would be interestingfor him to look over his recent speech, and see how exactly his fiercephilippics against us for resisting Supreme Court decisions fall upon hisown head. It will call to mind a long and fierce political war in thiscountry, upon an issue which, in his own language, and, of course, in hisown changeless estimation, "was a distinct issue between the friends andthe enemies of the Constitution, " and in which war he fought in the ranksof the enemies of the Constitution. 

I have said, in substance, that the Dred Scott decision was in part basedon assumed historical facts which were not really true, and I ought not toleave the subject without giving some reasons for saying this; I thereforegive an instance or two, which I think fully sustain me. Chief JusticeTaney, in delivering the opinion of the majority of the court, insists atgreat length that negroes were no part of the people who made, or forwhom was made, the Declaration of Independence, or the Constitution of theUnited States. 

On the contrary, Judge Curtis, in his dissenting opinion, shows that infive of the then thirteen States--to wit, New Hampshire, Massachusetts, New York, New Jersey, and North Carolina--free negroes were voters, and inproportion to their numbers had the same part in making the Constitutionthat the white people had. He shows this with so much particularity as toleave no doubt of its truth; and as a sort of conclusion on that point, holds the following language:

"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the UnitedStates, through the action, in each State, of those persons who werequalified by its laws to act thereon in behalf of themselves and all othercitizens of the State. In some of the States, as we have seen, coloredpersons were among those qualified by law to act on the subject. Thesecolored persons were not only included in the body of 'the people of theUnited States' by whom the Constitution was ordained and established; butin at least five of the States they had the power to act, and doubtlessdid act, by their suffrages, upon the question of its adoption. "

Again, Chief Justice Taney says:

"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion, inrelation to that unfortunate race, which prevailed in the civilizedand enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration ofIndependence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framedand adopted. "

And again, after quoting from the Declaration, he says:

"The general words above quoted would seem to include the whole humanfamily, and if they were used in a similar instrument at this day, wouldbe so understood. "

In these the Chief Justice does not directly assert, but plainly assumesas a fact, that the public estimate of the black man is more favorable nowthan it was in the days of the Revolution. This assumption is a mistake. In some trifling particulars the condition of that race has beenameliorated; but as a whole, in this country, the change between thenand now is decidedly the other way, and their ultimate destiny has neverappeared so hopeless as in the last three or four years. In two of thefive States--New Jersey and North Carolina--that then gave the freenegro the right of voting, the right has since been taken away, and ina third--New York--it has been greatly abridged; while it has not beenextended, so far as I know, to a single additional State, thoughthe number of the States has more than doubled. In those days, as Iunderstand, masters could, at their own pleasure, emancipate their slaves;but since then such legal restraints have been made upon emancipationas to amount almost to prohibition. In those days Legislatures held theunquestioned power to abolish slavery in their respective States, but nowit is becoming quite fashionable for State constitutions to withhold thatpower from the Legislatures. In those days, by common consent, the spreadof the black man's bondage to the new countries was prohibited, butnow Congress decides that it will not continue the prohibition, and theSupreme Court decides that it could not if it would. In those days ourDeclaration of Independence was held sacred by all, and thought to includeall; but now, to aid in making the bondage of the negro universal andeternal, it is assailed and sneered at and construed and hawked at andtorn, till, if its framers could rise from their graves, they could not atall recognize it. All the powers of earth seem rapidly combining againsthim. Mammon is after him, ambition follows, philosophy follows, and thetheology of the day fast joining the cry. They have him in his prisonhouse; they have searched his person, and left no prying instrument withhim. One after another they have closed the heavy iron doors upon him;and now they have him, as it were, bolted in with a lock of hundred keys, which can never be unlocked without the concurrence of every key--the keysin the hands of a hundred different men, and they scattered to hundreddifferent and distant places; and they stand musing as to what invention, in all the dominions of mind and matter, can be produced to make theimpossibility of his escape more complete than it is. 

It is grossly incorrect to say or assume that the public estimate of thenegro is more favorable now than it was at the origin of the government. 

Three years and a half ago, Judge Douglas brought forward his famousNebraska Bill. The country was at once in a blaze. He scorned allopposition, and carried it through Congress. Since then he has seenhimself superseded in a Presidential nomination by one indorsing thegeneral doctrine of his measure, but at the same time standing clearof the odium of its untimely agitation and its gross breach of nationalfaith; and he has seen that successful rival constitutionally elected, notby the strength of friends, but by the division of adversaries, being ina popular minority of nearly four hundred thousand votes. He has seen hischief aids in his own State, Shields and Richardson, politically speaking, successively tried, convicted, and executed for an offence not their ownbut his. And now he sees his own case standing next on the docket fortrial. 

There is a natural disgust in the minds of nearly all white people at theidea of an indiscriminate amalgamation of the white and black races; andJudge Douglas evidently is basing his chief hope upon the chances of hisbeing able to appropriate the benefit of this disgust to himself. If hecan, by much drumming and repeating, fasten the odium of that idea uponhis adversaries, he thinks he can struggle through the storm. He thereforeclings to this hope, as a drowning man to the last plank. He makes anoccasion for lugging it in from the opposition to the Dred Scott decision. He finds the Republicans insisting that the Declaration of Independenceincludes all men, black as well as white, and forthwith he boldly deniesthat it includes negroes at all, and proceeds to argue gravely that allwho contend it does, do so only because they want to vote, and eat, and sleep, and marry with negroes. He will have it that they cannotbe consistent else. Now I protest against the counterfeit logic whichconcludes that, because I do not want a black woman for a slave I mustnecessarily want her for a wife. I need not have her for either. I canjust leave her alone. In some respects she certainly is not my equal;but in her natural right to eat the bread she earns with her own hands, without asking leave of any one else, she is my equal and the equal of allothers. 

Chief Justice Taney, in his opinion in the Dred Scott case, admits thatthe language of the Declaration is broad enough to include the whole humanfamily, but he and Judge Douglas argue that the authors of that instrumentdid not intend to include negroes, by the fact that they did not atonce actually place them on an equality with the whites. Now this graveargument comes to just nothing at all, by the other fact that they did notat once, or ever afterward, actually place all white people on an equalitywith one another. And this is the staple argument of both the ChiefJustice and the Senator for doing this obvious violence to the plain, unmistakable language of the Declaration. 

I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include allmen, but they did not intend to declare all men equal in all respects. They did not mean to say all were equal in color, size, intellect, moraldevelopments, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctnessin what respects they did consider all men created equal--equal with"certain inalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness. " This they said, and this they meant. They did notmean to assert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoyingthat equality, nor yet that they were about to confer it immediately uponthem. In fact, they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simplyto declare the right, so that enforcement of it might follow as fast ascircumstances should permit. 

They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society, which should befamiliar to all, and revered by all; constantly looked to, constantlylabored for, and, even though never perfectly attained, constantlyapproximated, and thereby constantly spreading and deepening its influenceand augmenting the happiness and value of life to all people of all colorseverywhere. The assertion that "all men are created equal" was of nopractical use in effecting our separation from Great Britain; and it wasplaced in the Declaration not for that, but for future use. Its authorsmeant it to be--as thank God, it is now proving itself--stumbling-blockto all those who in after times might seek to turn a free people back intothe hateful paths of despotism. They knew the proneness of prosperity tobreed tyrants, and they meant when such should reappear in this fair landand commence their vocation, they should find left for them at least onehard nut to crack. 

I have now briefly expressed my view of the meaning and object of thatpart of the Declaration of Independence which declares that "all men arecreated equal. "

Now let us hear Judge Douglas's view of the same subject, as I find it inthe printed report of his late speech. Here it is:

"No man can vindicate the character, motives, and conduct of the signersof the Declaration of Independence, except upon the hypothesis thatthey referred to the white race alone, and not to the African, when theydeclared all men to have been created equal; that they were speaking ofBritish subjects on this continent being equal to British subjectsborn and residing in Great Britain; that they were entitled to the sameinalienable rights, and among them were enumerated life, liberty, andthe pursuit of happiness. The Declaration was adopted for the purpose ofjustifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized world in withdrawingtheir allegiance from the British crown, and dissolving their connectionwith the mother country. "

My good friends, read that carefully over some leisure hour, and ponderwell upon it; see what a mere wreck--mangled ruin--it makes of our onceglorious Declaration. 

"They were speaking of British subjects on this continent being equal toBritish subjects born and residing in Great Britain"! Why, accordingto this, not only negroes but white people outside of Great Britain andAmerica were not spoken of in that instrument. The English, Irish, andScotch, along with white Americans, were included, to be sure, but theFrench, Germans, and other white people of the world are all gone to potalong with the Judge's inferior races!

I had thought the Declaration promised something better than the conditionof British subjects; but no, it only meant that we should be equal to themin their own oppressed and unequal condition. According to that, it gaveno promise that, having kicked off the king and lords of Great Britain, weshould not at once be saddled with a king and lords of our own. 

I had thought the Declaration contemplated the progressive improvement inthe condition of all men everywhere; but no, it merely "was adopted forthe purpose of justifying the colonists in the eyes of the civilized worldin withdrawing their allegiance from the British crown, and dissolvingtheir connection with the mother country. " Why, that object having beeneffected some eighty years ago, the Declaration is of no practical usenow--mere rubbish--old wadding left to rot on the battlefield after thevictory is won. 

I understand you are preparing to celebrate the "Fourth, " to-morrow week. What for? The doings of that day had no reference to the present; andquite half of you are not even descendants of those who were referred toat that day. But I suppose you will celebrate, and will even go so faras to read the Declaration. Suppose, after you read it once in theold-fashioned way, you read it once more with Judge Douglas's version. Itwill then run thus:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all British subjects whowere on this continent eighty-one years ago were created equal to allBritish subjects born and then residing in Great Britain. "

And now I appeal to all--to Democrats as well as others--are you reallywilling that the Declaration shall thus be frittered away?--thus left nomore, at most, than an interesting memorial of the dead past?--thus shornof its vitality and practical value, and left without the germ or even thesuggestion of the individual rights of man in it?

But Judge Douglas is especially horrified at the thought of the mixingof blood by the white and black races. Agreed for once--a thousand timesagreed. There are white men enough to marry all the white women and blackmen enough to many all the black women; and so let them be married. Onthis point we fully agree with the Judge, and when he shall show that hispolicy is better adapted to prevent amalgamation than ours, we shall dropours and adopt his. Let us see. In 1850 there were in the United States405, 751 mulattoes. Very few of these are the offspring of whites and freeblacks; nearly all have sprung from black slaves and white masters. Aseparation of the races is the only perfect preventive of amalgamation;but as an immediate separation is impossible, the next best thing is tokeep them apart where they are not already together. If white and blackpeople never get together in Kansas, they will never mix blood in Kansas. That is at least one self-evident truth. A few free colored personsmay get into the free States, in any event; but their number is tooinsignificant to amount to much in the way of mixing blood. In 1850 therewere in the free States 56, 649 mulattoes; but for the most part they werenot born there--they came from the slave States, ready made up. In thesame year the slave States had 348, 874 mulattoes, all of home production. The proportion of free mulattoes to free blacks--the only colored classesin the free States is much greater in the slave than in the free States. It is worthy of note, too, that among the free States those which make thecolored man the nearest equal to the white have proportionably the fewestmulattoes, the least of amalgamation. In New Hampshire, the State whichgoes farthest toward equality between the races, there are just 184mulattoes, while there are in Virginia--how many do you think?--79, 775, being 23, 126 more than in all the free States together. 

These statistics show that slavery is the greatest source of amalgamation, and next to it, not the elevation, but the degradation of the freeblacks. Yet Judge Douglas dreads the slightest restraints on the spreadof slavery, and the slightest human recognition of the negro, as tendinghorribly to amalgamation!

The very Dred Scott case affords a strong test as to which party mostfavors amalgamation, the Republicans or the dear Union-saving Democracy. Dred Scott, his wife, and two daughters were all involved in the suit. Wedesired the court to have held that they were citizens so far at leastas to entitle them to a hearing as to whether they were free or not; andthen, also, that they were in fact and in law really free. Could we havehad our way, the chances of these black girls ever mixing their blood withthat of white people would have been diminished at least to the extentthat it could not have been without their consent. But Judge Douglas isdelighted to have them decided to be slaves, and not human enough to havea hearing, even if they were free, and thus left subject to the forcedconcubinage of their masters, and liable to become the mothers ofmulattoes in spite of themselves: the very state of case that producesnine tenths of all the mulattoes all the mixing of blood in the nation. 

Of course, I state this case as an illustration only, not meaning to sayor intimate that the master of Dred Scott and his family, or any morethan a percentage of masters generally, are inclined to exercise thisparticular power which they hold over their female slaves. 

I have said that the separation of the races is the only perfectpreventive of amalgamation. I have no right to say all the members of theRepublican party are in favor of this, nor to say that as a party theyare in favor of it. There is nothing in their platform directly on thesubject. But I can say a very large proportion of its members are for it, and that the chief plank in their platform--opposition to the spread ofslavery--is most favorable to that separation. 

Such separation, if ever effected at all, must be effected bycolonization; and no political party, as such, is now doing anythingdirectly for colonization. Party operations at present only favor orretard colonization incidentally. The enterprise is a difficult one; but"where there is a will there is a way, " and what colonization needs mostis a hearty will. Will springs from the two elements of moral sense andself-interest. Let us be brought to believe it is morally right, andat the same time favorable to, or at least not against, our interest totransfer the African to his native clime, and we shall find a way to doit, however great the task may be. The children of Israel, to such numbersas to include four hundred thousand fighting men, went out of Egyptianbondage in a body. 

How differently the respective courses of the Democratic and Republicanparties incidentally, bear on the question of forming a will--a publicsentiment--for colonization, is easy to see. The Republicans inculcate, with whatever of ability they can, that the negro is a man, that hisbondage is cruelly wrong, and that the field of his oppression oughtnot to be enlarged. The Democrats deny his manhood; deny, or dwarf toinsignificance, the wrong of his bondage; so far as possible crush allsympathy for him, and cultivate and excite hatred and disgust againsthim; compliment themselves as Union-savers for doing so; and callthe indefinite outspreading of his bondage "a sacred right ofself-government. "

The plainest print cannot be read through a gold eagle; and it will beever hard to find many men who will send a slave to Liberia, and payhis passage, while they can send him to a new country--Kansas, forinstance--and sell him for fifteen hundred dollars, and the rise. 

TO WILLIAM GRIMES. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, August, 1857

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 14th is received, and I am much obliged for thelegal information you give. 

You can scarcely be more anxious than I that the next election in Iowashould result in favor of the Republicans. I lost nearly all the workingpart of last year, giving my time to the canvass; and I am altogethertoo poor to lose two years together. I am engaged in a suit in the UnitedStates Court at Chicago, in which the Rock Island Bridge Company is aparty. The trial is to commence on the 8th of September, and probably willlast two or three weeks. During the trial it is not improbable thatall hands may come over and take a look at the bridge, and, if it werepossible to make it hit right, I could then speak at Davenport. My courtsgo right on without cessation till late in November. Write me again, pointing out the more striking points of difference between your old andnew constitutions, and also whether Democratic and Republican partylines were drawn in the adoption of it, and which were for and which wereagainst it. If, by possibility, I could get over among you it might be ofsome advantage to know these things in advance. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ARGUMENT IN THE ROCK ISLAND BRIDGE CASE. 

(From the Daily Press of Chicago, Sept. 24, 1857. )

Hurd et al. Vs Railroad Bridge Co. 

United States Circuit Court, Hon. John McLean, Presiding Judge. 

13th day, Tuesday, Sept. 22, 1857. 

Mr. A. Lincoln addressed the jury. He said he did not purpose to assailanybody, that he expected to grow earnest as he proceeded but notill-natured. "There is some conflict of testimony in the case, " he said, "but one quarter of such a number of witnesses seldom agree, and even ifall were on one side some discrepancy might be expected. We are to try andreconcile them, and to believe that they are not intentionally erroneousas long as we can. " He had no prejudice, he said, against steamboats orsteamboat men nor any against St. Louis, for he supposed they went aboutthis matter as other people would do in their situation. "St. Louis, " hecontinued, "as a commercial place may desire that this bridge should notstand, as it is adverse to her commerce, diverting a portion of it fromthe river; and it may be that she supposes that the additional cost ofrailroad transportation upon the productions of Iowa will force them togo to St. Louis if this bridge is removed. The meetings in St. Louis areconnected with this case only as some witnesses are in it, and thus hassome prejudice added color to their testimony. " The last thing that wouldbe pleasing to him, Mr. Lincoln said, would be to have one of these greatchannels, extending almost from where it never freezes to where it neverthaws, blocked up, but there is a travel from east to west whose demandsare not less important than those of the river. It is growing larger andlarger, building up new countries with a rapidity never before seen in thehistory of the world. He alluded to the astonishing growth of Illinois, having grown within his memory to a population of a million and a half; toIowa and the other young rising communities of the Northwest. 

"This current of travel, " said he, "has its rights as well as that ofnorth and south. If the river had not the advantage in priority andlegislation we could enter into free competition with it and we couldsurpass it. This particular railroad line has a great importance and thestatement of its business during a little less than a year shows thisimportance. It is in evidence that from September 8, 1856, to August 8, 1857, 12, 586 freight cars and 74, 179 passengers passed over this bridge. Navigation was closed four days short of four months last year, andduring this time while the river was of no use this road and bridge werevaluable. There is, too, a considerable portion of time when floating orthin ice makes the river useless while the bridge is as useful as ever. This shows that this bridge must be treated with respect in this court andis not to be kicked about with contempt. The other day Judge Wead alludedto the strike of the contending interest and even a dissolution of theUnion. The proper mode for all parties in this affair is to 'live and letlive, ' and then we will find a cessation of this trouble about the bridge. What mood were the steamboat men in when this bridge was burned? Why, there was a shouting and ringing of bells and whistling on all the boatsas it fell. It was a jubilee, a greater celebration than follows anexcited election. The first thing I will proceed to is the record of Mr. Gurney and the complaint of Judge Wead that the record did not extend backover all the time from the completion of the bridge. The principal part ofthe navigation after the bridge was burned passed through the span. Whenthe bridge was repaired and the boats were a second time confined to thedraw it was provided that this record should be kept. That is the simplehistory of that book. 

"From April 19th, 1856, to May 6th--seventeen days--there were twentyaccidents and all the time since then there have been but twenty hits, including seven accidents, so that the dangers of this place are taperingoff and as the boatmen get cool the accidents get less. We may soon expectif this ratio is kept up that there will be no accidents at all. 

"Judge Wead said, while admitting that the floats went straight through, there was a difference between a float and a boat, but I do not rememberthat he indulged us with an argument in support of this statement. Is itbecause there is a difference in size? Will not a small body and a largeone float the same way under the same influence? True a flatboat willfloat faster than an egg shell and the egg shell might be blown away bythe wind, but if under the same influence they would go the same way. Logs, floats, boards, various things the witnesses say all show the samecurrent. Then is not this test reliable? At all depths too the directionof the current is the same. A series of these floats would make a line aslong as a boat and would show any influence upon any part and all parts ofthe boat. 

"I will now speak of the angular position of the piers. What is the amountof the angle? The course of the river is a curve and the pier is straight. If a line is produced from the upper end of the long pier straight withthe pier to a distance of 350 feet, and a line is drawn from a point inthe channel opposite this point to the head of the pier, Colonel Nasonsays they will form an angle of twenty degrees. But the angle if measuredat the pier is seven degrees; that is, we would have to move the pierseven degrees to make it exactly straight with the current. Would thatmake the navigation better or worse? The witnesses of the plaintiff seemto think it was only necessary to say that the pier formed an angle withthe current and that settled the matter. Our more careful and accuratewitnesses say that, though they had been accustomed to seeing the piersplaced straight with the current, yet they could see that here the currenthad been made straight by us in having made this slight angle; that thewater now runs just right, that it is straight and cannot be improved. They think that if the pier was changed the eddy would be divided and thenavigation improved. 

"I am not now going to discuss the question what is a materialobstruction. We do not greatly differ about the law. The cases producedhere are, I suppose, proper to be taken into consideration by the court ininstructing a jury. Some of them I think are not exactly in point, butI am still willing to trust his honor, Judge McLean, and take hisinstructions as law. What is reasonable skill and care? This is a thingof which the jury are to judge. I differ from the other side when it saysthat they are bound to exercise no more care than was taken before thebuilding of the bridge. If we are allowed by the Legislature to build thebridge which will require them to do more than before, when a pilot comesalong, it is unreasonable for him to dash on heedless of this structurewhich has been legally put there. The Afton came there on the 5th and layat Rock Island until next morning. When a boat lies up the pilot has aholiday, and would not any of these jurors have then gone around to thebridge and gotten acquainted with the place? Pilot Parker has shown herethat he does not understand the draw. I heard him say that the fall fromthe head to the foot of the pier was four feet; he needs information. Hecould have gone there that day and seen there was no such fall. He shouldhave discarded passion and the chances are that he would have had nodisaster at all. He was bound to make himself acquainted with the place. 

"McCammon says that the current and the swell coming from the long pierdrove her against the long pier. In other words drove her toward the verypier from which the current came! It is an absurdity, an impossibility. The only recollection I can find for this contradiction is in a currentwhich White says strikes out from the long pier and then like a ram's hornturns back, and this might have acted somehow in this manner. 

"It is agreed by all that the plaintiff's boat was destroyed and that itwas destroyed upon the head of the short pier; that she moved from thechannel where she was with her bow above the head of the long pier, tillshe struck the short one, swung around under the bridge and there wascrowded and destroyed. 

"I shall try to prove that the average velocity of the current through thedraw with the boat in it should be five and a half miles an hour; that itis slowest at the head of the pier and swiftest at the foot of the pier. Their lowest estimate in evidence is six miles an hour, their highesttwelve miles. This was the testimony of men who had made no experiment, only conjecture. We have adopted the most exact means. The water runsswiftest in high water and we have taken the point of nine feet above lowwater. The water when the Afton was lost was seven feet above low water, or at least a foot lower than our time. Brayton and his assistants timedthe instruments, the best instruments known in measuring currents. Theytimed them under various circumstances and they found the current fivemiles an hour and no more. They found that the water at the upper end ranslower than five miles; that below it was swifter than five miles, butthat the average was five miles. Shall men who have taken no care, whoconjecture, some of whom speak of twenty miles an hour, be believedagainst those who have had such a favorable and well improved opportunity?They should not even qualify the result. Several men have given theiropinion as to the distance of the steamboat Carson, and I suppose if oneshould go and measure that distance you would believe him in preference toall of them. 

"These measurements were made when the boat was not in the draw. It hasbeen ascertained what is the area of the cross section of this stream andthe area of the face of the piers, and the engineers say that the piersbeing put there will increase the current proportionally as the spaceis decreased. So with the boat in the draw. The depth of the channel wastwenty-two feet, the width one hundred and sixteen feet; multiply theseand you have the square-feet across the water of the draw, viz. : 2552feet. The Afton was 35 feet wide and drew 5 feet, making a fourteenthof the sum. Now, one-fourteenth of five miles is five-fourteenths of onemile--about one third of a mile--the increase of the current. We will callthe current five and a half miles per hour. The next thing I will try toprove is that the plaintiff's (?) boat had power to run six miles an hourin that current. It had been testified that she was a strong, swift boat, able to run eight miles an hour up stream in a current of four miles anhour, and fifteen miles down stream. Strike the average and you will findwhat is her average--about eleven and a half miles. Take the five and ahalf miles which is the speed of the current in the draw and it leaves thepower of that boat in that draw at six miles an hour, 528 feet per minuteand 8 4/5 feet to the second. 

"Next I propose to show that there are no cross currents. I know theirwitnesses say that there are cross currents--that, as one witness says, there were three cross currents and two eddies; so far as mere statement, without experiment, and mingled with mistakes, can go, they have proved. But can these men's testimony be compared with the nice, exact, thoroughexperiments of our witnesses? Can you believe that these floats go acrossthe currents? It is inconceivable that they could not have discoveredevery possible current. How do boats find currents that floats cannotdiscover? We assume the position then that those cross currents are notthere. My next proposition is that the Afton passed between the S. B. Carson and the Iowa shore. That is undisputed. 

"Next I shall show that she struck first the short pier, then the longpier, then the short one again and there she stopped. " Mr. Lincoln thencited the testimony of eighteen witnesses on this point. 

"How did the boat strike when she went in? Here is an endless variety ofopinion. But ten of them say what pier she struck; three of them testifythat she struck first the short, then the long and then the short for thelast time. None of the rest substantially contradict this. I assume thatthese men have got the truth because I believe it an established fact. My next proposition is that after she struck the short and long pier andbefore she got back to the short pier the boat got right with her bowup. So says the pilot Parker--that he got her through until her starboardwheel passed the short pier. This would make her head about even with thehead of the long pier. He says her head was as high or higher than thehead of the long pier. Other witnesses confirmed this one. The finalstroke was in the splash door aft the wheel. Witnesses differ, but themajority say that she struck thus. "

Court adjourned. 

14th day, Wednesday, Sept. 23, 1857. 

Mr. A. LINCOLN resumed. He said he should conclude as soon as possible. He said the colored map of the plaintiff which was brought in during onestage of the trial showed itself that the cross currents alleged did notexist. That the current as represented would drive an ascending boat tothe long pier but not to the short pier, as they urge. He explained from amodel of a boat where the splash door is, just behind the wheel. The boatstruck on the lower shoulder of the short pier as she swung around in thesplash door; then as she went on around she struck the point or end ofthe pier, where she rested. "Her engineers, " said Mr. Lincoln, "say thestarboard wheel then was rushing around rapidly. Then the boat must havestruck the upper point of the pier so far back as not to disturb thewheel. It is forty feet from the stern of the Afton to the splash door, and thus it appears that she had but forty feet to go to clear the pier. How was it that the Afton with all her power flanked over from the channelto the short pier without moving one foot ahead? Suppose she was in themiddle of the draw, her wheel would have been 31 feet from the short pier. The reason she went over thus is her starboard wheel was not working. Ishall try to establish the fact that the wheel was not running and thatafter she struck she went ahead strong on this same wheel. Upon the lastpoint the witnesses agree, that the starboard wheel was running after shestruck, and no witnesses say that it was running while she was out in thedraw flanking over. "

Mr. Lincoln read from the testimonies of various witnesses to prove thatthe starboard wheel was not working while the Afton was out in the stream. 

"Other witnesses show that the captain said something of the machinery ofthe wheel, and the inference is that he knew the wheel was not working. The fact is undisputed that she did not move one inch ahead while she wasmoving this 31 feet sideways. There is evidence proving that the currentthere is only five miles an hour, and the only explanation is that herpower was not all used--that only one wheel was working. The pilot sayshe ordered the engineers to back her up. The engineers differ from himand said they kept on going ahead. The bow was so swung that the currentpressed it over; the pilot pressed the stern over with the rudder, thoughnot so fast but that the bow gained on it, and only one wheel beingin motion the boat nearly stood still so far as motion up and down isconcerned, and thus she was thrown upon this pier. The Afton came into thedraw after she had just passed the Carson, and as the Carson no doubt keptthe true course the Afton going around her got out of the proper way, gotacross the current into the eddy which is west of a straight line drawndown from the long pier, was compelled to resort to these changes ofwheels, which she did not do with sufficient adroitness to save her. Wasit not her own fault that she entered wrong, so far wrong that she nevergot right? Is the defence to blame for that?

"For several days we were entertained with depositions about boats'smelling a bar. ' Why did the Afton then, after she had come up smellingso close to the long pier sheer off so strangely. When she got to thecentre of the very nose she was smelling she seemed suddenly to have losther sense of smell and to have flanked over to the short pier. "

Mr. Lincoln said there was no practicability in the project of buildinga tunnel under the river, for there "is not a tunnel that is a successfulproject in this world. A suspension bridge cannot be built so high butthat the chimneys of the boats will grow up till they cannot pass. Thesteamboat men will take pains to make them grow. The cars of a railroadcannot without immense expense rise high enough to get even with asuspension bridge or go low enough to get through a tunnel; such expenseis unreasonable. 

"The plaintiffs have to establish that the bridge is a materialobstruction and that they have managed their boat with reasonable care andskill. As to the last point high winds have nothing to do with it, for itwas not a windy day. They must show due skill and care. Difficulties goingdown stream will not do, for they were going up stream. Difficultieswith barges in tow have nothing to do with the accident, for they had nobarge. " Mr. Lincoln said he had much more to say, many things he couldsuggest to the jury, but he wished to close to save time. 

TO JESSE K. DUBOIS. 

DEAR DUBOIS:

BLOOMINGTON, Dec. 19, 1857. 

J. M. Douglas of the I. C. R. R. Co. Is here and will carry this letter. He says they have a large sum (near $90, 000) which they will pay into thetreasury now, if they have an assurance that they shall not be suedbefore Jan. , 1859--otherwise not. I really wish you could consent to this. Douglas says they cannot pay more, and I believe him. 

I do not write this as a lawyer seeking an advantage for a client; butonly as a friend, only urging you to do what I think I would do if I werein your situation. I mean this as private and confidential only, but Ifeel a good deal of anxiety about it. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JOSEPH GILLESPIE. 

SPRINGFIELD, Jan. 19, 1858. 

MY DEAR SIR: This morning Col. McClernand showed me a petition for amandamus against the Secretary of State to compel him to certify theapportionment act of last session; and he says it will be presented to thecourt to-morrow morning. We shall be allowed three or four days to get upa return, and I, for one, want the benefit of consultation with you. 

Please come right up. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. GILLESPIE. 

SPRINGFIELD, Feb 7, 1858

MY DEAR SIR: Yesterday morning the court overruled the demurrer to Hatchesreturn in the mandamus case. McClernand was present; said nothing aboutpleading over; and so I suppose the matter is ended. 

The court gave no reason for the decision; but Peck tells meconfidentially that they were unanimous in the opinion that even if theGov'r had signed the bill purposely, he had the right to scratch his nameoff so long as the bill remained in his custody and control. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO H. C. WHITNEY. 

SPRINGFIELD, December 18, 1857. 

HENRY C. WHITNEY, ESQ. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Coming home from Bloomington last night I found your letterof the 15th. 

I know of no express statute or decisions as to what a J. P. Upon theexpiration of his term shall do with his docket books, papers, unfinishedbusiness, etc. , but so far as I know, the practice has been to hand overto the successor, and to cease to do anything further whatever, in perfectanalogy to Sections 110 and 112, and I have supposed and do suppose thisis the law. I think the successor may forthwith do whatever the retiringJ. P. Might have done. As to the proviso to Section 114 I think it was putin to cover possible cases, by way of caution, and not to authorize the J. P. To go forward and finish up whatever might have been begun by him. 

The view I take, I believe, is the Common law principle, as to retiringofficers and their successors, to which I remember but one exception, which is the case of Sheriff and ministerial officers of that class. 

I have not had time to examine this subject fully, but I have greatconfidence I am right. You must not think of offering me pay for this. 

Mr. John O. Johnson is my friend; I gave your name to him. He is doing thework of trying to get up a Republican organization. I do not suppose "LongJohn" ever saw or heard of him. Let me say to you confidentially, that Ido not entirely appreciate what the Republican papers of Chicago areso constantly saying against "Long John. " I consider those papers trulydevoted to the Republican cause, and not unfriendly to me; but I do thinkthat more of what they say against "Long John" is dictated by personalmalice than themselves are conscious of. We can not afford to lose theservices of "Long John" and I do believe the unrelenting warfare made uponhim is injuring our cause. I mean this to be confidential. 

If you quietly co-operate with Mr. J. O. Johnson on getting up anorganization, I think it will be right. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

1858

ANOTHER POLITICAL PATRONAGE REFERENCE

TO EDWARD G. MINER. 

SPRINGFIELD, Feb. 19, 1858. 

MY DEAR SIR:

Mr. G. A. Sutton is an applicant for superintendent of the addition of theInsane Asylum, and I understand it partly depends on you whether he getsit. 

Sutton is my fellow-townsman and friend, and I therefore wish to say forhim that he is a man of sterling integrity and as a master mechanic andbuilder not surpassed by any in our city, or any I have known anywhere, asfar as I can judge. I hope you will consider me as being really interestedfor Mr. Sutton and not as writing merely to relieve myself of importunity. Please show this to Col. William Ross and let him consider it as muchintended for him as for yourself. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

POLITICAL COMMUNICATION

TO W. H. LAMON, ESQ. 

SPRINGFIELD, JUNE 11, 1858

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 9th written at Joliet is just received. Two orthree days ago I learned that McLean had appointed delegates in favorof Lovejoy, and thenceforward I have considered his renomination a fixedfact. My opinion--if my opinion is of any consequence in this case, inwhich it is no business of mine to interfere--remains unchanged, thatrunning an independent candidate against Lovejoy will not do; that it willresult in nothing but disaster all round. In the first place, whosoeverso runs will be beaten and will be spotted for life; in the second place, while the race is in progress, he will be under the strongest temptationto trade with the Democrats, and to favor the election of certain of theirfriends to the Legislature; thirdly, I shall be held responsible for it, and Republican members of the Legislature who are partial to Lovejoy willfor that purpose oppose us; and lastly, it will in the end lose us thedistrict altogether. There is no safe way but a convention; and if in thatconvention, upon a common platform which all are willing to stand upon, one who has been known as an abolitionist, but who is now occupying nonebut common ground, can get the majority of the votes to which all look foran election, there is no safe way but to submit. 

As to the inclination of some Republicans to favor Douglas, that is one ofthe chances I have to run, and which I intend to run with patience. 

I write in the court room. Court has opened, and I must close. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

BRIEF AUTOBIOGRAPHY, JUNE 15, 1858. 

The compiler of the Dictionary of Congress states that while preparingthat work for publication, in 1858, he sent to Mr. Lincoln the usualrequest for a sketch of his life, and received the following reply:

 Born February 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. Education, defective. Profession, a lawyer. Have been a captain of volunteers in Black Hawk war. Postmaster at a very small office. Four times a member of the Illinois Legislature and was a member of the lower house of Congress. 

Yours, etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

VOLUME THREE

CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION

By Abraham Lincoln

Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley

THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES I

POLITICAL SPEECHES & DEBATES of LINCOLN WITH DOUGLAS In the SenatorialCampaign of 1858 in Illinois SPEECH AT SPRINGFIELD, JUNE 17, 1858

[The following speech was delivered at Springfield, Ill. , at the close ofthe Republican State Convention held at that time and place, and by whichConvention Mr. LINCOLN had been named as their candidate for United StatesSenator. Mr. DOUGLAS was not present. ]

Mr. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE CONVENTION:--If we could first knowwhere we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what todo, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policywas initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of puttingan end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, thatagitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In myopinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached andpassed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand. " I believe thisgovernment cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do notexpect the Union to be dissolved; I do not expect the house to fall; butI 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 furtherspread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the beliefthat it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates willpush it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, oldas 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 completelegal combination-piece of machinery, so to speak compounded of theNebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider, not onlywhat work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but alsolet him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, orrather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert ofaction, among its chief architects, from the beginning. 

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half theStates by State Constitutions, and from most of the National territory byCongressional prohibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle whichended in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all theNational territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. 

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

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as wellas might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty, " otherwisecalled "sacred right of self-government, " which latter phrase, thoughexpressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so pervertedin this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one manchoose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. Thatargument was incorporated into the Nebraska Bill itself, in the languagewhich follows:

"It being the true intent and meaning of this Act not to legislate slaveryinto any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leavethe people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domesticinstitutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of theUnited States. "

Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squattersovereignty, " and "sacred right of self-government. " "But, " saidopposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declarethat the people of the Territory may exclude slavery. " "Not we, " said thefriends 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 havingvoluntarily taken him first into a free State, and then into a territorycovered by the Congressional Prohibition, and held him as a slave for along time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court forthe District of Missouri; and both Nebraska Bill and lawsuit were broughtto a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro's name was "DredScott, " which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and wasargued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of itwas deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, SenatorTrumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate ofthe Nebraska Bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territorycan constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latteranswers: "That is a question for the Supreme Court. "

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, suchas it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundredthousand votes, (approximately 10% of the vote) and so, perhaps, was notoverwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in hislast annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon thepeople the weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Courtmet again, did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. ThePresidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; butthe incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted thepeople to abide by the forth-coming 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 aspeech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehementlydenouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the earlyoccasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe thatdecision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had everbeen entertained!

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author ofthe Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the LecomptonConstitution was or was not in any just sense made by the people ofKansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is afair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voteddown or voted up. I do not understand his declaration, that he cares notwhether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him otherthan as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the publicmind, --the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and isready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle! If hehas any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is theonly shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scottdecision "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled downlike temporary scaffolding; like the mould at the foundry, served throughone blast, and fell back into loose sand; helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with theRepublicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of theoriginal Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point--theright of a people to make their own constitution--upon which he and theRepublicans have never differed. 

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with SenatorDouglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in itspresent state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The workingpoints of that machinery are:

Firstly, That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and nodescendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the senseof that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This pointis made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of thebenefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declaresthat "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges andimmunities of citizens in the several States. "

Secondly, That, "subject to the Constitution of the United States, "neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery fromany United States Territory. This point is made in order that individualmen may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losingthem as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to theinstitution through all the future. 

Thirdly, That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a freeState makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts willnot decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave Statethe negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not tobe pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparentlyindorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logicalconclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with DredScott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully dowith any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any otherfree State. 

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraskadoctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voteddown or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, wither we are tending. 

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back and run the mindover the string of historical facts already stated. Several thingswill now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they weretranspiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free, " "subject onlyto the Constitution. " What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiderscould not then see. Plainly enough now, --it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfectfreedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people, voted down? Plainly enoughnow, --the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the DredScott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator'sindividual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainlyenough now, --the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectlyfree" argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why theoutgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of areargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor ofthe decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of aspirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he maygive the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decisionby the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the resultof preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portionsof which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and bydifferent workmen, Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance, andwhen we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make theframe of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactlyadapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or toofew, --not omitting even scaffolding, --or, if a single piece be lacking, wesee the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring suchpiece in, --in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe thatStephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another fromthe beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up beforethe first blow was struck. 

It should not be overlooked that by the Nebraska Bill the people of aState as well as Territory were to be left "perfectly free, " "subjectonly to the Constitution. " Why mention a State? They were legislating forTerritories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a Stateare and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; butwhy is mention of this lugged into this merely Territorial law? Whyare the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumpedtogether, and their relation to the Constitution therefore treated asbeing precisely the same? While the opinion of the court, by Chief JusticeTaney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all theconcurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the UnitedStates neither permits Congress nor a Territorial Legislature to excludeslavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whetheror not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, toexclude 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 ofunlimited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from theirlimits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalfof the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska Bill, --I ask, who can bequite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as ithad been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring thepower of a State over slavery is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches itmore than once, Using the precise idea, and almost the language, too, ofthe Nebraska Act. On one occasion, his exact language is, "Except in caseswhere the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within itsjurisdiction. " In what cases the power of the States is so restrained bythe United States Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as thesame question, as to the restraint on the power of the Territories, wasleft open in the Nebraska Act. Put this and that together, and we haveanother nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with anotherSupreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the UnitedStates does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. Andthis may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whetherslavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain upon the public mindsufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained whenmade. 

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in allthe States. Welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, andwill soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynastyshall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming thatthe people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, andwe shall awake to the reality instead that the Supreme Court has madeIllinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty isthe work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That iswhat we have to do. How can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their friends, and yet whisperto us softly that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is withwhich to effect that object. They wish us to infer all, from the fact thathe now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty, and thathe has regularly voted with us on a single point, upon which he and wehave never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that thelargest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dogis better than a dead lion. " Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion, for thiswork is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advancesof slavery? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission isimpressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading DouglasDemocratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed toresist the revival of the African slave trade. Does Douglas believe aneffort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does hereally think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he haslabored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves intothe new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred rightto buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they canbe bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in hispower to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right ofproperty; and, as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade, how canhe refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free, "--unlesshe does it as a protection to the home production? And as the homeproducers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly withouta ground of opposition. 

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-daythan he was yesterday; that he may rightfully change when he finds himselfwrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will makeany particular change, of which he himself has given no intimation? Can wesafely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wishnot to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or doaught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he andwe can come together on principle so that our cause may have assistancefrom his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitiousobstacles. But clearly he is not now with us; he does not pretend tobe, --he does not promise ever to be. 

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubtedfriends, --those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who docare for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation musteredover thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the singleimpulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstanceagainst us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements we gatheredfrom the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under theconstant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did webrave all then to falter now, --now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall notfail; 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. 

SPEECH AT CHICAGO, JULY 10, 1858. 

IN REPLY TO SENATOR DOUGLAS

DELIVERED AT CHICAGO, SATURDAY EVENING, JULY 10, 1858. 

(Mr. DOUGLAS WAS NOT PRESENT. )

[Mr. LINCOLN was introduced by C. L. Wilson, Esq. , and as he made hisappearance he was greeted with a perfect storm of applause. For somemoments the enthusiasm continued unabated. At last, when by a wave of hishand partial silence was restored, Mr. LINCOLN said, ]

MY FELLOW-CITIZENS:--On yesterday evening, upon the occasion of thereception given to Senator Douglas, I was furnished with a seat veryconvenient for hearing him, and was otherwise very courteously treated byhim and his friends, and for which I thank him and them. During the courseof his remarks my name was mentioned in such a way as, I suppose, rendersit at least not improper that I should make some sort of reply to him. Ishall not attempt to follow him in the precise order in which he addressedthe assembled multitude upon that occasion, though I shall perhaps do soin the main. 

There was one question to which he asked the attention of the crowd, whichI deem of somewhat less importance--at least of propriety--for me to dwellupon than the others, which he brought in near the close of his speech, and which I think it would not be entirely proper for me to omit attendingto, and yet if I were not to give some attention to it now, I shouldprobably forget it altogether. While I am upon this subject, allow me tosay that I do not intend to indulge in that inconvenient mode sometimesadopted in public speaking, of reading from documents; but I shall departfrom that rule so far as to read a little scrap from his speech, whichnotices this first topic of which I shall speak, --that is, provided I canfind it in the paper:

"I have made up my mind to appeal to the people against the combinationthat has been made against me; the Republican leaders having formed analliance, an unholy and unnatural alliance, with a portion of unscrupulousFederal office-holders. I intend to fight that allied army wherever I meetthem. I know they deny the alliance; but yet these men who are tryingto divide the Democratic party for the purpose of electing a RepublicanSenator in my place are just as much the agents and tools of thesupporters of Mr. Lincoln. Hence I shall deal with this allied armyjust as the Russians dealt with the Allies at Sebastopol, --that is, theRussians did not stop to inquire, when they fired a broadside, whether ithit an Englishman, a Frenchman, or a Turk. Nor will I stop to inquire, nor shall I hesitate, whether my blows shall hit the Republican leadersor their allies, who are holding the Federal offices, and yet acting inconcert with them. "

Well, now, gentlemen, is not that very alarming? Just to think of it!right at the outset of his canvass, I, a poor, kind, amiable, intelligentgentleman, --I am to be slain in this way! Why, my friend the Judge is notonly, as it turns out, not a dead lion, nor even a living one, --he is therugged Russian Bear!

But if they will have it--for he says that we deny it--that there is anysuch alliance, as he says there is, --and I don't propose hanging very muchupon this question of veracity, --but if he will have it that there is suchan alliance, that the Administration men and we are allied, and we standin the attitude of English, French, and Turk, he occupying the positionof the Russian, in that case I beg that he will indulge us while we barelysuggest to him that these allies took Sebastopol. 

Gentlemen, only a few more words as to this alliance. For my part, I haveto say that whether there be such an alliance depends, so far as I know, upon what may be a right definition of the term alliance. If for theRepublican party to see the other great party to which they are opposeddivided among themselves, and not try to stop the division, and rather beglad of it, --if that is an alliance, I confess I am in; but if it is meantto be said that the Republicans had formed an alliance going beyond that, by which there is contribution of money or sacrifice of principle on theone side or the other, so far as the Republican party is concerned, --ifthere be any such thing, I protest that I neither know anything of it, nor do I believe it. I will, however, say, --as I think this branch of theargument is lugged in, --I would before I leave it state, for the benefitof those concerned, that one of those same Buchanan men did once tell meof an argument that he made for his opposition to Judge Douglas. He saidthat a friend of our Senator Douglas had been talking to him, and had, among other things, said to him:

". .. Why, you don't want to beat Douglas?" "Yes, " said he, "I do want tobeat him, and I will tell you why. I believe his original Nebraska Billwas right in the abstract, but it was wrong in the time that it wasbrought forward. It was wrong in the application to a Territory in regardto which the question had been settled; it was brought forward at a timewhen nobody asked him; it was tendered to the South when the South had notasked for it, but when they could not well refuse it; and for this samereason he forced that question upon our party. It has sunk the best menall over the nation, everywhere; and now, when our President, strugglingwith the difficulties of this man's getting up, has reached the veryhardest point to turn in the case, he deserts him and I am for putting himwhere he will trouble us no more. "

Now, gentlemen, that is not my argument; that is not my argument at all. I have only been stating to you the argument of a Buchanan man. You willjudge if there is any force in it. 

Popular sovereignty! Everlasting popular sovereignty! Let us for a momentinquire into this vast matter of popular sovereignty. What is popularsovereignty? We recollect that at an early period in the history ofthis struggle there was another name for the same thing, --"squattersovereignty. " It was not exactly popular sovereignty, but squattersovereignty. What do those terms mean? What do those terms mean when usednow? And vast credit is taken by our friend the Judge in regard to hissupport of it, when he declares the last years of his life have been, and all the future years of his life shall be, devoted to this matter ofpopular sovereignty. What is it? Why, it is the sovereignty of the people!What was squatter sovereignty? I suppose, if it had any significance atall, it was the right of the people to govern themselves, to be sovereignin their own affairs while they were squatted down in a country not theirown, while they had squatted on a Territory that did not belong to them, in the sense that a State belongs to the people who inhabit it, whenit belonged to the nation; such right to govern themselves was called"squatter sovereignty. "

Now, I wish you to mark: What has become of that squatter sovereignty?what has become of it? Can you get anybody to tell you now that the peopleof a Territory have any authority to govern themselves, in regard to thismooted question of slavery, before they form a State constitution? No suchthing at all; although there is a general running fire, and although therehas been a hurrah made in every speech on that side, assuming that policyhad given the people of a Territory the right to govern themselves uponthis question, yet the point is dodged. To-day it has been decided--nomore than a year ago it was decided--by the Supreme Court of the UnitedStates, and is insisted upon to-day that the people of a Territory have noright to exclude slavery from a Territory; that if any one man chooses totake slaves into a Territory, all the rest of the people have no rightto keep them out. This being so, and this decision being made one of thepoints that the Judge approved, and one in the approval of which he sayshe means to keep me down, --put me down I should not say, for I have neverbeen up, --he says he is in favor of it, and sticks to it, and expects towin his battle on that decision, which says that there is no such thingas squatter sovereignty, but that any one man may take slaves into aTerritory, and all the other men in the Territory may be opposed to it, and yet by reason of the Constitution they cannot prohibit it. When thatis so, how much is left of this vast matter of squatter sovereignty, Ishould like to know?

When we get back, we get to the point of the right of the people to make aconstitution. Kansas was settled, for example, in 1854. It was a Territoryyet, without having formed a constitution, in a very regular way, forthree years. All this time negro slavery could be taken in by any fewindividuals, and by that decision of the Supreme Court, which the Judgeapproves, all the rest of the people cannot keep it out; but when theycome to make a constitution, they may say they will not have slavery. Butit is there; they are obliged to tolerate it some way, and all experienceshows it will be so, for they will not take the negro slaves andabsolutely deprive the owners of them. All experience shows this to be so. All that space of time that runs from the beginning of the settlementof the Territory until there is sufficiency of people to make a Stateconstitution, --all that portion of time popular sovereignty is given up. The seal is absolutely put down upon it by the court decision, and JudgeDouglas puts his own upon the top of that; yet he is appealing to thepeople to give him vast credit for his devotion to popular sovereignty. 

Again, when we get to the question of the right of the people to forma State constitution as they please, to form it with slavery or withoutslavery, if that is anything new, I confess I don't know it. Has thereever been a time when anybody said that any other than the people of aTerritory itself should form a constitution? What is now in it that JudgeDouglas should have fought several years of his life, and pledge himselfto fight all the remaining years of his life for? Can Judge Douglas findanybody on earth that said that anybody else should form a constitutionfor a people? [A voice, "Yes. "] Well, I should like you to name him; Ishould like to know who he was. [Same voice, "John Calhoun. "]

No, sir, I never heard of even John Calhoun saying such a thing. Heinsisted on the same principle as Judge Douglas; but his mode of applyingit, in fact, was wrong. It is enough for my purpose to ask this crowdwhenever a Republican said anything against it. They never said anythingagainst it, but they have constantly spoken for it; and whoever willundertake to examine the platform, and the speeches of responsible men ofthe party, and of irresponsible men, too, if you please, will be unable tofind one word from anybody in the Republican ranks opposed to that popularsovereignty which Judge Douglas thinks that he has invented. I supposethat Judge Douglas will claim, in a little while, that he is the inventorof the idea that the people should govern themselves; that nobody everthought of such a thing until he brought it forward. We do not rememberthat in that old Declaration of Independence it is said that:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal;that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights;that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; that tosecure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving theirjust powers from the consent of the governed. "

There is the origin of popular sovereignty. Who, then, shall come in atthis day and claim that he invented it?

The Lecompton Constitution connects itself with this question, for it isin this matter of the Lecompton Constitution that our friend JudgeDouglas claims such vast credit. I agree that in opposing the LecomptonConstitution, so far as I can perceive, he was right. I do not deny thatat all; and, gentlemen, you will readily see why I could not deny it, even if I wanted to. But I do not wish to; for all the Republicans in thenation opposed it, and they would have opposed it just as much withoutJudge Douglas's aid as with it. They had all taken ground against it longbefore he did. Why, the reason that he urges against that constitution Iurged against him a year before. I have the printed speech in my hand. Theargument that he makes, why that constitution should not be adopted, thatthe people were not fairly represented nor allowed to vote, I pointed outin a speech a year ago, which I hold in my hand now, that no fair chancewas to be given to the people. ["Read it, Read it. "] I shall not wasteyour time by trying to read it. ["Read it, Read it. "] Gentlemen, readingfrom speeches is a very tedious business, particularly for an old man thathas to put on spectacles, and more so if the man be so tall that he has tobend over to the light. 

A little more, now, as to this matter of popular sovereignty and theLecompton Constitution. The Lecompton Constitution, as the Judge tells us, was defeated. The defeat of it was a good thing or it was not. He thinksthe defeat of it was a good thing, and so do I, and we agree in that. Whodefeated it?

[A voice: Judge Douglas. ]

Yes, he furnished himself, and if you suppose he controlled the otherDemocrats that went with him, he furnished three votes; while theRepublicans furnished twenty. 

That is what he did to defeat it. In the House of Representatives he andhis friends furnished some twenty votes, and the Republicans furnishedninety odd. Now, who was it that did the work?

[A voice: Douglas. ]

Why, yes, Douglas did it! To be sure he did. 

Let us, however, put that proposition another way. The Republicans couldnot have done it without Judge Douglas. Could he have done it withoutthem? Which could have come the nearest to doing it without the other?

[A voice: Who killed the bill?]

[Another voice: Douglas. ]

Ground was taken against it by the Republicans long before Douglas did it. The proportion of opposition to that measure is about five to one. 

[A voice: Why don't they come out on it?]

You don't know what you are talking about, my friend. I am quite willingto answer any gentleman in the crowd who asks an intelligent question. 

Now, who in all this country has ever found any of our friends of JudgeDouglas's way of thinking, and who have acted upon this main question, that has ever thought of uttering a word in behalf of Judge Trumbull?

[A voice: We have. ]

I defy you to show a printed resolution passed in a Democratic meeting--Itake it upon myself to defy any man to show a printed resolution of aDemocratic meeting, large or small--in favor of Judge Trumbull, or any ofthe five to one Republicans who beat that bill. Everything must be for theDemocrats! They did everything, and the five to the one that really didthe thing they snub over, and they do not seem to remember that they havean existence upon the face of the earth. 

Gentlemen, I fear that I shall become tedious. I leave this branch of thesubject to take hold of another. I take up that part of Judge Douglas'sspeech in which he respectfully attended to me. 

Judge Douglas made two points upon my recent speech at Springfield. Hesays they are to be the issues of this campaign. The first one of thesepoints he bases upon the language in a speech which I delivered atSpringfield, which I believe I can quote correctly from memory. Isaid there that "we are now far into the fifth year since a policy wasinstituted for the avowed object, and with the confident promise, ofputting an end to slavery agitation; under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. ""I believe it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached andpassed. 'A house divided against itself cannot stand. ' I believe thisgovernment cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. " "I do notexpect the Union to be dissolved, "--I am quoting from my speech, "--I donot 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 ofslavery will arrest the spread of it and place it where the public mindshall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shall become alike lawfulin all the States, north as well as south. "

What is the paragraph? In this paragraph, which I have quoted in yourhearing, and to which I ask the attention of all, Judge Douglas thinks hediscovers great political heresy. I want your attention particularly towhat he has inferred from it. He says I am in favor of making all theStates of this Union uniform in all their internal regulations; that inall their domestic concerns I am in favor of making them entirely uniform. He draws this inference from the language I have quoted to you. He saysthat I am in favor of making war by the North upon the South for theextinction of slavery; that I am also in favor of inviting (as heexpresses it) the South to a war upon the North for the purpose ofnationalizing slavery. Now, it is singular enough, if you will carefullyread that passage over, that I did not say that I was in favor of anythingin it. I only said what I expected would take place. I made a predictiononly, --it may have been a foolish one, perhaps. I did not even say that Idesired that slavery should be put in course of ultimate extinction. I dosay so now, however, so there need be no longer any difficulty about that. It may be written down in the great speech. 

Gentlemen, Judge Douglas informed you that this speech of mine wasprobably carefully prepared. I admit that it was. I am not master oflanguage; I have not a fine education; I am not capable of entering intoa disquisition upon dialectics, as I believe you call it; but I do notbelieve the language I employed bears any such construction as JudgeDouglas puts upon it. But I don't care about a quibble in regard to words. I know what I meant, and I will not leave this crowd in doubt, if I canexplain it to them, what I really meant in the use of that paragraph. 

I am not, in the first place, unaware that this government has enduredeighty-two years half slave and half free. I know that. I am tolerablywell acquainted with the history of the country, and I know that it hasendured eighty-two years half slave and half free. I believe--and that iswhat I meant to allude to there--I believe it has endured because duringall that time, until the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, the publicmind did rest all the time in the belief that slavery was in course ofultimate extinction. That was what gave us the rest that we had throughthat period of eighty-two years, --at least, so I believe. I have alwayshated slavery, I think, as much as any Abolitionist, --I have been an OldLine Whig, --I have always hated it; but I have always been quiet aboutit until this new era of the introduction of the Nebraska Bill began. Ialways believed that everybody was against it, and that it was in courseof ultimate extinction. [Pointing to Mr. Browning, who stood near by. ]Browning thought so; the great mass of the nation have rested in thebelief that slavery was in course of ultimate extinction. They had reasonso to believe. 

The adoption of the Constitution and its attendant history led thepeople to believe so; and that such was the belief of the framers of theConstitution itself, why did those old men, about the time of the adoptionof the Constitution, decree that slavery should not go into the newTerritory, where it had not already gone? Why declare that within twentyyears the African slave trade, by which slaves are supplied, might be cutoff by Congress? Why were all these acts? I might enumerate more of theseacts; but enough. What were they but a clear indication that the framersof the Constitution intended and expected the ultimate extinction ofthat institution? And now, when I say, as I said in my speech that JudgeDouglas has quoted from, when I say that I think the opponents of slaverywill resist the farther spread of it, and place it where the public mindshall rest with the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction, I only mean to say that they will place it where the founders of thisgovernment originally placed it. 

I have said a hundred times, and I have now no inclination to take itback, that I believe there is no right, and ought to be no inclination, inthe people of the free States to enter into the slave States and interferewith the question of slavery at all. I have said that always; JudgeDouglas has heard me say it, if not quite a hundred times, at leastas good as a hundred times; and when it is said that I am in favor ofinterfering with slavery where it exists, I know it is unwarranted byanything I have ever intended, and, as I believe, by anything I have eversaid. If, by any means, I have ever used language which could fairly be soconstrued (as, however, I believe I never have), I now correct it. 

So much, then, for the inference that Judge Douglas draws, that I am infavor of setting the sections at war with one another. I know that I nevermeant any such thing, and I believe that no fair mind can infer any suchthing from anything I have ever said. 

Now, in relation to his inference that I am in favor of a generalconsolidation of all the local institutions of the various States. I willattend to that for a little while, and try to inquire, if I can, how onearth it could be that any man could draw such an inference from anythingI said. I have said, very many times, in Judge Douglas's hearing, that noman believed more than I in the principle of self-government; that it liesat the bottom of all my ideas of just government, from beginning to end. Ihave denied that his use of that term applies properly. But for the thingitself, I deny that any man has ever gone ahead of me in his devotion tothe principle, whatever he may have done in efficiency in advocating it. Ithink that I have said it in your hearing, that I believe each individualis naturally entitled to do as he pleases with himself and the fruit ofhis labor, so far as it in no wise interferes with any other man's rights;that each community as a State has a right to do exactly as it pleaseswith all the concerns within that State that interfere with the right ofno other State; and that the General Government, upon principle, has noright to interfere with anything other than that general class of thingsthat does concern the whole. I have said that at all times. I have said, as illustrations, that I do not believe in the right of Illinois tointerfere with the cranberry laws of Indiana, the oyster laws of Virginia, or the liquor laws of Maine. I have said these things over and over again, and I repeat them here as my sentiments. 

How is it, then, that Judge Douglas infers, because I hope to see slaveryput where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in thecourse of ultimate extinction, that I am in favor of Illinois going overand interfering with the cranberry laws of Indiana? What can authorize himto draw any such inference?

I suppose there might be one thing that at least enabled him to drawsuch an inference that would not be true with me or many others: that is, because he looks upon all this matter of slavery as an exceedingly littlething, --this matter of keeping one sixth of the population of the wholenation in a state of oppression and tyranny unequaled in the world. Helooks upon it as being an exceedingly little thing, --only equal to thequestion of the cranberry laws of Indiana; as something having no moralquestion in it; as something on a par with the question of whether a manshall pasture his land with cattle, or plant it with tobacco; so littleand so small a thing that he concludes, if I could desire that anythingshould be done to bring about the ultimate extinction of that littlething, I must be in favor of bringing about an amalgamation of allthe other little things in the Union. Now, it so happens--and there, Ipresume, is the foundation of this mistake--that the Judge thinks thus;and it so happens that there is a vast portion of the American people thatdo not look upon that matter as being this very little thing. They lookupon it as a vast moral evil; they can prove it as such by the writings ofthose who gave us the blessings of liberty which we enjoy, and that theyso looked upon it, and not as an evil merely confining itself to theStates where it is situated; and while we agree that, by the Constitutionwe assented to, in the States where it exists, we have no right tointerfere with it, because it is in the Constitution; and we are by bothduty and inclination to stick by that Constitution, in all its letter andspirit, from beginning to end. 

So much, then, as to my disposition--my wish to have all the Statelegislatures blotted out, and to have one consolidated government, and auniformity of domestic regulations in all the States, by which I supposeit is meant, if we raise corn here, we must make sugar-cane grow heretoo, and we must make those which grow North grow in the South. All thisI suppose he understands I am in favor of doing. Now, so much for all thisnonsense; for I must call it so. The Judge can have no issue with me ona question of establishing uniformity in the domestic regulations of theStates. 

A little now on the other point, --the Dred Scott decision. Another of theissues he says that is to be made with me is upon his devotion to the DredScott decision, and my opposition to it. 

I have expressed heretofore, and I now repeat, my opposition to theDred Scott decision; but I should be allowed to state the nature ofthat opposition, and I ask your indulgence while I do so. What is fairlyimplied by the term Judge Douglas has used, "resistance to the decision"?I do not resist it. If I wanted to take Dred Scott from his master, Iwould be interfering with property, and that terrible difficulty thatJudge Douglas speaks of, of interfering with property, would arise. ButI am doing no such thing as that, but all that I am doing is refusing toobey it as a political rule. If I were in Congress, and a vote should comeup on a question whether slavery should be prohibited in a new Territory, in spite of the Dred Scott decision, I would vote that it should. 

That is what I should do. Judge Douglas said last night that before thedecision he might advance his opinion, and it might be contrary to thedecision when it was made; but after it was made he would abide byit until it was reversed. Just so! We let this property abide by thedecision, but we will try to reverse that decision. We will try to put itwhere Judge Douglas would not object, for he says he will obey it until itis reversed. Somebody has to reverse that decision, since it is made, andwe mean to reverse it, and we mean to do it peaceably. 

What are the uses of decisions of courts? They have two uses. As rules ofproperty they have two uses. First, they decide upon the question beforethe court. They decide in this case that Dred Scott is a slave. Nobodyresists that, not only that, but they say to everybody else that personsstanding just as Dred Scott stands are as he is. That is, they say thatwhen a question comes up upon another person, it will be so decided again, unless the court decides in another way, unless the court overrules itsdecision. Well, we mean to do what we can to have the court decide theother way. That is one thing we mean to try to do. 

The sacredness that Judge Douglas throws around this decision is a degreeof sacredness that has never been before thrown around any other decision. I have never heard of such a thing. Why, decisions apparently contraryto that decision, or that good lawyers thought were contrary to thatdecision, have been made by that very court before. It is the first ofits kind; it is an astonisher in legal history. It is a new wonder of theworld. It is based upon falsehood in the main as to the facts; allegationsof facts upon which it stands are not facts at all in many instances, andno decision made on any question--the first instance of a decision madeunder so many unfavorable circumstances--thus placed, has ever been heldby the profession as law, and it has always needed confirmation before thelawyers regarded it as settled law. But Judge Douglas will have itthat all hands must take this extraordinary decision, made under theseextraordinary circumstances, and give their vote in Congress in accordancewith it, yield to it, and obey it in every possible sense. Circumstancesalter cases. Do not gentlemen here remember the case of that same SupremeCourt some twenty-five or thirty years ago deciding that a National Bankwas constitutional? I ask, if somebody does not remember that a NationalBank was declared to be constitutional? Such is the truth, whether it beremembered or not. The Bank charter ran out, and a recharter was grantedby Congress. That recharter was laid before General Jackson. It was urgedupon him, when he denied the constitutionality of the Bank, that theSupreme Court had decided that it was constitutional; and General Jacksonthen said that the Supreme Court had no right to lay down a rule to governa coordinate branch of the government, the members of which had swornto support the Constitution; that each member had sworn to support thatConstitution as he understood it. I will venture here to say that I haveheard Judge Douglas say that he approved of General Jackson for that act. What has now become of all his tirade about "resistance of the SupremeCourt"?

My fellow-citizens, getting back a little, --for I pass from thesepoints, --when Judge Douglas makes his threat of annihilation upon the"alliance, " he is cautious to say that that warfare of his is to fallupon the leaders of the Republican party. Almost every word he utters, and every distinction he makes, has its significance. He means for theRepublicans who do not count themselves as leaders, to be his friends; hemakes no fuss over them; it is the leaders that he is making war upon. Hewants it understood that the mass of the Republican party are reallyhis friends. It is only the leaders that are doing something that areintolerant, and that require extermination at his hands. As this is dearlyand unquestionably the light in which he presents that matter, I want toask your attention, addressing myself to the Republicans here, that I mayask you some questions as to where you, as the Republican party, wouldbe placed if you sustained Judge Douglas in his present position by are-election? I do not claim, gentlemen, to be unselfish; I do not pretendthat I would not like to go to the United States Senate, --I make no suchhypocritical pretense; but I do say to you that in this mighty issue it isnothing to you--nothing to the mass of the people of the nation, --whetheror not Judge Douglas or myself shall ever be heard of after this night;it may be a trifle to either of us, but in connection with this mightyquestion, upon which hang the destinies of the nation, perhaps, it isabsolutely nothing: but where will you be placed if you reindorse JudgeDouglas? Don't you know how apt he is, how exceedingly anxious he is atall times, to seize upon anything and everything to persuade you thatsomething he has done you did yourselves? Why, he tried to persuade youlast night that our Illinois Legislature instructed him to introduce theNebraska Bill. There was nobody in that Legislature ever thought of such athing; and when he first introduced the bill, he never thought of it; butstill he fights furiously for the proposition, and that he did it becausethere was a standing instruction to our Senators to be always introducingNebraska bills. He tells you he is for the Cincinnati platform, he tellsyou he is for the Dred Scott decision. He tells you, not in his speechlast night, but substantially in a former speech, that he cares not ifslavery is voted up or down; he tells you the struggle on Lecompton ispast; it may come up again or not, and if it does, he stands wherehe stood when, in spite of him and his opposition, you built up theRepublican party. If you indorse him, you tell him you do not care whetherslavery be voted up or down, and he will close or try to close your mouthswith his declaration, repeated by the day, the week, the month, and theyear. Is that what you mean? [Cries of "No, " one voice "Yes. "] Yes, I haveno doubt you who have always been for him, if you mean that. No doubt ofthat, soberly I have said, and I repeat it. I think, in the position inwhich Judge Douglas stood in opposing the Lecompton Constitution, he wasright; he does not know that it will return, but if it does we may knowwhere to find him, and if it does not, we may know where to look for him, and that is on the Cincinnati platform. Now, I could ask the Republicanparty, after all the hard names that Judge Douglas has called them by allhis repeated charges of their inclination to marry with and hug negroes;all his declarations of Black Republicanism, --by the way, we areimproving, the black has got rubbed off, --but with all that, if he beindorsed by Republican votes, where do you stand? Plainly, you stand readysaddled, bridled, and harnessed, and waiting to be driven over to theslavery extension camp of the nation, --just ready to be driven over, tiedtogether in a lot, to be driven over, every man with a rope around hisneck, that halter being held by Judge Douglas. That is the question. IfRepublican men have been in earnest in what they have done, I think theyhad better not do it; but I think that the Republican party is made upof those who, as far as they can peaceably, will oppose the extension ofslavery, and who will hope for its ultimate extinction. If they believeit is wrong in grasping up the new lands of the continent and keeping themfrom the settlement of free white laborers, who want the land to bringup their families upon; if they are in earnest, although they may make amistake, they will grow restless, and the time will come when they willcome back again and reorganize, if not by the same name, at least upon thesame principles as their party now has. It is better, then, to save thework while it is begun. You have done the labor; maintain it, keep it. If men choose to serve you, go with them; but as you have made up yourorganization upon principle, stand by it; for, as surely as God reignsover you, and has inspired your mind, and given you a sense of propriety, and continues to give you hope, so surely will you still cling to theseideas, and you will at last come back again after your wanderings, merelyto do your work over again. 

We were often, --more than once, at least, --in the course of JudgeDouglas's speech last night, reminded that this government was made forwhite men; that he believed it was made for white men. Well, that isputting it into a shape in which no one wants to deny it; but the Judgethen goes into his passion for drawing inferences that are not warranted. I protest, now and forever, against that counterfeit logic which presumesthat because I did not want a negro woman for a slave, I do necessarilywant her for a wife. My understanding is that I need not have her foreither, but, as God made us separate, we can leave one another alone, anddo one another much good thereby. There are white men enough to marry allthe white women, and enough black men to marry all the black women; and inGod's name let them be so married. The Judge regales us with the terribleenormities that take place by the mixture of races; that the inferior racebears the superior down. Why, Judge, if we do not let them get together inthe Territories, they won't mix there. 

[A voice: "Three cheers for Lincoln". --The cheers were given with a heartygood-will. ]

I should say at least that that is a self-evident truth. 

Now, it happens that we meet together once every year, sometimes aboutthe 4th of July, for some reason or other. These 4th of July gatheringsI suppose have their uses. If you will indulge me, I will state what Isuppose to be some of them. 

We are now a mighty nation; we are thirty or about thirty millions ofpeople, and we own and inhabit about one fifteenth part of the dry landof the whole earth. We run our memory back over the pages of history forabout eighty-two years, and we discover that we were then a very smallpeople in point of numbers, vastly inferior to what we are now, with avastly less extent of country, with vastly less of everything we deemdesirable among men; we look upon the change as exceedingly advantageousto us and to our posterity, and we fix upon something that happenedaway back, as in some way or other being connected with this rise ofprosperity. We find a race of men living in that day whom we claim asour fathers and grandfathers; they were iron men; they fought for theprinciple that they were contending for; and we understood that by whatthey then did it has followed that the degree of prosperity which we nowenjoy has come to us. We hold this annual celebration to remind ourselvesof all the good done in this process of time, of how it was done and whodid it, and how we are historically connected with it; and we go fromthese meetings in better humor with ourselves, we feel more attached theone to the other, and more firmly bound to the country we inhabit. Inevery way we are better men in the age and race and country in which welive, for these celebrations. But after we have done all this we havenot yet reached the whole. There is something else connected with it. Wehave--besides these, men descended by blood from our ancestors--among usperhaps half our people who are not descendants at all of these men;they are men who have come from Europe, German, Irish, French, andScandinavian, --men that have come from Europe themselves, or whoseancestors have come hither and settled here, finding themselves our equalsin all things. If they look back through this history to trace theirconnection with those days by blood, they find they have none, they cannotcarry themselves back into that glorious epoch and make themselves feelthat they are part of us; but when they look through that old Declarationof Independence, they find that those old men say that "We hold thesetruths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal"; and thenthey feel that that moral sentiment, taught in that day, evidences theirrelation to those men, that it is the father of all moral principle inthem, and that they have a right to claim it as though they were blood ofthe blood, and flesh of the flesh, of the men who wrote that Declaration;and so they are. That is the electric cord in that Declaration that linksthe hearts of patriotic and liberty-loving men together, that will linkthose patriotic hearts as long as the love of freedom exists in the mindsof men throughout the world. 

Now, sirs, for the purpose of squaring things with this idea of "don'tcare if slavery is voted up or voted down, " for sustaining the Dred Scottdecision, for holding that the Declaration of Independence did not meananything at all, we have Judge Douglas giving his exposition of what theDeclaration of Independence means, and we have him saying that thepeople of America are equal to the people of England. According to hisconstruction, you Germans are not connected with it. Now, I ask you in allsoberness if all these things, if indulged in, if ratified, if confirmedand indorsed, if taught to our children, and repeated to them, do not tendto rub out the sentiment of liberty in the country, and to transform thisgovernment into a government of some other form. Those arguments that aremade, that the inferior race are to be treated with as much allowance asthey are capable of enjoying; that as much is to be done for them as theircondition will allow, --what are these arguments? They are the argumentsthat kings have made for enslaving the people in all ages of the world. You will find that all the arguments in favor of kingcraft were of thisclass; they always bestrode the necks of the people not that they wantedto do it, but because the people were better off for being ridden. Thatis their argument, and this argument of the Judge is the same old serpentthat says, You work, and I eat; you toil, and I will enjoy the fruits ofit. Turn in whatever way you will, whether it come from the mouth of aking, an excuse for enslaving the people of his country, or from the mouthof men of one race as a reason for enslaving the men of another race, itis all the same old serpent; and I hold, if that course of argumentationthat is made for the purpose of convincing the public mind that we shouldnot care about this should be granted, it does not stop with the negro. Ishould like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, whichdeclares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions toit, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why notanother say it does not mean some other man? If that Declaration is notthe truth, let us get the statute book, in which we find it, and tear itout! Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true, let us tear it out![Cries of "No, no. "] Let us stick to it, then; let us stand firmly by it, then. 

It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessitiesand impose them upon us; and to the extent that a necessity is imposedupon a man, he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in whichwe found ourselves when we established this government. We had slaveryamong us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted themto remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if wegrasped for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it doesnot destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let thatcharter stand as our standard. 

My friend has said to me that I am a poor hand to quote Scripture. I willtry it again, however. It is said in one of the admonitions of our Lord, "As your Father in heaven is perfect, be ye also perfect. " The Savior, Isuppose, did not expect that any human creature could be perfect as theFather in heaven; but he said, "As your Father in heaven is perfect, be yealso perfect. " He set that up as a standard; and he who did most towardsreaching that standard attained the highest degree of moral perfection. SoI say in relation to the principle that all men are created equal, letit be as nearly reached as we can. If we cannot give freedom to everycreature, let us do nothing that will impose slavery upon any othercreature. Let us then turn this government back into the channel in whichthe framers of the Constitution originally placed it. Let us standfirmly by each other. If we do not do so, we are turning in the contrarydirection, that our friend Judge Douglas proposes--not intentionally--asworking in the traces tends to make this one universal slave nation. He isone that runs in that direction, and as such I resist him. 

My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and Ihave only to say: Let us discard all this quibbling about this man and theother man, this race and that race and the other race being inferior, and therefore they must be placed in an inferior position; discarding ourstandard that we have left us. Let us discard all these things, and uniteas one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand updeclaring that all men are created equal. 

My friends, I could not, without launching off upon some new topic, whichwould detain you too long, continue to-night. I thank you for this mostextensive audience that you have furnished me to-night. I leave you, hoping that the lamp of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there shallno longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal. 

SPEECH AT SPRINGFIELD, JULY 17, 1858. 

DELIVERED SATURDAY EVENING

(Mr. Douglas was not present. )

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--Another election, which is deemed an important one, isapproaching, and, as I suppose, the Republican party will, without muchdifficulty, elect their State ticket. But in regard to the Legislature, we, the Republicans, labor under some disadvantages. In the first place, we have a Legislature to elect upon an apportionment of the representationmade several years ago, when the proportion of the population was fargreater in the South (as compared with the North) than it now is; andinasmuch as our opponents hold almost entire sway in the South, and we acorrespondingly large majority in the North, the fact that we are now tobe represented as we were years ago, when the population was different, is to us a very great disadvantage. We had in the year 1855, according tolaw, a census, or enumeration of the inhabitants, taken for the purpose ofa new apportionment of representation. We know what a fair apportionmentof representation upon that census would give us. We know that it couldnot, if fairly made, fail to give the Republican party from six to tenmore members of the Legislature than they can probably get as the law nowstands. It so happened at the last session of the Legislature that ouropponents, holding the control of both branches of the Legislature, steadily refused to give us such an apportionment as we were rightlyentitled to have upon the census already taken. The Legislature steadilyrefused to give us such an apportionment as we were rightfully entitled tohave upon the census taken of the population of the State. The Legislaturewould pass no bill upon that subject, except such as was at least asunfair to us as the old one, and in which, in some instances, two men inthe Democratic regions were allowed to go as far toward sending a memberto the Legislature as three were in the Republican regions. Comparisonwas made at the time as to representative and senatorial districts, whichcompletely demonstrated that such was the fact. Such a bill was passed andtendered to the Republican Governor for his signature; but, principallyfor the reasons I have stated, he withheld his approval, and the bill fellwithout becoming a law. 

Another disadvantage under which we labor is that there are one or twoDemocratic Senators who will be members of the next Legislature, and willvote for the election of Senator, who are holding over in districts inwhich we could, on all reasonable calculation, elect men of our own, ifwe only had the chance of an election. When we consider that there are buttwenty-five Senators in the Senate, taking two from the side where theyrightfully belong, and adding them to the other, is to us a disadvantagenot to be lightly regarded. Still, so it is; we have this to contend with. Perhaps there is no ground of complaint on our part. In attending to themany things involved in the last general election for President, Governor, Auditor, Treasurer, Superintendent of Public Instruction, Members ofCongress, of the Legislature, County Officers, and so on, we allowed thesethings to happen by want of sufficient attention, and we have no cause tocomplain of our adversaries, so far as this matter is concerned. Butwe have some cause to complain of the refusal to give us a fairapportionment. 

There is still another disadvantage under which we labor, and to which Iwill ask your attention. It arises out of the relative positions of thetwo persons who stand before the State as candidates for the Senate. Senator Douglas is of world-wide renown. All the anxious politicians ofhis party, or who have been of his party for years past, have been lookingupon him as certainly, at no distant day, to be the President ofthe United States. They have seen in his round, jolly, fruitful facepost-offices, land-offices, marshalships, and cabinet appointments, charge-ships and foreign missions bursting and sprouting out in wonderfulexuberance, ready to be laid hold of by their greedy hands. And as theyhave been gazing upon this attractive picture so long, they cannot, in thelittle distraction that has taken place in the party, bring themselves togive up the charming hope; but with greedier anxiety they rush abouthim, sustain him, and give him marches, triumphal entries, and receptionsbeyond what even in the days of his highest prosperity they could havebrought about in his favor. On the contrary, nobody has ever expected meto be President. In my poor, lean, lank face, nobody has ever seen thatany cabbages were sprouting out. These are disadvantages all, takentogether, that the Republicans labor under. We have to fight this battleupon principle, and upon principle alone. I am, in a certain sense, madethe standard-bearer in behalf of the Republicans. I was made so merelybecause there had to be some one so placed, --I being in nowise preferableto any other one of twenty-five, perhaps a hundred, we have in theRepublican ranks. Then I say I wish it to be distinctly understood andborne in mind that we have to fight this battle without many--perhapswithout any of the external aids which are brought to bear against us. So I hope those with whom I am surrounded have principle enough to nervethemselves for the task, and leave nothing undone that can be fairly doneto bring about the right result. 

After Senator Douglas left Washington, as his movements were made known bythe public prints, he tarried a considerable time in the city of NewYork; and it was heralded that, like another Napoleon, he was lying by andframing the plan of his campaign. It was telegraphed to Washington City, and published in the Union, that he was framing his plan for the purposeof going to Illinois to pounce upon and annihilate the treasonable anddisunion speech which Lincoln had made here on the 16th of June. Now, Ido suppose that the Judge really spent some time in New York maturing theplan of the campaign, as his friends heralded for him. I have beenable, by noting his movements since his arrival in Illinois, to discoverevidences confirmatory of that allegation. I think I have been able to seewhat are the material points of that plan. I will, for a little while, askyour attention to some of them. What I shall point out, though not showingthe whole plan, are, nevertheless, the main points, as I suppose. 

They are not very numerous. The first is popular sovereignty. The secondand third are attacks upon my speech made on the 16th of June. Out ofthese three points--drawing within the range of popular sovereignty thequestion of the Lecompton Constitution--he makes his principal assault. Upon these his successive speeches are substantially one and the same. On this matter of popular sovereignty I wish to be a little careful. Auxiliary to these main points, to be sure, are their thunderings ofcannon, their marching and music, their fizzlegigs and fireworks; but Iwill not waste time with them. They are but the little trappings of thecampaign. 

Coming to the substance, --the first point, "popular sovereignty. " It is tobe labeled upon the cars in which he travels; put upon the hacks he ridesin; to be flaunted upon the arches he passes under, and the banners whichwave over him. It is to be dished up in as many varieties as a French cookcan produce soups from potatoes. Now, as this is so great a staple of theplan of the campaign, it is worth while to examine it carefully; and ifwe examine only a very little, and do not allow ourselves to be misled, we shall be able to see that the whole thing is the most arrant Quixotismthat was ever enacted before a community. What is the matter of popularsovereignty? The first thing, in order to understand it, is to get a gooddefinition of what it is, and after that to see how it is applied. 

I suppose almost every one knows that, in this controversy, whatever hasbeen said has had reference to the question of negro slavery. We have notbeen in a controversy about the right of the people to govern themselvesin the ordinary matters of domestic concern in the States and Territories. Mr. Buchanan, in one of his late messages (I think when he sent up theLecompton Constitution) urged that the main point to which the publicattention had been directed was not in regard to the great variety ofsmall domestic matters, but was directed to the question of negro slavery;and he asserts that if the people had had a fair chance to vote on thatquestion there was no reasonable ground of objection in regard to minorquestions. Now, while I think that the people had not had given, oroffered, them a fair chance upon that slavery question, still, ifthere had been a fair submission to a vote upon that main question, thePresident's proposition would have been true to the utmost. Hence, whenhereafter I speak of popular sovereignty, I wish to be understood asapplying what I say to the question of slavery only, not to other minordomestic matters of a Territory or a State. 

Does Judge Douglas, when he says that several of the past years of hislife have been devoted to the question of "popular sovereignty, " and thatall the remainder of his life shall be devoted to it, does he mean tosay that he has been devoting his life to securing to the people of theTerritories the right to exclude slavery from the Territories? If he meansso to say he means to deceive; because he and every one knows that thedecision of the Supreme Court, which he approves and makes especial groundof attack upon me for disapproving, forbids the people of a Territory toexclude slavery. This covers the whole ground, from the settlement of aTerritory till it reaches the degree of maturity entitling it to form aState Constitution. So far as all that ground is concerned, the Judgeis not sustaining popular sovereignty, but absolutely opposing it. He sustains the decision which declares that the popular will of theTerritory has no constitutional power to exclude slavery during theirterritorial existence. This being so, the period of time from the firstsettlement of a Territory till it reaches the point of forming a StateConstitution is not the thing that the Judge has fought for or is fightingfor, but, on the contrary, he has fought for, and is fighting for, thething that annihilates and crushes out that same popular sovereignty. 

Well, so much being disposed of, what is left? Why, he is contending forthe right of the people, when they come to make a State Constitution, to make it for themselves, and precisely as best suits themselves. I sayagain, that is quixotic. I defy contradiction when I declare that theJudge can find no one to oppose him on that proposition. I repeat, there is nobody opposing that proposition on principle. Let me not bemisunderstood. I know that, with reference to the Lecompton Constitution, I may be misunderstood; but when you understand me correctly, myproposition will be true and accurate. Nobody is opposing, or has opposed, the right of the people, when they form a constitution, to form it forthemselves. Mr. Buchanan and his friends have not done it; they, too, aswell as the Republicans and the Anti-Lecompton Democrats, have not doneit; but on the contrary, they together have insisted on the right of thepeople to form a constitution for themselves. The difference between theBuchanan men on the one hand, and the Douglas men and the Republicans onthe other, has not been on a question of principle, but on a question offact. 

The dispute was upon the question of fact, whether the LecomptonConstitution had been fairly formed by the people or not. Mr. Buchanan andhis friends have not contended for the contrary principle any more thanthe Douglas men or the Republicans. They have insisted that whatever ofsmall irregularities existed in getting up the Lecompton Constitution weresuch as happen in the settlement of all new Territories. The question was, Was it a fair emanation of the people? It was a question of fact, and notof principle. As to the principle, all were agreed. Judge Douglas votedwith the Republicans upon that matter of fact. 

He and they, by their voices and votes, denied that it was a fairemanation of the people. The Administration affirmed that it was. Withrespect to the evidence bearing upon that question of fact, I readilyagree that Judge Douglas and the Republicans had the right on their side, and that the Administration was wrong. But I state again that, as amatter of principle, there is no dispute upon the right of a people ina Territory, merging into a State, to form a constitution for themselveswithout outside interference from any quarter. This being so, what isJudge Douglas going to spend his life for? Is he going to spend his lifein maintaining a principle that nobody on earth opposes? Does he expect tostand up in majestic dignity, and go through his apotheosis and become agod in the maintaining of a principle which neither man nor mouse inall God's creation is opposing? Now something in regard to the LecomptonConstitution more specially; for I pass from this other question ofpopular sovereignty as the most arrant humbug that has ever been attemptedon an intelligent community. 

As to the Lecompton Constitution, I have already said that on the questionof fact, as to whether it was a fair emanation of the people or not, JudgeDouglas, with the Republicans and some Americans, had greatly the argumentagainst the Administration; and while I repeat this, I wish to know whatthere is in the opposition of Judge Douglas to the Lecompton Constitutionthat entitles him to be considered the only opponent to it, --as beingpar excellence the very quintessence of that opposition. I agree to therightfulness of his opposition. He in the Senate and his class of menthere formed the number three and no more. In the House of Representativeshis class of men--the Anti-Lecompton Democrats--formed a number of abouttwenty. It took one hundred and twenty to defeat the measure, against onehundred and twelve. Of the votes of that one hundred and twenty, JudgeDouglas's friends furnished twenty, to add to which there were sixAmericans and ninety-four Republicans. I do not say that I am preciselyaccurate in their numbers, but I am sufficiently so for any use I ammaking of it. 

Why is it that twenty shall be entitled to all the credit of doing thatwork, and the hundred none of it? Why, if, as Judge Douglas says, thehonor is to be divided and due credit is to be given to other parties, whyis just so much given as is consonant with the wishes, the interests, andadvancement of the twenty? My understanding is, when a common job is done, or a common enterprise prosecuted, if I put in five dollars to your one, I have a right to take out five dollars to your one. But he does not sounderstand it. He declares the dividend of credit for defeating Lecomptonupon a basis which seems unprecedented and incomprehensible. 

Let us see. Lecompton in the raw was defeated. It afterward took a sortof cooked-up shape, and was passed in the English bill. It is said by theJudge that the defeat was a good and proper thing. If it was a good thing, why is he entitled to more credit than others for the performance of thatgood act, unless there was something in the antecedents of the Republicansthat might induce every one to expect them to join in that good work, andat the same time something leading them to doubt that he would? Does heplace his superior claim to credit on the ground that he performed agood act which was never expected of him? He says I have a proneness forquoting Scripture. If I should do so now, it occurs that perhaps he placeshimself somewhat upon the ground of the parable of the lost sheep whichwent astray upon the mountains, and when the owner of the hundred sheepfound the one that was lost, and threw it upon his shoulders and came homerejoicing, it was said that there was more rejoicing over the one sheepthat was lost and had been found than over the ninety and nine in thefold. The application is made by the Saviour in this parable, thus:"Verily, I say unto you, there is more rejoicing in heaven over onesinner that repenteth, than over ninety and nine just persons that need norepentance. "

And now, if the Judge claims the benefit of this parable, let him repent. Let him not come up here and say: "I am the only just person; and you arethe ninety-nine sinners!" Repentance before forgiveness is a provisionof the Christian system, and on that condition alone will the Republicansgrant his forgiveness. 

How will he prove that we have ever occupied a different position inregard to the Lecompton Constitution or any principle in it? He says hedid not make his opposition on the ground as to whether it was a free orslave constitution, and he would have you understand that the Republicansmade their opposition because it ultimately became a slave constitution. To make proof in favor of himself on this point, he reminds us that heopposed Lecompton before the vote was taken declaring whether the Statewas to be free or slave. But he forgets to say that our RepublicanSenator, Trumbull, made a speech against Lecompton even before he did. 

Why did he oppose it? Partly, as he declares, because the members of theconvention who framed it were not fairly elected by the people; that thepeople were not allowed to vote unless they had been registered; and thatthe people of whole counties, some instances, were not registered. Forthese reasons he declares the Constitution was not an emanation, in anytrue sense, from the people. He also has an additional objection as to themode of submitting the Constitution back to the people. But bearing on thequestion of whether the delegates were fairly elected, a speech of his, made something more than twelve months ago, from this stand, becomesimportant. It was made a little while before the election of the delegateswho made Lecompton. In that speech he declared there was every reasonto hope and believe the election would be fair; and if any one failed tovote, it would be his own culpable fault. 

I, a few days after, made a sort of answer to that speech. In that answerI made, substantially, the very argument with which he combated hisLecompton adversaries in the Senate last winter. I pointed to the factsthat the people could not vote without being registered, and that the timefor registering had gone by. I commented on it as wonderful that JudgeDouglas could be ignorant of these facts which every one else in thenation so well knew. 

I now pass from popular sovereignty and Lecompton. I may have occasion torefer to one or both. 

When he was preparing his plan of campaign, Napoleon-like, in New York, as appears by two speeches I have heard him deliver since his arrival inIllinois, he gave special attention to a speech of mine, delivered here onthe 16th of June last. He says that he carefully read that speech. He toldus that at Chicago a week ago last night and he repeated it at Bloomingtonlast night. Doubtless, he repeated it again to-day, though I did not hearhim. In the first two places--Chicago and Bloomington I heard him; to-dayI did not. He said he had carefully examined that speech, --when, he didnot say; but there is no reasonable doubt it was when he was in New Yorkpreparing his plan of campaign. I am glad he did read it carefully. Hesays it was evidently prepared with great care. I freely admit itwas prepared with care. I claim not to be more free from errors thanothers, --perhaps scarcely so much; but I was very careful not to putanything in that speech as a matter of fact, or make any inferences, whichdid not appear to me to be true and fully warrantable. If I had made anymistake, I was willing to be corrected; if I had drawn any inference inregard to Judge Douglas or any one else which was not warranted, I wasfully prepared to modify it as soon as discovered. I planted myself uponthe truth and the truth only, so far as I knew it, or could be brought toknow it. 

Having made that speech with the most kindly feelings toward JudgeDouglas, as manifested therein, I was gratified when I found that hehad carefully examined it, and had detected no error of fact, nor anyinference against him, nor any misrepresentations of which he thought fitto complain. In neither of the two speeches I have mentioned did he makeany such complaint. I will thank any one who will inform me that he, inhis speech to-day, pointed out anything I had stated respecting him asbeing erroneous. I presume there is no such thing. I have reason to begratified that the care and caution used in that speech left it so thathe, most of all others interested in discovering error, has not been ableto point out one thing against him which he could say was wrong. He seizesupon the doctrines he supposes to be included in that speech, and declaresthat upon them will turn the issues of this campaign. He then quotes, or attempts to quote, from my speech. I will not say that he wilfullymisquotes, but he does fail to quote accurately. His attempt at quoting isfrom a passage which I believe I can quote accurately from memory. I shallmake the quotation now, with some comments upon it, as I have alreadysaid, in order that the Judge shall be left entirely without excuse formisrepresenting me. I do so now, as I hope, for the last time. I do thisin great caution, in order that if he repeats his misrepresentation itshall be plain to all that he does so wilfully. If, after all, he stillpersists, I shall be compelled to reconstruct the course I have markedout for myself, and draw upon such humble resources, as I have, for a newcourse, better suited to the real exigencies of the case. I set out inthis campaign with the intention of conducting it strictly as a gentleman, in substance at least, if not in the outside polish. The latter I shallnever be; but that which constitutes the inside of a gentleman I hope Iunderstand, and am not less inclined to practice than others. It wasmy purpose and expectation that this canvass would be conducted uponprinciple, and with fairness on both sides, and it shall not be my faultif this purpose and expectation shall be given up. 

He charges, in substance, that I invite a war of sections; that Ipropose all the local institutions of the different States shall becomeconsolidated and uniform. What is there in the language of that speechwhich expresses such purpose or bears such construction? I have again andagain said that I would not enter into any of the States to disturb theinstitution of slavery. Judge Douglas said, at Bloomington, that I usedlanguage most able and ingenious for concealing what I really meant;and that while I had protested against entering into the slave States, Inevertheless did mean to go on the banks of the Ohio and throw missilesinto Kentucky, to disturb them in their domestic institutions. 

I said in that speech, and I meant no more, that the institution ofslavery ought to be placed in the very attitude where the framers of thisgovernment placed it and left it. I do not understand that the framersof our Constitution left the people of the free States in the attitude offiring bombs or shells into the slave States. I was not using that passagefor the purpose for which he infers I did use it. I said:

"We are now far advanced into the fifth year since a policy was createdfor the avowed object and with the confident promise of putting an end toslavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy that agitation hasnot only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it willnot cease till a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A housedivided against itself cannot stand. ' I believe that this governmentcannot endure permanently half slave and half free; it will become all onething or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest thefurther spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in thebelief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocateswill push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. "

Now, you all see, from that quotation, I did not express my wish onanything. In that passage I indicated no wish or purpose of my own; Isimply expressed my expectation. Cannot the Judge perceive a distinctionbetween a purpose and an expectation? I have often expressed anexpectation to die, but I have never expressed a wish to die. I saidat Chicago, and now repeat, that I am quite aware this government hasendured, half slave and half free, for eighty-two years. I understandthat little bit of history. I expressed the opinion I did because Iperceived--or thought I perceived--a new set of causes introduced. I didsay at Chicago, in my speech there, that I do wish to see the spread ofslavery arrested, and to see it placed where the public mind shall restin the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction. I said thatbecause I supposed, when the public mind shall rest in that belief, we shall have peace on the slavery question. I have believed--and nowbelieve--the public mind did rest on that belief up to the introduction ofthe Nebraska Bill. 

Although I have ever been opposed to slavery, so far I rested in the hopeand belief that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. For thatreason it had been a minor question with me. I might have been mistaken;but I had believed, and now believe, that the whole public mind, that is, the mind of the great majority, had rested in that belief up to the repealof the Missouri Compromise. But upon that event I became convinced thateither I had been resting in a delusion, or the institution was beingplaced on a new basis, a basis for making it perpetual, national, anduniversal. Subsequent events have greatly confirmed me in that belief. Ibelieve that bill to be the beginning of a conspiracy for that purpose. Sobelieving, I have since then considered that question a paramount one. So believing, I thought the public mind will never rest till the powerof Congress to restrict the spread of it shall again be acknowledged andexercised on the one hand or, on the other, all resistance be entirelycrushed out. I have expressed that opinion, and I entertain it to-night. It is denied that there is any tendency to the nationalization of slaveryin these States. 

Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, in one of his speeches, when they werepresenting him canes, silver plate, gold pitchers, and the like, forassaulting Senator Sumner, distinctly affirmed his opinion that when thisConstitution was formed it was the belief of no man that slavery wouldlast to the present day. He said, what I think, that the framers of ourConstitution placed the institution of slavery where the public mindrested in the hope that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. Buthe went on to say that the men of the present age, by their experience, have become wiser than the framers of the Constitution, and the inventionof the cotton gin had made the perpetuity of slavery a necessity in thiscountry. 

As another piece of evidence tending to this same point: Quite recently inVirginia, a man--the owner of slaves--made a will providing that after hisdeath certain of his slaves should have their freedom if they should sochoose, and go to Liberia, rather than remain in slavery. They chose to beliberated. But the persons to whom they would descend as property claimedthem as slaves. A suit was instituted, which finally came to the SupremeCourt of Virginia, and was therein decided against the slaves upon theground that a negro cannot make a choice; that they had no legal power tochoose, could not perform the condition upon which their freedom depended. 

I do not mention this with any purpose of criticizing it, but to connectit with the arguments as affording additional evidence of the change ofsentiment upon this question of slavery in the direction of making itperpetual and national. I argue now as I did before, that there is sucha tendency; and I am backed, not merely by the facts, but by the openconfession in the slave States. 

And now as to the Judge's inference that because I wish to see slaveryplaced in the course of ultimate extinction, --placed where our fathersoriginally placed it, --I wish to annihilate the State Legislatures, toforce cotton to grow upon the tops of the Green Mountains, to freeze icein Florida, to cut lumber on the broad Illinois prairie, --that I am infavor of all these ridiculous and impossible things. 

It seems to me it is a complete answer to all this to ask if, whenCongress did have the fashion of restricting slavery from free territory;when courts did have the fashion of deciding that taking a slave into afree country made him free, --I say it is a sufficient answer to ask ifany of this ridiculous nonsense about consolidation and uniformity didactually follow. Who heard of any such thing because of the Ordinance of'87? because of the Missouri restriction? because of the numerous courtdecisions of that character?

Now, as to the Dred Scott decision; for upon that he makes his last pointat me. He boldly takes ground in favor of that decision. 

This is one half the onslaught, and one third of the entire plan of thecampaign. I am opposed to that decision in a certain sense, but not inthe sense which he puts it. I say that in so far as it decided in favorof Dred Scott's master, and against Dred Scott and his family, I do notpropose to disturb or resist the decision. 

I never have proposed to do any such thing. I think that in respect forjudicial authority my humble history would not suffer in comparison withthat of Judge Douglas. He would have the citizen conform his vote to thatdecision; the member of Congress, his; the President, his use of the vetopower. He would make it a rule of political action for the people andall the departments of the government. I would not. By resisting it as apolitical rule, I disturb no right of property, create no disorder, exciteno mobs. 

When he spoke at Chicago, on Friday evening of last week, he made thissame point upon me. On Saturday evening I replied, and reminded him of aSupreme Court decision which he opposed for at least several years. Lastnight, at Bloomington, he took some notice of that reply, but entirelyforgot to remember that part of it. 

He renews his onslaught upon me, forgetting to remember that I have turnedthe tables against himself on that very point. I renew the effort to drawhis attention to it. I wish to stand erect before the country, as well asJudge Douglas, on this question of judicial authority; and therefore Iadd something to the authority in favor of my own position. I wish toshow that I am sustained by authority, in addition to that heretoforepresented. I do not expect to convince the Judge. It is part of the planof his campaign, and he will cling to it with a desperate grip. Even turnit upon him, --the sharp point against him, and gaff him through, --he willstill cling to it till he can invent some new dodge to take the place ofit. 

In public speaking it is tedious reading from documents; but I must begto indulge the practice to a limited extent. I shall read from a letterwritten by Mr. Jefferson in 1820, and now to be found in the seventhvolume of his correspondence, at page 177. It seems he had been presentedby a gentleman of the name of Jarvis with a book, or essay, or periodical, called the Republican, and he was writing in acknowledgment of thepresent, and noting some of its contents. After expressing the hope thatthe work will produce a favorable effect upon the minds of the young, heproceeds to say:

"That it will have this tendency may be expected, and for that reason Ifeel an urgency to note what I deem an error in it, the more requiringnotice as your opinion is strengthened by that of many others. You seem, in pages 84 and 148, to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters ofall constitutional questions, --a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and onewhich would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges areas honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the samepassions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Theirmaxim is, 'Boni judicis est ampliare jurisdictionem'; and their power isthe more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, asthe other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution haserected no such single tribunal, knowing that, to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign withthemselves. "

Thus we see the power claimed for the Supreme Court by Judge Douglas, Mr. Jefferson holds, would reduce us to the despotism of an oligarchy. 

Now, I have said no more than this, --in fact, never quite so much as this;at least I am sustained by Mr. Jefferson. 

Let us go a little further. You remember we once had a National Bank. Someone owed the bank a debt; he was sued, and sought to avoid payment on theground that the bank was unconstitutional. The case went to the SupremeCourt, and therein it was decided that the bank was constitutional. Thewhole Democratic party revolted against that decision. General Jacksonhimself asserted that he, as President, would not be bound to hold aNational Bank to be constitutional, even though the court had decided itto be so. He fell in precisely with the view of Mr. Jefferson, and actedupon it under his official oath, in vetoing a charter for a National Bank. The declaration that Congress does not possess this constitutional powerto charter a bank has gone into the Democratic platform, at theirNational Conventions, and was brought forward and reaffirmed in their lastConvention at Cincinnati. They have contended for that declaration, in thevery teeth of the Supreme Court, for more than a quarter of a century. In fact, they have reduced the decision to an absolute nullity. Thatdecision, I repeat, is repudiated in the Cincinnati platform; and still, as if to show that effrontery can go no further, Judge Douglas vaunts inthe very speeches in which he denounces me for opposing the Dred Scottdecision that he stands on the Cincinnati platform. 

Now, I wish to know what the Judge can charge upon me, with respect todecisions of the Supreme Court, which does not lie in all its length, breadth, and proportions at his own door. The plain truth is simply this:Judge Douglas is for Supreme Court decisions when he likes and againstthem when he does not like them. He is for the Dred Scott decision becauseit tends to nationalize slavery; because it is part of the originalcombination for that object. It so happens, singularly enough, that Inever stood opposed to a decision of the Supreme Court till this, on thecontrary, I have no recollection that he was ever particularly in favor ofone till this. He never was in favor of any nor opposed to any, till thepresent one, which helps to nationalize slavery. 

Free men of Sangamon, free men of Illinois, free men everywhere, judge yebetween him and me upon this issue. 

He says this Dred Scott case is a very small matter at most, --that it hasno practical effect; that at best, or rather, I suppose, at worst, it isbut an abstraction. I submit that the proposition that the thing whichdetermines whether a man is free or a slave is rather concrete thanabstract. I think you would conclude that it was, if your liberty dependedupon it, and so would Judge Douglas, if his liberty depended upon it. But suppose it was on the question of spreading slavery over the newTerritories that he considers it as being merely an abstract matter, andone of no practical importance. How has the planting of slavery in newcountries always been effected? It has now been decided that slaverycannot be kept out of our new Territories by any legal means. In what doour new Territories now differ in this respect from the old Colonies whenslavery was first planted within them? It was planted, as Mr. Clay oncedeclared, and as history proves true, by individual men, in spite of thewishes of the people; the Mother Government refusing to prohibit it, andwithholding from the people of the Colonies the authority to prohibit itfor themselves. Mr. Clay says this was one of the great and just causes ofcomplaint against Great Britain by the Colonies, and the best apologywe can now make for having the institution amongst us. In that precisecondition our Nebraska politicians have at last succeeded in placing ourown new Territories; the government will not prohibit slavery within them, nor allow the people to prohibit it. 

I defy any man to find any difference between the policy which originallyplanted slavery in these Colonies and that policy which now prevails inour new Territories. If it does not go into them, it is only because noindividual wishes it to go. The Judge indulged himself doubtless to-daywith the question as to what I am going to do with or about the Dred Scottdecision. Well, Judge, will you please tell me what you did about thebank decision? Will you not graciously allow us to do with the Dred Scottdecision precisely as you did with the bank decision? You succeeded inbreaking down the moral effect of that decision: did you find it necessaryto amend the Constitution, or to set up a court of negroes in order to doit?

There is one other point. Judge Douglas has a very affectionate leaningtoward the Americans and Old Whigs. Last evening, in a sort of weepingtone, he described to us a death-bed scene. He had been called to the sideof Mr. Clay, in his last moments, in order that the genius of "popularsovereignty" might duly descend from the dying man and settle upon him, the living and most worthy successor. He could do no less than promisethat he would devote the remainder of his life to "popular sovereignty";and then the great statesman departs in peace. By this part of the "planof the campaign" the Judge has evidently promised himself that tears shallbe drawn down the cheeks of all Old Whigs, as large as half-grown apples. 

Mr. Webster, too, was mentioned; but it did not quite come to a death-bedscene as to him. It would be amusing, if it were not disgusting, to seehow quick these compromise-breakers administer on the political effectsof their dead adversaries, trumping up claims never before heard of, anddividing the assets among themselves. If I should be found dead to-morrowmorning, nothing but my insignificance could prevent a speech being madeon my authority, before the end of next week. It so happens that in that"popular sovereignty" with which Mr. Clay was identified, the MissouriCompromise was expressly reversed; and it was a little singular if Mr. Clay cast his mantle upon Judge Douglas on purpose to have that compromiserepealed. 

Again, the Judge did not keep faith with Mr. Clay when he first brought inhis Nebraska Bill. He left the Missouri Compromise unrepealed, and in hisreport accompanying the bill he told the world he did it on purpose. Themanes of Mr. Clay must have been in great agony till thirty days later, when "popular sovereignty" stood forth in all its glory. 

One more thing. Last night Judge Douglas tormented himself with horrorsabout my disposition to make negroes perfectly equal with white men insocial and political relations. He did not stop to show that I have saidany such thing, or that it legitimately follows from anything I havesaid, but he rushes on with his assertions. I adhere to the Declaration ofIndependence. If Judge Douglas and his friends are not willing to stand byit, let them come up and amend it. Let them make it read that all menare created equal except negroes. Let us have it decided whether theDeclaration of Independence, in this blessed year of 1858, shall be thusamended. In his construction of the Declaration last year, he said it onlymeant that Americans in America were equal to Englishmen in England. Then, when I pointed out to him that by that rule he excludes the Germans, theIrish, the Portuguese, and all the other people who have come among ussince the revolution, he reconstructs his construction. In his last speechhe tells us it meant Europeans. 

I press him a little further, and ask if it meant to include the Russiansin Asia; or does he mean to exclude that vast population from theprinciples of our Declaration of Independence? I expect ere long hewill introduce another amendment to his definition. He is not at allparticular. He is satisfied with anything which does not endanger thenationalizing of negro slavery. It may draw white men down, but it mustnot lift negroes up. 

Who shall say, "I am the superior, and you are the inferior"?

My declarations upon this subject of negro slavery may be misrepresented, but cannot be misunderstood. I have said that I do not understand theDeclaration to mean that all men were created equal in all respects. Theyare not our equal in color; but I suppose that it does mean to declarethat all men are equal in some respects; they are equal in their right to"life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. " Certainly the negro isnot our equal in color, perhaps not in many other respects; still, in theright to put into his mouth the bread that his own hands have earned, heis the equal of every other man, white or black. In pointing out thatmore has been given you, you cannot be justified in taking away the littlewhich has been given him. All I ask for the negro is that if you do notlike him, let him alone. If God gave him but little, that little let himenjoy. 

When our government was established we had the institution of slaveryamong us. We were in a certain sense compelled to tolerate its existence. It was a sort of necessity. We had gone through our struggle andsecured our own independence. The framers of the Constitution found theinstitution of slavery amongst their own institutions at the time. Theyfound that by an effort to eradicate it they might lose much of what theyhad already gained. They were obliged to bow to the necessity. They gavepower to Congress to abolish the slave trade at the end of twenty years. They also prohibited it in the Territories where it did not exist. Theydid what they could, and yielded to the necessity for the rest. I alsoyield to all which follows from that necessity. What I would most desirewould be the separation of the white and black races. 

One more point on this Springfield speech which Judge Douglas says he hasread so carefully. I expressed my belief in the existence of a conspiracyto perpetuate and nationalize slavery. I did not profess to know it, nordo I now. I showed the part Judge Douglas had played in the string offacts constituting to my mind the proof of that conspiracy. I showed theparts played by others. 

I charged that the people had been deceived into carrying the lastPresidential election, by the impression that the people of theTerritories might exclude slavery if they chose, when it was known inadvance by the conspirators that the court was to decide that neitherCongress nor the people could so exclude slavery. These charges are moredistinctly made than anything else in the speech. 

Judge Douglas has carefully read and reread that speech. He has not, sofar as I know, contradicted those charges. In the two speeches which Iheard he certainly did not. On this own tacit admission, I renew thatcharge. I charge him with having been a party to that conspiracy and tothat deception for the sole purpose of nationalizing slavery. 

CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS

[The following is the correspondence between the two rival candidates forthe United States Senate]

MR. LINCOLN TO MR. DOUGLAS. 

CHICAGO, ILL. , July 24, 1558. 

HON. S. A. DOUGLAS:

My dear Sir, --Will it be agreeable to you to make an arrangement for youand myself to divide time, and address the same audiences the presentcanvass? Mr. Judd, who will hand you this, is authorized to receiveyour answer; and, if agreeable to you, to enter into the terms of sucharrangement. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

Mr. DOUGLAS TO Mr. LINCOLN. 

BEMENT, PLATT Co. , ILL. , July 30, 1858. 

Dear Sir, --Your letter dated yesterday, accepting my proposition for ajoint discussion at one prominent point in each Congressional District, asstated in my previous letter, was received this morning. 

The times and places designated are as follows:

 Ottawa, La Salle County August 21st, 1858. Freeport, Stephenson County " 27th, Jonesboro, Union County, September 15th, Charleston, Coles County " 18th, Galesburgh, Knox County October 7th, Quincy, Adams County " 13th, Alton, Madison County " 15th, I agree to your suggestion that we shall alternately open and close thediscussion. I will speak at Ottawa one hour, you can reply, occupying anhour and a half, and I will then follow for half an hour. At Freeport, youshall open the discussion and speak one hour; I will follow for an hourand a half, and you can then reply for half an hour. We will alternate inlike manner in each successive place. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, S. A. DOUGLAS. 

Mr. LINCOLN TO Mr. DOUGLAS. 

SPRINGFIELD, July 31, 1858. HON. S. A. DOUGLAS:

Dear Sir, --Yours of yesterday, naming places, times, and terms for jointdiscussions between us, was received this morning. Although, by the terms, as you propose, you take four openings and closes, to my three, I accede, and thus close the arrangement. I direct this to you at Hillsborough, and shall try to have both your letter and this appear in the Journal andRegister of Monday morning. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

FIRST JOINT DEBATE, AT OTTAWA, AUGUST 21, 1858

Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY

MY FELLOW-CITIZENS:--When a man hears himself somewhat misrepresented, it provokes him, at least, I find it so with myself; but whenmisrepresentation becomes very gross and palpable, it is more apt to amusehim. The first thing I see fit to notice is the fact that Judge Douglasalleges, after running through the history of the old Democratic and theold Whig parties, that Judge Trumbull and myself made an arrangement in1854, by which I was to have the place of General Shields in the UnitedStates Senate, and Judge Trumbull was to have the place of Judge Douglas. Now, all I have to say upon that subject is that I think no man not evenJudge Douglas can prove it, because it is not true. I have no doubt he is"conscientious" in saying it. As to those resolutions that he took such alength of time to read, as being the platform of the Republican party in1854, I say I never had anything to do with them, and I think Trumbullnever had. Judge Douglas cannot show that either of us ever did haveanything to do with them. 

I believe this is true about those resolutions: There was a call for aconvention to form a Republican party at Springfield, and I think that myfriend Mr. Lovejoy, who is here upon this stand, had a hand in it. I thinkthis is true, and I think if he will remember accurately he will be ableto recollect that he tried to get me into it, and I would not go in. I believe it is also true that I went away from Springfield when theconvention was in session, to attend court in Tazewell county. It is truethey did place my name, though without authority, upon the committee, andafterward wrote me to attend the meeting of the committee; but I refusedto do so, and I never had anything to do with that organization. This isthe plain truth about all that matter of the resolutions. 

Now, about this story that Judge Douglas tells of Trumbull bargaining tosell out the old Democratic party, and Lincoln agreeing to sell out theold Whig party, I have the means of knowing about that: Judge Douglascannot have; and I know there is no substance to it whatever. Yet I haveno doubt he is "conscientious" about it. I know that after Mr. Lovejoy gotinto the Legislature that winter, he complained of me that I had told allthe old Whigs of his district that the old Whig party was good enough forthem, and some of them voted against him because I told them so. Now, Ihave no means of totally disproving such charges as this which the Judgemakes. A man cannot prove a negative; but he has a right to claim thatwhen a man makes an affirmative charge, he must offer some proof to showthe truth of what he says. I certainly cannot introduce testimony to showthe negative about things, but I have a right to claim that if a man sayshe knows a thing, then he must show how he knows it. I always have aright to claim this, and it is not satisfactory to me that he may be"conscientious" on the subject. 

Now, gentlemen, I hate to waste my time on such things; but in regard tothat general Abolition tilt that Judge Douglas makes, when he says thatI was engaged at that time in selling out and Abolitionizing the old Whigparty, I hope you will permit me to read a part of a printed speech thatI made then at Peoria, which will show altogether a different view of theposition I took in that contest of 1854. 

[Voice: "Put on your specs. "]

Mr. LINCOLN: Yes, sir, I am obliged to do so; I am no longer a young man. 

"This is the repeal of the Missouri Compromise. The foregoing historymay not be precisely accurate in every particular, but I am sure it issufficiently so for all the uses I shall attempt to make of it, and init we have before us the chief materials enabling us to correctly judgewhether the repeal of the Missouri Compromise is right or wrong. 

"I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong--wrong in its directeffect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska, and wrong in itsprospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of thewide world where men can be found inclined to take it. 

"This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zealfor the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of themonstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprivesour republican example of its just influence in the world, --enablesthe enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us ashypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselvesinto an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty, criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there isno right principle of action but self-interest. 

"Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against theSouthern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. Ifslavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If itdid now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believeof the masses north and south. Doubtless there are individuals on bothsides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others whowould gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We knowthat some Southern men do free their slaves, go north, and become tip-topAbolitionists; while some Northern ones go south and become most cruelslave-masters. 

"When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the originof slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that theinstitution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it, in anysatisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I will notblame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. Ifall earthly power were given me, I should not know what to do, as to theexisting institution. My first impulse would be to free all the slaves andsend them to Liberia, --to their own native land. But a moment's reflectionwould convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) theremay be in this in the long term, its sudden execution is impossible. Ifthey were all landed there in a day, they would all perish in the next tendays; and there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough in theworld to carry them there in many times ten days. What then? Free themall and keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that thisbetters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery, at anyrate; yet the point is not clear enough to me to denounce people upon. What next? Free them, and make them politically and socially our equals?My own feelings will not admit of this; and if mine would, we well knowthat those of the great mass of white people will not. Whether thisfeeling accords with justice and sound judgment, is not the sole question, if, indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or illfounded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot, then, make them equals. It does seem to me that systems of gradual emancipation might be adopted;but for their tardiness in this I will not undertake to judge our brethrenof the South. 

"When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledgethem, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them anylegislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, inits stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery than Ourordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one. 

"But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permittingslavery to go into our own free territory than it would for reviving theAfrican slave-trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slavesfrom Africa, and that which has so long forbid the taking of them toNebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and therepeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of thelatter. "

I have reason to know that Judge Douglas knows that I said this. I thinkhe has the answer here to one of the questions he put to me. I do not meanto allow him to catechize me unless he pays back for it in kind. I willnot answer questions one after another, unless he reciprocates; but ashe has made this inquiry, and I have answered it before, he has gotit without my getting anything in return. He has got my answer on theFugitive Slave law. 

Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length; but this isthe true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institutionof slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it; and anything thatargues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with thenegro is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a mancan prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, whileupon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, tointerfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to doso. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality betweenthe white and the black races. There is a physical difference betweenthe two which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their livingtogether upon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomesa necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. Ihave never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstandingall this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled toall the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, theright to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is asmuch entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas heis not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color, perhaps notin moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is myequal, and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. 

Now I pass on to consider one or two more of these little follies. The Judge is woefully at fault about his early friend Lincoln being a"grocery-keeper. " I don't know as it would be a great sin, if I had been;but he is mistaken. Lincoln never kept a grocery anywhere in the world. It is true that Lincoln did work the latter part of one winter in a littlestillhouse, up at the head of a hollow. And so I think my friend the Judgeis equally at fault when he charges me at the time when I was in Congressof having opposed our soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war. TheJudge did not make his charge very distinctly, but I can tell you what hecan prove, by referring to the record. You remember I was an old Whig, and whenever the Democratic party tried to get me to vote that the war hadbeen righteously begun by the President, I would not do it. But wheneverthey asked for any money, or landwarrants, or anything to pay the soldiersthere, during all that time, I gave the same vote that Judge Douglas did. You can think as you please as to whether that was consistent. Such is thetruth, and the Judge has the right to make all he can out of it. But whenhe, by a general charge, conveys the idea that I withheld supplies fromthe soldiers who were fighting in the Mexican war, or did anything elseto hinder the soldiers, he is, to say the least, grossly and altogethermistaken, as a consultation of the records will prove to him. 

As I have not used up so much of my time as I had supposed, I will dwella little longer upon one or two of these minor topics upon which the Judgehas spoken. He has read from my speech in Springfield, in which I say that"a house divided against itself cannot stand" Does the Judge say it canstand? I don't know whether he does or not. The Judge does not seem to beattending to me just now, but I would like to know if it is his opinionthat a house divided against itself can stand. If he does, then there is aquestion of veracity, not between him and me, but between the Judge and anAuthority of a somewhat higher character. 

Now, my friends, I ask your attention to this matter for the purpose ofsaying something seriously. I know that the Judge may readily enough agreewith me that the maxim which was put forth by the Savior is true, but hemay allege that I misapply it; and the Judge has a right to urge that, inmy application, I do misapply it, and then I have a right to show that Ido not misapply it, When he undertakes to say that because I think thisnation, so far as the question of slavery is concerned, will all becomeone thing or all the other, I am in favor of bringing about a deaduniformity in the various States, in all their institutions, he argueserroneously. The great variety of the local institutions in the States, springing from differences in the soil, differences in the face of thecountry, and in the climate, are bonds of Union. They do not make "a housedivided against itself, " but they make a house united. If they producein one section of the country what is called for, by the wants of anothersection, and this other section can supply the wants of the first, theyare not matters of discord, but bonds of union, true bonds of union. Butcan this question of slavery be considered as among these varieties inthe institutions of the country? I leave it to you to say whether, inthe history of our government, this institution of slavery has not alwaysfailed to be a bond of union, and, on the contrary, been an apple ofdiscord and an element of division in the house. I ask you to considerwhether, so long as the moral constitution of men's minds shall continueto be the same, after this generation and assemblage shall sink into thegrave, and another race shall arise, with the same moral and intellectualdevelopment we have, whether, if that institution is standing in the sameirritating position in which it now is, it will not continue an elementof division? If so, then I have a right to say that, in regard to thisquestion, the Union is a house divided against itself; and when the Judgereminds me that I have often said to him that the institution of slaveryhas existed for eighty years in some States, and yet it does not exist insome others, I agree to the fact, and I account for it by looking at theposition in which our fathers originally placed it--restricting it fromthe new Territories where it had not gone, and legislating to cut offits source by the abrogation of the slave trade, thus putting the sealof legislation against its spread. The public mind did rest in the beliefthat it was in the course of ultimate extinction. But lately, I think--andin this I charge nothing on the Judge's motives--lately, I think that he, and those acting with him, have placed that institution on a new basis, which looks to the perpetuity and nationalization of slavery. And while itis placed upon this new basis, I say, and I have said, that I believewe shall not have peace upon the question until the opponents of slaveryarrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shallrest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or, on the other hand, that its advocates will push it forward until it shallbecome alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as wellas South. Now, I believe if we could arrest the spread, and place it whereWashington and Jefferson and Madison placed it, it would be in the courseof ultimate extinction, and the public mind would, as for eighty yearspast, believe that it was in the course of ultimate extinction. The crisiswould be past, and the institution might be let alone for a hundred years, if it should live so long, in the States where it exists; yet it would begoing out of existence in the way best for both the black and the whiteraces. 

[A voice: "Then do you repudiate popular sovereignty?"]

Well, then, let us talk about popular sovereignty! what is popularsovereignty? Is it the right of the people to have slavery or not have it, as they see fit, in the Territories? I will state--and I have an able manto watch me--my understanding is that popular sovereignty, as now appliedto the question of slavery, does allow the people of a Territory to haveslavery if they want to, but does not allow them not to have it if they donot want it. I do not mean that if this vast concourse of people were in aTerritory of the United States, any one of them would be obliged to have aslave if he did not want one; but I do say that, as I understand the DredScott decision, if any one man wants slaves, all the rest have no way ofkeeping that one man from holding them. 

When I made my speech at Springfield, of which the Judge complains, andfrom which he quotes, I really was not thinking of the things which heascribes to me at all. I had no thought in the world that I was doinganything to bring about a war between the free and slave states. I had nothought in the world that I was doing anything to bring about a politicaland social equality of the black and white races. It never occurred tome that I was doing anything or favoring anything to reduce to a deaduniformity all the local institutions of the various States. But I mustsay, in all fairness to him, if he thinks I am doing something which leadsto these bad results, it is none the better that I did not mean it. Itis just as fatal to the country, if I have any influence in producingit, whether I intend it or not. But can it be true that placing thisinstitution upon the original basis--the basis upon which our fathersplaced it--can have any tendency to set the Northern and the SouthernStates at war with one another, or that it can have any tendency tomake the people of Vermont raise sugar-cane, because they raise it inLouisiana, or that it can compel the people of Illinois to cut pine logson the Grand Prairie, where they will not grow, because they cut pinelogs in Maine, where they do grow? The Judge says this is a new principlestarted in regard to this question. Does the Judge claim that he isworking on the plan of the founders of government? I think he says in someof his speeches indeed, I have one here now--that he saw evidence of apolicy to allow slavery to be south of a certain line, while north ofit it should be excluded, and he saw an indisposition on the part of thecountry to stand upon that policy, and therefore he set about studying thesubject upon original principles, and upon original principles he gotup the Nebraska Bill! I am fighting it upon these "original principles, "fighting it in the Jeffersonian, Washingtonian, and Madisonian fashion. 

Now, my friends, I wish you to attend for a little while to one or twoother things in that Springfield speech. My main object was to show, sofar as my humble ability was capable of showing, to the people of thiscountry what I believed was the truth, --that there was a tendency, if nota conspiracy, among those who have engineered this slavery question forthe last four or five years, to make slavery perpetual and universal inthis nation. Having made that speech principally for that object, afterarranging the evidences that I thought tended to prove my proposition, Iconcluded with this bit of comment:

"We cannot absolutely know that these exact adaptations are the result ofpreconcert; but when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions ofwhich we know have been gotten out at different times and places, and bydifferent workmen--Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance, --andwhen we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make theframe of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactlyadapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or toofew, --not omitting even the scaffolding, --or if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bringsuch piece in, --in such a case we feel it impossible not to believe thatStephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another fromthe beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn before thefirst blow was struck. "

When my friend Judge Douglas came to Chicago on the 9th of July, thisspeech having been delivered on the 16th of June, he made an haranguethere, in which he took hold of this speech of mine, showing that he hadcarefully read it; and while he paid no attention to this matter at all, but complimented me as being a "kind, amiable, and intelligent gentleman, "notwithstanding I had said this, he goes on and eliminates, or draws out, from my speech this tendency of mine to set the States at war with oneanother, to make all the institutions uniform, and set the niggers andwhite people to marrying together. Then, as the Judge had complimented mewith these pleasant titles (I must confess to my weakness), I was a little"taken, " for it came from a great man. I was not very much accustomed toflattery, and it came the sweeter to me. I was rather like the Hoosier, with the gingerbread, when he said he reckoned he loved it better than anyother man, and got less of it. As the Judge had so flattered me, I couldnot make up my mind that he meant to deal unfairly with me; so I went towork to show him that he misunderstood the whole scope of my speech, andthat I really never intended to set the people at war with one another. Asan illustration, the next time I met him, which was at Springfield, I usedthis expression, that I claimed no right under the Constitution, nor hadI any inclination, to enter into the slave States and interfere with theinstitutions of slavery. He says upon that: Lincoln will not enter intothe slave States, but will go to the banks of the Ohio, on this side, and shoot over! He runs on, step by step, in the horse-chestnut style ofargument, until in the Springfield speech he says: "Unless he shallbe successful in firing his batteries until he shall have extinguishedslavery in all the States the Union shall be dissolved. " Now, I don'tthink that was exactly the way to treat "a kind, amiable, intelligentgentleman. " I know if I had asked the Judge to show when or where it wasI had said that, if I didn't succeed in firing into the slave States untilslavery should be extinguished, the Union should be dissolved, he couldnot have shown it. I understand what he would do. He would say: I don'tmean to quote from you, but this was the result of what you say. But Ihave the right to ask, and I do ask now, Did you not put it in such a formthat an ordinary reader or listener would take it as an expression fromme?

In a speech at Springfield, on the night of the 17th, I thought I might aswell attend to my own business a little, and I recalled his attention aswell as I could to this charge of conspiracy to nationalize slavery. Icalled his attention to the fact that he had acknowledged in my hearingtwice that he had carefully read the speech, and, in the language of thelawyers, as he had twice read the speech, and still had put in no pleaor answer, I took a default on him. I insisted that I had a right thento renew that charge of conspiracy. Ten days afterward I met the Judgeat Clinton, --that is to say, I was on the ground, but not in thediscussion, --and heard him make a speech. Then he comes in with his pleato this charge, for the first time; and his plea when put in, as well as Ican recollect it, amounted to this: that he never had any talk with JudgeTaney or the President of the United States with regard to the Dred Scottdecision before it was made. I (Lincoln) ought to know that the man whomakes a charge without knowing it to be true falsifies as much as he whoknowingly tells a falsehood; and, lastly, that he would pronounce thewhole thing a falsehood; but, he would make no personal application ofthe charge of falsehood, not because of any regard for the "kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman, " but because of his own personal self-respect! Ihave understood since then (but [turning to Judge Douglas] will not holdthe Judge to it if he is not willing) that he has broken through the"self-respect, " and has got to saying the thing out. The Judge nods to methat it is so. It is fortunate for me that I can keep as good-humored as Ido, when the Judge acknowledges that he has been trying to make a questionof veracity with me. I know the Judge is a great man, while I am only asmall man, but I feel that I have got him. I demur to that plea. I waiveall objections that it was not filed till after default was taken, anddemur to it upon the merits. What if Judge Douglas never did talk withChief Justice Taney and the President before the Dred Scott decisionwas made, does it follow that he could not have had as perfect anunderstanding without talking as with it? I am not disposed to stand uponmy legal advantage. I am disposed to take his denial as being like ananswer in chancery, that he neither had any knowledge, information, orbelief in the existence of such a conspiracy. I am disposed to take hisanswer as being as broad as though he had put it in these words. And now, I ask, even if he had done so, have not I a right to prove it on him, andto offer the evidence of more than two witnesses, by whom to prove it; andif the evidence proves the existence of the conspiracy, does his broaderanswer denying all knowledge, information, or belief, disturb the fact?It can only show that he was used by conspirators, and was not a leader ofthem. 

Now, in regard to his reminding me of the moral rule that persons who tellwhat they do not know to be true falsify as much as those who knowinglytell falsehoods. I remember the rule, and it must be borne in mind thatin what I have read to you, I do not say that I know such a conspiracyto exist. To that I reply, I believe it. If the Judge says that I do notbelieve it, then he says what he does not know, and falls within hisown rule, that he who asserts a thing which he does not know to be true, falsifies as much as he who knowingly tells a falsehood. I want to callyour attention to a little discussion on that branch of the case, and theevidence which brought my mind to the conclusion which I expressed asmy belief. If, in arraying that evidence I had stated anything which wasfalse or erroneous, it needed but that Judge Douglas should point it out, and I would have taken it back, with all the kindness in the world. I donot deal in that way. If I have brought forward anything not a fact, if hewill point it out, it will not even ruffle me to take it back. But if hewill not point out anything erroneous in the evidence, is it not ratherfor him to show, by a comparison of the evidence, that I have reasonedfalsely, than to call the "kind, amiable, intelligent gentleman" a liar?If I have reasoned to a false conclusion, it is the vocation of anable debater to show by argument that I have wandered to an erroneousconclusion. I want to ask your attention to a portion of the NebraskaBill, which Judge Douglas has quoted:

 "It being the true intent and meaning of this Act, not tolegislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude ittherefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form andregulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to theConstitution of the United States. "

Thereupon Judge Douglas and others began to argue in favor of "popularsovereignty, " the right of the people to have slaves if they wantedthem, and to exclude slavery if they did not want them. "But, " said, in substance, a Senator from Ohio (Mr. Chase, I believe), "we more thansuspect that you do not mean to allow the people to exclude slavery ifthey wish to; and if you do mean it, accept an amendment which I propose, expressly authorizing the people to exclude slavery. "

I believe I have the amendment here before me, which was offered, andunder which the people of the Territory, through their representatives, might, if they saw fit, prohibit the existence of slavery therein. And nowI state it as a fact, to be taken back if there is any mistake about it, that Judge Douglas and those acting with him voted that amendment down. Inow think that those men who voted it down had a real reason for doingso. They know what that reason was. It looks to us, since we have seen theDred Scott decision pronounced, holding that "under the Constitution" thepeople cannot exclude slavery, I say it looks to outsiders, poor, simple, "amiable, intelligent gentlemen, " as though the niche was left as a placeto put that Dred Scott decision in, --a niche which would have been spoiledby adopting the amendment. And now, I say again, if this was not thereason, it will avail the Judge much more to calmly and good-humoredlypoint out to these people what that other reason was for voting theamendment down, than, swelling himself up, to vociferate that he may beprovoked to call somebody a liar. 

Again: There is in that same quotation from the Nebraska Bill this clause:"It being the true intent and meaning of this bill not to legislateslavery into any Territory or State. " I have always been puzzled to knowwhat business the word "State" had in that connection. Judge Douglasknows. He put it there. He knows what he put it there for. We outsiderscannot say what he put it there for. The law they were passing was notabout States, and was not making provisions for States. What was it placedthere for? After seeing the Dred Scott decision, which holds that thepeople cannot exclude slavery from a Territory, if another Dred Scottdecision shall come, holding that they cannot exclude it from a State, weshall discover that when the word was originally put there, it was in viewof something which was to come in due time, we shall see that it was theother half of something. I now say again, if there is any differentreason for putting it there, Judge Douglas, in a good-humored way, withoutcalling anybody a liar, can tell what the reason was. 

When the Judge spoke at Clinton, he came very near making a charge offalsehood against me. He used, as I found it printed in a newspaper, which, I remember, was very nearly like the real speech, the followinglanguage:

"I did not answer the charge [of conspiracy] before, for the reason thatI did not suppose there was a man in America with a heart so corrupt asto believe such a charge could be true. I have too much respect for Mr. Lincoln to suppose he is serious in making the charge. "

I confess this is rather a curious view, that out of respect for me heshould consider I was making what I deemed rather a grave charge in fun. I confess it strikes me rather strangely. But I let it pass. As the Judgedid not for a moment believe that there was a man in America whose heartwas so "corrupt" as to make such a charge, and as he places me among the"men in America" who have hearts base enough to make such a charge, I hopehe will excuse me if I hunt out another charge very like this; and if itshould turn out that in hunting I should find that other, and itshould turn out to be Judge Douglas himself who made it, I hope he willreconsider this question of the deep corruption of heart he has thoughtfit to ascribe to me. In Judge Douglas's speech of March 22, 1858, which Ihold in my hand, he says:

"In this connection there is another topic to which I desire to allude. I seldom refer to the course of newspapers, or notice the articles whichthey publish in regard to myself; but the course of the Washington Unionhas been so extraordinary for the last two or three months, that I thinkit well enough to make some allusion to it. It has read me out of theDemocratic party every other day, at least for two or three months, andkeeps reading me out, and, as if it had not succeeded, still continues toread me out, using such terms as 'traitor, ' 'renegade, ' 'deserter, ' andother kind and polite epithets of that nature. Sir, I have no vindicationto make of my Democracy against the Washington Union, or any othernewspapers. I am willing to allow my history and action for the lasttwenty years to speak for themselves as to my political principles andmy fidelity to political obligations. The Washington Union has a personalgrievance. When its editor was nominated for public printer, I declinedto vote for him, and stated that at some time I might give my reasons fordoing so. Since I declined to give that vote, this scurrilous abuse, thesevindictive and constant attacks have been repeated almost daily on me. Will any friend from Michigan read the article to which I allude?"

This is a part of the speech. You must excuse me from reading the entirearticle of the Washington Union, as Mr. Stuart read it for Mr. Douglas. The Judge goes on and sums up, as I think, correctly:

"Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositionsadvanced boldly by the Washington Union editorially, and apparentlyauthoritatively; and any man who questions any of them is denounced as anAbolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, thatthe primary object of all government at its original institution is theprotection of person and property; second, that the Constitution of theUnited States declares that the citizens of each State shall be entitledto all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States;and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organic orotherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling inanother with their slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of the government andConstitution of the United States; and, fourth, that the emancipation ofthe slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage of the rights ofproperty, inasmuch as it was involuntarily done on the part of the owner. 

"Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th ofNovember, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesionof the Union, to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words:

"KANSAS AND HER CONSTITUTION. --The vexed question is settled. The problemis saved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble toKansas affairs is over and gone. .. "

And a column nearly of the same sort. Then, when you come to look intothe Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in itwhich was put forth editorially in the Union. What is it?

"ARTICLE 7, Section I. The right of property is before and higher thanany constitutional sanction; and the right of the owner of a slave to suchslave and its increase is the same and as inviolable as the right of theowner of any property whatever. "

Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be amendedafter 1864 by a two-thirds vote:

"But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in theownership of slaves. "

"It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that theyare identical in spirit with the authoritative article in the WashingtonUnion of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. "

I pass over some portions of the speech, and I hope that any one who feelsinterested in this matter will read the entire section of the speech, andsee whether I do the Judge injustice. He proceeds:

"When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed bythe glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 10th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a Statehas no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was afatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union. "

I stop the quotation there, again requesting that it may all be read. Ihave read all of the portion I desire to comment upon. What is this chargethat the Judge thinks I must have a very corrupt heart to make? It was apurpose on the part of certain high functionaries to make it impossiblefor the people of one State to prohibit the people of any other State fromentering it with their "property, " so called, and making it a slave State. In other words, it was a charge implying a design to make the institutionof slavery national. And now I ask your attention to what Judge Douglashas himself done here. I know he made that part of the speech as a reasonwhy he had refused to vote for a certain man for public printer; but whenwe get at it, the charge itself is the very one I made against him, thathe thinks I am so corrupt for uttering. Now, whom does he make that chargeagainst? Does he make it against that newspaper editor merely? No; hesays it is identical in spirit with the Lecompton Constitution, and sothe framers of that Constitution are brought in with the editor ofthe newspaper in that "fatal blow being struck. " He did not call it a"conspiracy. " In his language, it is a "fatal blow being struck. " And ifthe words carry the meaning better when changed from a "conspiracy" into a"fatal blow being struck, " I will change my expression, and call it "fatalblow being struck. " We see the charge made not merely against the editorof the Union, but all the framers of the Lecompton Constitution; and notonly so, but the article was an authoritative article. By whose authority?Is there any question but he means it was by the authority of thePresident and his Cabinet, --the Administration?

Is there any sort of question but he means to make that charge? Then thereare the editors of the Union, the framers of the Lecompton Constitution, the President of the United States and his Cabinet, and all the supportersof the Lecompton Constitution, in Congress and out of Congress, whoare all involved in this "fatal blow being struck. " I commend to JudgeDouglas's consideration the question of how corrupt a man's heart must beto make such a charge!

Now, my friends, I have but one branch of the subject, in the little timeI have left, to which to call your attention; and as I shall come to aclose at the end of that branch, it is probable that I shall not occupyquite all the time allotted to me. Although on these questions I wouldlike to talk twice as long as I have, I could not enter upon another headand discuss it properly without running over my time. I ask the attentionof the people here assembled and elsewhere to the course that JudgeDouglas is pursuing every day as bearing upon this question of makingslavery national. Not going back to the records, but taking the speecheshe makes, the speeches he made yesterday and day before, and makesconstantly all over the country, I ask your attention to them. In thefirst place, what is necessary to make the institution national? Notwar. There is no danger that the people of Kentucky will shoulder theirmuskets, and, with a young nigger stuck on every bayonet, march intoIllinois and force them upon us. There is no danger of our goingover there and making war upon them. Then what is necessary for thenationalization of slavery? It is simply the next Dred Scott decision. It is merely for the Supreme Court to decide that no State under theConstitution can exclude it, just as they have already decided that underthe Constitution neither Congress nor the Territorial Legislature can doit. When that is decided and acquiesced in, the whole thing is done. Thisbeing true, and this being the way, as I think, that slavery is to be madenational, let us consider what Judge Douglas is doing every day to thatend. In the first place, let us see what influence he is exerting onpublic sentiment. In this and like communities, public sentiment iseverything. With public sentiment, nothing can fail; without it, nothingcan succeed. Consequently, he who moulds public sentiment goes deeperthan he who enacts statutes or pronounces decisions. He makes statutesand decisions possible or impossible to be executed. This must be bornein mind, as also the additional fact that Judge Douglas is a man of vastinfluence, so great that it is enough for many men to profess to believeanything when they once find out Judge Douglas professes to believe it. Consider also the attitude he occupies at the head of a large party, --aparty which he claims has a majority of all the voters in the country. This man sticks to a decision which forbids the people of a Territoryfrom excluding slavery, and he does so, not because he says it is rightin itself, --he does not give any opinion on that, --but because it has beendecided by the court; and being decided by the court, he is, and you are, bound to take it in your political action as law, not that he judges atall of its merits, but because a decision of the court is to him a "Thussaith the Lord. " He places it on that ground alone; and you will bear inmind that thus committing himself unreservedly to this decision commitshim to the next one just as firmly as to this. He did not commit himselfon account of the merit or demerit of the decision, but it is a "Thussaith the Lord. " The next decision, as much as this, will be a "Thus saiththe Lord. " There is nothing that can divert or turn him away from thisdecision. It is nothing that I point out to him that his great prototype, General Jackson, did not believe in the binding force of decisions. It isnothing to him that Jefferson did not so believe. I have said that I haveoften heard him approve of Jackson's course in disregarding the decisionof the Supreme Court pronouncing a National Bank constitutional. He says Idid not hear him say so. He denies the accuracy of my recollection. I sayhe ought to know better than I, but I will make no question about thisthing, though it still seems to me that I heard him say it twenty times. I will tell him, though, that he now claims to stand on the Cincinnatiplatform, which affirms that Congress cannot charter a National Bank, inthe teeth of that old standing decision that Congress can charter a bank. And I remind him of another piece of history on the question of respectfor judicial decisions, and it is a piece of Illinois history belongingto a time when the large party to which Judge Douglas belonged weredispleased with a decision of the Supreme Court of Illinois, because theyhad decided that a Governor could not remove a Secretary of State. Youwill find the whole story in Ford's History of Illinois, and I know thatJudge Douglas will not deny that he was then in favor of over-slaughingthat decision by the mode of adding five new judges, so as to vote downthe four old ones. Not only so, but it ended in the Judge's sitting downon that very bench as one of the five new judges to break down the fourold ones It was in this way precisely that he got his title of judge. Now, when the Judge tells me that men appointed conditionally to sit as membersof a court will have to be catechized beforehand upon some subject, I say, "You know, Judge; you have tried it. " When he says a court of this kindwill lose the confidence of all men, will be prostituted and disgraced bysuch a proceeding, I say, "You know best, Judge; you have been through themill. " But I cannot shake Judge Douglas's teeth loose from the Dred Scottdecision. Like some obstinate animal (I mean no disrespect) that will hangon when he has once got his teeth fixed, you may cut off a leg, or you maytear away an arm, still he will not relax his hold. And so I may point outto the Judge, and say that he is bespattered all over, from the beginningof his political life to the present time, with attacks upon judicialdecisions; I may cut off limb after limb of his public record, and striveto wrench him from a single dictum of the court, --yet I cannot divert himfrom it. He hangs, to the last, to the Dred Scott decision. These thingsshow there is a purpose strong as death and eternity for which he adheresto this decision, and for which he will adhere to all other decisions ofthe same court. 

[A HIBERNIAN: "Give us something besides Dred Scott. "]

Yes; no doubt you want to hear something that don't hurt. Now, havingspoken of the Dred Scott decision, one more word, and I am done. HenryClay, my beau-ideal of a statesman, the man for whom I fought all myhumble life, Henry Clay once said of a class of men who would repress alltendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation that they must, if theywould do this, go back to the era of our Independence, and muzzle thecannon which thunders its annual joyous return; they must blow out themoral lights around us; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicatethere the love of liberty; and then, and not till then, could theyperpetuate slavery in this country! To my thinking, Judge Douglas is, byhis example and vast influence, doing that very thing in thiscommunity, when he says that the negro has nothing in the Declaration ofIndependence. Henry Clay plainly understood the contrary. Judge Douglasis going back to the era of our Revolution, and, to the extent of hisability, muzzling the cannon which thunders its annual joyous return. Whenhe invites any people, willing to have slavery, to establish it, he isblowing out the moral lights around us. When he says he "cares notwhether slavery is voted down or up, "--that it is a sacred right ofself-government, --he is, in my judgment, penetrating the human soul anderadicating the light of reason and the love of liberty in this Americanpeople. And now I will only say that when, by all these means andappliances, Judge Douglas shall succeed in bringing public sentiment toan exact accordance with his own views; when these vast assemblages shallecho back all these sentiments; when they shall come to repeat his viewsand to avow his principles, and to say all that he says on these mightyquestions, --then it needs only the formality of the second Dred Scottdecision, which he indorses in advance, to make slavery alike lawful inall the States, old as well as new, North as well as South. 

My friends, that ends the chapter. The Judge can take his half-hour. 

SECOND JOINT DEBATE, AT FREEPORT, AUGUST 27, 1858

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--On Saturday last, Judge Douglas and myself firstmet in public discussion. He spoke one hour, I an hour and a half, andhe replied for half an hour. The order is now reversed. I am to speak anhour, he an hour and a half, and then I am to reply for half an hour. Ipropose to devote myself during the first hour to the scope of what wasbrought within the range of his half-hour speech at Ottawa. Of coursethere was brought within the scope in that half-hour's speech somethingof his own opening speech. In the course of that opening argument JudgeDouglas proposed to me seven distinct interrogatories. In my speech ofan hour and a half, I attended to some other parts of his speech, andincidentally, as I thought, intimated to him that I would answer the restof his interrogatories on condition only that he should agree to answer asmany for me. He made no intimation at the time of the proposition, nordid he in his reply allude at all to that suggestion of mine. I do him noinjustice in saying that he occupied at least half of his reply in dealingwith me as though I had refused to answer his interrogatories. I nowpropose that I will answer any of the interrogatories, upon condition thathe will answer questions from me not exceeding the same number. I give himan opportunity to respond. 

The Judge remains silent. I now say that I will answer hisinterrogatories, whether he answers mine or not; and that after I havedone so, I shall propound mine to him. 

I have supposed myself, since the organization of the Republican party atBloomington, in May, 1856, bound as a party man by the platforms of theparty, then and since. If in any interrogatories which I shall answer I gobeyond the scope of what is within these platforms, it will be perceivedthat no one is responsible but myself. 

Having said thus much, I will take up the Judge's interrogatories as Ifind them printed in the Chicago Times, and answer them seriatim. In orderthat there may be no mistake about it, I have copied the interrogatoriesin writing, and also my answers to them. The first one of theseinterrogatories is in these words:

Question 1. --"I desire to know whether Lincoln to-day stands, as he didin 1854, in favor of the unconditional repeal of the Fugitive Slave law?"Answer:--I do not now, nor ever did, stand in favor of the unconditionalrepeal of the Fugitive Slave law. 

Q. 2. --"I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to-day, as he didin 1854, against the admission of any more slave States into the Union, even if the people want them?" Answer:--I do not now, nor ever did, standpledged against the admission of any more slave States into the Union. 

Q. 3. --"I want to know whether he stands pledged against the admission ofa new State into the Union with such a constitution as the people of thatState may see fit to make?" Answer:--I do not stand pledged against theadmission of a new State into the Union, with such a constitution as thepeople of that State may see fit to make. 

Q. 4. --"I want to know whether he stands to-day pledged to the abolitionof slavery in the District of Columbia?" Answer:--I do not stand to-daypledged to the abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia. 

Q. 5. --"I desire him to answer whether he stands pledged to theprohibition of the slave-trade between the different States?" Answer:--Ido not stand pledged to the prohibition of the slave-trade between thedifferent States. 

Q. 6. --"I desire to know whether he stands pledged to prohibit slavery inall the Territories of the United States, north as well as south of theMissouri Compromise line?" Answer:--I am impliedly, if not expressly, pledged to a belief in the right and duty of Congress to prohibit slaveryin all the United States 'Territories. 

Q. 7. --"I desire him to answer whether he is opposed to the acquisition ofany new territory unless slavery is first prohibited therein?" Answer:--Iam not generally opposed to honest acquisition of territory; and, in anygiven case, I would or would not oppose such acquisition, accordingly asI might think such acquisition would or would not aggravate the slaveryquestion among ourselves. 

Now, my friends, it will be perceived, upon an examination of thesequestions and answers, that so far I have only answered that I wasnot pledged to this, that, or the other. The Judge has not framed hisinterrogatories to ask me anything more than this, and I have answered instrict accordance with the interrogatories, and have answered truly, thatI am not pledged at all upon any of the points to which I have answered. But I am not disposed to hang upon the exact form of his interrogatory. Iam rather disposed to take up at least some of these questions, and statewhat I really think upon them. 

As to the first one, in regard to the Fugitive Slave law, I have neverhesitated to say, and I do not now hesitate to say, that I think, underthe Constitution of the United States, the people of the Southern Statesare entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law. Having said that, I have had nothing to say in regard to the existing Fugitive Slave law, further than that I think it should have been framed so as to be freefrom some of the objections that pertain to it, without lessening itsefficiency. And inasmuch as we are not now in an agitation in regard toan alteration or modification of that law, I would not be the man tointroduce it as a new subject of agitation upon the general question ofslavery. 

In regard to the other question, of whether I am pledged to the admissionof any more slave States into the Union, I state to you very frankly thatI would be exceedingly sorry ever to be put in a position of having topass upon that question. I should be exceedingly glad to know that therewould never be another slave State admitted into the Union; but I mustadd that if slavery shall be kept out of the Territories during theterritorial existence of any one given Territory, and then the peopleshall, having a fair chance and a clear field, when they come to adoptthe constitution, do such an extraordinary thing as to adopt a slaveconstitution, uninfluenced by the actual presence of the institution amongthem, I see no alternative, if we own the country, but to admit them intothe Union. 

The third interrogatory is answered by the answer to the second, it being, as I conceive, the same as the second. 

The fourth one is in regard to the abolition of slavery in the District ofColumbia. In relation to that, I have my mind very distinctly made up. I should be exceedingly glad to see slavery abolished in the District ofColumbia. I believe that Congress possesses the constitutional power toabolish it. Yet as a member of Congress, I should not, with my presentviews, be in favor of endeavoring to abolish slavery in the Districtof Columbia, unless it would be upon these conditions: First, that theabolition should be gradual; second, that it should be on a vote of themajority of qualified voters in the District; and third, that compensationshould be made to unwilling owners. With these three conditions, Iconfess I would be exceedingly glad to see Congress abolish slavery in theDistrict of Columbia, and, in the language of Henry Clay, "sweep from ourcapital that foul blot upon our nation. "

In regard to the fifth interrogatory, I must say here that, as to thequestion of the abolition of the slave-trade between the different States, I can truly answer, as I have, that I am pledged to nothing about it. It is a subject to which I have not given that mature consideration thatwould make me feel authorized to state a position so as to hold myselfentirely bound by it. In other words, that question has never beenprominently enough before me to induce me to investigate whether we reallyhave the constitutional power to do it. I could investigate it if I hadsufficient time to bring myself to a conclusion upon that subject; but Ihave not done so, and I say so frankly to you here, and to Judge Douglas. I must say, however, that if I should be of opinion that Congress doespossess the constitutional power to abolish the slave-trade among thedifferent States, I should still not be in favor of the exercise of thatpower, unless upon some conservative principle as I conceive it, akin towhat I have said in relation to the abolition of slavery in the Districtof Columbia. 

My answer as to whether I desire that slavery should be prohibited in allthe Territories of the United States is full and explicit within itself, and cannot be made clearer by any comments of mine. So I suppose inregard to the question whether I am opposed to the acquisition of any moreterritory unless slavery is first prohibited therein, my answer is suchthat I could add nothing by way of illustration, or making myself betterunderstood, than the answer which I have placed in writing. 

Now in all this the Judge has me, and he has me on the record. I supposehe had flattered himself that I was really entertaining one set ofopinions for one place, and another set for another place; that I wasafraid to say at one place what I uttered at another. What I amsaying here I suppose I say to a vast audience as strongly tending toAbolitionism as any audience in the State of Illinois, and I believe I amsaying that which, if it would be offensive to any persons and render themenemies to myself, would be offensive to persons in this audience. 

I now proceed to propound to the Judge the interrogatories, so far as Ihave framed them. I will bring forward a new installment when I get themready. I will bring them forward now only reaching to number four. Thefirst one is:

Question 1. --If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirelyunobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State constitution, and askadmission into the Union under it, before they have the requisitenumber of inhabitants according to the English bill, --some ninety-threethousand, --will you vote to admit them?

Q. 2. --Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawful way, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery fromits limits prior to the formation of a State constitution?

Q. 3. If the Supreme Court of the United States shall decide that Statescannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor of acquiescingin, adopting, and following such decision as a rule of political action?

Q. 4. Are you in favor of acquiring additional territory, in disregard ofhow such acquisition may affect the nation on the slavery question?

As introductory to these interrogatories which Judge Douglas propoundedto me at Ottawa, he read a set of resolutions which he said Judge Trumbulland myself had participated in adopting, in the first Republican StateConvention, held at Springfield in October, 1854. He insisted that I andJudge Trumbull, and perhaps the entire Republican party, were responsiblefor the doctrines contained in the set of resolutions which he read, andI understand that it was from that set of resolutions that he deduced theinterrogatories which he propounded to me, using these resolutions as asort of authority for propounding those questions to me. Now, I say hereto-day that I do not answer his interrogatories because of their springingat all from that set of resolutions which he read. I answered thembecause Judge Douglas thought fit to ask them. I do not now, nor ever did, recognize any responsibility upon myself in that set of resolutions. WhenI replied to him on that occasion, I assured him that I never had anythingto do with them. I repeat here to today that I never in any possible formhad anything to do with that set of resolutions It turns out, I believe, that those resolutions were never passed in any convention held inSpringfield. 

It turns out that they were never passed at any convention or any publicmeeting that I had any part in. I believe it turns out, in addition to allthis, that there was not, in the fall of 1854, any convention holding asession in Springfield, calling itself a Republican State Convention; yetit is true there was a convention, or assemblage of men calling themselvesa convention, at Springfield, that did pass some resolutions. But solittle did I really know of the proceedings of that convention, or whatset of resolutions they had passed, though having a general knowledge thatthere had been such an assemblage of men there, that when Judge Douglasread the resolutions, I really did not know but they had been theresolutions passed then and there. I did not question that they were theresolutions adopted. For I could not bring myself to suppose that JudgeDouglas could say what he did upon this subject without knowing that itwas true. I contented myself, on that occasion, with denying, as I trulycould, all connection with them, not denying or affirming whether theywere passed at Springfield. Now, it turns out that he had got hold of someresolutions passed at some convention or public meeting in Kane County. I wish to say here, that I don't conceive that in any fair and just mindthis discovery relieves me at all. I had just as much to do with theconvention in Kane County as that at Springfield. I am as much responsiblefor the resolutions at Kane County as those at Springfield, --the amountof the responsibility being exactly nothing in either case; no more thanthere would be in regard to a set of resolutions passed in the moon. 

I allude to this extraordinary matter in this canvass for some furtherpurpose than anything yet advanced. Judge Douglas did not make hisstatement upon that occasion as matters that he believed to be true, but he stated them roundly as being true, in such form as to pledge hisveracity for their truth. When the whole matter turns out as it does, andwhen we consider who Judge Douglas is, that he is a distinguished Senatorof the United States; that he has served nearly twelve years as such; thathis character is not at all limited as an ordinary Senator of the UnitedStates, but that his name has become of world-wide renown, --it is mostextraordinary that he should so far forget all the suggestions of justiceto an adversary, or of prudence to himself, as to venture upon theassertion of that which the slightest investigation would have shown himto be wholly false. I can only account for his having done so upon thesupposition that that evil genius which has attended him through his life, giving to him an apparent astonishing prosperity, such as to lead verymany good men to doubt there being any advantage in virtue over vice, --Isay I can only account for it on the supposition that that evil genius hasas last made up its mind to forsake him. 

And I may add that another extraordinary feature of the Judge's conduct inthis canvass--made more extraordinary by this incident--is, that he is inthe habit, in almost all the speeches he makes, of charging falsehood uponhis adversaries, myself and others. I now ask whether he is able to findin anything that Judge Trumbull, for instance, has said, or in anythingthat I have said, a justification at all compared with what we have, inthis instance, for that sort of vulgarity. 

I have been in the habit of charging as a matter of belief on my partthat, in the introduction of the Nebraska Bill into Congress, there wasa conspiracy to make slavery perpetual and national. I have arranged fromtime to time the evidence which establishes and proves the truth of thischarge. I recurred to this charge at Ottawa. I shall not now have time todwell upon it at very great length; but inasmuch as Judge Douglas, inhis reply of half an hour, made some points upon me in relation to it, Ipropose noticing a few of them. 

The Judge insists that, in the first speech I made, in which I verydistinctly made that charge, he thought for a good while I was in fun!that I was playful; that I was not sincere about it; and that he onlygrew angry and somewhat excited when he found that I insisted upon it asa matter of earnestness. He says he characterized it as a falsehood so faras I implicated his moral character in that transaction. Well, I didnot know, till he presented that view, that I had implicated his moralcharacter. He is very much in the habit, when he argues me up into aposition I never thought of occupying, of very cosily saying he has nodoubt Lincoln is "conscientious" in saying so. He should remember that Idid not know but what he was ALTOGETHER "CONSCIENTIOUS" in that matter. I can conceive it possible for men to conspire to do a good thing, andI really find nothing in Judge Douglas's course of arguments that iscontrary to or inconsistent with his belief of a conspiracy to nationalizeand spread slavery as being a good and blessed thing; and so I hope hewill understand that I do not at all question but that in all this matterhe is entirely "conscientious. "

But to draw your attention to one of the points I made in this case, beginning at the beginning: When the Nebraska Bill was introduced, or ashort time afterward, by an amendment, I believe, it was provided thatit must be considered "the true intent and meaning of this Act not tolegislate slavery into any State or Territory, or to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulatetheir own domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to theConstitution of the United States. " I have called his attention to thefact that when he and some others began arguing that they were givingan increased degree of liberty to the people in the Territories over andabove what they formerly had on the question of slavery, a question wasraised whether the law was enacted to give such unconditional liberty tothe people; and to test the sincerity of this mode of argument, Mr. Chase, of Ohio, introduced an amendment, in which he made the law--if theamendment were adopted--expressly declare that the people of the Territoryshould have the power to exclude slavery if they saw fit. I have askedattention also to the fact that Judge Douglas and those who acted with himvoted that amendment down, notwithstanding it expressed exactly thething they said was the true intent and meaning of the law. I have calledattention to the fact that in subsequent times a decision of the SupremeCourt has been made, in which it has been declared that a TerritorialLegislature has no constitutional right to exclude slavery. And I haveargued and said that for men who did, intend that the people of theTerritory should have the right to exclude slavery absolutely andunconditionally, the voting down of Chase's amendment is whollyinexplicable. It is a puzzle, a riddle. But I have said, that with men whodid look forward to such a decision, or who had it in contemplation thatsuch a decision of the Supreme Court would or might be made, the votingdown of that amendment would be perfectly rational and intelligible. Itwould keep Congress from coming in collision with the decision when it wasmade. Anybody can conceive that if there was an intention or expectationthat such a decision was to follow, it would not be a very desirable partyattitude to get into for the Supreme Court--all or nearly all its membersbelonging to the same party--to decide one way, when the party in Congresshad decided the other way. Hence it would be very rational for menexpecting such a decision to keep the niche in that law clear for it. After pointing this out, I tell Judge Douglas that it looks to me asthough here was the reason why Chase's amendment was voted down. I tellhim that, as he did it, and knows why he did it, if it was done for areason different from this, he knows what that reason was and can tell uswhat it was. I tell him, also, it will be vastly more satisfactory to thecountry for him to give some other plausible, intelligible reason why itwas voted down than to stand upon his dignity and call people liars. Well, on Saturday he did make his answer; and what do you think it was? Hesays if I had only taken upon myself to tell the whole truth about thatamendment of Chase's, no explanation would have been necessary on his partor words to that effect. Now, I say here that I am quite unconscious ofhaving suppressed anything material to the case, and I am very frank toadmit if there is any sound reason other than that which appeared to mematerial, it is quite fair for him to present it. What reason doeshe propose? That when Chase came forward with his amendment expresslyauthorizing the people to exclude slavery from the limits of everyTerritory, General Cass proposed to Chase, if he (Chase) would add to hisamendment that the people should have the power to introduce or exclude, they would let it go. This is substantially all of his reply. And becauseChase would not do that, they voted his amendment down. Well, it turnsout, I believe, upon examination, that General Cass took some part in thelittle running debate upon that amendment, and then ran away and did notvote on it at all. Is not that the fact? So confident, as I think, wasGeneral Cass that there was a snake somewhere about, he chose to run awayfrom the whole thing. This is an inference I draw from the fact that, though he took part in the debate, his name does not appear in the ayesand noes. But does Judge Douglas's reply amount to a satisfactory answer?

[Cries of "Yes, " "Yes, " and "No, " "No. "]

There is some little difference of opinion here. But I ask attention toa few more views bearing on the question of whether it amounts to asatisfactory answer. The men who were determined that that amendmentshould not get into the bill, and spoil the place where the Dred Scottdecision was to come in, sought an excuse to get rid of it somewhere. One of these ways--one of these excuses--was to ask Chase to add to hisproposed amendment a provision that the people might introduce slavery ifthey wanted to. They very well knew Chase would do no such thing, that Mr. Chase was one of the men differing from them on the broad principle ofhis insisting that freedom was better than slavery, --a man who would notconsent to enact a law, penned with his own hand, by which he was made torecognize slavery on the one hand, and liberty on the other, as preciselyequal; and when they insisted on his doing this, they very well knew theyinsisted on that which he would not for a moment think of doing, and thatthey were only bluffing him. I believe (I have not, since he made hisanswer, had a chance to examine the journals or Congressional Globe andtherefore speak from memory)--I believe the state of the bill at thattime, according to parliamentary rules, was such that no member couldpropose an additional amendment to Chase's amendment. I rather think thisis the truth, --the Judge shakes his head. Very well. I would like to know, then, if they wanted Chase's amendment fixed over, why somebody else couldnot have offered to do it? If they wanted it amended, why did they notoffer the amendment? Why did they not put it in themselves? But to put iton the other ground: suppose that there was such an amendment offered, and Chase's was an amendment to an amendment; until one is disposed of byparliamentary law, you cannot pile another on. Then all these gentlemenhad to do was to vote Chase's on, and then, in the amended form in whichthe whole stood, add their own amendment to it, if they wanted to put itin that shape. This was all they were obliged to do, and the ayes and noesshow that there were thirty-six who voted it down, against ten who votedin favor of it. The thirty-six held entire sway and control. They could insome form or other have put that bill in the exact shape they wanted. Ifthere was a rule preventing their amending it at the time, they could passthat, and then, Chase's amendment being merged, put it in the shape theywanted. They did not choose to do so, but they went into a quibble withChase to get him to add what they knew he would not add, and because hewould not, they stand upon the flimsy pretext for voting down what theyargued was the meaning and intent of their own bill. They left roomthereby for this Dred Scott decision, which goes very far to make slaverynational throughout the United States. 

I pass one or two points I have, because my time will very soon expire;but I must be allowed to say that Judge Douglas recurs again, as hedid upon one or two other occasions, to the enormity of Lincoln, aninsignificant individual like Lincoln, --upon his ipse dixit charging aconspiracy upon a large number of members of Congress, the Supreme Court, and two Presidents, to nationalize slavery. I want to say that, in thefirst place, I have made no charge of this sort upon my ipse dixit. I haveonly arrayed the evidence tending to prove it, and presented it to theunderstanding of others, saying what I think it proves, but giving youthe means of judging whether it proves it or not. This is precisely whatI have done. I have not placed it upon my ipse dixit at all. On thisoccasion, I wish to recall his attention to a piece of evidence whichI brought forward at Ottawa on Saturday, showing that he had madesubstantially the same charge against substantially the same persons, excluding his dear self from the category. I ask him to give someattention to the evidence which I brought forward that he himself haddiscovered a "fatal blow being struck" against the right of the peopleto exclude slavery from their limits, which fatal blow he assumed as inevidence in an article in the Washington Union, published "by authority. "I ask by whose authority? He discovers a similar or identical provisionin the Lecompton Constitution. Made by whom? The framers of thatConstitution. Advocated by whom? By all the members of the party in thenation, who advocated the introduction of Kansas into the Union under theLecompton Constitution. I have asked his attention to the evidence that hearrayed to prove that such a fatal blow was being struck, and to the factswhich he brought forward in support of that charge, --being identicalwith the one which he thinks so villainous in me. He pointed it, not ata newspaper editor merely, but at the President and his Cabinet andthe members of Congress advocating the Lecompton Constitution and thoseframing that instrument. I must again be permitted to remind him thatalthough my ipse dixit may not be as great as his, yet it somewhat reducesthe force of his calling my attention to the enormity of my making a likecharge against him. 

Go on, Judge Douglas. 

Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. 

MY FRIENDS:--It will readily occur to you that I cannot, in half an hour, notice all the things that so able a man as Judge Douglas can say in anhour and a half; and I hope, therefore, if there be anything that he hassaid upon which you would like to hear something from me, but which Iomit to comment upon, you will bear in mind that it would be expecting animpossibility for me to go over his whole ground. I can but take up someof the points that he has dwelt upon, and employ my half-hour specially onthem. 

The first thing I have to say to you is a word in regard to JudgeDouglas's declaration about the "vulgarity and blackguardism" in theaudience, that no such thing, as he says, was shown by any Democrat whileI was speaking. Now, I only wish, by way of reply on this subject, to saythat while I was speaking, I used no "vulgarity or blackguardism" towardany Democrat. 

Now, my friends, I come to all this long portion of the Judge'sspeech, --perhaps half of it, --which he has devoted to the variousresolutions and platforms that have been adopted in the different countiesin the different Congressional districts, and in the Illinois legislature, which he supposes are at variance with the positions I have assumed beforeyou to-day. It is true that many of these resolutions are at variancewith the positions I have here assumed. All I have to ask is that we talkreasonably and rationally about it. I happen to know, the Judge's opinionto the contrary notwithstanding, that I have never tried to conceal myopinions, nor tried to deceive any one in reference to them. He may goand examine all the members who voted for me for United States Senator in1855, after the election of 1854. They were pledged to certain things hereat home, and were determined to have pledges from me; and if he will findany of these persons who will tell him anything inconsistent with what Isay now, I will resign, or rather retire from the race, and give him nomore trouble. The plain truth is this: At the introduction of the Nebraskapolicy, we believed there was a new era being introduced in the history ofthe Republic, which tended to the spread and perpetuation of slavery. Butin our opposition to that measure we did not agree with one another ineverything. The people in the north end of the State were for strongermeasures of opposition than we of the central and southern portions of theState, but we were all opposed to the Nebraska doctrine. We had that onefeeling and that one sentiment in common. You at the north end met in yourconventions and passed your resolutions. We in the middle of the State andfarther south did not hold such conventions and pass the same resolutions, although we had in general a common view and a common sentiment. So thatthese meetings which the Judge has alluded to, and the resolutions he hasread from, were local, and did not spread over the whole State. We at lastmet together in 1886, from all parts of the State, and we agreed upon acommon platform. You, who held more extreme notions, either yieldedthose notions, or, if not wholly yielding them, agreed to yield thempractically, for the sake of embodying the opposition to the measureswhich the opposite party were pushing forward at that time. We met youthen, and if there was anything yielded, it was for practical purposes. Weagreed then upon a platform for the party throughout the entire State ofIllinois, and now we are all bound, as a party, to that platform. 

And I say here to you, if any one expects of me--in case of myelection--that I will do anything not signified by our Republican platformand my answers here to-day, I tell you very frankly that person will bedeceived. I do not ask for the vote of any one who supposes that I havesecret purposes or pledges that I dare not speak out. Cannot the Judge besatisfied? If he fears, in the unfortunate case of my election, that mygoing to Washington will enable me to advocate sentiments contrary tothose which I expressed when you voted for and elected me, I assure himthat his fears are wholly needless and groundless. Is the Judge reallyafraid of any such thing? I'll tell you what he is afraid of. He is afraidwe'll all pull together. This is what alarms him more than anything else. For my part, I do hope that all of us, entertaining a common sentiment inopposition to what appears to us a design to nationalize and perpetuateslavery, will waive minor differences on questions which either belongto the dead past or the distant future, and all pull together in thisstruggle. What are your sentiments? If it be true that on the ground whichI occupy--ground which I occupy as frankly and boldly as Judge Douglasdoes his, --my views, though partly coinciding with yours, are not asperfectly in accordance with your feelings as his are, I do say to youin all candor, go for him, and not for me. I hope to deal in all thingsfairly with Judge Douglas, and with the people of the State, in thiscontest. And if I should never be elected to any office, I trust I may godown with no stain of falsehood upon my reputation, notwithstanding thehard opinions Judge Douglas chooses to entertain of me. 

The Judge has again addressed himself to the Abolition tendencies of aspeech of mine made at Springfield in June last. I have so often triedto answer what he is always saying on that melancholy theme that I almostturn with disgust from the discussion, --from the repetition of an answerto it. I trust that nearly all of this intelligent audience have readthat speech. If you have, I may venture to leave it to you to inspectit closely, and see whether it contains any of those "bugaboos" whichfrighten Judge Douglas. 

The Judge complains that I did not fully answer his questions. If I havethe sense to comprehend and answer those questions, I have done so fairly. If it can be pointed out to me how I can more fully and fairly answer him, I aver I have not the sense to see how it is to be done. He says I do notdeclare I would in any event vote for the admission of a slave State intothe Union. If I have been fairly reported, he will see that I did give anexplicit answer to his interrogatories; I did not merely say that I woulddislike to be put to the test, but I said clearly, if I were put to thetest, and a Territory from which slavery had been excluded shouldpresent herself with a State constitution sanctioning slavery, --a mostextraordinary thing, and wholly unlikely to happen, --I did not see how Icould avoid voting for her admission. But he refuses to understand that Isaid so, and he wants this audience to understand that I did not sayso. Yet it will be so reported in the printed speech that he cannot helpseeing it. 

He says if I should vote for the admission of a slave State I would bevoting for a dissolution of the Union, because I hold that the Unioncannot permanently exist half slave and half free. I repeat that I do notbelieve this government can endure permanently half slave and half free;yet I do not admit, nor does it at all follow, that the admission of asingle slave State will permanently fix the character and establish thisas a universal slave nation. The Judge is very happy indeed at working upthese quibbles. Before leaving the subject of answering questions, I averas my confident belief, when you come to see our speeches in print, thatyou will find every question which he has asked me more fairly and boldlyand fully answered than he has answered those which I put to him. Is notthat so? The two speeches may be placed side by side, and I will ventureto leave it to impartial judges whether his questions have not been moredirectly and circumstantially answered than mine. 

Judge Douglas says he made a charge upon the editor of the WashingtonUnion, alone, of entertaining a purpose to rob the States of their powerto exclude slavery from their limits. I undertake to say, and I make thedirect issue, that he did not make his charge against the editor of theUnion alone. I will undertake to prove by the record here that he madethat charge against more and higher dignitaries than the editor of theWashington Union. I am quite aware that he was shirking and dodging aroundthe form in which he put it, but I can make it manifest that he leveledhis "fatal blow" against more persons than this Washington editor. Will hedodge it now by alleging that I am trying to defend Mr. Buchanan againstthe charge? Not at all. Am I not making the same charge myself? I amtrying to show that you, Judge Douglas, are a witness on my side. I am notdefending Buchanan, and I will tell Judge Douglas that in my opinion, whenhe made that charge, he had an eye farther north than he has to-day. Hewas then fighting against people who called him a Black Republican andan Abolitionist. It is mixed all through his speech, and it is tolerablymanifest that his eye was a great deal farther north than it is to-day. The Judge says that though he made this charge, Toombs got up and declaredthere was not a man in the United States, except the editor of the Union, who was in favor of the doctrines put forth in that article. And thereuponI understand that the Judge withdrew the charge. Although he had takenextracts from the newspaper, and then from the Lecompton Constitution, toshow the existence of a conspiracy to bring about a "fatal blow, " by whichthe States were to be deprived of the right of excluding slavery, it allwent to pot as soon as Toombs got up and told him it was not true. It reminds me of the story that John Phoenix, the California railroadsurveyor, tells. He says they started out from the Plaza to the Missionof Dolores. They had two ways of determining distances. One was by a chainand pins taken over the ground. The other was by a "go-it-ometer, "--aninvention of his own, --a three-legged instrument, with which he computeda series of triangles between the points. At night he turned to thechain-man to ascertain what distance they had come, and found that by somemistake he had merely dragged the chain over the ground, without keepingany record. By the "go-it-ometer, " he found he had made ten miles. Beingskeptical about this, he asked a drayman who was passing how far it was tothe Plaza. The drayman replied it was just half a mile; and the surveyorput it down in his book, --just as Judge Douglas says, after he had madehis calculations and computations, he took Toombs's statement. I haveno doubt that after Judge Douglas had made his charge, he was as easilysatisfied about its truth as the surveyor was of the drayman's statementof the distance to the Plaza. Yet it is a fact that the man who put forthall that matter which Douglas deemed a "fatal blow" at State sovereigntywas elected by the Democrats as public printer. 

Now, gentlemen, you may take Judge Douglas's speech of March 22, 1858, beginning about the middle of page 21, and reading to the bottom of page24, and you will find the evidence on which I say that he did not make hischarge against the editor of the Union alone. I cannot stop to read it, but I will give it to the reporters. Judge Douglas said:

"Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositionsadvanced boldly by the Washington Union editorially, and apparentlyauthoritatively, and every man who questions any of them is denounced asan Abolitionist, a Free-soiler, a fanatic. The propositions are, first, that the primary object of all government at its original institution isthe protection of persons and property; second, that the Constitutionof the United States declares that the citizens of each State shall beentitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the severalStates; and that, therefore, thirdly, all State laws, whether organicor otherwise, which prohibit the citizens of one State from settling inanother with their slave property, and especially declaring it forfeited, are direct violations of the original intention of the Government andConstitution of the United States; and, fourth, that the emancipation ofthe slaves of the Northern States was a gross outrage on the rights ofproperty, in as much as it was involuntarily done on the part of theowner. 

"Remember that this article was published in the Union on the 17th ofNovember, and on the 18th appeared the first article giving the adhesionof the Union to the Lecompton Constitution. It was in these words:

"'KANSAS AND HER CONSTITUTION. --The vexed question is settled. The problemis solved. The dead point of danger is passed. All serious trouble toKansas affairs is over and gone. .. . "

"And a column, nearly, of the same sort. Then, when you come to look intothe Lecompton Constitution, you find the same doctrine incorporated in itwhich was put forth editorially in the Union. What is it?

"'ARTICLE 7, Section i. The right of property is before and higher thanany constitutional sanction; and the right of the owner of a slave to suchslave and its increase is the same and as invariable as the right of theowner of any property whatever. '

"Then in the schedule is a provision that the Constitution may be amendedafter 1864 by a two-thirds vote. 

"'But no alteration shall be made to affect the right of property in theownership of slaves. '

"It will be seen by these clauses in the Lecompton Constitution that theyare identical in spirit with this authoritative article in the WashingtonUnion of the day previous to its indorsement of this Constitution. 

"When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed bythe glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a Statehas no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was afatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union. "

Here he says, "Mr. President, you here find several distinct propositionsadvanced boldly, and apparently authoritatively. " By whose authority, Judge Douglas? Again, he says in another place, "It will be seen by theseclauses in the Lecompton Constitution that they are identical in spiritwith this authoritative article. " By whose authority, --who do you meanto say authorized the publication of these articles? He knows that theWashington Union is considered the organ of the Administration. I demandof Judge Douglas by whose authority he meant to say those articles werepublished, if not by the authority of the President of the United Statesand his Cabinet? I defy him to show whom he referred to, if not to thesehigh functionaries in the Federal Government. More than this, he says thearticles in that paper and the provisions of the Lecompton Constitutionare "identical, " and, being identical, he argues that the authorsare co-operating and conspiring together. He does not use the word"conspiring, " but what other construction can you put upon it? He windsup:

"When I saw that article in the Union of the 17th of November, followed bythe glorification of the Lecompton Constitution on the 18th of November, and this clause in the Constitution asserting the doctrine that a Statehas no right to prohibit slavery within its limits, I saw that there was afatal blow being struck at the sovereignty of the States of this Union. "

I ask him if all this fuss was made over the editor of this newspaper. Itwould be a terribly "fatal blow" indeed which a single man could strike, when no President, no Cabinet officer, no member of Congress, was givingstrength and efficiency to the movement. Out of respect to Judge Douglas'sgood sense I must believe he did n't manufacture his idea of the "fatal"character of that blow out of such a miserable scapegrace as he representsthat editor to be. But the Judge's eye is farther south now. Then, itwas very peculiarly and decidedly north. His hope rested on the idea ofvisiting the great "Black Republican" party, and making it the tail ofhis new kite. He knows he was then expecting from day to day to turnRepublican, and place himself at the head of our organization. He hasfound that these despised "Black Republicans" estimate him by a standardwhich he has taught them none too well. Hence he is crawling back into hisold camp, and you will find him eventually installed in full fellowshipamong those whom he was then battling, and with whom he now pretends to beat such fearful variance. 

THIRD JOINT DEBATE, AT JONESBORO, SEPTEMBER 15, 1858

Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--There is very much in the principles that JudgeDouglas has here enunciated that I most cordially approve, and over whichI shall have no controversy with him. In so far as he has insisted thatall the States have the right to do exactly as they please about all theirdomestic relations, including that of slavery, I agree entirely with him. He places me wrong in spite of all I can tell him, though I repeat itagain and again, insisting that I have no difference with him upon thissubject. I have made a great many speeches, some of which have beenprinted, and it will be utterly impossible for him to find anything thatI have ever put in print contrary to what I now say upon this subject. Ihold myself under constitutional obligations to allow the people in allthe States, without interference, direct or indirect, to do exactly asthey please; and I deny that I have any inclination to interfere withthem, even if there were no such constitutional obligation. I can only sayagain that I am placed improperly--altogether improperly, in spite of allI can say--when it is insisted that I entertain any other view or purposesin regard to that matter. 

While I am upon this subject, I will make some answers briefly to certainpropositions that Judge Douglas has put. He says, "Why can't this Unionendure permanently half slave and half free?" I have said that I supposedit could not, and I will try, before this new audience, to give brieflysome of the reasons for entertaining that opinion. Another form of hisquestion is, "Why can't we let it stand as our fathers placed it?" That isthe exact difficulty between us. I say that Judge Douglas and his friendshave changed it from the position in which our fathers originally placedit. I say, in the way our father's originally left the slavery question, the institution was in the course of ultimate extinction, and thepublic mind rested in the belief that it was in the course of ultimateextinction. I say when this government was first established it was thepolicy of its founders to prohibit the spread of slavery into the newTerritories of the United States, where it had not existed. But JudgeDouglas and his friends have broken up that policy, and placed it upona new basis, by which it is to become national and perpetual. All I haveasked or desired anywhere is that it should be placed back again upon thebasis that the fathers of our government originally placed it upon. I haveno doubt that it would become extinct, for all time to come, if we butreadopted the policy of the fathers, by restricting it to the limits ithas already covered, restricting it from the new Territories. 

I do not wish to dwell at great length on this branch of the subject atthis time, but allow me to repeat one thing that I have stated before. Brooks--the man who assaulted Senator Sumner on the floor of theSenate, and who was complimented with dinners, and silver pitchers, andgold-headed canes, and a good many other things for that feat--in oneof his speeches declared that when this government was originallyestablished, nobody expected that the institution of slavery would lastuntil this day. That was but the opinion of one man, but it was such anopinion as we can never get from Judge Douglas or anybody in favor ofslavery, in the North, at all. You can sometimes get it from a Southernman. He said at the same time that the framers of our government did nothave the knowledge that experience has taught us; that experience andthe invention of the cotton-gin have taught us that the perpetuation ofslavery is a necessity. He insisted, therefore, upon its being changedfrom the basis upon which the fathers of the government left it to thebasis of its perpetuation and nationalization. 

I insist that this is the difference between Judge Douglas andmyself, --that Judge Douglas is helping that change along. I insist uponthis government being placed where our fathers originally placed it. 

I remember Judge Douglas once said that he saw the evidences on thestatute books of Congress of a policy in the origin of governmentto divide slavery and freedom by a geographical line; that he saw anindisposition to maintain that policy, and therefore he set about studyingup a way to settle the institution on the right basis, --the basis which hethought it ought to have been placed upon at first; and in that speech heconfesses that he seeks to place it, not upon the basis that the fathersplaced it upon, but upon one gotten up on "original principles. " When heasks me why we cannot get along with it in the attitude where our fathersplaced it, he had better clear up the evidences that he has himselfchanged it from that basis, that he has himself been chiefly instrumentalin changing the policy of the fathers. Any one who will read his speechof the 22d of last March will see that he there makes an open confession, showing that he set about fixing the institution upon an altogetherdifferent set of principles. I think I have fully answered him when heasks me why we cannot let it alone upon the basis where our fathersleft it, by showing that he has himself changed the whole policy of thegovernment in that regard. 

Now, fellow-citizens, in regard to this matter about a contract that wasmade between Judge Trumbull and myself, and all that long portion of JudgeDouglas's speech on this subject, --I wish simply to say what I have saidto him before, that he cannot know whether it is true or not, and I doknow that there is not a word of truth in it. And I have told him sobefore. I don't want any harsh language indulged in, but I do not knowhow to deal with this persistent insisting on a story that I know to beutterly without truth. It used to be a fashion amongst men that when acharge was made, some sort of proof was brought forward to establish it, and if no proof was found to exist, the charge was dropped. I don't knowhow to meet this kind of an argument. I don't want to have a fightwith Judge Douglas, and I have no way of making an argument up into theconsistency of a corn-cob and stopping his mouth with it. All I can dois--good-humoredly--to say that, from the beginning to the end of all thatstory about a bargain between Judge Trumbull and myself, there is not aword of truth in it. I can only ask him to show some sort of evidenceof the truth of his story. He brings forward here and reads from what hecontends is a speech by James H. Matheny, charging such a bargain betweenTrumbull and myself. My own opinion is that Matheny did do some suchimmoral thing as to tell a story that he knew nothing about. I believe hedid. I contradicted it instantly, and it has been contradicted by JudgeTrumbull, while nobody has produced any proof, because there is none. Now, whether the speech which the Judge brings forward here is really theone Matheny made, I do not know, and I hope the Judge will pardon me fordoubting the genuineness of this document, since his production of thoseSpringfield resolutions at Ottawa. I do not wish to dwell at any greatlength upon this matter. I can say nothing when a long story like this istold, except it is not true, and demand that he who insists upon it shallproduce some proof. That is all any man can do, and I leave it in thatway, for I know of no other way of dealing with it. 

[In an argument on the lines of: "Yes, you did. --No, I did not. " It bearson the former to prove his point, not on the negative to "prove" that hedid not--even if he easily can do so. ]

The Judge has gone over a long account of the old Whig and Democraticparties, and it connects itself with this charge against Trumbull andmyself. He says that they agreed upon a compromise in regard to theslavery question in 1850; that in a National Democratic Conventionresolutions were passed to abide by that compromise as a finality upon theslavery question. He also says that the Whig party in National Conventionagreed to abide by and regard as a finality the Compromise of 1850. Iunderstand the Judge to be altogether right about that; I understandthat part of the history of the country as stated by him to be correctI recollect that I, as a member of that party, acquiesced in thatcompromise. I recollect in the Presidential election which followed, when we had General Scott up for the presidency, Judge Douglas was aroundberating us Whigs as Abolitionists, precisely as he does to-day, --not abit of difference. I have often heard him. We could do nothing when theold Whig party was alive that was not Abolitionism, but it has got anextremely good name since it has passed away. 

[It almost a natural law that, when dead--no matter how bad we were--weare automatically beatified. ]

When that Compromise was made it did not repeal the old MissouriCompromise. It left a region of United States territory half as largeas the present territory of the United States, north of the line of 36degrees 30 minutes, in which slavery was prohibited by Act of Congress. This Compromise did not repeal that one. It did not affect or propose torepeal it. But at last it became Judge Douglas's duty, as he thought (andI find no fault with him), as Chairman of the Committee on Territories, tobring in a bill for the organization of a territorial government, --firstof one, then of two Territories north of that line. When he did so, itended in his inserting a provision substantially repealing the MissouriCompromise. That was because the Compromise of 1850 had not repealed it. And now I ask why he could not have let that Compromise alone? We werequiet from the agitation of the slavery question. We were making no fussabout it. All had acquiesced in the Compromise measures of 1850. Wenever had been seriously disturbed by any Abolition agitation before thatperiod. When he came to form governments for the Territories north of theline of 36 degrees 30 minutes, why could he not have let that matter standas it was standing? Was it necessary to the organization of a Territory?Not at all. Iowa lay north of the line, and had been organized as aTerritory and come into the Union as a State without disturbing thatCompromise. There was no sort of necessity for destroying it to organizethese Territories. But, gentlemen, it would take up all my time to meetall the little quibbling arguments of Judge Douglas to show that theMissouri Compromise was repealed by the Compromise of 1850. My own opinionis, that a careful investigation of all the arguments to sustain theposition that that Compromise was virtually repealed by the Compromise of1850 would show that they are the merest fallacies. I have the report thatJudge Douglas first brought into Congress at the time of the introductionof the Nebraska Bill, which in its original form did not repeal theMissouri Compromise, and he there expressly stated that he had forborne todo so because it had not been done by the Compromise of 1850. I close thispart of the discussion on my part by asking him the question again, "Why, when we had peace under the Missouri Compromise, could you not have let italone?"

In complaining of what I said in my speech at Springfield, in which hesays I accepted my nomination for the senatorship (where, by the way, heis at fault, for if he will examine it, he will find no acceptance in it), he again quotes that portion in which I said that "a house divided againstitself cannot stand. " Let me say a word in regard to that matter. 

He tries to persuade us that there must be a variety in the differentinstitutions of the States of the Union; that that variety necessarilyproceeds from the variety of soil, climate, of the face of the country, and the difference in the natural features of the States. I agree to allthat. Have these very matters ever produced any difficulty amongst us? Notat all. Have we ever had any quarrel over the fact that they have lawsin Louisiana designed to regulate the commerce that springs from theproduction of sugar? Or because we have a different class relative to theproduction of flour in this State? Have they produced any differences? Notat all. They are the very cements of this Union. They don't make the housea house divided against itself. They are the props that hold up the houseand sustain the Union. 

But has it been so with this element of slavery? Have we not always hadquarrels and difficulties over it? And when will we cease to have quarrelsover it? Like causes produce like effects. It is worth while to observethat we have generally had comparative peace upon the slavery question, and that there has been no cause for alarm until it was excited by theeffort to spread it into new territory. Whenever it has been limited toits present bounds, and there has been no effort to spread it, there hasbeen peace. All the trouble and convulsion has proceeded from efforts tospread it over more territory. It was thus at the date of the MissouriCompromise. It was so again with the annexation of Texas; so with theterritory acquired by the Mexican war; and it is so now. Whenever therehas been an effort to spread it, there has been agitation and resistance. Now, I appeal to this audience (very few of whom are my politicalfriends), as national men, whether we have reason to expect that theagitation in regard to this subject will cease while the causes that tendto reproduce agitation are actively at work? Will not the same cause thatproduced agitation in 1820, when the Missouri Compromise was formed, thatwhich produced the agitation upon the annexation of Texas, and at othertimes, work out the same results always? Do you think that the nature ofman will be changed, that the same causes that produced agitation at onetime will not have the same effect at another?

This has been the result so far as my observation of the slavery questionand my reading in history extends. What right have we then to hope thatthe trouble will cease, --that the agitation will come to an end, --untilit shall either be placed back where it originally stood, and wherethe fathers originally placed it, or, on the other hand, until it shallentirely master all opposition? This is the view I entertain, and thisis the reason why I entertained it, as Judge Douglas has read from mySpringfield speech. 

Now, my friends, there is one other thing that I feel myself under somesort of obligation to mention. Judge Douglas has here to-day--in a veryrambling way, I was about saying--spoken of the platforms for which heseeks to hold me responsible. He says, "Why can't you come out and makean open avowal of principles in all places alike?" and he reads from anadvertisement that he says was used to notify the people of a speech to bemade by Judge Trumbull at Waterloo. In commenting on it he desires to knowwhether we cannot speak frankly and manfully, as he and his friends do. How, I ask, do his friends speak out their own sentiments? A Conventionof his party in this State met on the 21st of April at Springfield, andpassed a set of resolutions which they proclaim to the country as theirplatform. This does constitute their platform, and it is because JudgeDouglas claims it is his platform--that these are his principles andpurposes--that he has a right to declare he speaks his sentiments "franklyand manfully. " On the 9th of June Colonel John Dougherty, GovernorReynolds, and others, calling themselves National Democrats, metin Springfield and adopted a set of resolutions which are as easilyunderstood, as plain and as definite in stating to the country and tothe world what they believed in and would stand upon, as Judge Douglas'splatform Now, what is the reason that Judge Douglas is not willing thatColonel Dougherty and Governor Reynolds should stand upon their ownwritten and printed platform as well as he upon his? Why must he lookfarther than their platform when he claims himself to stand by hisplatform?

Again, in reference to our platform: On the 16th of June the Republicanshad their Convention and published their platform, which is as clear anddistinct as Judge Douglas's. In it they spoke their principles as plainlyand as definitely to the world. What is the reason that Judge Douglasis not willing I should stand upon that platform? Why must he go aroundhunting for some one who is supporting me or has supported me at sometime in his life, and who has said something at some time contrary to thatplatform? Does the Judge regard that rule as a good one? If it turn outthat the rule is a good one for me--that I am responsible for any andevery opinion that any man has expressed who is my friend, --then it is agood rule for him. I ask, is it not as good a rule for him as it is forme? In my opinion, it is not a good rule for either of us. Do you thinkdifferently, Judge?

[Mr. DOUGLAS: I do not. ]

Judge Douglas says he does not think differently. I am glad of it. Thencan he tell me why he is looking up resolutions of five or six years ago, and insisting that they were my platform, notwithstanding my protest thatthey are not, and never were my platform, and my pointing out the platformof the State Convention which he delights to say nominated me for theSenate? I cannot see what he means by parading these resolutions, if itis not to hold me responsible for them in some way. If he says to me herethat he does not hold the rule to be good, one way or the other, I do notcomprehend how he could answer me more fully if he answered me at greaterlength. I will therefore put in as my answer to the resolutions that hehas hunted up against me, what I, as a lawyer, would call a good plea to abad declaration. I understand that it is an axiom of law that a poor pleamay be a good plea to a bad declaration. I think that the opinions theJudge brings from those who support me, yet differ from me, is a baddeclaration against me; but if I can bring the same things against him, Iam putting in a good plea to that kind of declaration, and now I proposeto try it. 

At Freeport, Judge Douglas occupied a large part of his time in producingresolutions and documents of various sorts, as I understood, to make mesomehow responsible for them; and I propose now doing a little of thesame sort of thing for him. In 1850 a very clever gentleman by the nameof Thompson Campbell, a personal friend of Judge Douglas and myself, apolitical friend of Judge Douglas and opponent of mine, was a candidatefor Congress in the Galena District. He was interrogated as to his viewson this same slavery question. I have here before me the interrogatories, and Campbell's answers to them--I will read them:

INTERROGATORIES:

"1st. Will you, if elected, vote for and cordially support a billprohibiting slavery in the Territories of the United States?

"2d. Will you vote for and support a bill abolishing slavery in theDistrict of Columbia?

"3d. Will you oppose the admission of any Slave States which may be formedout of Texas or the Territories?

"4th. Will you vote for and advocate the repeal of the Fugitive Slave lawpassed at the recent session of Congress?

"5th. Will you advocate and vote for the election of a Speaker of theHouse of Representatives who shall be willing to organize the committeesof that House so as to give the Free States their just influence in thebusiness of legislation?

"6th. What are your views, not only as to the constitutional right ofCongress to prohibit the slave-trade between the States, but also as tothe expediency of exercising that right immediately?"

CAMPBELL'S REPLY. 

"To the first and second interrogatories, I answer unequivocally in theaffirmative. 

"To the third interrogatory I reply, that I am opposed to the admission ofany more Slave States into the Union, that may be formed out of Texas orany other Territory. 

"To the fourth and fifth interrogatories I unhesitatingly answer in theaffirmative. 

"To the sixth interrogatory I reply, that so long as the Slave Statescontinue to treat slaves as articles of commerce, the Constitution conferspower on Congress to pass laws regulating that peculiar COMMERCE, and thatthe protection of Human Rights imperatively demands the interposition ofevery constitutional means to prevent this most inhuman and iniquitoustraffic. 

"T. CAMPBELL. "

I want to say here that Thompson Campbell was elected to Congress on thatplatform, as the Democratic candidate in the Galena District, againstMartin P. Sweet. 

[Judge DOUGLAS: Give me the date of the letter. ]

The time Campbell ran was in 1850. I have not the exact date here. Itwas some time in 1850 that these interrogatories were put and the answergiven. Campbell was elected to Congress, and served out his term. I thinka second election came up before he served out his term, and he wasnot re-elected. Whether defeated or not nominated, I do not know. [Mr. Campbell was nominated for re-election by the Democratic party, byacclamation. ] At the end of his term his very good friend Judge Douglasgot him a high office from President Pierce, and sent him off toCalifornia. Is not that the fact? Just at the end of his term in Congressit appears that our mutual friend Judge Douglas got our mutual friendCampbell a good office, and sent him to California upon it. And not onlyso, but on the 27th of last month, when Judge Douglas and myself spoke atFreeport in joint discussion, there was his same friend Campbell, comeall the way from California, to help the Judge beat me; and there was poorMartin P. Sweet standing on the platform, trying to help poor me to beelected. That is true of one of Judge Douglas's friends. 

So again, in that same race of 1850, there was a Congressional Conventionassembled at Joliet, and it nominated R. S. Molony for Congress, andunanimously adopted the following resolution:

"Resolved, That we are uncompromisingly opposed to the extensionof slavery; and while we would not make such opposition a ground ofinterference with the interests of the States where it exists, yet wemoderately but firmly insist that it is the duty of Congress to opposeits extension into Territory now free, by all means compatible with theobligations of the Constitution, and with good faith to our sister States;that these principles were recognized by the Ordinance of 1787, whichreceived the sanction of Thomas Jefferson, who is acknowledged by all tobe the great oracle and expounder of our faith. "

Subsequently the same interrogatories were propounded to Dr. Molony whichhad been addressed to Campbell as above, with the exception of the 6th, respecting the interstate slave trade, to which Dr. Molony, the Democraticnominee for Congress, replied as follows:

"I received the written interrogatories this day, and, as you will see bythe La Salle Democrat and Ottawa Free Trader, I took at Peru on the 5th, and at Ottawa on the 7th, the affirmative side of interrogatories 1st and2d; and in relation to the admission of any more Slave States from FreeTerritory, my position taken at these meetings, as correctly reported insaid papers, was emphatically and distinctly opposed to it. In relationto the admission of any more Slave States from Texas, whether I shall goagainst it or not will depend upon the opinion that I may hereafter formof the true meaning and nature of the resolutions of annexation. If, bysaid resolutions, the honor and good faith of the nation is pledged toadmit more Slave States from Texas when she (Texas) may apply for theadmission of such State, then I should, if in Congress, vote for theiradmission. But if not so PLEDGED and bound by sacred contract, then a billfor the admission of more Slave States from Texas would never receive myvote. 

"To your fourth interrogatory I answer most decidedly in the affirmative, and for reasons set forth in my reported remarks at Ottawa last Monday. 

"To your fifth interrogatory I also reply in the affirmative mostcordially, and that I will use my utmost exertions to secure thenomination and election of a man who will accomplish the objects of saidinterrogatories. I most cordially approve of the resolutions adopted atthe Union meeting held at Princeton on the 27th September ult. 

"Yours, etc. , R. S. MOLONY. "

All I have to say in regard to Dr. Molony is that he was the regularlynominated Democratic candidate for Congress in his district; was electedat that time; at the end of his term was appointed to a land-office atDanville. (I never heard anything of Judge Douglas's instrumentalityin this. ) He held this office a considerable time, and when we were atFreeport the other day there were handbills scattered about notifying thepublic that after our debate was over R. S. Molony would make a Democraticspeech in favor of Judge Douglas. That is all I know of my own personalknowledge. It is added here to this resolution, and truly I believe, thatamong those who participated in the Joliet Convention, and who supportedits nominee, with his platform as laid down in the resolution of theConvention and in his reply as above given, we call at random thefollowing names, all of which are recognized at this day as leadingDemocrats:

"Cook County, --E. B. Williams, Charles McDonell, Arno Voss, Thomas Hoyne, Isaac Cook. "

I reckon we ought to except Cook. 

 "F. C. Sherman. "Will, --Joel A. Matteson, S. W. Bowen. "Kane, --B. F. Hall, G. W. Renwick, A. M. Herrington, Elijah Wilcox. "McHenry, --W. M. Jackson, Enos W. Smith, Neil Donnelly. La Salle, --John Hise, William Reddick. "

William Reddick! another one of Judge Douglas's friends that stood on thestand with him at Ottawa, at the time the Judge says my knees trembled sothat I had to be carried away. The names are all here:

 "Du Page, --Nathan Allen. "De Kalb, --Z. B. Mayo. "

Here is another set of resolutions which I think are apposite to thematter in hand. 

On the 28th of February of the same year a Democratic District Conventionwas held at Naperville to nominate a candidate for Circuit Judge. Amongthe delegates were Bowen and Kelly of Will; Captain Naper, H. H. Cody, Nathan Allen, of Du Page; W. M. Jackson, J. M. Strode, P. W. Platt, andEnos W. Smith of McHenry; J. Horssnan and others of Winnebago. ColonelStrode presided over the Convention. The following resolutions wereunanimously adopted, --the first on motion of P. W. Platt, the second onmotion of William M. Jackson:

"Resolved, That this Convention is in favor of the Wilmot Proviso, both inPrinciple and Practice, and that we know of no good reason why any personshould oppose the largest latitude in Free Soil, Free Territory and Freespeech. 

"Resolved, That in the opinion of this Convention, the time has arrivedwhen all men should be free, whites as well as others. "

[Judge DOUGLAS: What is the date of those resolutions?]

I understand it was in 1850, but I do not know it. I do not state a thingand say I know it, when I do not. But I have the highest belief that thisis so. I know of no way to arrive at the conclusion that there is an errorin it. I mean to put a case no stronger than the truth will allow. Butwhat I was going to comment upon is an extract from a newspaper in De KalbCounty; and it strikes me as being rather singular, I confess, under thecircumstances. There is a Judge Mayo in that county, who is a candidatefor the Legislature, for the purpose, if he secures his election, ofhelping to re-elect Judge Douglas. He is the editor of a newspaper [DeKalb County Sentinel], and in that paper I find the extract I am going toread. It is part of an editorial article in which he was electioneeringas fiercely as he could for Judge Douglas and against me. It was a curiousthing, I think, to be in such a paper. I will agree to that, and the Judgemay make the most of it:

"Our education has been such that we have been rather in favor of theequality of the blacks; that is, that they should enjoy all the privilegesof the whites where they reside. We are aware that this is not a verypopular doctrine. We have had many a confab with some who are now strong'Republicans' we taking the broad ground of equality, and they theopposite ground. 

"We were brought up in a State where blacks were voters, and we do notknow of any inconvenience resulting from it, though perhaps it would notwork as well where the blacks are more numerous. We have no doubt ofthe right of the whites to guard against such an evil, if it is one. Ouropinion is that it would be best for all concerned to have the coloredpopulation in a State by themselves [in this I agree with him]; but ifwithin the jurisdiction of the United States, we say by all means theyshould have the right to have their Senators and Representatives inCongress, and to vote for President. With us 'worth makes the man, andwant of it the fellow. ' We have seen many a 'nigger' that we thought moreof than some white men. "

That is one of Judge Douglas's friends. Now, I do not want to leave myselfin an attitude where I can be misrepresented, so I will say I do not thinkthe Judge is responsible for this article; but he is quite as responsiblefor it as I would be if one of my friends had said it. I think that isfair enough. 

I have here also a set of resolutions passed by a Democratic StateConvention in Judge Douglas's own good State of Vermont, that I thinkought to be good for him too:

"Resolved, That liberty is a right inherent and inalienable in man, andthat herein all men are equal. 

"Resolved, That we claim no authority in the Federal Government to abolishslavery in the several States, but we do claim for it Constitutional powerperpetually to prohibit the introduction of slavery into territory nowfree, and abolish it wherever, under the jurisdiction of Congress, itexists. 

"Resolved, That this power ought immediately to be exercised inprohibiting the introduction and existence of slavery in New Mexico andCalifornia, in abolishing slavery and the slave-trade in the District ofColumbia, on the high seas, and wherever else, under the Constitution, itcan be reached. 

"Resolved, That no more Slave States should be admitted into the FederalUnion. 

"Resolved, That the Government ought to return to its ancient policy, not to extend, nationalize, or encourage, but to limit, localize, anddiscourage slavery. "

At Freeport I answered several interrogatories that had been propounded tome by Judge Douglas at the Ottawa meeting. The Judge has not yet seen fitto find any fault with the position that I took in regard to those seveninterrogatories, which were certainly broad enough, in all conscience, tocover the entire ground. In my answers, which have been printed, and allhave had the opportunity of seeing, I take the ground that those who electme must expect that I will do nothing which will not be in accordance withthose answers. I have some right to assert that Judge Douglas has no faultto find with them. But he chooses to still try to thrust me upon differentground, without paying any attention to my answers, the obtaining ofwhich from me cost him so much trouble and concern. At the same time Ipropounded four interrogatories to him, claiming it as a right that heshould answer as many interrogatories for me as I did for him, and I wouldreserve myself for a future instalment when I got them ready. The Judge, in answering me upon that occasion, put in what I suppose he intendsas answers to all four of my interrogatories. The first one of theseinterrogatories I have before me, and it is in these words:

"Question 1. --If the people of Kansas shall, by means entirelyunobjectionable in all other respects, adopt a State constitution, and askadmission into the Union under it, before they have the requisitenumber of inhabitants according to the English bill, "--some ninety-threethousand, --"will you vote to admit them?"

As I read the Judge's answer in the newspaper, and as I remember it aspronounced at the time, he does not give any answer which is equivalentto yes or no, --I will or I won't. He answers at very considerable length, rather quarreling with me for asking the question, and insisting thatJudge Trumbull had done something that I ought to say something about, andfinally getting out such statements as induce me to infer that he meansto be understood he will, in that supposed case, vote for the admission ofKansas. I only bring this forward now for the purpose of saying that if hechooses to put a different construction upon his answer, he may do it. Butif he does not, I shall from this time forward assume that he will votefor the admission of Kansas in disregard of the English bill. He has theright to remove any misunderstanding I may have. I only mention it now, that I may hereafter assume this to be the true construction of hisanswer, if he does not now choose to correct me. 

The second interrogatory that I propounded to him was this:

"Question 2. --Can the people of a United States Territory, in any lawfulway, against the wish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slaveryfrom its limits prior to the formation of a State Constitution?"

To this Judge Douglas answered that they can lawfully exclude slavery fromthe Territory prior to the formation of a constitution. He goes on to tellus how it can be done. As I understand him, he holds that it can be doneby the Territorial Legislature refusing to make any enactments forthe protection of slavery in the Territory, and especially by adoptingunfriendly legislation to it. For the sake of clearness, I state it again:that they can exclude slavery from the Territory, 1st, by withholdingwhat he assumes to be an indispensable assistance to it in the way oflegislation; and, 2d, by unfriendly legislation. If I rightly understandhim, I wish to ask your attention for a while to his position. 

In the first place, the Supreme Court of the United States has decidedthat any Congressional prohibition of slavery in the Territories isunconstitutional; that they have reached this proposition as a conclusionfrom their former proposition, that the Constitution of the UnitedStates expressly recognizes property in slaves, and from that otherConstitutional provision, that no person shall be deprived of propertywithout due process of law. Hence they reach the conclusion that as theConstitution of the United States expressly recognizes property in slaves, and prohibits any person from being deprived of property without dueprocess of law, to pass an Act of Congress by which a man who owned aslave on one side of a line would be deprived of him if he took him on theother side, is depriving him of that property without due process of law. That I understand to be the decision of the Supreme Court. I understandalso that Judge Douglas adheres most firmly to that decision; and thedifficulty is, how is it possible for any power to exclude slaveryfrom the Territory, unless in violation of that decision? That is thedifficulty. 

In the Senate of the United States, in 1850, Judge Trumbull, in a speechsubstantially, if not directly, put the same interrogatory to JudgeDouglas, as to whether the people of a Territory had the lawful power toexclude slavery prior to the formation of a constitution. Judge Douglasthen answered at considerable length, and his answer will be found in theCongressional Globe, under date of June 9th, 1856. The Judge said thatwhether the people could exclude slavery prior to the formation of aconstitution or not was a question to be decided by the Supreme Court. He put that proposition, as will be seen by the Congressional Globe, in avariety of forms, all running to the same thing in substance, --that it wasa question for the Supreme Court. I maintain that when he says, after theSupreme Court have decided the question, that the people may yet excludeslavery by any means whatever, he does virtually say that it is not aquestion for the Supreme Court. He shifts his ground. I appeal to youwhether he did not say it was a question for the Supreme Court? Has notthe Supreme Court decided that question? when he now says the people mayexclude slavery, does he not make it a question for the people? Does henot virtually shift his ground and say that it is not a question for theCourt, but for the people? This is a very simple proposition, --a veryplain and naked one. It seems to me that there is no difficulty indeciding it. In a variety of ways he said that it was a question for theSupreme Court. He did not stop then to tell us that, whatever theSupreme Court decides, the people can by withholding necessary "policeregulations" keep slavery out. He did not make any such answer I submitto you now whether the new state of the case has not induced the Judge tosheer away from his original ground. Would not this be the impression ofevery fair-minded man?

I hold that the proposition that slavery cannot enter a new countrywithout police regulations is historically false. It is not true at all. I hold that the history of this country shows that the institution ofslavery was originally planted upon this continent without these "policeregulations, " which the Judge now thinks necessary for the actualestablishment of it. Not only so, but is there not another fact: how camethis Dred Scott decision to be made? It was made upon the case of a negrobeing taken and actually held in slavery in Minnesota Territory, claiminghis freedom because the Act of Congress prohibited his being so heldthere. Will the Judge pretend that Dred Scott was not held there withoutpolice regulations? There is at least one matter of record as to hishaving been held in slavery in the Territory, not only without policeregulations, but in the teeth of Congressional legislation supposed tobe valid at the time. This shows that there is vigor enough in slaveryto plant itself in a new country even against unfriendly legislation. Ittakes not only law, but the enforcement of law to keep it out. That is thehistory of this country upon the subject. 

I wish to ask one other question. It being understood that theConstitution of the United States guarantees property in slaves in theTerritories, if there is any infringement of the right of that property, would not the United States courts, organized for the government of theTerritory, apply such remedy as might be necessary in that case? It is amaxim held by the courts that there is no wrong without its remedy; andthe courts have a remedy for whatever is acknowledged and treated as awrong. 

Again: I will ask you, my friends, if you were elected members of theLegislature, what would be the first thing you would have to do beforeentering upon your duties? Swear to support the Constitution of the UnitedStates. Suppose you believe, as Judge Douglas does, that the Constitutionof the United States guarantees to your neighbor the right to hold slavesin that Territory; that they are his property: how can you clear youroaths unless you give him such legislation as is necessary to enablehim to enjoy that property? What do you understand by supporting theConstitution of a State, or of the United States? Is it not to give suchconstitutional helps to the rights established by that Constitution as maybe practically needed? Can you, if you swear to support the Constitution, and believe that the Constitution establishes a right, clear your oath, without giving it support? Do you support the Constitution if, knowingor believing there is a right established under it which needs specificlegislation, you withhold that legislation? Do you not violate anddisregard your oath? I can conceive of nothing plainer in the world. Therecan be nothing in the words "support the Constitution, " if you may runcounter to it by refusing support to any right established under theConstitution. And what I say here will hold with still more force againstthe Judge's doctrine of "unfriendly legislation. " How could you, havingsworn to support the Constitution, and believing it guaranteed the rightto hold slaves in the Territories, assist in legislation intendedto defeat that right? That would be violating your own view of theConstitution. Not only so, but if you were to do so, how long wouldit take the courts to hold your votes unconstitutional and void? Not amoment. 

Lastly, I would ask: Is not Congress itself under obligation to givelegislative support to any right that is established under the UnitedStates Constitution? I repeat the question: Is not Congress itself boundto give legislative support to any right that is established in theUnited States Constitution? A member of Congress swears to support theConstitution of the United States: and if he sees a right establishedby that Constitution which needs specific legislative protection, can heclear his oath without giving that protection? Let me ask you why many ofus who are opposed to slavery upon principle give our acquiescence to aFugitive Slave law? Why do we hold ourselves under obligations to passsuch a law, and abide by it when it is passed? Because the Constitutionmakes provision that the owners of slaves shall have the right to reclaimthem. It gives the right to reclaim slaves; and that right is, as JudgeDouglas says, a barren right, unless there is legislation that willenforce it. 

The mere declaration, "No person held to service or labor in one Stateunder the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of anylaw or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, butshall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labormay be due, " is powerless without specific legislation to enforce it. Now, on what ground would a member of Congress, who is opposed to slavery inthe abstract, vote for a Fugitive law, as I would deem it my duty to do?Because there is a constitutional right which needs legislation to enforceit. And although it is distasteful to me, I have sworn to support theConstitution; and having so sworn, I cannot conceive that I do supportit if I withhold from that right any necessary legislation to make itpractical. And if that is true in regard to a Fugitive Slave law, isthe right to have fugitive slaves reclaimed any better fixed in theConstitution than the right to hold slaves in the Territories? For thisdecision is a just exposition of the Constitution, as Judge Douglasthinks. Is the one right any better than the other? Is there any man who, while a member of Congress, would give support to the one any more thanthe other? If I wished to refuse to give legislative support to slaveproperty in the Territories, if a member of Congress, I could not do it, holding the view that the Constitution establishes that right. If I did itat all, it would be because I deny that this decision properly construesthe Constitution. But if I acknowledge, with Judge Douglas, that thisdecision properly construes the Constitution, I cannot conceive that Iwould be less than a perjured man if I should refuse in Congress to givesuch protection to that property as in its nature it needed. 

At the end of what I have said here I propose to give the Judge my fifthinterrogatory, which he may take and answer at his leisure. My fifthinterrogatory is this:

If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should needand demand Congressional legislation for the protection of their slaveproperty in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote foror against such legislation?

[Judge DOUGLAS: Will you repeat that? I want to answer that question. ]

If the slaveholding citizens of a United States Territory should needand demand Congressional legislation for the protection of their slaveproperty in such Territory, would you, as a member of Congress, vote foror against such legislation?

I am aware that in some of the speeches Judge Douglas has made, he hasspoken as if he did not know or think that the Supreme Court had decidedthat a Territorial Legislature cannot exclude slavery. Precisely what theJudge would say upon the subject--whether he would say definitely that hedoes not understand they have so decided, or whether he would say he doesunderstand that the court have so decided, --I do not know; but I knowthat in his speech at Springfield he spoke of it as a thing they had notdecided yet; and in his answer to me at Freeport, he spoke of it, so far, again, as I can comprehend it, as a thing that had not yet been decided. Now, I hold that if the Judge does entertain that view, I think that heis not mistaken in so far as it can be said that the court has notdecided anything save the mere question of jurisdiction. I know the legalarguments that can be made, --that after a court has decided that it cannottake jurisdiction in a case, it then has decided all that is before it, and that is the end of it. A plausible argument can be made in favor ofthat proposition; but I know that Judge Douglas has said in one of hisspeeches that the court went forward, like honest men as they were, and decided all the points in the case. If any points are reallyextra-judicially decided, because not necessarily before them, then thisone as to the power of the Territorial Legislature, to exclude slaveryis one of them, as also the one that the Missouri Compromise was null andvoid. They are both extra-judicial, or neither is, according as thecourt held that they had no jurisdiction in the case between the parties, because of want of capacity of one party to maintain a suit in that court. I want, if I have sufficient time, to show that the court did pass itsopinion; but that is the only thing actually done in the case. If they didnot decide, they showed what they were ready to decide whenever the matterwas before them. What is that opinion? After having argued that Congresshad no power to pass a law excluding slavery from a United StatesTerritory, they then used language to this effect: That inasmuch asCongress itself could not exercise such a power, it followed as a matterof course that it could not authorize a Territorial government to exerciseit; for the Territorial Legislature can do no more than Congress coulddo. Thus it expressed its opinion emphatically against the power of aTerritorial Legislature to exclude slavery, leaving us in just as littledoubt on that point as upon any other point they really decided. 

Now, my fellow-citizens, I will detain you only a little while longer; mytime is nearly out. I find a report of a speech made by Judge Douglasat Joliet, since we last met at Freeport, --published, I believe, in theMissouri Republican, on the 9th of this month, in which Judge Douglassays:

"You know at Ottawa I read this platform, and asked him if he concurred ineach and all of the principles set forth in it. He would not answer thesequestions. At last I said frankly, I wish you to answer them, because whenI get them up here where the color of your principles are a little darkerthan in Egypt, I intend to trot you down to Jonesboro. The very noticethat I was going to take him down to Egypt made him tremble in his kneesso that he had to be carried from the platform. He laid up seven days, andin the meantime held a consultation with his political physicians; theyhad Lovejoy and Farnsworth and all the leaders of the Abolition party, they consulted it all over, and at last Lincoln came to the conclusionthat he would answer, so he came up to Freeport last Friday. "

Now, that statement altogether furnishes a subject for philosophicalcontemplation. I have been treating it in that way, and I have really cometo the conclusion that I can explain it in no other way than by believingthe Judge is crazy. If he was in his right mind I cannot conceive how hewould have risked disgusting the four or five thousand of his own friendswho stood there and knew, as to my having been carried from the platform, that there was not a word of truth in it. 

[Judge DOUGLAS: Did n't they carry you off?]

There that question illustrates the character of this man Douglas exactly. He smiles now, and says, "Did n't they carry you off?" but he said then"he had to be carried off"; and he said it to convince the country thathe had so completely broken me down by his speech that I had to be carriedaway. Now he seeks to dodge it, and asks, "Did n't they carry you off?"Yes, they did. But, Judge Douglas, why didn't you tell the truth? I wouldlike to know why you did n't tell the truth about it. And then again "Helaid up seven days. " He put this in print for the people of the country toread as a serious document. I think if he had been in his sober senses hewould not have risked that barefacedness in the presence of thousands ofhis own friends who knew that I made speeches within six of the seven daysat Henry, Marshall County, Augusta, Hancock County, and Macomb, McDonoughCounty, including all the necessary travel to meet him again at Freeportat the end of the six days. Now I say there is no charitable way to lookat that statement, except to conclude that he is actually crazy. There isanother thing in that statement that alarmed me very greatly as he statesit, that he was going to "trot me down to Egypt. " Thereby he would haveyou infer that I would not come to Egypt unless he forced me--that Icould not be got here unless he, giant-like, had hauled me down here. Thatstatement he makes, too, in the teeth of the knowledge that I had made thestipulation to come down here and that he himself had been very reluctantto enter into the stipulation. More than all this: Judge Douglas, whenhe made that statement, must have been crazy and wholly out of his sobersenses, or else he would have known that when he got me down here, thatpromise--that windy promise--of his powers to annihilate me, would n'tamount to anything. Now, how little do I look like being carried awaytrembling? Let the Judge go on; and after he is done with his half-hour, Iwant you all, if I can't go home myself, to let me stay and rot here; andif anything happens to the Judge, if I cannot carry him to the hotel andput him to bed, let me stay here and rot. I say, then, here is somethingextraordinary in this statement. I ask you if you know any other livingman who would make such a statement? I will ask my friend Casey, overthere, if he would do such a thing? Would he send that out and have hismen take it as the truth? Did the Judge talk of trotting me down to Egyptto scare me to death? Why, I know this people better than he does. I wasraised just a little east of here. I am a part of this people. But theJudge was raised farther north, and perhaps he has some horrid idea ofwhat this people might be induced to do. But really I have talked aboutthis matter perhaps longer than I ought, for it is no great thing; and yetthe smallest are often the most difficult things to deal with. The Judgehas set about seriously trying to make the impression that when we meetat different places I am literally in his clutches--that I am a poor, helpless, decrepit mouse, and that I can do nothing at all. This is oneof the ways he has taken to create that impression. I don't know any otherway to meet it except this. I don't want to quarrel with him--to call hima liar; but when I come square up to him I don't know what else to callhim if I must tell the truth out. I want to be at peace, and reserve allmy fighting powers for necessary occasions. My time now is very nearlyout, and I give up the trifle that is left to the Judge, to let him set myknees trembling again, if he can. Set my knees trembling again, if he can. 

THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

VOLUME FOUR

CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION

By Abraham Lincoln

Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley

THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Volume Four

THE LINCOLN-DOUGLAS DEBATES II

LINCOLN AND DOUGLAS FOURTH DEBATE, AT CHARLESTON, SEPTEMBER 18, 1858. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--It will be very difficult for an audience so largeas this to hear distinctly what a speaker says, and consequently it isimportant that as profound silence be preserved as possible. 

While I was at the hotel to-day, an elderly gentleman called upon me toknow whether I was really in favor of producing a perfect equality betweenthe negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on thisoccasion to say much on that subject, yet as the question was asked me Ithought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regardto it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor ofbringing about in any way the social and political equality of the whiteand black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of makingvoters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, norto intermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, thatthere is a physical difference between the white and black races whichI believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms ofsocial and political equality. And in as much as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superiorand inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having thesuperior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasionI do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superiorposition the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand thatbecause I do not want a negro woman for a slave I must necessarily wanther for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I amnow in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman foreither a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to getalong without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to thisthat I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child who wasin favor of producing a perfect equality, social and political, betweennegroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instancethat I ever heard of so frequently as to be entirely satisfied of itscorrectness, and that is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend ColonelRichard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I amnot going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had theleast apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there wasno law to keep them from it; but as Judge Douglas and his friends seemto be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keepthem from it, I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the verylast stand by the law of this State which forbids the marrying of whitepeople with negroes. I will add one further word, which is this: that I donot understand that there is any place where an alteration of the socialand political relations of the negro and the white man can be made, exceptin the State Legislature, --not in the Congress of the United States; andas I do not really apprehend the approach of any such thing myself, andas Judge Douglas seems to be in constant horror that some such danger israpidly approaching, I propose as the best means to prevent it that theJudge be kept at home, and placed in the State Legislature to fight themeasure. I do not propose dwelling longer at this time on this subject. 

When Judge Trumbull, our other Senator in Congress, returned to Illinoisin the month of August, he made a speech at Chicago, in which he made whatmay be called a charge against Judge Douglas, which I understand proved tobe very offensive to him. The Judge was at that time out upon one of hisspeaking tours through the country, and when the news of it reached him, as I am informed, he denounced Judge Trumbull in rather harsh terms forhaving said what he did in regard to that matter. I was traveling at thattime, and speaking at the same places with Judge Douglas on subsequentdays, and when I heard of what Judge Trumbull had said of Douglas, andwhat Douglas had said back again, I felt that I was in a position whereI could not remain entirely silent in regard to the matter. Consequently, upon two or three occasions I alluded to it, and alluded to it in no otherwise than to say that in regard to the charge brought by Trumbull againstDouglas, I personally knew nothing, and sought to say nothing about it;that I did personally know Judge Trumbull; that I believed him to be aman of veracity; that I believed him to be a man of capacity sufficient toknow very well whether an assertion he was making, as a conclusion drawnfrom a set of facts, was true or false; and as a conclusion of my own fromthat, I stated it as my belief if Trumbull should ever be called upon, he would prove everything he had said. I said this upon two or threeoccasions. Upon a subsequent occasion, Judge Trumbull spoke again beforean audience at Alton, and upon that occasion not only repeated his chargeagainst Douglas, but arrayed the evidence he relied upon to substantiateit. This speech was published at length; and subsequently at JacksonvilleJudge Douglas alluded to the matter. In the course of his speech, and nearthe close of it, he stated in regard to myself what I will now read:

"Judge Douglas proceeded to remark that he should not hereafter occupy histime in refuting such charges made by Trumbull, but that, Lincoln havingindorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, he should hold him(Lincoln) responsible for the slanders. "

I have done simply what I have told you, to subject me to this invitationto notice the charge. I now wish to say that it had not originally been mypurpose to discuss that matter at all But in-as-much as it seems to be thewish of Judge Douglas to hold me responsible for it, then for once inmy life I will play General Jackson, and to the just extent I take theresponsibility. 

I wish to say at the beginning that I will hand to the reporters thatportion of Judge Trumbull's Alton speech which was devoted to this matter, and also that portion of Judge Douglas's speech made at Jacksonville inanswer to it. I shall thereby furnish the readers of this debate with thecomplete discussion between Trumbull and Douglas. I cannot now read them, for the reason that it would take half of my first hour to do so. I canonly make some comments upon them. Trumbull's charge is in the followingwords:

"Now, the charge is, that there was a plot entered into to have aconstitution formed for Kansas, and put in force, without giving thepeople an opportunity to vote upon it, and that Mr. Douglas was in theplot. "

I will state, without quoting further, for all will have an opportunity ofreading it hereafter, that Judge Trumbull brings forward what he regardsas sufficient evidence to substantiate this charge. 

It will be perceived Judge Trumbull shows that Senator Bigler, upon thefloor of the Senate, had declared there had been a conference among thesenators, in which conference it was determined to have an enabling actpassed for the people of Kansas to form a constitution under, and inthis conference it was agreed among them that it was best not to have aprovision for submitting the constitution to a vote of the people afterit should be formed. He then brings forward to show, and showing, as hedeemed, that Judge Douglas reported the bill back to the Senate with thatclause stricken out. He then shows that there was a new clause insertedinto the bill, which would in its nature prevent a reference of theconstitution back for a vote of the people, --if, indeed, upon a meresilence in the law, it could be assumed that they had the right to voteupon it. These are the general statements that he has made. 

I propose to examine the points in Judge Douglas's speech in which heattempts to answer that speech of Judge Trumbull's. When you come toexamine Judge Douglas's speech, you will find that the first point hemakes is:

"Suppose it were true that there was such a change in the bill, and thatI struck it out, --is that a proof of a plot to force a constitution uponthem against their will?"

His striking out such a provision, if there was such a one in the bill, he argues, does not establish the proof that it was stricken out for thepurpose of robbing the people of that right. I would say, in the firstplace, that that would be a most manifest reason for it. It is true, asJudge Douglas states, that many Territorial bills have passed withouthaving such a provision in them. I believe it is true, though I am notcertain, that in some instances constitutions framed under such billshave been submitted to a vote of the people with the law silent upon thesubject; but it does not appear that they once had their enabling actsframed with an express provision for submitting the constitution to beframed to a vote of the people, then that they were stricken out whenCongress did not mean to alter the effect of the law. That there have beenbills which never had the provision in, I do not question; but when wasthat provision taken out of one that it was in? More especially does theevidence tend to prove the proposition that Trumbull advanced, whenwe remember that the provision was stricken out of the bill almostsimultaneously with the time that Bigler says there was a conference amongcertain senators, and in which it was agreed that a bill should be passedleaving that out. Judge Douglas, in answering Trumbull, omits to attend tothe testimony of Bigler, that there was a meeting in which it was agreedthey should so frame the bill that there should be no submission of theconstitution to a vote of the people. The Judge does not notice this partof it. If you take this as one piece of evidence, and then ascertain thatsimultaneously Judge Douglas struck out a provision that did require it tobe submitted, and put the two together, I think it will make a pretty fairshow of proof that Judge Douglas did, as Trumbull says, enter into a plotto put in force a constitution for Kansas, without giving the people anyopportunity of voting upon it. 

But I must hurry on. The next proposition that Judge Douglas puts is this:

"But upon examination it turns out that the Toombs bill never did containa clause requiring the constitution to be submitted. "

This is a mere question of fact, and can be determined by evidence. I onlywant to ask this question: Why did not Judge Douglas say that these wordswere not stricken out of the Toomb's bill, or this bill from which it isalleged the provision was stricken out, --a bill which goes by the name ofToomb's, because he originally brought it forward? I ask why, if the Judgewanted to make a direct issue with Trumbull, did he not take the exactproposition Trumbull made in his speech, and say it was not stricken out?Trumbull has given the exact words that he says were in the Toomb's bill, and he alleges that when the bill came back, they were stricken out. JudgeDouglas does not say that the words which Trumbull says were strickenout were not so stricken out, but he says there was no provision in theToomb's bill to submit the constitution to a vote of the people. We see atonce that he is merely making an issue upon the meaning of the words. He has not undertaken to say that Trumbull tells a lie about these wordsbeing stricken out, but he is really, when pushed up to it, only taking anissue upon the meaning of the words. Now, then, if there be any issue uponthe meaning of the words, or if there be upon the question of fact as towhether these words were stricken out, I have before me what I suppose tobe a genuine copy of the Toomb's bill, in which it can be shown that thewords Trumbull says were in it were, in fact, originally there. If therebe any dispute upon the fact, I have got the documents here to showthey were there. If there be any controversy upon the sense of thewords, --whether these words which were stricken out really constituted aprovision for submitting the matter to a vote of the people, --as that is amatter of argument, I think I may as well use Trumbull's own argument. Hesays that the proposition is in these words:

"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered tothe said Convention of the people of Kansas when formed, for their freeacceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratifiedby the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shallbe obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas. "

Now, Trumbull alleges that these last words were stricken out of the billwhen it came back, and he says this was a provision for submitting theconstitution to a vote of the people; and his argument is this:

"Would it have been possible to ratify the land propositions at theelection for the adoption of the constitution, unless such an election wasto be held?"

This is Trumbull's argument. Now, Judge Douglas does not meet the chargeat all, but he stands up and says there was no such proposition in thatbill for submitting the constitution to be framed to a vote of the people. Trumbull admits that the language is not a direct provision for submittingit, but it is a provision necessarily implied from another provision. Heasks you how it is possible to ratify the land proposition at the electionfor the adoption of the constitution, if there was no election to be heldfor the adoption of the constitution. And he goes on to show that it isnot any less a law because the provision is put in that indirect shapethan it would be if it were put directly. But I presume I have said enoughto draw attention to this point, and I pass it by also. 

Another one of the points that Judge Douglas makes upon Trumbull, and atvery great length, is, that Trumbull, while the bill was pending, said ina speech in the Senate that he supposed the constitution to be made wouldhave to be submitted to the people. He asks, if Trumbull thought so then, what ground is there for anybody thinking otherwise now? Fellow-citizens, this much may be said in reply: That bill had been in the hands of aparty to which Trumbull did not belong. It had been in the hands of thecommittee at the head of which Judge Douglas stood. Trumbull perhaps had aprinted copy of the original Toomb's bill. I have not the evidence onthat point except a sort of inference I draw from the general courseof business there. What alterations, or what provisions in the way ofaltering, were going on in committee, Trumbull had no means of knowing, until the altered bill was reported back. Soon afterwards, when it wasreported back, there was a discussion over it, and perhaps Trumbull inreading it hastily in the altered form did not perceive all the bearingsof the alterations. He was hastily borne into the debate, and it does notfollow that because there was something in it Trumbull did not perceive, that something did not exist. More than this, is it true that whatTrumbull did can have any effect on what Douglas did? Suppose Trumbull hadbeen in the plot with these other men, would that let Douglas out of it?Would it exonerate Douglas that Trumbull did n't then perceive he was inthe plot? He also asks the question: Why did n't Trumbull propose toamend the bill, if he thought it needed any amendment? Why, I believe thateverything Judge Trumbull had proposed, particularly in connection withthis question of Kansas and Nebraska, since he had been on the floor ofthe Senate, had been promptly voted down by Judge Douglas and his friends. He had no promise that an amendment offered by him to anything on thissubject would receive the slightest consideration. Judge Trumbull didbring to the notice of the Senate at that time the fact that there was noprovision for submitting the constitution about to be made for the peopleof Kansas to a vote of the people. I believe I may venture to say thatJudge Douglas made some reply to this speech of Judge Trumbull's, but henever noticed that part of it at all. And so the thing passed by. I think, then, the fact that Judge Trumbull offered no amendment does not throwmuch blame upon him; and if it did, it does not reach the question of factas to what Judge Douglas was doing. I repeat, that if Trumbull had himselfbeen in the plot, it would not at all relieve the others who were in itfrom blame. If I should be indicted for murder, and upon the trial itshould be discovered that I had been implicated in that murder, but thatthe prosecuting witness was guilty too, that would not at all touchthe question of my crime. It would be no relief to my neck that theydiscovered this other man who charged the crime upon me to be guilty too. 

Another one of the points Judge Douglas makes upon Judge Trumbull is, thatwhen he spoke in Chicago he made his charge to rest upon the fact that thebill had the provision in it for submitting the constitution to a voteof the people when it went into his Judge Douglas's hands, that it wasmissing when he reported it to the Senate, and that in a public speech hehad subsequently said the alterations in the bill were made while it wasin committee, and that they were made in consultation between him (JudgeDouglas) and Toomb's. And Judge Douglas goes on to comment upon the factof Trumbull's adducing in his Alton speech the proposition that the billnot only came back with that proposition stricken out, but with anotherclause and another provision in it, saying that "until thecomplete execution of this Act there shall be no election in saidTerritory, "--which, Trumbull argued, was not only taking the provisionfor submitting to a vote of the people out of the bill, but was adding anaffirmative one, in that it prevented the people from exercising the rightunder a bill that was merely silent on the question. Now, in regardto what he says, that Trumbull shifts the issue, that he shifts hisground, --and I believe he uses the term that, "it being proven false, hehas changed ground, " I call upon all of you, when you come to examine thatportion of Trumbull's speech (for it will make a part of mine), to examinewhether Trumbull has shifted his ground or not. I say he did not shift hisground, but that he brought forward his original charge and the evidenceto sustain it yet more fully, but precisely as he originally made it. Then, in addition thereto, he brought in a new piece of evidence. Heshifted no ground. He brought no new piece of evidence inconsistent withhis former testimony; but he brought a new piece, tending, as he thought, and as I think, to prove his proposition. To illustrate: A man bringsan accusation against another, and on trial the man making the chargeintroduces A and B to prove the accusation. At a second trial heintroduces the same witnesses, who tell the same story as before, and athird witness, who tells the same thing, and in addition gives furthertestimony corroborative of the charge. So with Trumbull. There was noshifting of ground, nor inconsistency of testimony between the new pieceof evidence and what he originally introduced. 

But Judge Douglas says that he himself moved to strike out that lastprovision of the bill, and that on his motion it was stricken out and asubstitute inserted. That I presume is the truth. I presume it is truethat that last proposition was stricken out by Judge Douglas. Trumbullhas not said it was not; Trumbull has himself said that it was so strickenout. He says: "I am now speaking of the bill as Judge Douglas reportedit back. It was amended somewhat in the Senate before it passed, but I amspeaking of it as he brought it back. " Now, when Judge Douglas parades thefact that the provision was stricken out of the bill when it came back, heasserts nothing contrary to what Trumbull alleges. Trumbull has only saidthat he originally put it in, not that he did not strike it out. Trumbullsays it was not in the bill when it went to the committee. When it cameback it was in, and Judge Douglas said the alterations were made by him inconsultation with Toomb's. Trumbull alleges, therefore, as his conclusion, that Judge Douglas put it in. Then, if Douglas wants to contradictTrumbull and call him a liar, let him say he did not put it in, and notthat he did n't take it out again. It is said that a bear is sometimeshard enough pushed to drop a cub; and so I presume it was in this case. I presume the truth is that Douglas put it in, and afterward took it out. That, I take it, is the truth about it. Judge Trumbull says one thing, Douglas says another thing, and the two don't contradict one another atall. The question is, what did he put it in for? In the first place, whatdid he take the other provision out of the bill for, --the provision whichTrumbull argued was necessary for submitting the constitution to a vote ofthe people? What did he take that out for; and, having taken it out, whatdid he put this in for? I say that in the run of things it is not unlikelyforces conspire to render it vastly expedient for Judge Douglas to takethat latter clause out again. The question that Trumbull has made isthat Judge Douglas put it in; and he don't meet Trumbull at all unless hedenies that. 

In the clause of Judge Douglas's speech upon this subject he uses thislanguage toward Judge Trumbull. He says:

"He forges his evidence from beginning to end; and by falsifying therecord, he endeavors to bolster up his false charge. "

Well, that is a pretty serious statement--Trumbull forges his evidencefrom beginning to end. Now, upon my own authority I say that it is nottrue. What is a forgery? Consider the evidence that Trumbull has broughtforward. When you come to read the speech, as you will be able to, examinewhether the evidence is a forgery from beginning to end. He had the billor document in his hand like that [holding up a paper]. He says that is acopy of the Toomb's bill, --the amendment offered by Toomb's. He says thatis a copy of the bill as it was introduced and went into Judge Douglas'shands. Now, does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery? That is one thingTrumbull brought forward. Judge Douglas says he forged it from beginningto end! That is the "beginning, " we will say. Does Douglas say that is aforgery? Let him say it to-day, and we will have a subsequent examinationupon this subject. Trumbull then holds up another document like this, andsays that is an exact copy of the bill as it came back in the amended formout of Judge Douglas's hands. Does Judge Douglas say that is a forgery?Does he say it in his general sweeping charge? Does he say so now? If hedoes not, then take this Toomb's bill and the bill in the amended form, and it only needs to compare them to see that the provision is in the oneand not in the other; it leaves the inference inevitable that it was takenout. 

But, while I am dealing with this question, let us see what Trumbull'sother evidence is. One other piece of evidence I will read. Trumbull saysthere are in this original Toomb's bill these words:

"That the following propositions be and the same are hereby offered tothe said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their freeacceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratifiedby the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shallbe obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas. "

Now, if it is said that this is a forgery, we will open the paper here andsee whether it is or not. Again, Trumbull says, as he goes along, that Mr. Bigler made the following statement in his place in the Senate, December9, 1857:

"I was present when that subject was discussed by senators before the billwas introduced, and the question was raised and discussed, whether theconstitution, when formed, should be submitted to a vote of the people. Itwas held by those most intelligent on the subject that, in view of all thedifficulties surrounding that Territory, the danger of any experiment atthat time of a popular vote, it would be better there should be no suchprovision in the Toomb's bill; and it was my understanding, in all theintercourse I had, that the Convention would make a constitution, and sendit here, without submitting it to the popular vote. "

Then Trumbull follows on:

"In speaking of this meeting again on the 21st December, 1857[Congressional Globe, same vol. , page 113], Senator Bigler said:

"'Nothing was further from my mind than to allude to any social orconfidential interview. The meeting was not of that character. Indeed, itwas semi-official, and called to promote the public good. My recollectionwas clear that I left the conference under the impression that it hadbeen deemed best to adopt measures to admit Kansas as a State through theagency of one popular election, and that for delegates to this Convention. This impression was stronger because I thought the spirit of the billinfringed upon the doctrine of non-intervention, to which I had greataversion; but with the hope of accomplishing a great good, and as nomovement had been made in that direction in the Territory, I waived thisobjection, and concluded to support the measure. I have a few items oftestimony as to the correctness of these impressions, and with theirsubmission I shall be content. I have before me the bill reported bythe senator from Illinois on the 7th of March, 1856, providing for theadmission of Kansas as a State, the third section of which reads asfollows:

"That the following propositions be, and the same are hereby offered tothe said Convention of the people of Kansas, when formed, for their freeacceptance or rejection; which, if accepted by the Convention and ratifiedby the people at the election for the adoption of the constitution, shallbe obligatory upon the United States and the said State of Kansas. "

The bill read in his place by the senator from Georgia on the 25th ofJune, and referred to the Committee on Territories, contained the samesection word for word. Both these bills were under consideration at theconference referred to; but, sir, when the senator from Illinois reportedthe Toombs bill to the Senate with amendments, the next morning, it didnot contain that portion of the third section which indicated to theConvention that the constitution should be approved by the people. Thewords "and ratified by the people at the election for the adoption of theconstitution" had been stricken out. 

Now, these things Trumbull says were stated by Bigler upon the floorof the Senate on certain days, and that they are recorded in theCongressional Globe on certain pages. Does Judge Douglas say this is aforgery? Does he say there is no such thing in the Congressional Globe?What does he mean when he says Judge Trumbull forges his evidence frombeginning to end? So again he says in another place that Judge Douglas, in his speech, December 9, 1857 (Congressional Globe, part I. , page 15), stated:

"That during the last session of Congress, I [Mr. Douglas] reported a billfrom the Committee on Territories, to authorize the people of Kansas toassemble and form a constitution for themselves. Subsequently the senatorfrom Georgia [Mr. Toombs] brought forward a substitute for my bill, which, after having been modified by him and myself in consultation, was passedby the Senate. "

Now, Trumbull says this is a quotation from a speech of Douglas, and isrecorded in the Congressional Globe. Is it a forgery? Is it there ornot? It may not be there, but I want the Judge to take these pieces ofevidence, and distinctly say they are forgeries if he dare do it. 

[A voice: "He will. "]

Well, sir, you had better not commit him. He gives otherquotations, --another from Judge Douglas. He says:

"I will ask the senator to show me an intimation, from any one member ofthe Senate, in the whole debate on the Toombs bill, and in the Union, fromany quarter, that the constitution was not to be submitted to thepeople. I will venture to say that on all sides of the chamber it was sounderstood at the time. If the opponents of the bill had understood itwas not, they would have made the point on it; and if they had made it, we should certainly have yielded to it, and put in the clause. That is adiscovery made since the President found out that it was not safe to takeit for granted that that would be done, which ought in fairness to havebeen done. "

Judge Trumbull says Douglas made that speech, and it is recorded. DoesJudge Douglas say it is a forgery, and was not true? Trumbull sayssomewhere, and I propose to skip it, but it will be found by any one whowill read this debate, that he did distinctly bring it to the notice ofthose who were engineering the bill, that it lacked that provision; andthen he goes on to give another quotation from Judge Douglas, where JudgeTrumbull uses this language:

"Judge Douglas, however, on the same day and in the same debate, probablyrecollecting or being reminded of the fact that I had objected to theToombs bill when pending that it did not provide for a submission of theconstitution to the people, made another statement, which is to be foundin the same volume of the Globe, page 22, in which he says: 'That the billwas silent on this subject was true, and my attention was called to thatabout the time it was passed; and I took the fair construction to be, thatpowers not delegated were reserved, and that of course the constitutionwould be submitted to the people. '

"Whether this statement is consistent with the statement just before made, that had the point been made it would have been yielded to, or that it wasa new discovery, you will determine. "

So I say. I do not know whether Judge Douglas will dispute this, and yetmaintain his position that Trumbull's evidence "was forged from beginningto end. " I will remark that I have not got these Congressional Globeswith me. They are large books, and difficult to carry about, and if JudgeDouglas shall say that on these points where Trumbull has quoted from themthere are no such passages there, I shall not be able to prove they arethere upon this occasion, but I will have another chance. Whenever hepoints out the forgery and says, "I declare that this particular thingwhich Trumbull has uttered is not to be found where he says it is, " thenmy attention will be drawn to that, and I will arm myself for the contest, stating now that I have not the slightest doubt on earth that I will findevery quotation just where Trumbull says it is. Then the question is, Howcan Douglas call that a forgery? How can he make out that it is a forgery?What is a forgery? It is the bringing forward something in writing or inprint purporting to be of certain effect when it is altogether untrue. Ifyou come forward with my note for one hundred dollars when I have nevergiven such a note, there is a forgery. If you come forward with a letterpurporting to be written by me which I never wrote, there is anotherforgery. If you produce anything in writing or in print saying it is soand so, the document not being genuine, a forgery has been committed. Howdo you make this forgery when every piece of the evidence is genuine?If Judge Douglas does say these documents and quotations are false andforged, he has a full right to do so; but until he does it specifically, we don't know how to get at him. If he does say they are false andforged, I will then look further into it, and presume I can procure thecertificates of the proper officers that they are genuine copies. I haveno doubt each of these extracts will be found exactly where Trumbull saysit is. Then I leave it to you if Judge Douglas, in making his sweepingcharge that Judge Trumbull's evidence is forged from beginning to end, at all meets the case, --if that is the way to get at the facts. I repeatagain, if he will point out which one is a forgery, I will carefullyexamine it, and if it proves that any one of them is really a forgery, it will not be me who will hold to it any longer. I have always wantedto deal with everyone I meet candidly and honestly. If I have made anyassertion not warranted by facts, and it is pointed out to me, I willwithdraw it cheerfully. But I do not choose to see Judge Trumbullcalumniated, and the evidence he has brought forward branded in generalterms "a forgery from beginning to end. " This is not the legal way ofmeeting a charge, and I submit it to all intelligent persons, both friendsof Judge Douglas and of myself, whether it is. 

The point upon Judge Douglas is this: The bill that went into his handshad the provision in it for a submission of the constitution to thepeople; and I say its language amounts to an express provision for asubmission, and that he took the provision out. He says it was known thatthe bill was silent in this particular; but I say, Judge Douglas, it wasnot silent when you got it. It was vocal with the declaration, when yougot it, for a submission of the constitution to the people. And now, mydirect question to Judge Douglas is, to answer why, if he deemed the billsilent on this point, he found it necessary to strike out those particularharmless words. If he had found the bill silent and without thisprovision, he might say what he does now. If he supposes it was impliedthat the constitution would be submitted to a vote of the people, howcould these two lines so encumber the statute as to make it necessary tostrike them out? How could he infer that a submission was still implied, after its express provision had been stricken from the bill? I find thebill vocal with the provision, while he silenced it. He took it out, andalthough he took out the other provision preventing a submission to a voteof the people, I ask, Why did you first put it in? I ask him whether hetook the original provision out, which Trumbull alleges was in the bill. If he admits that he did take it, I ask him what he did it for. It looksto us as if he had altered the bill. If it looks differently to him, --ifhe has a different reason for his action from the one we assign him--hecan tell it. I insist upon knowing why he made the bill silent upon thatpoint when it was vocal before he put his hands upon it. 

I was told, before my last paragraph, that my time was within threeminutes of being out. I presume it is expired now; I therefore close. 

Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS: It follows as a matter of course that a half-hour answerto a speech of an hour and a half can be but a very hurried one. I shallonly be able to touch upon a few of the points suggested by Judge Douglas, and give them a brief attention, while I shall have to totally omit othersfor the want of time. 

Judge Douglas has said to you that he has not been able to get from me ananswer to the question whether I am in favor of negro citizenship. So faras I know the Judge never asked me the question before. He shall have nooccasion to ever ask it again, for I tell him very frankly that I am notin favor of negro citizenship. This furnishes me an occasion for saying afew words upon the subject. I mentioned in a certain speech of mine, whichhas been printed, that the Supreme Court had decided that a negro couldnot possibly be made a citizen; and without saying what was my ground ofcomplaint in regard to that, or whether I had any ground of complaint, Judge Douglas has from that thing manufactured nearly everything that heever says about my disposition to produce an equality between the negroesand the white people. If any one will read my speech, he will find Imentioned that as one of the points decided in the course of the SupremeCourt opinions, but I did not state what objection I had to it. But JudgeDouglas tells the people what my objection was when I did not tell themmyself. Now, my opinion is that the different States have the power tomake a negro a citizen under the Constitution of the United States if theychoose. The Dred Scott decision decides that they have not that power. Ifthe State of Illinois had that power, I should be opposed to the exerciseof it. That is all I have to say about it. 

Judge Douglas has told me that he heard my speeches north and my speechessouth; that he had heard me at Ottawa and at Freeport in the north andrecently at Jonesboro in the south, and there was a very different cast ofsentiment in the speeches made at the different points. I will not chargeupon Judge Douglas that he wilfully misrepresents me, but I call uponevery fair-minded man to take these speeches and read them, and I dare himto point out any difference between my speeches north and south. While Iam here perhaps I ought to say a word, if I have the time, in regard tothe latter portion of the Judge's speech, which was a sort of declamationin reference to my having said I entertained the belief that thisgovernment would not endure half slave and half free. I have said so, andI did not say it without what seemed to me to be good reasons. It perhapswould require more time than I have now to set forth these reasons indetail; but let me ask you a few questions. Have we ever had any peace onthis slavery question? When are we to have peace upon it, if it is kept inthe position it now occupies? How are we ever to have peace upon it? Thatis an important question. To be sure, if we will all stop, and allow JudgeDouglas and his friends to march on in their present career until theyplant the institution all over the nation, here and wherever else our flagwaves, and we acquiesce in it, there will be peace. But let me ask JudgeDouglas how he is going to get the people to do that? They have beenwrangling over this question for at least forty years. This was the causeof the agitation resulting in the Missouri Compromise; this produced thetroubles at the annexation of Texas, in the acquisition of the territoryacquired in the Mexican War. Again, this was the trouble which was quietedby the Compromise of 1850, when it was settled "forever" as both the greatpolitical parties declared in their National Conventions. That "forever"turned out to be just four years, when Judge Douglas himself reopened it. When is it likely to come to an end? He introduced the Nebraska Bill in1854 to put another end to the slavery agitation. He promised that itwould finish it all up immediately, and he has never made a speechsince, until he got into a quarrel with the President about the LecomptonConstitution, in which he has not declared that we are just at the end ofthe slavery agitation. But in one speech, I think last winter, he didsay that he did n't quite see when the end of the slavery agitation wouldcome. Now he tells us again that it is all over and the people of Kansashave voted down the Lecompton Constitution. How is it over? That was onlyone of the attempts at putting an end to the slavery agitation--oneof these "final settlements. " Is Kansas in the Union? Has she formeda constitution that she is likely to come in under? Is not the slaveryagitation still an open question in that Territory? Has the voting downof that constitution put an end to all the trouble? Is that more likely tosettle it than every one of these previous attempts to settle the slaveryagitation? Now, at this day in the history of the world we can no moreforetell where the end of this slavery agitation will be than we can seethe end of the world itself. The Nebraska-Kansas Bill was introduced fouryears and a half ago, and if the agitation is ever to come to an end wemay say we are four years and a half nearer the end. So, too, we can saywe are four years and a half nearer the end of the world, and we canjust as clearly see the end of the world as we can see the end of thisagitation. The Kansas settlement did not conclude it. If Kansas shouldsink to-day, and leave a great vacant space in the earth's surface, thisvexed question would still be among us. I say, then, there is no way ofputting an end to the slavery agitation amongst us but to put it back uponthe basis where our fathers placed it; no way but to keep it out of ournew Territories, --to restrict it forever to the old States where it nowexists. Then the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in thecourse of ultimate extinction. That is one way of putting an end to theslavery agitation. 

The other way is for us to surrender and let Judge Douglas and his friendshave their way and plant slavery over all the States; cease speaking ofit as in any way a wrong; regard slavery as one of the common mattersof property, and speak of negroes as we do of our horses and cattle. Butwhile it drives on in its state of progress as it is now driving, and asit has driven for the last five years, I have ventured the opinion, andI say to-day, that we will have no end to the slavery agitation untilit takes one turn or the other. I do not mean that when it takes a turntoward ultimate extinction it will be in a day, nor in a year, nor in twoyears. I do not suppose that in the most peaceful way ultimate extinctionwould occur in less than a hundred years at least; but that it will occurin the best way for both races, in God's own good time, I have no doubt. But, my friends, I have used up more of my time than I intended on thispoint. 

Now, in regard to this matter about Trumbull and myself having made abargain to sell out the entire Whig and Democratic parties in 1854: JudgeDouglas brings forward no evidence to sustain his charge, exceptthe speech Matheny is said to have made in 1856, in which he told acock-and-bull story of that sort, upon the same moral principles thatJudge Douglas tells it here to-day. This is the simple truth. I do notcare greatly for the story, but this is the truth of it: and I have twicetold Judge Douglas to his face that from beginning to end there is not oneword of truth in it. I have called upon him for the proof, and he doesnot at all meet me as Trumbull met him upon that of which we were justtalking, by producing the record. He did n't bring the record becausethere was no record for him to bring. When he asks if I am ready toindorse Trumbull's veracity after he has broken a bargain with me, I replythat if Trumbull had broken a bargain with me I would not be likely toindorse his veracity; but I am ready to indorse his veracity becauseneither in that thing, nor in any other, in all the years that I haveknown Lyman Trumbull, have I known him to fail of his word or tell afalsehood large or small. It is for that reason that I indorse LymanTrumbull. 

[Mr. JAMES BROWN (Douglas postmaster): "What does Ford's History say abouthim?"]

Some gentleman asks me what Ford's History says about him. My ownrecollection is that Ford speaks of Trumbull in very disrespectful termsin several portions of his book, and that he talks a great deal worse ofJudge Douglas. I refer you, sir, to the History for examination. 

Judge Douglas complains at considerable length about a disposition on thepart of Trumbull and myself to attack him personally. I want to attend tothat suggestion a moment. I don't want to be unjustly accused of dealingilliberally or unfairly with an adversary, either in court or in apolitical canvass or anywhere else. I would despise myself if I supposedmyself ready to deal less liberally with an adversary than I was willingto be treated myself. Judge Douglas in a general way, without putting itin a direct shape, revives the old charge against me in reference to theMexican War. He does not take the responsibility of putting it in a verydefinite form, but makes a general reference to it. That charge is morethan ten years old. He complains of Trumbull and myself because he sayswe bring charges against him one or two years old. He knows, too, thatin regard to the Mexican War story the more respectable papers of hisown party throughout the State have been compelled to take it back andacknowledge that it was a lie. 

[Here Mr. LINCOLN turned to the crowd on the platform, and, selecting HON. ORLANDO B. FICKLIN, led him forward and said:]

I do not mean to do anything with Mr. FICKLIN except to present his faceand tell you that he personally knows it to be a lie! He was a memberof Congress at the only time I was in Congress, and [FICKLIN] knowsthat whenever there was an attempt to procure a vote of mine whichwould indorse the origin and justice of the war, I refused to give suchindorsement and voted against it; but I never voted against the suppliesfor the army, and he knows, as well as Judge Douglas, that whenever adollar was asked by way of compensation or otherwise for the benefit ofthe soldiers I gave all the votes that FICKLIN or Douglas did, and perhapsmore. 

[Mr. FICKLIN: My friends, I wish to say this in reference to the matter:Mr. Lincoln and myself are just as good personal friends as Judge Douglasand myself. In reference to this Mexican War, my recollection is thatwhen Ashmun's resolution [amendment] was offered by Mr. Ashmun ofMassachusetts, in which he declared that the Mexican War was unnecessaryand unconstitutionally commenced by the President-my recollection is thatMr. Lincoln voted for that resolution. ]

That is the truth. Now, you all remember that was a resolution censuringthe President for the manner in which the war was begun. You know theyhave charged that I voted against the supplies, by which I starved thesoldiers who were out fighting the battles of their country. I say thatFICKLIN knows it is false. When that charge was brought forward by theChicago Times, the Springfield Register [Douglas's organ] reminded theTimes that the charge really applied to John Henry; and I do know thatJohn Henry is now making speeches and fiercely battling for Judge Douglas. If the Judge now says that he offers this as a sort of setoff to what Isaid to-day in reference to Trumbull's charge, then I remind him that hemade this charge before I said a word about Trumbull's. He brought thisforward at Ottawa, the first time we met face to face; and in the openingspeech that Judge Douglas made he attacked me in regard to a matterten years old. Is n't he a pretty man to be whining about people makingcharges against him only two years old!

The Judge thinks it is altogether wrong that I should have dwelt upon thischarge of Trumbull's at all. I gave the apology for doing so in my openingspeech. Perhaps it did n't fix your attention. I said that when JudgeDouglas was speaking at place--where I spoke on the succeeding day he usedvery harsh language about this charge. Two or three times afterward I saidI had confidence in Judge Trumbull's veracity and intelligence; and my ownopinion was, from what I knew of the character of Judge Trumbull, that hewould vindicate his position and prove whatever he had stated to be true. This I repeated two or three times; and then I dropped it, without sayinganything more on the subject for weeks--perhaps a month. I passed it bywithout noticing it at all till I found, at Jacksonville, Judge Douglasin the plenitude of his power is not willing to answer Trumbull and letme alone, but he comes out there and uses this language: "He should nothereafter occupy his time in refuting such charges made by Trumbull butthat, Lincoln having indorsed the character of Trumbull for veracity, heshould hold him [Lincoln] responsible for the slanders. " What was Lincolnto do? Did he not do right, when he had the fit opportunity of meetingJudge Douglas here, to tell him he was ready for the responsibility? Iask a candid audience whether in doing thus Judge Douglas was not theassailant rather than I? Here I meet him face to face, and say I am readyto take the responsibility, so far as it rests on me. 

Having done so I ask the attention of this audience to the questionwhether I have succeeded in sustaining the charge, and whether JudgeDouglas has at all succeeded in rebutting it? You all heard me call uponhim to say which of these pieces of evidence was a forgery. Does hesay that what I present here as a copy of the original Toombs bill is aforgery? Does he say that what I present as a copy of the bill reported byhimself is a forgery, or what is presented as a transcript from the Globeof the quotations from Bigler's speech is a forgery? Does he say thequotations from his own speech are forgeries? Does he say this transcriptfrom Trumbull's speech is a forgery?

["He didn't deny one of them. "]

I would then like to know how it comes about that when each piece of astory is true the whole story turns out false. I take it these people havesome sense; they see plainly that Judge Douglas is playing cuttle-fish, a small species of fish that has no mode of defending itself when pursuedexcept by throwing out a black fluid, which makes the water so dark theenemy cannot see it, and thus it escapes. Ain't the Judge playing thecuttle-fish?

Now, I would ask very special attention to the consideration of JudgeDouglas's speech at Jacksonville; and when you shall read his speechof to-day, I ask you to watch closely and see which of these pieces oftestimony, every one of which he says is a forgery, he has shown tobe such. Not one of them has he shown to be a forgery. Then I ask theoriginal question, if each of the pieces of testimony is true, how is itpossible that the whole is a falsehood?

In regard to Trumbull's charge that he [Douglas] inserted a provision intothe bill to prevent the constitution being submitted to the people, whatwas his answer? He comes here and reads from the Congressional Globe toshow that on his motion that provision was struck out of the bill. Why, Trumbull has not said it was not stricken out, but Trumbull sayshe [Douglas] put it in; and it is no answer to the charge to say heafterwards took it out. Both are perhaps true. It was in regard to thatthing precisely that I told him he had dropped the cub. Trumbull shows youthat by his introducing the bill it was his cub. It is no answer to thatassertion to call Trumbull a liar merely because he did not specially saythat Douglas struck it out. Suppose that were the case, does it answerTrumbull? I assert that you [pointing to an individual] are here to-day, and you undertake to prove me a liar by showing that you were in Mattoonyesterday. I say that you took your hat off your head, and you prove mea liar by putting it on your head. That is the whole force of Douglas'sargument. 

Now, I want to come back to my original question. Trumbull says that JudgeDouglas had a bill with a provision in it for submitting a constitutionto be made to a vote of the people of Kansas. Does Judge Douglas deny thatfact? Does he deny that the provision which Trumbull reads was put in thatbill? Then Trumbull says he struck it out. Does he dare to deny that? Hedoes not, and I have the right to repeat the question, --Why Judge Douglastook it out? Bigler has said there was a combination of certain senators, among whom he did not include Judge Douglas, by which it was agreed thatthe Kansas Bill should have a clause in it not to have the constitutionformed under it submitted to a vote of the people. He did not say thatDouglas was among them, but we prove by another source that about the sametime Douglas comes into the Senate with that provision stricken out of thebill. Although Bigler cannot say they were all working in concert, yetit looks very much as if the thing was agreed upon and done with a mutualunderstanding after the conference; and while we do not know that it wasabsolutely so, yet it looks so probable that we have a right to call uponthe man who knows the true reason why it was done to tell what the truereason was. When he will not tell what the true reason was, he stands inthe attitude of an accused thief who has stolen goods in his possession, and when called to account refuses to tell where he got them. Not only isthis the evidence, but when he comes in with the bill having the provisionstricken out, he tells us in a speech, not then but since, that thesealterations and modifications in the bill had been made by HIM, inconsultation with Toombs, the originator of the bill. He tells us thesame to-day. He says there were certain modifications made in the bill incommittee that he did not vote for. I ask you to remember, while certainamendments were made which he disapproved of, but which a majority of thecommittee voted in, he has himself told us that in this particular thealterations and modifications were made by him, upon consultation withToombs. We have his own word that these alterations were made by him, andnot by the committee. Now, I ask, what is the reason Judge Douglas is sochary about coming to the exact question? What is the reason he will nottell you anything about How it was made, BY WHOM it was made, or that heremembers it being made at all? Why does he stand playing upon the meaningof words and quibbling around the edges of the evidence? If he can explainall this, but leaves it unexplained, I have the right to infer that JudgeDouglas understood it was the purpose of his party, in engineering thatbill through, to make a constitution, and have Kansas come into the Unionwith that constitution, without its being submitted to a vote of thepeople. If he will explain his action on this question, by giving abetter reason for the facts that happened than he has done, it will besatisfactory. But until he does that--until he gives a better or moreplausible reason than he has offered against the evidence in the case--Isuggest to him it will not avail him at all that he swells himself up, takes on dignity, and calls people liars. Why, sir, there is not a word inTrumbull's speech that depends on Trumbull's veracity at all. He has onlyarrayed the evidence and told you what follows as a matter of reasoning. There is not a statement in the whole speech that depends on Trumbull'sword. If you have ever studied geometry, you remember that by a course ofreasoning Euclid proves that all the angles in a triangle are equal totwo right angles. Euclid has shown you how to work it out. Now, if youundertake to disprove that proposition, and to show that it is erroneous, would you prove it to be false by calling Euclid a liar? They tell me thatmy time is out, and therefore I close. 

FIFTH JOINT DEBATE, AT GALESBURGH, OCTOBER 7, 1858

Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY. 

MY FELLOW-CITIZENS: A very large portion of the speech which Judge Douglashas addressed to you has previously been delivered and put in print. Ido not mean that for a hit upon the Judge at all. ---If I had not beeninterrupted, I was going to say that such an answer as I was able to maketo a very large portion of it had already been more than once made andpublished. There has been an opportunity afforded to the public to seeour respective views upon the topics discussed in a large portion of thespeech which he has just delivered. I make these remarks for the purposeof excusing myself for not passing over the entire ground that the Judgehas traversed. I however desire to take up some of the points that hehas attended to, and ask your attention to them, and I shall follow himbackwards upon some notes which I have taken, reversing the order, bybeginning where he concluded. 

The Judge has alluded to the Declaration of Independence, and insistedthat negroes are not included in that Declaration; and that it is aslander upon the framers of that instrument to suppose that negroeswere meant therein; and he asks you: Is it possible to believe that Mr. Jefferson, who penned the immortal paper, could have supposed himselfapplying the language of that instrument to the negro race, and yet helda portion of that race in slavery? Would he not at once have freed them?I only have to remark upon this part of the Judge's speech (and that, too, very briefly, for I shall not detain myself, or you, upon that point forany great length of time), that I believe the entire records of the world, from the date of the Declaration of Independence up to within three yearsago, may be searched in vain for one single affirmation, from one singleman, that the negro was not included in the Declaration of Independence;I think I may defy Judge Douglas to show that he ever said so, thatWashington ever said so, that any President ever said so, that any memberof Congress ever said so, or that any living man upon the whole earth eversaid so, until the necessities of the present policy of the Democraticparty, in regard to slavery, had to invent that affirmation. And I willremind Judge Douglas and this audience that while Mr. Jefferson was theowner of slaves, as undoubtedly he was, in speaking upon this very subjecthe used the strong language that "he trembled for his country when heremembered that God was just"; and I will offer the highest premium inmy power to Judge Douglas if he will show that he, in all his life, everuttered a sentiment at all akin to that of Jefferson. 

The next thing to which I will ask your attention is the Judge's commentsupon the fact, as he assumes it to be, that we cannot call our publicmeetings as Republican meetings; and he instances Tazewell County as oneof the places where the friends of Lincoln have called a public meetingand have not dared to name it a Republican meeting. He instances MonroeCounty as another, where Judge Trumbull and Jehu Baker addressed thepersons whom the Judge assumes to be the friends of Lincoln calling themthe "Free Democracy. " I have the honor to inform Judge Douglas that hespoke in that very county of Tazewell last Saturday, and I was there onTuesday last; and when he spoke there, he spoke under a call not venturingto use the word "Democrat. " [Turning to Judge Douglas. ] what think you ofthis?

So, again, there is another thing to which I would ask the Judge'sattention upon this subject. In the contest of 1856 his party delightedto call themselves together as the "National Democracy"; but now, ifthere should be a notice put up anywhere for a meeting of the "NationalDemocracy, " Judge Douglas and his friends would not come. They would notsuppose themselves invited. They would understand that it was a call forthose hateful postmasters whom he talks about. 

Now a few words in regard to these extracts from speeches of mine whichJudge Douglas has read to you, and which he supposes are in very greatcontrast to each other. Those speeches have been before the public for aconsiderable time, and if they have any inconsistency in them, if thereis any conflict in them, the public have been able to detect it. When theJudge says, in speaking on this subject, that I make speeches of one sortfor the people of the northern end of the State, and of a different sortfor the southern people, he assumes that I do not understand that myspeeches will be put in print and read north and south. I knew all thewhile that the speech that I made at Chicago, and the one I made atJonesboro and the one at Charleston, would all be put in print, and allthe reading and intelligent men in the community would see them and knowall about my opinions. And I have not supposed, and do not now suppose, that there is any conflict whatever between them. But the Judge will haveit that if we do not confess that there is a sort of inequality betweenthe white and black races which justifies us in making them slaves, wemust then insist that there is a degree of equality that requires us tomake them our wives. Now, I have all the while taken a broad distinctionin regard to that matter; and that is all there is in these differentspeeches which he arrays here; and the entire reading of either of thespeeches will show that that distinction was made. Perhaps by taking twoparts of the same speech he could have got up as much of a conflict asthe one he has found. I have all the while maintained that in so far as itshould be insisted that there was an equality between the white and blackraces that should produce a perfect social and political equality, it wasan impossibility. This you have seen in my printed speeches, and with itI have said that in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness, " as proclaimed in that old Declaration, the inferior races areour equals. And these declarations I have constantly made in referenceto the abstract moral question, to contemplate and consider when we arelegislating about any new country which is not already cursed withthe actual presence of the evil, --slavery. I have never manifested anyimpatience with the necessities that spring from the actual presence ofblack people amongst us, and the actual existence of slavery amongst uswhere it does already exist; but I have insisted that, in legislating fornew countries where it does not exist there is no just rule other thanthat of moral and abstract right! With reference to those new countries, those maxims as to the right of a people to "life, liberty, and thepursuit of happiness" were the just rules to be constantly referredto. There is no misunderstanding this, except by men interested tomisunderstand it. I take it that I have to address an intelligent andreading community, who will peruse what I say, weigh it, and then judgewhether I advanced improper or unsound views, or whether I advancedhypocritical, and deceptive, and contrary views in different portions ofthe country. I believe myself to be guilty of no such thing as the latter, though, of course, I cannot claim that I am entirely free from all errorin the opinions I advance. 

The Judge has also detained us awhile in regard to the distinction betweenhis party and our party. His he assumes to be a national party, ours asectional one. He does this in asking the question whether this countryhas any interest in the maintenance of the Republican party. He assumesthat our party is altogether sectional, that the party to which headheres is national; and the argument is, that no party can be a rightfulparty--and be based upon rightful principles--unless it can announce itsprinciples everywhere. I presume that Judge Douglas could not go intoRussia and announce the doctrine of our national Democracy; he could notdenounce the doctrine of kings and emperors and monarchies in Russia; andit may be true of this country that in some places we may not be able toproclaim a doctrine as clearly true as the truth of democracy, becausethere is a section so directly opposed to it that they will not tolerateus in doing so. Is it the true test of the soundness of a doctrine that insome places people won't let you proclaim it? Is that the way to test thetruth of any doctrine? Why, I understood that at one time the people ofChicago would not let Judge Douglas preach a certain favorite doctrine ofhis. I commend to his consideration the question whether he takes that asa test of the unsoundness of what he wanted to preach. 

There is another thing to which I wish to ask attention for a little whileon this occasion. What has always been the evidence brought forward toprove that the Republican party is a sectional party? The main one wasthat in the Southern portion of the Union the people did not let theRepublicans proclaim their doctrines amongst them. That has been the mainevidence brought forward, --that they had no supporters, or substantiallynone, in the Slave States. The South have not taken hold of our principlesas we announce them; nor does Judge Douglas now grapple with thoseprinciples. We have a Republican State Platform, laid down in Springfieldin June last stating our position all the way through the questions beforethe country. We are now far advanced in this canvass. Judge Douglas andI have made perhaps forty speeches apiece, and we have now for the fifthtime met face to face in debate, and up to this day I have not foundeither Judge Douglas or any friend of his taking hold of the Republicanplatform, or laying his finger upon anything in it that is wrong. I askyou all to recollect that. Judge Douglas turns away from the platformof principles to the fact that he can find people somewhere who will notallow us to announce those principles. If he had great confidence that ourprinciples were wrong, he would take hold of them and demonstrate them tobe wrong. But he does not do so. The only evidence he has of their beingwrong is in the fact that there are people who won't allow us to preachthem. I ask again, is that the way to test the soundness of a doctrine?

I ask his attention also to the fact that by the rule of nationality he ishimself fast becoming sectional. I ask his attention to the fact that hisspeeches would not go as current now south of the Ohio River as they haveformerly gone there I ask his attention to the fact that he felicitateshimself to-day that all the Democrats of the free States are agreeing withhim, while he omits to tell us that the Democrats of any slave State agreewith him. If he has not thought of this, I commend to his considerationthe evidence in his own declaration, on this day, of his becomingsectional too. I see it rapidly approaching. Whatever may be the resultof this ephemeral contest between Judge Douglas and myself, I see theday rapidly approaching when his pill of sectionalism, which he has beenthrusting down the throats of Republicans for years past, will be crowdeddown his own throat. 

Now, in regard to what Judge Douglas said (in the beginning of his speech)about the Compromise of 1850 containing the principles of the NebraskaBill, although I have often presented my views upon that subject, yet asI have not done so in this canvass, I will, if you please, detain you alittle with them. I have always maintained, so far as I was able, thatthere was nothing of the principle of the Nebraska Bill in the Compromiseof 1850 at all, --nothing whatever. Where can you find the principle of theNebraska Bill in that Compromise? If anywhere, in the two pieces of theCompromise organizing the Territories of New Mexico and Utah. It wasexpressly provided in these two acts that when they came to be admittedinto the Union they should be admitted with or without slavery, as theyshould choose, by their own constitutions. Nothing was said in either ofthose acts as to what was to be done in relation to slavery during theTerritorial existence of those Territories, while Henry Clay constantlymade the declaration (Judge Douglas recognizing him as a leader) that, inhis opinion, the old Mexican laws would control that question during theTerritorial existence, and that these old Mexican laws excluded slavery. How can that be used as a principle for declaring that during theTerritorial existence as well as at the time of framing the constitutionthe people, if you please, might have slaves if they wanted them? I am notdiscussing the question whether it is right or wrong; but how are the NewMexican and Utah laws patterns for the Nebraska Bill? I maintain that theorganization of Utah and New Mexico did not establish a general principleat all. It had no feature of establishing a general principle. The acts towhich I have referred were a part of a general system of Compromises. They did not lay down what was proposed as a regular policy for theTerritories, only an agreement in this particular case to do in that way, because other things were done that were to be a compensation for it. Theywere allowed to come in in that shape, because in another way it was paidfor, considering that as a part of that system of measures called theCompromise of 1850, which finally included half-a-dozen acts. It includedthe admission of California as a free State, which was kept out of theUnion for half a year because it had formed a free constitution. Itincluded the settlement of the boundary of Texas, which had been undefinedbefore, which was in itself a slavery question; for if you pushed the linefarther west, you made Texas larger, and made more slave territory;while, if you drew the line toward the east, you narrowed the boundary anddiminished the domain of slavery, and by so much increased free territory. It included the abolition of the slave trade in the District of Columbia. It included the passage of a new Fugitive Slave law. All these things wereput together, and, though passed in separate acts, were nevertheless, inlegislation (as the speeches at the time will show), made to depend uponeach other. Each got votes with the understanding that the other measureswere to pass, and by this system of compromise, in that series ofmeasures, those two bills--the New Mexico and Utah bills--were passed: andI say for that reason they could not be taken as models, framed upontheir own intrinsic principle, for all future Territories. And I have theevidence of this in the fact that Judge Douglas, a year afterward, or morethan a year afterward, perhaps, when he first introduced bills for thepurpose of framing new Territories, did not attempt to follow these billsof New Mexico and Utah; and even when he introduced this Nebraska Bill, Ithink you will discover that he did not exactly follow them. But I do notwish to dwell at great length upon this branch of the discussion. My ownopinion is, that a thorough investigation will show most plainly that theNew Mexico and Utah bills were part of a system of compromise, and notdesigned as patterns for future Territorial legislation; and that thisNebraska Bill did not follow them as a pattern at all. 

The Judge tells, in proceeding, that he is opposed to making any odiousdistinctions between free and slave States. I am altogether unaware thatthe Republicans are in favor of making any odious distinctions between thefree and slave States. But there is still a difference, I think, betweenJudge Douglas and the Republicans in this. I suppose that the realdifference between Judge Douglas and his friends, and the Republicans onthe contrary, is, that the Judge is not in favor of making any differencebetween slavery and liberty; that he is in favor of eradicating, ofpressing out of view, the questions of preference in this country for freeor slave institutions; and consequently every sentiment he utters discardsthe idea that there is any wrong in slavery. Everything that emanates fromhim or his coadjutors in their course of policy carefully excludes thethought that there is anything wrong in slavery. All their arguments, ifyou will consider them, will be seen to exclude the thought that there isanything whatever wrong in slavery. If you will take the Judge's speeches, and select the short and pointed sentences expressed by him, --as hisdeclaration that he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or down, "--youwill see at once that this is perfectly logical, if you do not admit thatslavery is wrong. If you do admit that it is wrong, Judge Douglas cannotlogically say he don't care whether a wrong is voted up or voted down. Judge Douglas declares that if any community wants slavery they have aright to have it. He can say that logically, if he says that there is nowrong in slavery; but if you admit that there is a wrong in it, he cannotlogically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. He insists that uponthe score of equality the owners of slaves and owners of property--ofhorses and every other sort of property--should be alike, and hold themalike in a new Territory. That is perfectly logical if the two species ofproperty are alike and are equally founded in right. But if you admit thatone of them is wrong, you cannot institute any equality between right andwrong. And from this difference of sentiment, --the belief on the part ofone that the institution is wrong, and a policy springing from that beliefwhich looks to the arrest of the enlargement of that wrong, and this othersentiment, that it is no wrong, and a policy sprung from that sentiment, which will tolerate no idea of preventing the wrong from growing larger, and looks to there never being an end to it through all the existence ofthings, --arises the real difference between Judge Douglas and his friendson the one hand and the Republicans on the other. Now, I confess myself asbelonging to that class in the country who contemplate slavery as a moral, social, and political evil, having due regard for its actual existenceamongst us and the difficulties of getting rid of it in any satisfactoryway, and to all the constitutional obligations which have been thrownabout it; but, nevertheless, desire a policy that looks to the preventionof it as a wrong, and looks hopefully to the time when as a wrong it maycome to an end. 

Judge Douglas has again, for, I believe, the fifth time, if not theseventh, in my presence, reiterated his charge of a conspiracy orcombination between the National Democrats and Republicans. What evidenceJudge Douglas has upon this subject I know not, inasmuch as he neverfavors us with any. I have said upon a former occasion, and I do notchoose to suppress it now, that I have no objection to the division inthe Judge's party. He got it up himself. It was all his and their work. He had, I think, a great deal more to do with the steps that led to theLecompton Constitution than Mr. Buchanan had; though at last, when theyreached it, they quarreled over it, and their friends divided upon it. Iam very free to confess to Judge Douglas that I have no objection to thedivision; but I defy the Judge to show any evidence that I have in any waypromoted that division, unless he insists on being a witness himself inmerely saying so. I can give all fair friends of Judge Douglas hereto understand exactly the view that Republicans take in regard to thatdivision. Don't you remember how two years ago the opponents of theDemocratic party were divided between Fremont and Fillmore? I guess youdo. Any Democrat who remembers that division will remember also that hewas at the time very glad of it, and then he will be able to see all thereis between the National Democrats and the Republicans. What we now thinkof the two divisions of Democrats, you then thought of the Fremont andFillmore divisions. That is all there is of it. 

But if the Judge continues to put forward the declaration that there isan unholy and unnatural alliance between the Republicans and the NationalDemocrats, I now want to enter my protest against receiving him as anentirely competent witness upon that subject. I want to call to theJudge's attention an attack he made upon me in the first one of thesedebates, at Ottawa, on the 21st of August. In order to fix extremeAbolitionism upon me, Judge Douglas read a set of resolutions which hedeclared had been passed by a Republican State Convention, in October, 1854, at Springfield, Illinois, and he declared I had taken part in thatConvention. It turned out that although a few men calling themselves ananti-Nebraska State Convention had sat at Springfield about that time, yetneither did I take any part in it, nor did it pass the resolutions or anysuch resolutions as Judge Douglas read. So apparent had it become that theresolutions which he read had not been passed at Springfield at all, nor by a State Convention in which I had taken part, that seven daysafterward, at Freeport, Judge Douglas declared that he had been misled byCharles H. Lanphier, editor of the State Register, and Thomas L. Harris, member of Congress in that district, and he promised in that speech thatwhen he went to Springfield he would investigate the matter. Sincethen Judge Douglas has been to Springfield, and I presume has made theinvestigation; but a month has passed since he has been there, and, sofar as I know, he has made no report of the result of his investigation. I have waited as I think sufficient time for the report of thatinvestigation, and I have some curiosity to see and hear it. A fraud, anabsolute forgery was committed, and the perpetration of it was traced tothe three, --Lanphier, Harris, and Douglas. Whether it can be narrowed inany way so as to exonerate any one of them, is what Judge Douglas's reportwould probably show. 

It is true that the set of resolutions read by Judge Douglas werepublished in the Illinois State Register on the 16th of October, 1854, asbeing the resolutions of an anti-Nebraska Convention which had sat inthat same month of October, at Springfield. But it is also true that thepublication in the Register was a forgery then, and the question is stillbehind, which of the three, if not all of them, committed that forgery. The idea that it was done by mistake is absurd. The article in theIllinois State Register contains part of the real proceedings of thatSpringfield Convention, showing that the writer of the article hadthe real proceedings before him, and purposely threw out the genuineresolutions passed by the Convention and fraudulently substituted theothers. Lanphier then, as now, was the editor of the Register, so thatthere seems to be but little room for his escape. But then it is tobe borne in mind that Lanphier had less interest in the object of thatforgery than either of the other two. The main object of that forgery atthat time was to beat Yates and elect Harris to Congress, and that objectwas known to be exceedingly dear to Judge Douglas at that time. Harris andDouglas were both in Springfield when the Convention was in session, and although they both left before the fraud appeared in the Register, subsequent events show that they have both had their eyes fixed upon thatConvention. 

The fraud having been apparently successful upon the occasion, both Harrisand Douglas have more than once since then been attempting to put it tonew uses. As the fisherman's wife, whose drowned husband was brought homewith his body full of eels, said when she was asked what was to be donewith him, "Take the eels out and set him again, " so Harris and Douglashave shown a disposition to take the eels out of that stale fraud by whichthey gained Harris's election, and set the fraud again more than once. Onthe 9th of July, 1856, Douglas attempted a repetition of it upon Trumbullon the floor of the Senate of the United States, as will appear from theappendix of the Congressional Globe of that date. 

On the 9th of August, Harris attempted it again upon Norton in the Houseof Representatives, as will appear by the same documents, --the appendixto the Congressional Globe of that date. On the 21st of August last, allthree--Lanphier, Douglas, and Harris--reattempted it upon me at Ottawa. It has been clung to and played out again and again as an exceedingly hightrump by this blessed trio. And now that it has been discovered publiclyto be a fraud we find that Judge Douglas manifests no surprise at it atall. He makes no complaint of Lanphier, who must have known it to be afraud from the beginning. He, Lanphier, and Harris are just as cozy nowand just as active in the concoction of new schemes as they were beforethe general discovery of this fraud. Now, all this is very natural if theyare all alike guilty in that fraud, and it is very unnatural if any oneof them is innocent. Lanphier perhaps insists that the rule of honoramong thieves does not quite require him to take all upon himself, and consequently my friend Judge Douglas finds it difficult to make asatisfactory report upon his investigation. But meanwhile the three areagreed that each is "a most honorable man. "

Judge Douglas requires an indorsement of his truth and honor by are-election to the United States Senate, and he makes and reports againstme and against Judge Trumbull, day after day, charges which we know tobe utterly untrue, without for a moment seeming to think that this oneunexplained fraud, which he promised to investigate, will be the leastdrawback to his claim to belief. Harris ditto. He asks a re-election tothe lower House of Congress without seeming to remember at all that he isinvolved in this dishonorable fraud! The Illinois State Register, editedby Lanphier, then, as now, the central organ of both Harris and Douglas, continues to din the public ear with this assertion, without seeming tosuspect that these assertions are at all lacking in title to belief. 

After all, the question still recurs upon us, How did that fraudoriginally get into the State Register? Lanphier then, as now, was theeditor of that paper. Lanphier knows. Lanphier cannot be ignorant of howand by whom it was originally concocted. Can he be induced to tell, or, if he has told, can Judge Douglas be induced to tell how it originally wasconcocted? It may be true that Lanphier insists that the two men for whosebenefit it was originally devised shall at least bear their share of it!How that is, I do not know, and while it remains unexplained I hope to bepardoned if I insist that the mere fact of Judge Douglas making chargesagainst Trumbull and myself is not quite sufficient evidence to establishthem!

While we were at Freeport, in one of these joint discussions, I answeredcertain interrogatories which Judge Douglas had propounded to me, and thenin turn propounded some to him, which he in a sort of way answered. Thethird one of these interrogatories I have with me, and wish now to makesome comments upon it. It was in these words: "If the Supreme Court of States cannot exclude slavery from their limits, are you in favor ofacquiescing in, adhering to, and following such decision as a rule ofpolitical action?"

To this interrogatory Judge Douglas made no answer in any just sense ofthe word. He contented himself with sneering at the thought that it waspossible for the Supreme Court ever to make such a decision. He sneered atme for propounding the interrogatory. I had not propounded it without somereflection, and I wish now to address to this audience some remarks uponit. 

In the second clause of the sixth article, I believe it is, of theConstitution of the United States, we find the following language:

"This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be madein pursuance thereof, and all treaties made, or which shall be made, underthe authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land;and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in theConstitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. "

The essence of the Dred Scott case is compressed into the sentence which Iwill now read:

"Now, as we have already said in an earlier part of this opinion, upona different point, the right of property in a slave is distinctly andexpressly affirmed in the Constitution. "

I repeat it, "The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expresslyaffirmed in the Constitution"! What is it to be "affirmed" in theConstitution? Made firm in the Constitution, so made that it cannot beseparated from the Constitution without breaking the Constitution; durableas the Constitution, and part of the Constitution. Now, remembering theprovision of the Constitution which I have read--affirming that thatinstrument is the supreme law of the land; that the judges of every Stateshall be bound by it, any law or constitution of any State to the contrarynotwithstanding; that the right of property in a slave is affirmed inthat Constitution, is made, formed into, and cannot be separated fromit without breaking it; durable as the instrument; part of theinstrument;--what follows as a short and even syllogistic argument fromit? I think it follows, and I submit to the consideration of men capableof arguing whether, as I state it, in syllogistic form, the argument hasany fault in it:

Nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroy a rightdistinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution of the UnitedStates. 

The right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed inthe Constitution of the United States. 

Therefore, nothing in the Constitution or laws of any State can destroythe right of property in a slave. 

I believe that no fault can be pointed out in that argument; assuming thetruth of the premises, the conclusion, so far as I have capacity at all tounderstand it, follows inevitably. There is a fault in it as I think, butthe fault is not in the reasoning; but the falsehood in fact is a faultof the premises. I believe that the right of property in a slave is notdistinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, and Judge Douglasthinks it is. I believe that the Supreme Court and the advocates of thatdecision may search in vain for the place in the Constitution where theright of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed I say, therefore, that I think one of the premises is not true in fact. But it istrue with Judge Douglas. It is true with the Supreme Court who pronouncedit. They are estopped from denying it, and being estopped from denying it, the conclusion follows that, the Constitution of the United States beingthe supreme law, no constitution or law can interfere with it. Itbeing affirmed in the decision that the right of property in a slave isdistinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution, the conclusioninevitably follows that no State law or constitution can destroy thatright. I then say to Judge Douglas and to all others that I think it willtake a better answer than a sneer to show that those who have said thatthe right of property in a slave is distinctly and expressly affirmed inthe Constitution, are not prepared to show that no constitution or lawcan destroy that right. I say I believe it will take a far better argumentthan a mere sneer to show to the minds of intelligent men that whoever hasso said is not prepared, whenever public sentiment is so far advanced asto justify it, to say the other. This is but an opinion, and the opinionof one very humble man; but it is my opinion that the Dred Scott decision, as it is, never would have been made in its present form if the party thatmade it had not been sustained previously by the elections. My own opinionis, that the new Dred Scott decision, deciding against the right of thepeople of the States to exclude slavery, will never be made if that partyis not sustained by the elections. I believe, further, that it is just assure to be made as to-morrow is to come, if that party shall be sustained. I have said, upon a former occasion, and I repeat it now, that the courseof arguement that Judge Douglas makes use of upon this subject (I chargenot his motives in this), is preparing the public mind for that new DredScott decision. I have asked him again to point out to me the reasons forhis first adherence to the Dred Scott decision as it is. I have turned hisattention to the fact that General Jackson differed with him in regardto the political obligation of a Supreme Court decision. I have asked hisattention to the fact that Jefferson differed with him in regard to thepolitical obligation of a Supreme Court decision. Jefferson said that"Judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. " And he said, substantially, that whenever a free people should give up in absolutesubmission to any department of government, retaining for themselves noappeal from it, their liberties were gone. I have asked his attentionto the fact that the Cincinnati platform, upon which he says he stands, disregards a time-honored decision of the Supreme Court, in denying thepower of Congress to establish a National Bank. I have asked his attentionto the fact that he himself was one of the most active instruments at onetime in breaking down the Supreme Court of the State of Illinois becauseit had made a decision distasteful to him, --a struggle ending in theremarkable circumstance of his sitting down as one of the new Judges whowere to overslaugh that decision; getting his title of Judge in that veryway. 

So far in this controversy I can get no answer at all from Judge Douglasupon these subjects. Not one can I get from him, except that he swellshimself up and says, "All of us who stand by the decision of the SupremeCourt are the friends of the Constitution; all you fellows that darequestion it in any way are the enemies of the Constitution. " Now, in thisvery devoted adherence to this decision, in opposition to all the greatpolitical leaders whom he has recognized as leaders, in opposition to hisformer self and history, there is something very marked. And the mannerin which he adheres to it, --not as being right upon the merits, ashe conceives (because he did not discuss that at all), but as beingabsolutely obligatory upon every one simply because of the source fromwhence it comes, as that which no man can gainsay, whatever it maybe, --this is another marked feature of his adherence to that decision. It marks it in this respect, that it commits him to the next decision, whenever it comes, as being as obligatory as this one, since he does notinvestigate it, and won't inquire whether this opinion is right or wrong. So he takes the next one without inquiring whether it is right or wrong. He teaches men this doctrine, and in so doing prepares the public mind totake the next decision when it comes, without any inquiry. In this I thinkI argue fairly (without questioning motives at all) that Judge Douglasis most ingeniously and powerfully preparing the public mind to take thatdecision when it comes; and not only so, but he is doing it in variousother ways. In these general maxims about liberty, in his assertions thathe "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down, "; that "whoeverwants slavery has a right to have it"; that "upon principles of equalityit should be allowed to go everywhere"; that "there is no inconsistencybetween free and slave institutions"--in this he is also preparing(whether purposely or not) the way for making the institution of slaverynational! I repeat again, for I wish no misunderstanding, that I do notcharge that he means it so; but I call upon your minds to inquire, if youwere going to get the best instrument you could, and then set it to workin the most ingenious way, to prepare the public mind for this movement, operating in the free States, where there is now an abhorrence of theinstitution of slavery, could you find an instrument so capable of doingit as Judge Douglas, or one employed in so apt a way to do it?

I have said once before, and I will repeat it now, that Mr. Clay, when hewas once answering an objection to the Colonization Society, that it had atendency to the ultimate emancipation of the slaves, said that:

"Those who would repress all tendencies to liberty and ultimateemancipation must do more than put down the benevolent efforts of theColonization Society: they must go back to the era of our liberty andindependence, and muzzle the cannon that thunders its annual joyousreturn; they must blow out the moral lights around us; they must penetratethe human soul, and eradicate the light of reason and the love ofliberty!"

And I do think--I repeat, though I said it on a former occasion--thatJudge Douglas and whoever, like him, teaches that the negro has no share, humble though it may be, in the Declaration of Independence, is going backto the era of our liberty and independence, and, so far as in him lies, muzzling the cannon that thunders its annual joyous return; that he isblowing out the moral lights around us, when he contends that whoeverwants slaves has a right to hold them; that he is penetrating, so far aslies in his power, the human soul, and eradicating the light of reason andthe love of liberty, when he is in every possible way preparing thepublic mind, by his vast influence, for making the institution of slaveryperpetual and national. 

There is, my friends, only one other point to which I will call yourattention for the remaining time that I have left me, and perhaps I shallnot occupy the entire time that I have, as that one point may not take meclear through it. 

Among the interrogatories that Judge Douglas propounded to me at Freeport, there was one in about this language:

"Are you opposed to the acquisition of any further territory to the UnitedStates, unless slavery shall first be prohibited therein?"

I answered, as I thought, in this way: that I am not generally opposedto the acquisition of additional territory, and that I would support aproposition for the acquisition of additional territory according as mysupporting it was or was not calculated to aggravate this slavery questionamongst us. I then proposed to Judge Douglas another interrogatory, which was correlative to that: "Are you in favor of acquiring additionalterritory, in disregard of how it may affect us upon the slaveryquestion?" Judge Douglas answered, --that is, in his own way he answeredit. I believe that, although he took a good many words to answer it, itwas a little more fully answered than any other. The substance of hisanswer was that this country would continue to expand; that it wouldneed additional territory; that it was as absurd to suppose that we couldcontinue upon our present territory, enlarging in population as we are, asit would be to hoop a boy twelve years of age, and expect him to grow toman's size without bursting the hoops. I believe it was somethinglike that. Consequently, he was in favor of the acquisition of furtherterritory as fast as we might need it, in disregard of how it might affectthe slavery question. I do not say this as giving his exact language, but he said so substantially; and he would leave the question of slavery, where the territory was acquired, to be settled by the people of theacquired territory. ["That's the doctrine. "] May be it is; let us considerthat for a while. This will probably, in the run of things, become one ofthe concrete manifestations of this slavery question. If Judge Douglas'spolicy upon this question succeeds, and gets fairly settled down, untilall opposition is crushed out, the next thing will be a grab for theterritory of poor Mexico, an invasion of the rich lands of South America, then the adjoining islands will follow, each one of which promisesadditional slave-fields. And this question is to be left to the people ofthose countries for settlement. When we get Mexico, I don't know whetherthe Judge will be in favor of the Mexican people that we get with itsettling that question for themselves and all others; because we know theJudge has a great horror for mongrels, and I understand that the people ofMexico are most decidedly a race of mongrels. I understand that thereis not more than one person there out of eight who is pure white, and Isuppose from the Judge's previous declaration that when we get Mexico, orany considerable portion of it, that he will be in favor of these mongrelssettling the question, which would bring him somewhat into collision withhis horror of an inferior race. 

It is to be remembered, though, that this power of acquiring additionalterritory is a power confided to the President and the Senate of theUnited States. It is a power not under the control of the representativesof the people any further than they, the President and the Senate, can beconsidered the representatives of the people. Let me illustrate that by acase we have in our history. When we acquired the territory from Mexico inthe Mexican War, the House of Representatives, composed of the immediaterepresentatives of the people, all the time insisted that the territorythus to be acquired should be brought in upon condition that slaveryshould be forever prohibited therein, upon the terms and in the languagethat slavery had been prohibited from coming into this country. That wasinsisted upon constantly and never failed to call forth an assurance thatany territory thus acquired should have that prohibition in it, so far asthe House of Representatives was concerned. But at last the President andSenate acquired the territory without asking the House of Representativesanything about it, and took it without that prohibition. They have thepower of acquiring territory without the immediate representatives of thepeople being called upon to say anything about it, and thus furnishing avery apt and powerful means of bringing new territory into the Union, and, when it is once brought into the country, involving us anew in thisslavery agitation. It is therefore, as I think, a very important questionfor due consideration of the American people, whether the policy ofbringing in additional territory, without considering at all how itwill operate upon the safety of the Union in reference to this one greatdisturbing element in our national politics, shall be adopted as thepolicy of the country. You will bear in mind that it is to be acquired, according to the Judge's view, as fast as it is needed, and the indefinitepart of this proposition is that we have only Judge Douglas and his classof men to decide how fast it is needed. We have no clear and certainway of determining or demonstrating how fast territory is needed by thenecessities of the country. Whoever wants to go out filibustering, then, thinks that more territory is needed. Whoever wants wider slave-fieldsfeels sure that some additional territory is needed as slave territory. Then it is as easy to show the necessity of additional slave-territoryas it is to assert anything that is incapable of absolute demonstration. Whatever motive a man or a set of men may have for making annexation ofproperty or territory, it is very easy to assert, but much less easy todisprove, that it is necessary for the wants of the country. 

And now it only remains for me to say that I think it is a very gravequestion for the people of this Union to consider, whether, in view ofthe fact that this slavery question has been the only one that hasever endangered our Republican institutions, the only one that has everthreatened or menaced a dissolution of the Union, that has ever disturbedus in such a way as to make us fear for the perpetuity of our liberty, --inview of these facts, I think it is an exceedingly interesting andimportant question for this people to consider whether we shall engage inthe policy of acquiring additional territory, discarding altogether fromour consideration, while obtaining new territory, the question how it mayaffect us in regard to this, the only endangering element to our libertiesand national greatness. The Judge's view has been expressed. I, in myanswer to his question, have expressed mine. I think it will become animportant and practical question. Our views are before the public. I amwilling and anxious that they should consider them fully; that they shouldturn it about and consider the importance of the question, and arrive ata just conclusion as to whether it is or is not wise in the people of thisUnion, in the acquisition of new territory, to consider whether it willadd to the disturbance that is existing amongst us--whether it will add tothe one only danger that has ever threatened the perpetuity of the Unionor our own liberties. I think it is extremely important that they shalldecide, and rightly decide, that question before entering upon thatpolicy. 

And now, my friends, having said the little I wish to say upon this head, whether I have occupied the whole of the remnant of my time or not, Ibelieve I could not enter upon any new topic so as to treat it fully, without transcending my time, which I would not for a moment think ofdoing. I give way to Judge Douglas. 

SIXTH JOINT DEBATE, AT QUINCY, OCTOBER 13, 1858. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN: I have had no immediate conference with JudgeDouglas, but I will venture to say that he and I will perfectly agree thatyour entire silence, both when I speak and when he speaks, will be mostagreeable to us. 

In the month of May, 1856, the elements in the State of Illinois whichhave since been consolidated into the Republican party assembled togetherin a State Convention at Bloomington. They adopted at that time what, inpolitical language, is called a platform. In June of the same year theelements of the Republican party in the nation assembled together ina National Convention at Philadelphia. They adopted what is called theNational Platform. In June, 1858, --the present year, --the Republicansof Illinois reassembled at Springfield, in State Convention, and adoptedagain their platform, as I suppose not differing in any essentialparticular from either of the former ones, but perhaps adding something inrelation to the new developments of political progress in the country. 

The Convention that assembled in June last did me the honor, if it be one, and I esteem it such, to nominate me as their candidate for the UnitedStates Senate. I have supposed that, in entering upon this canvass, Istood generally upon these platforms. We are now met together on the 13thof October of the same year, only four months from the adoption of thelast platform, and I am unaware that in this canvass, from the beginninguntil to-day, any one of our adversaries has taken hold of our platforms, or laid his finger upon anything that he calls wrong in them. 

In the very first one of these joint discussions between Senator Douglasand myself, Senator Douglas, without alluding at all to these platforms, or any one of them, of which I have spoken, attempted to hold meresponsible for a set of resolutions passed long before the meeting ofeither one of these conventions of which I have spoken. And as a groundfor holding me responsible for these resolutions, he assumed that they hadbeen passed at a State Convention of the Republican party, and that Itook part in that Convention. It was discovered afterward that this waserroneous, that the resolutions which he endeavored to hold me responsiblefor had not been passed by any State Convention anywhere, had not beenpassed at Springfield, where he supposed they had, or assumed that theyhad, and that they had been passed in no convention in which I had takenpart. The Judge, nevertheless, was not willing to give up the point thathe was endeavoring to make upon me, and he therefore thought to stillhold me to the point that he was endeavoring to make, by showing thatthe resolutions that he read had been passed at a local convention in thenorthern part of the State, although it was not a local convention thatembraced my residence at all, nor one that reached, as I suppose, nearerthan one hundred and fifty or two hundred miles of where I was when itmet, nor one in which I took any part at all. He also introduced otherresolutions, passed at other meetings, and by combining the whole, although they were all antecedent to the two State Conventions and the oneNational Convention I have mentioned, still he insisted, and now insists, as I understand, that I am in some way responsible for them. 

At Jonesboro, on our third meeting, I insisted to the Judge that I wasin no way rightfully held responsible for the proceedings of this localmeeting or convention, in which I had taken no part, and in which I wasin no way embraced; but I insisted to him that if he thought I wasresponsible for every man or every set of men everywhere, who happen tobe my friends, the rule ought to work both ways, and he ought to beresponsible for the acts and resolutions of all men or sets of men whowere or are now his supporters and friends, and gave him a prettylong string of resolutions, passed by men who are now his friends, andannouncing doctrines for which he does not desire to be held responsible. 

This still does not satisfy Judge Douglas. He still adheres to hisproposition, that I am responsible for what some of my friends indifferent parts of the State have done, but that he is not responsiblefor what his have done. At least, so I understand him. But in addition tothat, the Judge, at our meeting in Galesburgh, last week, undertakes toestablish that I am guilty of a species of double dealing with thepublic; that I make speeches of a certain sort in the north, among theAbolitionists, which I would not make in the south, and that I makespeeches of a certain sort in the south which I would not make in thenorth. I apprehend, in the course I have marked out for myself, that Ishall not have to dwell at very great length upon this subject. 

As this was done in the Judge's opening speech at Galesburgh, I had anopportunity, as I had the middle speech then, of saying something inanswer to it. He brought forward a quotation or two from a speech of minedelivered at Chicago, and then, to contrast with it, he brought forward anextract from a speech of mine at Charleston, in which he insisted that Iwas greatly inconsistent, and insisted that his conclusion followed, thatI was playing a double part, and speaking in one region one way, and inanother region another way. I have not time now to dwell on this as longas I would like, and wish only now to requote that portion of my speechat Charleston which the Judge quoted, and then make some comments uponit. This he quotes from me as being delivered at Charleston, and I believecorrectly:

"I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringingabout in any way the social and political equality of the white and blackraces; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making votersor jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor tointermarry with white people; and I will say, in addition to this, thatthere is a physical difference between the white and black races whichwill forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social andpolitical equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live while they doremain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I amas much as any other man in favor of having the superior position assignedto the white race. "

This, I believe, is the entire quotation from Charleston speech, as JudgeDouglas made it his comments are as follows:

"Yes, here you find men who hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right whenhe discards all distinction between races, or when he declares thathe discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as a superior andinferior race; and Abolitionists are required and expected to vote forMr. Lincoln because he goes for the equality of races, holding that in theDeclaration of Independence the white man and negro were declared equal, and endowed by divine law with equality. And down South, with the old-lineWhigs, with the Kentuckians, the Virginians and the Tennesseeans, he tellsyou that there is a physical difference between the races, making theone superior, the other inferior, and he is in favor of maintaining thesuperiority of the white race over the negro. "

Those are the Judges comments. Now, I wish to show you that a month, or only lacking three days of a month, before I made the speech atCharleston, which the Judge quotes from, he had himself heard me saysubstantially the same thing It was in our first meeting, at Ottawa--and Iwill say a word about where it was, and the atmosphere it was in, after awhile--but at our first meeting, at Ottawa, I read an extract from anold speech of mine, made nearly four years ago, not merely to show mysentiments, but to show that my sentiments were long entertained andopenly expressed; in which extract I expressly declared that my ownfeelings would not admit a social and political equality between the whiteand black races, and that even if my own feelings would admit of it, Istill knew that the public sentiment of the country would not, and thatsuch a thing was an utter impossibility, or substantially that. Thatextract from my old speech the reporters by some sort of accident passedover, and it was not reported. I lay no blame upon anybody. I suppose theythought that I would hand it over to them, and dropped reporting while Iwas giving it, but afterward went away without getting it from me. At theend of that quotation from my old speech, which I read at Ottawa, I madethe comments which were reported at that time, and which I will now read, and ask you to notice how very nearly they are the same as Judge Douglassays were delivered by me down in Egypt. After reading, I added thesewords:

"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any great length; but this is thetrue complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution ofslavery or the black race, and this is the whole of it: anything thatargues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with thenegro, is but a specious and fantastical arrangement of words by which aman can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution in the States where it exists. I believeI have no right to do so. I have no inclination to do so. I have nopurpose to introduce political and social equality between the white andblack races. There is a physical difference between the two which, inmy judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on thefooting of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity thatthere must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor ofthe race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never saidanything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, thereis no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all therights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, --the right of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitledto these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is notmy equal in many respects, certainly not in color, perhaps not inintellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is myequal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man. "

I have chiefly introduced this for the purpose of meeting the Judge'scharge that the quotation he took from my Charleston speech was what Iwould say down South among the Kentuckians, the Virginians, etc. , butwould not say in the regions in which was supposed to be more of theAbolition element. I now make this comment: That speech from which I havenow read the quotation, and which is there given correctly--perhaps toomuch so for good taste--was made away up North in the Abolition Districtof this State par excellence, in the Lovejoy District, in the personalpresence of Lovejoy, for he was on the stand with us when I made it. Ithad been made and put in print in that region only three days less thana month before the speech made at Charleston, the like of which JudgeDouglas thinks I would not make where there was any Abolition element. I only refer to this matter to say that I am altogether unconscious ofhaving attempted any double-dealing anywhere; that upon one occasion I maysay one thing, and leave other things unsaid, and vice versa, but that Ihave said anything on one occasion that is inconsistent with what I havesaid elsewhere, I deny, at least I deny it so far as the intention isconcerned. I find that I have devoted to this topic a larger portion of mytime than I had intended. I wished to show, but I will pass it upon thisoccasion, that in the sentiment I have occasionally advanced upon theDeclaration of Independence I am entirely borne out by the sentimentsadvanced by our old Whig leader, Henry Clay, and I have the book here toshow it from but because I have already occupied more time than I intendedto do on that topic, I pass over it. 

At Galesburgh, I tried to show that by the Dred Scott decision, pushedto its legitimate consequences, slavery would be established in all theStates as well as in the Territories. I did this because, upon a formeroccasion, I had asked Judge Douglas whether, if the Supreme Court shouldmake a decision declaring that the States had not the power to excludeslavery from their limits, he would adopt and follow that decision as arule of political action; and because he had not directly answered thatquestion, but had merely contented himself with sneering at it, I againintroduced it, and tried to show that the conclusion that I statedfollowed inevitably and logically from the proposition already decidedby the court. Judge Douglas had the privilege of replying to me atGalesburgh, and again he gave me no direct answer as to whether he wouldor would not sustain such a decision if made. I give him his third chanceto say yes or no. He is not obliged to do either, probably he will not doeither; but I give him the third chance. I tried to show then that thisresult, this conclusion, inevitably followed from the point alreadydecided by the court. The Judge, in his reply, again sneers at the thoughtof the court making any such decision, and in the course of his remarksupon this subject uses the language which I will now read. Speaking of me, the Judge says:

"He goes on and insists that the Dred Scott decision would carry slaveryinto the free States, notwithstanding the decision itself says thecontrary. " And he adds:

"Mr. Lincoln knows that there is no member of the Supreme Court that holdsthat doctrine. He knows that every one of them in their opinions held thereverse. "

I especially introduce this subject again for the purpose of saying thatI have the Dred Scott decision here, and I will thank Judge Douglas to layhis finger upon the place in the entire opinions of the court where anyone of them "says the contrary. " It is very hard to affirm a negative withentire confidence. I say, however, that I have examined that decision witha good deal of care, as a lawyer examines a decision and, so far as I havebeen able to do so, the court has nowhere in its opinions said thatthe States have the power to exclude slavery, nor have they used otherlanguage substantially that, I also say, so far as I can find, not one ofthe concurring judges has said that the States can exclude slavery, norsaid anything that was substantially that. The nearest approach that anyone of them has made to it, so far as I can find, was by Judge Nelson, and the approach he made to it was exactly, in substance, the NebraskaBill, --that the States had the exclusive power over the question ofslavery, so far as they are not limited by the Constitution of the UnitedStates. I asked the question, therefore, if the non-concurring judges, McLean or Curtis, had asked to get an express declaration that the Statescould absolutely exclude slavery from their limits, what reason have weto believe that it would not have been voted down by the majority of thejudges, just as Chase's amendment was voted down by Judge Douglas and hiscompeers when it was offered to the Nebraska Bill. 

Also, at Galesburgh, I said something in regard to those Springfieldresolutions that Judge Douglas had attempted to use upon me at Ottawa, andcommented at some length upon the fact that they were, as presented, not genuine. Judge Douglas in his reply to me seemed to be somewhatexasperated. He said he would never have believed that Abraham Lincoln, ashe kindly called me, would have attempted such a thing as I had attemptedupon that occasion; and among other expressions which he used toward me, was that I dared to say forgery, that I had dared to say forgery [turningto Judge Douglas]. Yes, Judge, I did dare to say forgery. But in thispolitical canvass the Judge ought to remember that I was not the firstwho dared to say forgery. At Jacksonville, Judge Douglas made a speech inanswer to something said by Judge Trumbull, and at the close of whathe said upon that subject, he dared to say that Trumbull had forged hisevidence. He said, too, that he should not concern himself with Trumbullany more, but thereafter he should hold Lincoln responsible for theslanders upon him. When I met him at Charleston after that, although Ithink that I should not have noticed the subject if he had not said hewould hold me responsible for it, I spread out before him the statementsof the evidence that Judge Trumbull had used, and I asked Judge Douglas, piece by piece, to put his finger upon one piece of all that evidence thathe would say was a forgery! When I went through with each and every piece, Judge Douglas did not dare then to say that any piece of it was a forgery. So it seems that there are some things that Judge Douglas dares to do, andsome that he dares not to do. 

[A voice: It is the same thing with you. ]

Yes, sir, it is the same thing with me. I do dare to say forgery when itis true, and don't dare to say forgery when it is false. Now I will sayhere to this audience and to Judge Douglas I have not dared to say hecommitted a forgery, and I never shall until I know it; but I did dareto say--just to suggest to the Judge--that a forgery had been committed, which by his own showing had been traced to him and two of his friends. I dared to suggest to him that he had expressly promised in one of hispublic speeches to investigate that matter, and I dared to suggest to himthat there was an implied promise that when he investigated it he wouldmake known the result. I dared to suggest to the Judge that he could notexpect to be quite clear of suspicion of that fraud, for since the timethat promise was made he had been with those friends, and had not kept hispromise in regard to the investigation and the report upon it. I am nota very daring man, but I dared that much, Judge, and I am not much scaredabout it yet. When the Judge says he would n't have believed of AbrahamLincoln that he would have made such an attempt as that he reminds me ofthe fact that he entered upon this canvass with the purpose to treatme courteously; that touched me somewhat. It sets me to thinking. I wasaware, when it was first agreed that Judge Douglas and I were to havethese seven joint discussions, that they were the successive acts of adrama, perhaps I should say, to be enacted, not merely in the face ofaudiences like this, but in the face of the nation, and to some extent, by my relation to him, and not from anything in myself, in the face of theworld; and I am anxious that they should be conducted with dignity and inthe good temper which would be befitting the vast audiences before whichit was conducted. But when Judge Douglas got home from Washington and madehis first speech in Chicago, the evening afterward I made some sort ofa reply to it. His second speech was made at Bloomington, in which hecommented upon my speech at Chicago and said that I had used languageingeniously contrived to conceal my intentions, or words to that effect. Now, I understand that this is an imputation upon my veracity and mycandor. I do not know what the Judge understood by it, but in our firstdiscussion, at Ottawa, he led off by charging a bargain, somewhat corruptin its character, upon Trumbull and myself, --that we had entered into abargain, one of the terms of which was that Trumbull was to Abolitionizethe old Democratic party, and I (Lincoln) was to Abolitionize the old Whigparty; I pretending to be as good an old-line Whig as ever. Judge Douglasmay not understand that he implicated my truthfulness and my honor when hesaid I was doing one thing and pretending another; and I misunderstood himif he thought he was treating me in a dignified way, as a man of honor andtruth, as he now claims he was disposed to treat me. Even after that time, at Galesburgh, when he brings forward an extract from a speech made atChicago and an extract from a speech made at Charleston, to prove that Iwas trying to play a double part, that I was trying to cheat the public, and get votes upon one set of principles at one place, and upon anotherset of principles at another place, --I do not understand but what heimpeaches my honor, my veracity, and my candor; and because he does this, I do not understand that I am bound, if I see a truthful ground for it, to keep my hands off of him. As soon as I learned that Judge Douglas wasdisposed to treat me in this way, I signified in one of my speeches thatI should be driven to draw upon whatever of humble resources I mighthave, --to adopt a new course with him. I was not entirely sure that Ishould be able to hold my own with him, but I at least had the purposemade to do as well as I could upon him; and now I say that I will not bethe first to cry "Hold. " I think it originated with the Judge, and when hequits, I probably will. But I shall not ask any favors at all. He asksme, or he asks the audience, if I wish to push this matter to the point ofpersonal difficulty. I tell him, no. He did not make a mistake, in one ofhis early speeches, when he called me an "amiable" man, though perhaps hedid when he called me an "intelligent" man. It really hurts me very muchto suppose that I have wronged anybody on earth. I again tell him, no! Ivery much prefer, when this canvass shall be over, however it may result, that we at least part without any bitter recollections of personaldifficulties. 

The Judge, in his concluding speech at Galesburgh, says that I was pushingthis matter to a personal difficulty, to avoid the responsibility for theenormity of my principles. I say to the Judge and this audience, now, thatI will again state our principles, as well as I hastily can, in all theirenormity, and if the Judge hereafter chooses to confine himself to a warupon these principles, he will probably not find me departing from thesame course. 

We have in this nation this element of domestic slavery. It is a matter ofabsolute certainty that it is a disturbing element. It is the opinionof all the great men who have expressed an opinion upon it, that it isa dangerous element. We keep up a controversy in regard to it. Thatcontroversy necessarily springs from difference of opinion; and if we canlearn exactly--can reduce to the lowest elements--what that differenceof opinion is, we perhaps shall be better prepared for discussing thedifferent systems of policy that we would propose in regard to thatdisturbing element. I suggest that the difference of opinion, reduced toits lowest of terms, is no other than the difference between the men whothink slavery a wrong and those who do not think it wrong. The Republicanparty think it wrong; we think it is a moral, a social, and a politicalwrong. We think it as a wrong not confining itself merely to the personsor the States where it exists, but that it is a wrong in its tendency, tosay the least, that extends itself to the existence of the whole nation. Because we think it wrong, we propose a course of policy that shall dealwith it as a wrong. We deal with it as with any other wrong, in so far aswe can prevent its growing any larger, and so deal with it that in the runof time there may be some promise of an end to it. We have a due regard tothe actual presence of it amongst us, and the difficulties of gettingrid of it in any satisfactory way, and all the constitutional obligationsthrown about it. I suppose that in reference both to its actual existencein the nation, and to our constitutional obligations, we have no right atall to disturb it in the States where it exists, and we profess that wehave no more inclination to disturb it than we have the right to do it. We go further than that: we don't propose to disturb it where, inone instance, we think the Constitution would permit us. We think theConstitution would permit us to disturb it in the District of Columbia. Still, we do not propose to do that, unless it should be in terms whichI don't suppose the nation is very likely soon to agree to, --the terms ofmaking the emancipation gradual, and compensating the unwilling owners. Where we suppose we have the constitutional right, we restrain ourselvesin reference to the actual existence of the institution and thedifficulties thrown about it. We also oppose it as an evil so far as itseeks to spread itself. We insist on the policy that shall restrict itto its present limits. We don't suppose that in doing this we violateanything due to the actual presence of the institution, or anything due tothe constitutional guaranties thrown around it. 

We oppose the Dred Scott decision in a certain way, upon which I oughtperhaps to address you a few words. We do not propose that when Dred Scotthas been decided to be a slave by the court, we, as a mob, will decide himto be free. We do not propose that, when any other one, or one thousand, shall be decided by that court to be slaves, we will in any violent waydisturb the rights of property thus settled; but we nevertheless do opposethat decision as a political rule which shall be binding on the voter tovote for nobody who thinks it wrong, which shall be binding on the membersof Congress or the President to favor no measure that does not actuallyconcur with the principles of that decision. We do not propose to bebound by it as a political rule in that way, because we think it lays thefoundation, not merely of enlarging and spreading out what we consider anevil, but it lays the foundation for spreading that evil into the Statesthemselves. We propose so resisting it as to have it reversed if we can, and a new judicial rule established upon this subject. 

I will add this: that if there be any man who does not believe thatslavery is wrong in the three aspects which I have mentioned, or in anyone of them, that man is misplaced, and ought to leave us; while on theother hand, if there be any man in the Republican party who is impatientover the necessity springing from its actual presence, and is impatient ofthe constitutional guaranties thrown around it, and would act in disregardof these, he too is misplaced, standing with us. He will find his placesomewhere else; for we have a due regard, so far as we are capable ofunderstanding them, for all these things. This, gentlemen, as well as Ican give it, is a plain statement of our principles in all their enormity. I will say now that there is a sentiment in the country contrary to me, --asentiment which holds that slavery is not wrong, and therefore it goes forthe policy that does not propose dealing with it as a wrong. That policyis the Democratic policy, and that sentiment is the Democratic sentiment. If there be a doubt in the mind of any one of this vast audience that thisis really the central idea of the Democratic party in relation to thissubject, I ask him to bear with me while I state a few things tending, asI think, to prove that proposition. In the first place, the leading man--Ithink I may do my friend Judge Douglas the honor of calling him suchadvocating the present Democratic policy never himself says it is wrong. He has the high distinction, so far as I know, of never having saidslavery is either right or wrong. Almost everybody else says one or theother, but the Judge never does. If there be a man in the Democratic partywho thinks it is wrong, and yet clings to that party, I suggest to him, inthe first place, that his leader don't talk as he does, for he never saysthat it is wrong. In the second place, I suggest to him that if he willexamine the policy proposed to be carried forward, he will find that hecarefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. If youwill examine the arguments that are made on it, you will find that everyone carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in slavery. Perhaps that Democrat who says he is as much opposed to slavery as I amwill tell me that I am wrong about this. I wish him to examine his owncourse in regard to this matter a moment, and then see if his opinion willnot be changed a little. You say it is wrong; but don't you constantlyobject to anybody else saying so? Do you not constantly argue that thisis not the right place to oppose it? You say it must not be opposed in thefree States, because slavery is not here; it must not be opposed in theslave States, because it is there; it must not be opposed in politics, because that will make a fuss; it must not be opposed in the pulpit, because it is not religion. Then where is the place to oppose it? There isno suitable place to oppose it. There is no place in the country to opposethis evil overspreading the continent, which you say yourself iscoming. Frank Blair and Gratz Brown tried to get up a system of gradualemancipation in Missouri, had an election in August, and got beat, andyou, Mr. Democrat, threw up your hat, and hallooed "Hurrah for Democracy!"So I say, again, that in regard to the arguments that are made, when JudgeDouglas Says he "don't care whether slavery is voted up or voted down, "whether he means that as an individual expression of sentiment, or only asa sort of statement of his views on national policy, it is alike true tosay that he can thus argue logically if he don't see anything wrong init; but he cannot say so logically if he admits that slavery is wrong. Hecannot say that he would as soon see a wrong voted up as voted down. WhenJudge Douglas says that whoever or whatever community wants slaves, theyhave a right to have them, he is perfectly logical, if there is nothingwrong in the institution; but if you admit that it is wrong, he cannotlogically say that anybody has a right to do wrong. When he says thatslave property and horse and hog property are alike to be allowed to gointo the Territories, upon the principles of equality, he is reasoningtruly, if there is no difference between them as property; but if theone is property held rightfully, and the other is wrong, then there is noequality between the right and wrong; so that, turn it in anyway you can, in all the arguments sustaining the Democratic policy, and in that policyitself, there is a careful, studied exclusion of the idea that there isanything wrong in slavery. Let us understand this. I am not, just here, trying to prove that we are right, and they are wrong. I have been statingwhere we and they stand, and trying to show what is the real differencebetween us; and I now say that whenever we can get the question distinctlystated, can get all these men who believe that slavery is in some of theserespects wrong to stand and act with us in treating it as a wrong, --then, and not till then, I think we will in some way come to an end of thisslavery agitation. 

Mr. LINCOLN'S REJOINDER. 

MY FRIENDS:--Since Judge Douglas has said to you in his conclusion that hehad not time in an hour and a half to answer all I had said in an hour, it follows of course that I will not be able to answer in half an hour allthat he said in an hour and a half. 

I wish to return to Judge Douglas my profound thanks for his publicannunciation here to-day, to be put on record, that his system of policyin regard to the institution of slavery contemplates that it shalllast forever. We are getting a little nearer the true issue of thiscontroversy, and I am profoundly grateful for this one sentence. JudgeDouglas asks you, Why cannot the institution of slavery, or rather, whycannot the nation, part slave and part free, continue as our fathers madeit, forever? In the first place, I insist that our fathers did not makethis nation half slave and half free, or part slave and part free. Iinsist that they found the institution of slavery existing here. They didnot make it so but they left it so because they knew of no way to get ridof it at that time. When Judge Douglas undertakes to say that, as a matterof choice, the fathers of the government made this nation part slave andpart free, he assumes what is historically a falsehood. More than that:when the fathers of the government cut off the source of slavery by theabolition of the slave-trade, and adopted a system of restricting it fromthe new Territories where it had not existed, I maintain that they placedit where they understood, and all sensible men understood, it was inthe course of ultimate extinction; and when Judge Douglas asks me why itcannot continue as our fathers made it, I ask him why he and his friendscould not let it remain as our fathers made it?

It is precisely all I ask of him in relation to the institution ofslavery, that it shall be placed upon the basis that our fathers placed itupon. Mr. Brooks, of South Carolina, once said, and truly said, thatwhen this government was established, no one expected the institutionof slavery to last until this day, and that the men who formed thisgovernment were wiser and better than the men of these days; but themen of these days had experience which the fathers had not, and thatexperience had taught them the invention of the cotton-gin, and this hadmade the perpetuation of the institution of slavery a necessity in thiscountry. Judge Douglas could not let it stand upon the basis which ourfathers placed it, but removed it, and put it upon the cotton-gin basis. It is a question, therefore, for him and his friends to answer, why theycould not let it remain where the fathers of the government originallyplaced it. I hope nobody has understood me as trying to sustain thedoctrine that we have a right to quarrel with Kentucky, or Virginia, orany of the slave States, about the institution of slavery, --thus givingthe Judge an opportunity to be eloquent and valiant against us in fightingfor their rights. I expressly declared in my opening speech that I hadneither the inclination to exercise, nor the belief in the existence of, the right to interfere with the States of Kentucky or Virginia in doingas they pleased with slavery Or any other existing institution. Then whatbecomes of all his eloquence in behalf of the rights of States, which areassailed by no living man?

But I have to hurry on, for I have but a half hour. The Judge has informedme, or informed this audience, that the Washington Union is laboring formy election to the United States Senate. This is news to me, --not veryungrateful news either. [Turning to Mr. W. H. Carlin, who was on thestand]--I hope that Carlin will be elected to the State Senate, andwill vote for me. [Mr. Carlin shook his head. ] Carlin don't fall in, Iperceive, and I suppose he will not do much for me; but I am glad of allthe support I can get, anywhere, if I can get it without practicingany deception to obtain it. In respect to this large portion of JudgeDouglas's speech in which he tries to show that in the controversy betweenhimself and the Administration party he is in the right, I do not feelmyself at all competent or inclined to answer him. I say to him, "Give itto them, --give it to them just all you can!" and, on the other hand, Isay to Carlin, and Jake Davis, and to this man Wogley up here in Hancock, "Give it to Douglas, just pour it into him!"

Now, in regard to this matter of the Dred Scott decision, I wish to say aword or two. After all, the Judge will not say whether, if a decision ismade holding that the people of the States cannot exclude slavery, he willsupport it or not. He obstinately refuses to say what he will do in thatcase. The judges of the Supreme Court as obstinately refused to saywhat they would do on this subject. Before this I reminded him that atGalesburgh he said the judges had expressly declared the contrary, and youremember that in my Opening speech I told him I had the book containingthat decision here, and I would thank him to lay his finger on the placewhere any such thing was said. He has occupied his hour and a half, and hehas not ventured to try to sustain his assertion. He never will. But he isdesirous of knowing how we are going to reverse that Dred Scott decision. Judge Douglas ought to know how. Did not he and his political friendsfind a way to reverse the decision of that same court in favor of theconstitutionality of the National Bank? Didn't they find a way to do it soeffectually that they have reversed it as completely as any decision everwas reversed, so far as its practical operation is concerned?

And let me ask you, did n't Judge Douglas find a way to reverse thedecision of our Supreme Court when it decided that Carlin's father--oldGovernor Carlin had not the constitutional power to remove a Secretary ofState? Did he not appeal to the "MOBS, " as he calls them? Did he not makespeeches in the lobby to show how villainous that decision was, and how itought to be overthrown? Did he not succeed, too, in getting an act passedby the Legislature to have it overthrown? And did n't he himself sit downon that bench as one of the five added judges, who were to overslaugh thefour old ones, getting his name of "judge" in that way, and no other? Ifthere is a villainy in using disrespect or making opposition to SupremeCourt decisions, I commend it to Judge Douglas's earnest consideration. I know of no man in the State of Illinois who ought to know so well abouthow much villainy it takes to oppose a decision of the Supreme Court asour honorable friend Stephen A. Douglas. 

Judge Douglas also makes the declaration that I say the Democrats arebound by the Dred Scott decision, while the Republicans are not. In thesense in which he argues, I never said it; but I will tell you what I havesaid and what I do not hesitate to repeat to-day. I have said that as theDemocrats believe that decision to be correct, and that the extensionof slavery is affirmed in the National Constitution, they are bound tosupport it as such; and I will tell you here that General Jackson oncesaid each man was bound to support the Constitution "as he understoodit. " Now, Judge Douglas understands the Constitution according to theDred Scott decision, and he is bound to support it as he understands it. I understand it another way, and therefore I am bound to support it in theway in which I understand it. And as Judge Douglas believes that decisionto be correct, I will remake that argument if I have time to do so. Let metalk to some gentleman down there among you who looks me in the face. Wewill say you are a member of the Territorial Legislature, and, like JudgeDouglas, you believe that the right to take and hold slaves there is aconstitutional right The first thing you do is to swear you will supportthe Constitution, and all rights guaranteed therein; that youwill, whenever your neighbor needs your legislation to support hisconstitutional rights, not withhold that legislation. If you withholdthat necessary legislation for the support of the Constitution andconstitutional rights, do you not commit perjury? I ask every sensible manif that is not so? That is undoubtedly just so, say what you please. Now, that is precisely what Judge Douglas says, that this is a constitutionalright. Does the Judge mean to say that the Territorial Legislature inlegislating may, by withholding necessary laws, or by passing unfriendlylaws, nullify that constitutional right? Does he mean to say that? Does hemean to ignore the proposition so long and well established in law, thatwhat you cannot do directly, you cannot do indirectly? Does he mean that?The truth about the matter is this: Judge Douglas has sung paeans to his"Popular Sovereignty" doctrine until his Supreme Court, co-operating withhim, has squatted his Squatter Sovereignty out. But he will keep up thisspecies of humbuggery about Squatter Sovereignty. He has at last inventedthis sort of do-nothing sovereignty, --that the people may exclude slaveryby a sort of "sovereignty" that is exercised by doing nothing at all. Isnot that running his Popular Sovereignty down awfully? Has it not got downas thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of apigeon that had starved to death? But at last, when it is brought to thetest of close reasoning, there is not even that thin decoction of it left. It is a presumption impossible in the domain of thought. It is preciselyno other than the putting of that most unphilosophical proposition, thattwo bodies can occupy the same space at the same time. The Dred Scottdecision covers the whole ground, and while it occupies it, there is noroom even for the shadow of a starved pigeon to occupy the same ground. 

Judge Douglas, in reply to what I have said about having upon a previousoccasion made the speech at Ottawa as the one he took an extract from atCharleston, says it only shows that I practiced the deception twice. Now, my friends, are any of you obtuse enough to swallow that? Judge Douglashad said I had made a speech at Charleston that I would not make up north, and I turned around and answered him by showing I had made that samespeech up north, --had made it at Ottawa; made it in his hearing; madeit in the Abolition District, --in Lovejoy's District, --in the personalpresence of Lovejoy himself, --in the same atmosphere exactly in which Ihad made my Chicago speech, of which he complains so much. 

Now, in relation to my not having said anything about the quotation fromthe Chicago speech: he thinks that is a terrible subject for me to handle. Why, gentlemen, I can show you that the substance of the Chicago speechI delivered two years ago in "Egypt, " as he calls it. It was down atSpringfield. That speech is here in this book, and I could turn to it andread it to you but for the lack of time. I have not now the time to readit. ["Read it, read it. "] No, gentlemen, I am obliged to use discretion indisposing most advantageously of my brief time. The Judge has taken greatexception to my adopting the heretical statement in the Declaration ofIndependence, that "all men are created equal, " and he has a great deal tosay about negro equality. I want to say that in sometimes alluding to theDeclaration of Independence, I have only uttered the sentiments that HenryClay used to hold. Allow me to occupy your time a moment with what hesaid. Mr. Clay was at one time called upon in Indiana, and in a way that Isuppose was very insulting, to liberate his slaves; and he made a writtenreply to that application, and one portion of it is in these words:

"What is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberate theslaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in theact announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen Americancolonies, that men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, thereis no doubt of the truth of that declaration, and it is desirable in theoriginal construction of society, and in organized societies, to keep itin view as a great fundamental principle. "

When I sometimes, in relation to the organization of new societies in newcountries, where the soil is clean and clear, insisted that we should keepthat principle in view, Judge Douglas will have it that I want a negrowife. He never can be brought to understand that there is any middleground on this subject. I have lived until my fiftieth year, and havenever had a negro woman either for a slave or a wife, and I think I canlive fifty centuries, for that matter, without having had one for either. I maintain that you may take Judge Douglas's quotations from my Chicagospeech, and from my Charleston speech, and the Galesburgh speech, --in hisspeech of to-day, --and compare them over, and I am willing to trust themwith you upon his proposition that they show rascality or double-dealing. I deny that they do. 

The Judge does not seem at all disposed to have peace, but I find he isdisposed to have a personal warfare with me. He says that my oath wouldnot be taken against the bare word of Charles H. Lanphier or Thomas L. Harris. Well, that is altogether a matter of opinion. It is certainly notfor me to vaunt my word against oaths of these gentlemen, but I will tellJudge Douglas again the facts upon which I "dared" to say they proveda forgery. I pointed out at Galesburgh that the publication of theseresolutions in the Illinois State Register could not have been the resultof accident, as the proceedings of that meeting bore unmistakableevidence of being done by a man who knew it was a forgery; that it was apublication partly taken from the real proceedings of the Convention, andpartly from the proceedings of a convention at another place, which showedthat he had the real proceedings before him, and taking one part ofthe resolutions, he threw out another part, and substituted false andfraudulent ones in their stead. I pointed that out to him, and also thathis friend Lanphier, who was editor of the Register at that time and nowis, must have known how it was done. Now, whether he did it, or got somefriend to do it for him, I could not tell, but he certainly knew all aboutit. I pointed out to Judge Douglas that in his Freeport speech he hadpromised to investigate that matter. Does he now say that he did not makethat promise? I have a right to ask why he did not keep it. I call uponhim to tell here to-day why he did not keep that promise? That fraud hasbeen traced up so that it lies between him, Harris, and Lanphier. Thereis little room for escape for Lanphier. Lanphier is doing the Judgegood service, and Douglas desires his word to be taken for the truth. He desires Lanphier to be taken as authority in what he states in hisnewspaper. He desires Harris to be taken as a man of vast credibility; andwhen this thing lies among them, they will not press it to show where theguilt really belongs. Now, as he has said that he would investigate it, and implied that he would tell us the result of his investigation, Idemand of him to tell why he did not investigate it, if he did not; and ifhe did, why he won't tell the result. I call upon him for that. 

This is the third time that Judge Douglas has assumed that he learnedabout these resolutions by Harris's attempting to use them against Nortonon the floor of Congress. I tell Judge Douglas the public records of thecountry show that he himself attempted it upon Trumbull a month beforeHarris tried them on Norton; that Harris had the opportunity of learningit from him, rather than he from Harris. I now ask his attention to thatpart of the record on the case. My friends, I am not disposed to detainyou longer in regard to that matter. 

I am told that I still have five minutes left. There is another matter Iwish to call attention to. He says, when he discovered there was a mistakein that case, he came forward magnanimously, without my calling hisattention to it, and explained it. I will tell you how he became somagnanimous. When the newspapers of our side had discovered and publishedit, and put it beyond his power to deny it, then he came forward and madea virtue of necessity by acknowledging it. Now he argues that allthe point there was in those resolutions, although never passed atSpringfield, is retained by their being passed at other localities. Isthat true? He said I had a hand in passing them, in his opening speech, that I was in the convention and helped to pass them. Do the resolutionstouch me at all? It strikes me there is some difference between holdinga man responsible for an act which he has not done and holding himresponsible for an act that he has done. You will judge whether thereis any difference in the "spots. " And he has taken credit for greatmagnanimity in coming forward and acknowledging what is proved on himbeyond even the capacity of Judge Douglas to deny; and he has morecapacity in that way than any other living man. 

Then he wants to know why I won't withdraw the charge in regard to aconspiracy to make slavery national, as he has withdrawn the one he made. May it please his worship, I will withdraw it when it is proven false onme as that was proven false on him. I will add a little more than that, I will withdraw it whenever a reasonable man shall be brought to believethat the charge is not true. I have asked Judge Douglas's attention tocertain matters of fact tending to prove the charge of a conspiracy tonationalize slavery, and he says he convinces me that this is all untruebecause Buchanan was not in the country at that time, and because the DredScott case had not then got into the Supreme Court; and he says that I saythe Democratic owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I never did say thatI defy Judge Douglas to show that I ever said so, for I never utteredit. [One of Mr. Douglas's reporters gesticulated affirmatively at Mr. Lincoln. ] I don't care if your hireling does say I did, I tell you myselfthat I never said the "Democratic" owners of Dred Scott got up the case. I have never pretended to know whether Dred Scott's owners were Democrats, or Abolitionists, or Freesoilers or Border Ruffians. I have said thatthere is evidence about the case tending to show that it was a made-upcase, for the purpose of getting that decision. I have said that thatevidence was very strong in the fact that when Dred Scott was declared tobe a slave, the owner of him made him free, showing that he had had thecase tried and the question settled for such use as could be made of thatdecision; he cared nothing about the property thus declared to be his bythat decision. But my time is out, and I can say no more. 

LAST DEBATE, AT ALTON, OCTOBER 15, 1858

Mr. LINCOLN'S REPLY

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have been somewhat, in my own mind, complimentedby a large portion of Judge Douglas's speech, --I mean that portionwhich he devotes to the controversy between himself and the presentAdministration. This is the seventh time Judge Douglas and myself have metin these joint discussions, and he has been gradually improving in regardto his war with the Administration. At Quincy, day before yesterday, hewas a little more severe upon the Administration than I had heard him uponany occasion, and I took pains to compliment him for it. I then told himto give it to them with all the power he had; and as some of them werepresent, I told them I would be very much obliged if they would give it tohim in about the same way. I take it he has now vastly improved uponthe attack he made then upon the Administration. I flatter myself he hasreally taken my advice on this subject. All I can say now is to re-commendto him and to them what I then commended, --to prosecute the war againstone another in the most vigorous manner. I say to them again: "Go it, husband!--Go it, bear!"

There is one other thing I will mention before I leave this branch of thediscussion, --although I do not consider it much of my business, anyway. Irefer to that part of the Judge's remarks where he undertakes to involveMr. Buchanan in an inconsistency. He reads something from Mr. Buchanan, from which he undertakes to involve him in an inconsistency; and he getssomething of a cheer for having done so. I would only remind the Judgethat while he is very valiantly fighting for the Nebraska Bill and therepeal of the Missouri Compromise, it has been but a little while sincehe was the valiant advocate of the Missouri Compromise. I want to knowif Buchanan has not as much right to be inconsistent as Douglas has? HasDouglas the exclusive right, in this country, of being on all sides ofall questions? Is nobody allowed that high privilege but himself? Is he tohave an entire monopoly on that subject?

So far as Judge Douglas addressed his speech to me, or so far as it wasabout me, it is my business to pay some attention to it. I have heard theJudge state two or three times what he has stated to-day, that in a speechwhich I made at Springfield, Illinois, I had in a very especial mannercomplained that the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case had decided thata negro could never be a citizen of the United States. I have omitted bysome accident heretofore to analyze this statement, and it is requiredof me to notice it now. In point of fact it is untrue. I never havecomplained especially of the Dred Scott decision because it held that anegro could not be a citizen, and the Judge is always wrong when he saysI ever did so complain of it. I have the speech here, and I will thankhim or any of his friends to show where I said that a negro should be acitizen, and complained especially of the Dred Scott decision becauseit declared he could not be one. I have done no such thing; and JudgeDouglas, so persistently insisting that I have done so, has stronglyimpressed me with the belief of a predetermination on his part tomisrepresent me. He could not get his foundation for insisting that Iwas in favor of this negro equality anywhere else as well as he could byassuming that untrue proposition. Let me tell this audience what is truein regard to that matter; and the means by which they may correct me if Ido not tell them truly is by a recurrence to the speech itself. I spokeof the Dred Scott decision in my Springfield speech, and I was thenendeavoring to prove that the Dred Scott decision was a portion of asystem or scheme to make slavery national in this country. I pointed outwhat things had been decided by the court. I mentioned as a fact that theyhad decided that a negro could not be a citizen; that they had done so, asI supposed, to deprive the negro, under all circumstances, of the remotestpossibility of ever becoming a citizen and claiming the rights of acitizen of the United States under a certain clause of the Constitution. Istated that, without making any complaint of it at all. I then went on andstated the other points decided in the case; namely, that the bringingof a negro into the State of Illinois and holding him in slavery for twoyears here was a matter in regard to which they would not decide whetherit would make him free or not; that they decided the further point thattaking him into a United States Territory where slavery was prohibited byAct of Congress did not make him free, because that Act of Congress, asthey held, was unconstitutional. I mentioned these three things as makingup the points decided in that case. I mentioned them in a lump, taken inconnection with the introduction of the Nebraska Bill, and the amendmentof Chase, offered at the time, declaratory of the right of the people ofthe Territories to exclude slavery, which was voted down by the friendsof the bill. I mentioned all these things together, as evidence tendingto prove a combination and conspiracy to make the institution of slaverynational. In that connection and in that way I mentioned the decision onthe point that a negro could not be a citizen, and in no other connection. 

Out of this Judge Douglas builds up his beautiful fabrication of mypurpose to introduce a perfect social and political equality between thewhite and black races. His assertion that I made an "especial objection"(that is his exact language) to the decision on this account is untrue inpoint of fact. 

Now, while I am upon this subject, and as Henry Clay has been alluded to, I desire to place myself, in connection with Mr. Clay, as nearly rightbefore this people as may be. I am quite aware what the Judge's objectis here by all these allusions. He knows that we are before an audiencehaving strong sympathies southward, by relationship, place of birth, andso on. He desires to place me in an extremely Abolition attitude. He readupon a former occasion, and alludes, without reading, to-day to a portionof a speech which I delivered in Chicago. In his quotations from thatspeech, as he has made them upon former occasions, the extracts were takenin such a way as, I suppose, brings them within the definition of whatis called garbling, --taking portions of a speech which, when taken bythemselves, do not present the entire sense of the speaker as expressed atthe time. I propose, therefore, out of that same speech, to show howone portion of it which he skipped over (taking an extract before and anextract after) will give a different idea, and the true idea I intended toconvey. It will take me some little time to read it, but I believe I willoccupy the time that way. 

You have heard him frequently allude to my controversy with him in regardto the Declaration of Independence. I confess that I have had a strugglewith Judge Douglas on that matter, and I will try briefly to place myselfright in regard to it on this occasion. I said--and it is betweenthe extracts Judge Douglas has taken from this speech, and put in hispublished speeches:

"It may be argued that there are certain conditions that make necessitiesand impose them upon us, and to the extent that a necessity is imposedupon a man he must submit to it. I think that was the condition in whichwe found ourselves when we established this government. We had slavesamong us, we could not get our Constitution unless we permitted themto remain in slavery, we could not secure the good we did secure if wegrasped for more; and having by necessity submitted to that much, it doesnot destroy the principle that is the charter of our liberties. Let thecharter remain as our standard. "

Now, I have upon all occasions declared as strongly as Judge Douglasagainst the disposition to interfere with the existing institution ofslavery. You hear me read it from the same speech from which he takesgarbled extracts for the purpose of proving upon me a disposition tointerfere with the institution of slavery, and establish a perfect socialand political equality between negroes and white people. 

Allow me while upon this subject briefly to present one other extract froma speech of mine, more than a year ago, at Springfield, in discussing thisvery same question, soon after Judge Douglas took his ground that negroeswere, not included in the Declaration of Independence:

"I think the authors of that notable instrument intended to include allmen, but they did not mean to declare all men equal in all respects. Theydid not mean to say all men were equal in color, size, intellect, moraldevelopment, or social capacity. They defined with tolerable distinctnessin what they did consider all men created equal, --equal in certaininalienable rights, among which are life, liberty, and the pursuit ofhappiness. This they said, and this they meant. They did not mean toassert the obvious untruth that all were then actually enjoying thatequality, or yet that they were about to confer it immediately upon them. In fact they had no power to confer such a boon. They meant simply todeclare the right, so that the enforcement of it might follow as fast ascircumstances should permit. 

"They meant to set up a standard maxim for free society which should befamiliar to all, --constantly looked to, constantly labored for, and even, though never perfectly attained, constantly approximated, and therebyconstantly spreading and deepening its influence, and augmenting thehappiness and value of life to all people, of all colors, everywhere. "

There again are the sentiments I have expressed in regard to theDeclaration of Independence upon a former occasion, --sentiments which havebeen put in print and read wherever anybody cared to know what so humblean individual as myself chose to say in regard to it. 

At Galesburgh, the other day, I said, in answer to Judge Douglas, thatthree years ago there never had been a man, so far as I knew or believed, in the whole world, who had said that the Declaration of Independence didnot include negroes in the term "all men. " I reassert it to-day. I assertthat Judge Douglas and all his friends may search the whole records of thecountry, and it will be a matter of great astonishment to me if they shallbe able to find that one human being three years ago had ever uttered theastounding sentiment that the term "all men" in the Declaration did notinclude the negro. Do not let me be misunderstood. I know that more thanthree years ago there were men who, finding this assertion constantly inthe way of their schemes to bring about the ascendency and perpetuationof slavery, denied the truth of it. I know that Mr. Calhoun and all thepoliticians of his school denied the truth of the Declaration. I knowthat it ran along in the mouth of some Southern men for a period of years, ending at last in that shameful, though rather forcible, declaration ofPettit of Indiana, upon the floor of the United States Senate, that theDeclaration of Independence was in that respect "a self-evident lie, "rather than a self-evident truth. But I say, with a perfect knowledge ofall this hawking at the Declaration without directly attacking it, thatthree years ago there never had lived a man who had ventured to assail itin the sneaking way of pretending to believe it, and then asserting it didnot include the negro. I believe the first man who ever said it was ChiefJustice Taney in the Dred Scott case, and the next to him was our friendStephen A. Douglas. And now it has become the catchword of the entireparty. I would like to call upon his friends everywhere to consider howthey have come in so short a time to view this matter in a way so entirelydifferent from their former belief; to ask whether they are not beingborne along by an irresistible current, --whither, they know not. 

In answer to my proposition at Galesburgh last week, I see that some manin Chicago has got up a letter, addressed to the Chicago Times, to show, as he professes, that somebody had said so before; and he signs himself"An Old-Line Whig, " if I remember correctly. In the first place, I wouldsay he was not an old-line Whig. I am somewhat acquainted with old-lineWhigs from the origin to the end of that party; I became pretty wellacquainted with them, and I know they always had some sense, whatever elseyou could ascribe to them. I know there never was one who had not moresense than to try to show by the evidence he produces that some men had, prior to the time I named, said that negroes were not included in theterm "all men" in the Declaration of Independence. What is the evidencehe produces? I will bring forward his evidence, and let you see what heoffers by way of showing that somebody more than three years ago had saidnegroes were not included in the Declaration. He brings forward part of aspeech from Henry Clay, --the part of the speech of Henry Clay which Iused to bring forward to prove precisely the contrary. I guess we aresurrounded to some extent to-day by the old friends of Mr. Clay, and theywill be glad to hear anything from that authority. While he was in Indianaa man presented a petition to liberate his negroes, and he (Mr. Clay) madea speech in answer to it, which I suppose he carefully wrote out himselfand caused to be published. I have before me an extract from that speechwhich constitutes the evidence this pretended "Old-Line Whig" at Chicagobrought forward to show that Mr. Clay did n't suppose the negro wasincluded in the Declaration of Independence. Hear what Mr. Clay said:

"And what is the foundation of this appeal to me in Indiana to liberatethe slaves under my care in Kentucky? It is a general declaration in theact announcing to the world the independence of the thirteen Americancolonies, that all men are created equal. Now, as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the truth of that declaration; and it is desirable, in the original construction of society and in organized societies, tokeep it in view as a great fundamental principle. But, then, I apprehendthat in no society that ever did exist, or ever shall be formed, wasor can the equality asserted among the members of the human race bepractically enforced and carried out. There are portions, large portions, women, minors, insane, culprits, transient sojourners, that will alwaysprobably remain subject to the government of another portion of thecommunity. 

"That declaration, whatever may be the extent of its import, was made bythe delegations of the thirteen States. In most of them slavery existed, and had long existed, and was established by law. It was introduced andforced upon the colonies by the paramount law of England. Do you believethat in making that declaration the States that concurred in it intendedthat it should be tortured into a virtual emancipation of all the slaveswithin their respective limits? Would Virginia and other Southern Stateshave ever united in a declaration which was to be interpreted into anabolition of slavery among them? Did any one of the thirteen coloniesentertain such a design or expectation? To impute such a secret andunavowed purpose, would be to charge a political fraud upon the noblestband of patriots that ever assembled in council, --a fraud upon theConfederacy of the Revolution; a fraud upon the union of those Stateswhose Constitution not only recognized the lawfulness of slavery, butpermitted the importation of slaves from Africa until the year 1808. "

This is the entire quotation brought forward to prove that somebodyprevious to three years ago had said the negro was not included in theterm "all men" in the Declaration. How does it do so? In what way has it atendency to prove that? Mr. Clay says it is true as an abstract principlethat all men are created equal, but that we cannot practically apply it inall eases. He illustrates this by bringing forward the cases of females, minors, and insane persons, with whom it cannot be enforced; but he saysit is true as an abstract principle in the organization of society as wellas in organized society and it should be kept in view as a fundamentalprinciple. Let me read a few words more before I add some comments of myown. Mr. Clay says, a little further on:

"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution ofslavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we havederived it from the parental government and from our ancestors. I wishevery slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. Buthere they are, and the question is, How can they be best dealt with? Ifa state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundationsof society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be toincorporate the institution of slavery amongst its elements. "

Now, here in this same book, in this same speech, in this same extract, brought forward to prove that Mr. Clay held that the negro was notincluded in the Declaration of Independence, is no such statement onhis part, but the declaration that it is a great fundamental truth whichshould be constantly kept in view in the organization of society and insocieties already organized. But if I say a word about it; if I attempt, as Mr. Clay said all good men ought to do, to keep it in view; if, in this"organized society, " I ask to have the public eye turned upon it; if Iask, in relation to the organization of new Territories, that the publiceye should be turned upon it, forthwith I am vilified as you hear meto-day. What have I done that I have not the license of Henry Clay'sillustrious example here in doing? Have I done aught that I have not hisauthority for, while maintaining that in organizing new Territories andsocieties this fundamental principle should be regarded, and in organizedsociety holding it up to the public view and recognizing what herecognized as the great principle of free government?

And when this new principle--this new proposition that no human being everthought of three years ago--is brought forward, I combat it as having anevil tendency, if not an evil design. I combat it as having a tendency todehumanize the negro, to take away from him the right of ever striving tobe a man. I combat it as being one of the thousand things constantly donein these days to prepare the public mind to make property, and nothing butproperty, of the negro in all the States of this Union. 

But there is a point that I wish, before leaving this part of thediscussion, to ask attention to. I have read and I repeat the words ofHenry Clay:

"I desire no concealment of my opinions in regard to the institution ofslavery. I look upon it as a great evil, and deeply lament that we havederived it from the parental government and from our ancestors. I wishevery slave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors. Buthere they are, and the question is, How can they be best dealt with? Ifa state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the foundationsof society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should be toincorporate the institution of slavery amongst its elements. "

The principle upon which I have insisted in this canvass is in relationto laying the foundations of new societies. I have never sought to applythese principles to the old States for the purpose of abolishing slaveryin those States. It is nothing but a miserable perversion of what I havesaid, to assume that I have declared Missouri, or any other slave State, shall emancipate her slaves; I have proposed no such thing. But when Mr. Clay says that in laying the foundations of society in our Territorieswhere it does not exist, he would be opposed to the introduction ofslavery as an element, I insist that we have his warrant--his license--forinsisting upon the exclusion of that element which he declared in suchstrong and emphatic language was most hurtful to him. 

Judge Douglas has again referred to a Springfield speech in which I said"a house divided against itself cannot stand. " The Judge has so often madethe entire quotation from that speech that I can make it from memory. Iused this language:

"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated withthe avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to the slaveryagitation. Under the operation of this policy, that agitation has not onlynot ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will notcease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 'A house dividedagainst itself cannot stand. ' I believe this government cannot endurepermanently, half slave and half free. 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 furtherspread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the beliefthat it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates willpush it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, oldas well as new, North as well as South. "

That extract and the sentiments expressed in it have been extremelyoffensive to Judge Douglas. He has warred upon them as Satan wars upon theBible. His perversions upon it are endless. Here now are my views upon itin brief:

I said we were now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiatedwith the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to theslavery agitation. Is it not so? When that Nebraska Bill was broughtforward four years ago last January, was it not for the "avowed object" ofputting an end to the slavery agitation? We were to have no more agitationin Congress; it was all to be banished to the Territories. By the way, Iwill remark here that, as Judge Douglas is very fond of complimenting Mr. Crittenden in these days, Mr. Crittenden has said there was a falsehoodin that whole business, for there was no slavery agitation at that time toallay. We were for a little while quiet on the troublesome thing, and thatvery allaying plaster of Judge Douglas's stirred it up again. But was itnot understood or intimated with the "confident promise" of putting an endto the slavery agitation? Surely it was. In every speech you heard JudgeDouglas make, until he got into this "imbroglio, " as they call it, withthe Administration about the Lecompton Constitution, every speech on thatNebraska Bill was full of his felicitations that we were just at theend of the slavery agitation. The last tip of the last joint of the oldserpent's tail was just drawing out of view. But has it proved so? I haveasserted that under that policy that agitation "has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. " When was there ever a greater agitation inCongress than last winter? When was it as great in the country as to-day?

There was a collateral object in the introduction of that Nebraska policy, which was to clothe the people of the Territories with a superior degreeof self-government, beyond what they had ever had before. The firstobject and the main one of conferring upon the people a higher degree of"self-government" is a question of fact to be determined by you in answerto a single question. Have you ever heard or known of a people anywhereon earth who had as little to do as, in the first instance of its use, thepeople of Kansas had with this same right of "self-government "? Inits main policy and in its collateral object, it has been nothing but aliving, creeping lie from the time of its introduction till to-day. 

I have intimated that I thought the agitation would not cease until acrisis should have been reached and passed. I have stated in what way Ithought it would be reached and passed. I have said that it might go oneway or the other. We might, by arresting the further spread of it, andplacing it where the fathers originally placed it, put it where the publicmind should rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimateextinction. Thus the agitation may cease. It may be pushed forward untilit shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, Northas well as South. I have said, and I repeat, my wish is that the furtherspread of it may be arrested, and that it may be where the publicmind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimateextinction--I have expressed that as my wish I entertain the opinion, uponevidence sufficient to my mind, that the fathers of this government placedthat institution where the public mind did rest in the belief that it wasin the course of ultimate extinction. Let me ask why they made provisionthat the source of slavery--the African slave-trade--should be cut off atthe end of twenty years? Why did they make provision that in all the newterritory we owned at that time slavery should be forever inhibited? Whystop its spread in one direction, and cut off its source in another, if they did not look to its being placed in the course of its ultimateextinction?

Again: the institution of slavery is only mentioned in the Constitution ofthe United States two or three times, and in neither of these cases doesthe word "slavery" or "negro race" occur; but covert language is usedeach time, and for a purpose full of significance. What is the languagein regard to the prohibition of the African slave-trade? It runs in aboutthis way:

"The migration or importation of such persons as any of the States nowexisting shall think proper to admit, shall not be prohibited by theCongress prior to the year one thousand eight hundred and eight. "

The next allusion in the Constitution to the question of slavery and theblack race is on the subject of the basis of representation, and there thelanguage used is:

"Representatives and direct taxes shall be apportioned among the severalStates which may be included within this Union, according to theirrespective numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the wholenumber of free persons, including those bound to service for a termof years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three-fifths of all otherpersons. "

It says "persons, " not slaves, not negroes; but this "three-fifths" can beapplied to no other class among us than the negroes. 

Lastly, in the provision for the reclamation of fugitive slaves, it issaid:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulationtherein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be deliveredup, on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. "

There again there is no mention of the word "negro" or of slavery. Inall three of these places, being the only allusions to slavery in theinstrument, covert language is used. Language is used not suggesting thatslavery existed or that the black race were among us. And I understand thecontemporaneous history of those times to be that covert language was usedwith a purpose, and that purpose was that in our Constitution, which itwas hoped and is still hoped will endure forever, --when it should be readby intelligent and patriotic men, after the institution of slavery hadpassed from among us, --there should be nothing on the face of the greatcharter of liberty suggesting that such a thing as negro slavery had everexisted among us. This is part of the evidence that the fathers of thegovernment expected and intended the institution of slavery to come toan end. They expected and intended that it should be in the course ofultimate extinction. And when I say that I desire to see the furtherspread of it arrested, I only say I desire to see that done which thefathers have first done. When I say I desire to see it placed where thepublic mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimateextinction, I only say I desire to see it placed where they placed it. It is not true that our fathers, as Judge Douglas assumes, made thisgovernment part slave and part free. Understand the sense in which heputs it. He assumes that slavery is a rightful thing within itself, --wasintroduced by the framers of the Constitution. The exact truth is, thatthey found the institution existing among us, and they left it as theyfound it. But in making the government they left this institution withmany clear marks of disapprobation upon it. They found slavery amongthem, and they left it among them because of the difficulty--the absoluteimpossibility--of its immediate removal. And when Judge Douglas asks mewhy we cannot let it remain part slave and part free, as the fathers ofthe government made it, he asks a question based upon an assumption whichis itself a falsehood; and I turn upon him and ask him the question, whenthe policy that the fathers of the government had adopted in relationto this element among us was the best policy in the world, the only wisepolicy, the only policy that we can ever safely continue upon that willever give us peace, unless this dangerous element masters us all andbecomes a national institution, --I turn upon him and ask him why he couldnot leave it alone. I turn and ask him why he was driven to the necessityof introducing a new policy in regard to it. He has himself said heintroduced a new policy. He said so in his speech on the 22d of March ofthe present year, 1858. I ask him why he could not let it remain whereour fathers placed it. I ask, too, of Judge Douglas and his friends why weshall not again place this institution upon the basis on which the fathersleft it. I ask you, when he infers that I am in favor of setting the freeand slave States at war, when the institution was placed in that attitudeby those who made the Constitution, did they make any war? If we had nowar out of it when thus placed, wherein is the ground of belief that weshall have war out of it if we return to that policy? Have we had anypeace upon this matter springing from any other basis? I maintain that wehave not. I have proposed nothing more than a return to the policy of thefathers. 

I confess, when I propose a certain measure of policy, it is not enoughfor me that I do not intend anything evil in the result, but it isincumbent on me to show that it has not a tendency to that result. Ihave met Judge Douglas in that point of view. I have not only made thedeclaration that I do not mean to produce a conflict between the States, but I have tried to show by fair reasoning, and I think I have shown tothe minds of fair men, that I propose nothing but what has a most peacefultendency. The quotation that I happened to make in that SpringfieldSpeech, that "a house divided against itself cannot stand, " and which hasproved so offensive to the judge, was part and parcel of the same thing. He tries to show that variety in the democratic institutions of thedifferent States is necessary and indispensable. I do not dispute it. Ihave no controversy with Judge Douglas about that. I shall very readilyagree with him that it would be foolish for us to insist upon having acranberry law here in Illinois, where we have no cranberries, because theyhave a cranberry law in Indiana, where they have cranberries. I shouldinsist that it would be exceedingly wrong in us to deny to Virginia theright to enact oyster laws, where they have oysters, because we want nosuch laws here. I understand, I hope, quite as well as Judge Douglas oranybody else, that the variety in the soil and climate and face of thecountry, and consequent variety in the industrial pursuits and productionsof a country, require systems of law conforming to this variety in thenatural features of the country. I understand quite as well as JudgeDouglas that if we here raise a barrel of flour more than we want, and theLouisianians raise a barrel of sugar more than they want, it is of mutualadvantage to exchange. That produces commerce, brings us together, andmakes us better friends. We like one another the more for it. And Iunderstand as well as Judge Douglas, or anybody else, that these mutualaccommodations are the cements which bind together the different partsof this Union; that instead of being a thing to "divide thehouse, "--figuratively expressing the Union, --they tend to sustain it; theyare the props of the house, tending always to hold it up. 

But when I have admitted all this, I ask if there is any parallel betweenthese things and this institution of slavery? I do not see that thereis any parallel at all between them. Consider it. When have we had anydifficulty or quarrel amongst ourselves about the cranberry laws ofIndiana, or the oyster laws of Virginia, or the pine-lumber laws of Maine, or the fact that Louisiana produces sugar, and Illinois flour? When havewe had any quarrels over these things? When have we had perfect peace inregard to this thing which I say is an element of discord in this Union?We have sometimes had peace, but when was it? It was when the institutionof slavery remained quiet where it was. We have had difficulty and turmoilwhenever it has made a struggle to spread itself where it was not. I ask, then, if experience does not speak in thunder-tones telling us that thepolicy which has given peace to the country heretofore, being returned to, gives the greatest promise of peace again. You may say, and Judge Douglashas intimated the same thing, that all this difficulty in regard tothe institution of slavery is the mere agitation of office-seekers andambitious Northern politicians. He thinks we want to get "his place, " Isuppose. I agree that there are office-seekers amongst us. The Biblesays somewhere that we are desperately selfish. I think we would havediscovered that fact without the Bible. I do not claim that I am any lessso than the average of men, but I do claim that I am not more selfish thanJudge Douglas. 

But is it true that all the difficulty and agitation we have in regardto this institution of slavery spring from office-seeking, from the mereambition of politicians? Is that the truth? How many times have we haddanger from this question? Go back to the day of the Missouri Compromise. Go back to the nullification question, at the bottom of which lay thissame slavery question. Go back to the time of the annexation of Texas. Go back to the troubles that led to the Compromise of 1850. You will findthat every time, with the single exception of the Nullification question, they sprung from an endeavor to spread this institution. There never was aparty in the history of this country, and there probably never will be, ofsufficient strength to disturb the general peace of the country. Partiesthemselves may be divided and quarrel on minor questions, yet it extendsnot beyond the parties themselves. But does not this question make adisturbance outside of political circles? Does it not enter into thechurches and rend them asunder? What divided the great Methodist Churchinto two parts, North and South? What has raised this constant disturbancein every Presbyterian General Assembly that meets? What disturbed theUnitarian Church in this very city two years ago? What has jarred andshaken the great American Tract Society recently, not yet splitting it, but sure to divide it in the end? Is it not this same mighty, deep-seatedpower that somehow operates on the minds of men, exciting and stirringthem up in every avenue of society, --in politics, in religion, inliterature, in morals, in all the manifold relations of life? Is this thework of politicians? Is that irresistible power, which for fifty years hasshaken the government and agitated the people, to be stifled and subduedby pretending that it is an exceedingly simple thing, and we ought not totalk about it? If you will get everybody else to stop talking about it, I assure you I will quit before they have half done so. But where isthe philosophy or statesmanship which assumes that you can quiet thatdisturbing element in our society which has disturbed us for more thanhalf a century, which has been the only serious danger that has threatenedour institutions, --I say, where is the philosophy or the statesmanshipbased on the assumption that we are to quit talking about it, and that thepublic mind is all at once to cease being agitated by it? Yet this is thepolicy here in the North that Douglas is advocating, that we are to carenothing about it! I ask you if it is not a false philosophy. Is it not afalse statesmanship that undertakes to build up a system of policy uponthe basis of caring nothing about the very thing that everybody does carethe most about--a thing which all experience has shown we care a verygreat deal about?

The Judge alludes very often in the course of his remarks to the exclusiveright which the States have to decide the whole thing for themselves. Iagree with him very readily that the different States have that right. He is but fighting a man of straw when he assumes that I am contendingagainst the right of the States to do as they please about it. Ourcontroversy with him is in regard to the new Territories. We agree thatwhen the States come in as States they have the right and the power to doas they please. We have no power as citizens of the free-States, or inour Federal capacity as members of the Federal Union through the GeneralGovernment, to disturb slavery in the States where it exists. We professconstantly that we have no more inclination than belief in the powerof the government to disturb it; yet we are driven constantly to defendourselves from the assumption that we are warring upon the rights of theSates. What I insist upon is, that the new Territories shall be kept freefrom it while in the Territorial condition. Judge Douglas assumes that wehave no interest in them, --that we have no right whatever to interfere. Ithink we have some interest. I think that as white men we have. Do we notwish for an outlet for our surplus population, if I may so expressmyself? Do we not feel an interest in getting to that outlet with suchinstitutions as we would like to have prevail there? If you go to theTerritory opposed to slavery, and another man comes upon the same groundwith his slave, upon the assumption that the things are equal, it turnsout that he has the equal right all his way, and you have no part of ityour way. If he goes in and makes it a slave Territory, and by consequencea slave State, is it not time that those who desire to have it a freeState were on equal ground? Let me suggest it in a different way. How manyDemocrats are there about here ["A thousand"] who have left slave Statesand come into the free State of Illinois to get rid of the institutionof slavery? [Another voice: "A thousand and one. "] I reckon there are athousand and one. I will ask you, if the policy you are now advocating hadprevailed when this country was in a Territorial condition, where wouldyou have gone to get rid of it? Where would you have found your free Stateor Territory to go to? And when hereafter, for any cause, the people inthis place shall desire to find new homes, if they wish to be rid of theinstitution, where will they find the place to go to?

Now, irrespective of the moral aspect of this question as to whether thereis a right or wrong in enslaving a negro, I am still in favor of our newTerritories being in such a condition that white men may find a home, --mayfind some spot where they can better their condition; where they cansettle upon new soil and better their condition in life. I am in favorof this, not merely (I must say it here as I have elsewhere) for our ownpeople who are born amongst us, but as an outlet for free white peopleeverywhere the world over--in which Hans, and Baptiste, and Patrick, andall other men from all the world, may find new homes and better theirconditions in life. 

I have stated upon former occasions, and I may as well state again, what Iunderstand to be the real issue in this controversy between Judge Douglasand myself. On the point of my wanting to make war between the free andthe slave States, there has been no issue between us. So, too, when heassumes that I am in favor of producing a perfect social and politicalequality between the white and black races. These are false issues, upon which Judge Douglas has tried to force the controversy. There isno foundation in truth for the charge that I maintain either of thesepropositions. The real issue in this controversy--the one pressing uponevery mind--is the sentiment on the part of one class that looks upon theinstitution of slavery as a wrong, and of another class that does not lookupon it as a wrong. The sentiment that contemplates the institution ofslavery in this country as a wrong is the sentiment of the Republicanparty. It is the sentiment around which all their actions, all theirarguments, circle, from which all their propositions radiate. They lookupon it as being a moral, social, and political wrong; and while theycontemplate it as such, they nevertheless have due regard for its actualexistence among us, and the difficulties of getting rid of it in anysatisfactory way, and to all the constitutional obligations thrown aboutit. Yet, having a due regard for these, they desire a policy in regardto it that looks to its not creating any more danger. They insist that itshould, as far as may be, be treated as a wrong; and one of the methods oftreating it as a wrong is to make provision that it shall grow no larger. They also desire a policy that looks to a peaceful end of slavery at sometime. These are the views they entertain in regard to it as I understandthem; and all their sentiments, all their arguments and propositions, are brought within this range. I have said, and I repeat it here, thatif there be a man amongst us who does not think that the institution ofslavery is wrong in any one of the aspects of which I have spoken, he ismisplaced, and ought not to be with us. And if there be a man amongst uswho is so impatient of it as a wrong as to disregard its actualpresence among us and the difficulty of getting rid of it suddenly in asatisfactory way, and to disregard the constitutional obligations thrownabout it, that man is misplaced if he is on our platform. We disclaimsympathy with him in practical action. He is not placed properly with us. 

On this subject of treating it as a wrong, and limiting its spread, let mesay a word. Has anything ever threatened the existence of this Union saveand except this very institution of slavery? What is it that we hold mostdear amongst us? Our own liberty and prosperity. What has ever threatenedour liberty and prosperity, save and except this institution of slavery?If this is true, how do you propose to improve the condition of things byenlarging slavery, by spreading it out and making it bigger? You may havea wen or cancer upon your person, and not be able to cut it out, lestyou bleed to death; but surely it is no way to cure it, to engraft it andspread it over your whole body. That is no proper way of treating what youregard a wrong. You see this peaceful way of dealing with it as a wrong, restricting the spread of it, and not allowing it to go into newcountries where it has not already existed. That is the peaceful way, the old-fashioned way, the way in which the fathers themselves set us theexample. 

On the other hand, I have said there is a sentiment which treats it as notbeing wrong. That is the Democratic sentiment of this day. I do not meanto say that every man who stands within that range positively asserts thatit is right. That class will include all who positively assert that it isright, and all who, like Judge Douglas, treat it as indifferent and do notsay it is either right or wrong. These two classes of men fall within thegeneral class of those who do not look upon it as a wrong. And if therebe among you anybody who supposes that he, as a Democrat, can considerhimself "as much opposed to slavery as anybody, " I would like to reasonwith him. You never treat it as a wrong. What other thing that youconsider as a wrong do you deal with as you deal with that? Perhaps yousay it is wrong--but your leader never does, and you quarrel with anybodywho says it is wrong. Although you pretend to say so yourself, you canfind no fit place to deal with it as a wrong. You must not say anythingabout it in the free States, because it is not here. You must not sayanything about it in the slave States, because it is there. You must notsay anything about it in the pulpit, because that is religion, and hasnothing to do with it. You must not say anything about it in politics, because that will disturb the security of "my place. " There is no place totalk about it as being a wrong, although you say yourself it is a wrong. But, finally, you will screw yourself up to the belief that if the peopleof the slave States should adopt a system of gradual emancipation on theslavery question, you would be in favor of it. You would be in favor ofit. You say that is getting it in the right place, and you would be gladto see it succeed. But you are deceiving yourself. You all know that FrankBlair and Gratz Brown, down there in St. Louis, undertook to introducethat system in Missouri. They fought as valiantly as they could for thesystem of gradual emancipation which you pretend you would be glad to seesucceed. Now, I will bring you to the test. After a hard fight they werebeaten, and when the news came over here, you threw up your hats andhurrahed for Democracy. More than that, take all the argument made infavor of the system you have proposed, and it carefully excludes the ideathat there is anything wrong in the institution of slavery. The argumentsto sustain that policy carefully exclude it. Even here to-day you heardJudge Douglas quarrel with me because I uttered a wish that it mightsometime come to an end. Although Henry Clay could say he wished everyslave in the United States was in the country of his ancestors, I amdenounced by those pretending to respect Henry Clay for uttering awish that it might sometime, in some peaceful way, come to an end. TheDemocratic policy in regard to that institution will not tolerate themerest breath, the slightest hint, of the least degree of wrong aboutit. Try it by some of Judge Douglas's arguments. He says he "don't carewhether it is voted up or voted down" in the Territories. I do not caremyself, in dealing with that expression, whether it is intended to beexpressive of his individual sentiments on the subject, or only of thenational policy he desires to have established. It is alike valuablefor my purpose. Any man can say that who does not see anything wrongin slavery; but no man can logically say it who does see a wrong in it, because no man can logically say he don't care whether a wrong is votedup or voted down. He may say he don't care whether an indifferent thingis voted up or down, but he must logically have a choice between a rightthing and a wrong thing. He contends that whatever community wants slaveshas a right to have them. So they have, if it is not a wrong. But if it isa wrong, he cannot say people have a right to do wrong. He says that uponthe score of equality slaves should be allowed to go in a new Territory, like other property. This is strictly logical if there is no differencebetween it and other property. If it and other property are equal, thisargument is entirely logical. But if you insist that one is wrong and theother right, there is no use to institute a comparison between rightand wrong. You may turn over everything in the Democratic policy frombeginning to end, whether in the shape it takes on the statute book, inthe shape it takes in the Dred Scott decision, in the shape it takes inconversation, or the shape it takes in short maxim-like arguments, --iteverywhere carefully excludes the idea that there is anything wrong in it. 

That is the real issue. That is the issue that will continue in thiscountry when these poor tongues of Judge Douglas and myself shall besilent. It is the eternal struggle between these two principles--right andwrong--throughout the world. They are the two principles that havestood face to face from the beginning of time, and will ever continueto struggle. The one is the common right of humanity, and the other thedivine right of kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape itdevelops itself. It is the same spirit that says, "You work and toil andearn bread, and I'll eat it. " No matter in what shape it comes, whetherfrom the mouth of a king who seeks to bestride the people of his ownnation and live by the fruit of their labor, or from one race of men as anapology for enslaving another race, it is the same tyrannical principle. I was glad to express my gratitude at Quincy, and I re-express it here, to Judge Douglas, --that he looks to no end of the institution of slavery. That will help the people to see where the struggle really is. It willhereafter place with us all men who really do wish the wrong may havean end. And whenever we can get rid of the fog which obscures the realquestion, when we can get Judge Douglas and his friends to avow a policylooking to its perpetuation, --we can get out from among that class of menand bring them to the side of those who treat it as a wrong. Then therewill soon be an end of it, and that end will be its "ultimate extinction. "Whenever the issue can be distinctly made, and all extraneous matterthrown out so that men can fairly see the real difference between theparties, this controversy will soon be settled, and it will be donepeaceably too. There will be no war, no violence. It will be placed againwhere the wisest and best men of the world placed it. Brooks of SouthCarolina once declared that when this Constitution was framed its framersdid not look to the institution existing until this day. When he saidthis, I think he stated a fact that is fully borne out by the history ofthe times. But he also said they were better and wiser men than the men ofthese days, yet the men of these days had experience which they had not, and by the invention of the cotton-gin it became a necessity in thiscountry that slavery should be perpetual. I now say that, willingly orunwillingly--purposely or without purpose, Judge Douglas has been themost prominent instrument in changing the position of the institution ofslavery, --which the fathers of the government expected to come to an endere this, and putting it upon Brooks's cotton-gin basis; placing it wherehe openly confesses he has no desire there shall ever be an end of it. 

I understand I have ten minutes yet. I will employ it in saying somethingabout this argument Judge Douglas uses, while he sustains the Dred Scottdecision, that the people of the Territories can still somehow excludeslavery. The first thing I ask attention to is the fact that Judge Douglasconstantly said, before the decision, that whether they could or not, was a question for the Supreme Court. But after the court had made thedecision he virtually says it is not a question for the Supreme Court, butfor the people. And how is it he tells us they can exclude it? He says itneeds "police regulations, " and that admits of "unfriendly legislation. "Although it is a right established by the Constitution of the UnitedStates to take a slave into a Territory of the United States and hold himas property, yet unless the Territorial Legislature will give friendlylegislation, and more especially if they adopt unfriendly legislation, they can practically exclude him. Now, without meeting this proposition asa matter of fact, I pass to consider the real constitutional obligation. Let me take the gentleman who looks me in the face before me, and letus suppose that he is a member of the Territorial Legislature. The firstthing he will do will be to swear that he will support the Constitutionof the United States. His neighbor by his side in the Territory hasslaves and needs Territorial legislation to enable him to enjoy thatconstitutional right. Can he withhold the legislation which his neighborneeds for the enjoyment of a right which is fixed in his favor in theConstitution of the United States which he has sworn to support? Can hewithhold it without violating his oath? And, more especially, can he passunfriendly legislation to violate his oath? Why, this is a monstrous sortof talk about the Constitution of the United States! There has never beenas outlandish or lawless a doctrine from the mouth of any respectable manon earth. I do not believe it is a constitutional right to hold slaves ina Territory of the United States. I believe the decision was improperlymade and I go for reversing it. Judge Douglas is furious against those whogo for reversing a decision. But he is for legislating it out of allforce while the law itself stands. I repeat that there has never been somonstrous a doctrine uttered from the mouth of a respectable man. 

I suppose most of us (I know it of myself) believe that the people of theSouthern States are entitled to a Congressional Fugitive Slave law, --thatis a right fixed in the Constitution. But it cannot be made available tothem without Congressional legislation. In the Judge's language, it is a"barren right, " which needs legislation before it can become efficientand valuable to the persons to whom it is guaranteed. And as the right isconstitutional, I agree that the legislation shall be granted to it, andthat not that we like the institution of slavery. We profess to have notaste for running and catching niggers, at least, I profess no taste forthat job at all. Why then do I yield support to a Fugitive Slave law?Because I do not understand that the Constitution, which guarantees thatright, can be supported without it. And if I believed that the right tohold a slave in a Territory was equally fixed in the Constitution with theright to reclaim fugitives, I should be bound to give it the legislationnecessary to support it. I say that no man can deny his obligation to givethe necessary legislation to support slavery in a Territory, who believesit is a constitutional right to have it there. No man can, who does notgive the Abolitionists an argument to deny the obligation enjoined bythe Constitution to enact a Fugitive State law. Try it now. It is thestrongest Abolition argument ever made. I say if that Dred Scott decisionis correct, then the right to hold slaves in a Territory is equally aconstitutional right with the right of a slaveholder to have his runawayreturned. No one can show the distinction between them. The one isexpress, so that we cannot deny it. The other is construed to be in theConstitution, so that he who believes the decision to be correct believesin the right. And the man who argues that by unfriendly legislation, in spite of that constitutional right, slavery may be driven from theTerritories, cannot avoid furnishing an argument by which Abolitionistsmay deny the obligation to return fugitives, and claim the power to passlaws unfriendly to the right of the slaveholder to reclaim his fugitive. Ido not know how such an arguement may strike a popular assembly like this, but I defy anybody to go before a body of men whose minds are educatedto estimating evidence and reasoning, and show that there is an iota ofdifference between the constitutional right to reclaim a fugitive and theconstitutional right to hold a slave, in a Territory, provided this DredScott decision is correct, I defy any man to make an argument that willjustify unfriendly legislation to deprive a slaveholder of his right tohold his slave in a Territory, that will not equally, in all its length, breadth, and thickness, furnish an argument for nullifying the FugitiveSlave law. Why, there is not such an Abolitionist in the nation asDouglas, after all! such an Abolitionist in the nation as Douglas, afterall!

THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

VOLUME FIVE

CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION

By Abraham Lincoln

Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley

THE WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN, Volume Five, 1858-1862

TO SYDNEY SPRING, GRAYVILLE, ILL. 

SPRINGFIELD, June 19, 1858. 

SYDNEY SPRING, Esq. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your letter introducing Mr. Faree was duly received. Therewas no opening to nominate him for Superintendent of Public Instruction, but through him Egypt made a most valuable contribution to the convention. I think it may be fairly said that he came off the lion of the day--orrather of the night. Can you not elect him to the Legislature? It seems tome he would be hard to beat. What objection could be made to him? What isyour Senator Martin saying and doing? What is Webb about?

Please write me. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO H. C. WHITNEY. 

SPRINGFIELD, June 24, 1858

H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ. 

DEAR SIR:--Your letter enclosing the attack of the Times upon me wasreceived this morning. Give yourself no concern about my voting againstthe supplies. Unless you are without faith that a lie can be successfullycontradicted, there is not a word of truth in the charge, and I am justconsidering a little as to the best shape to put a contradiction in. Showthis to whomever you please, but do not publish it in the paper. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. W. SOMERS. 

SPRINGFIELD, June 25, 1858. 

JAMES W. SOMERS, Esq. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 22nd, inclosing a draft of two hundred dollars, was duly received. I have paid it on the judgment, and herewith youhave the receipt. I do not wish to say anything as to who shall be theRepublican candidate for the Legislature in your district, further thanthat I have full confidence in Dr. Hull. Have you ever got in the way ofconsulting with McKinley in political matters? He is true as steel, andhis judgment is very good. The last I heard from him, he rather thoughtWeldon, of De Witt, was our best timber for representative, all thingsconsidered. But you there must settle it among yourselves. It may wellpuzzle older heads than yours to understand how, as the Dred Scottdecision holds, Congress can authorize a Territorial Legislature to doeverything else, and cannot authorize them to prohibit slavery. That isone of the things the court can decide, but can never give an intelligiblereason for. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO A. CAMPBELL. 

SPRINGFIELD, June 28, 1858. 

A. CAMPBELL, Esq. 

MY DEAR SIR:--In 1856 you gave me authority to draw on you for any sum notexceeding five hundred dollars. I see clearly that such a privilege wouldbe more available now than it was then. I am aware that times are tighternow than they were then. Please write me at all events, and whether youcan now do anything or not I shall continue grateful for the past. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. GILLESPIE. 

SPRINGFIELD, July 16, 1858. 

HON. JOSEPH GILLESPIE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I write this to say that from the specimens of DouglasDemocracy we occasionally see here from Madison, we learn that they aremaking very confident calculation of beating you and your friends for thelower house, in that county. They offer to bet upon it. Billings and Job, respectively, have been up here, and were each as I learn, talking largelyabout it. If they do so, it can only be done by carrying the Fillmore menof 1856 very differently from what they seem to [be] going in the otherparty. Below is the vote of 1856, in your district:

Counties. 

 Counties. Buchanan. Fremont. Fillmore. Bond. .. .. .. .. .. . 607 153 659 Madison. .. .. .. .. 1451 1111 1658 Montgomery. .. .. . 992 162 686 ---- ---- ---- 3050 1426 3003

By this you will see, if you go through the calculation, that if they getone quarter of the Fillmore votes, and you three quarters, they will beatyou 125 votes. If they get one fifth, and you four fifths, you beat them179. In Madison, alone, if our friends get 1000 of the Fillmore votes, andtheir opponents the remainder, 658, we win by just two votes. 

This shows the whole field, on the basis of the election of 1856. 

Whether, since then, any Buchanan, or Fremonters, have shifted ground, andhow the majority of new votes will go, you can judge better than I. 

Of course you, on the ground, can better determine your line of tacticsthan any one off the ground; but it behooves you to be wide awake andactively working. 

Don't neglect it; and write me at your first leisure. Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JOHN MATHERS, JACKSONVILLE, ILL. 

SPRINGFIELD, JULY 20, 1858. 

JNO. MATHERS, Esq. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your kind and interesting letter of the 19th was dulyreceived. Your suggestions as to placing one's self on the offensiverather than the defensive are certainly correct. That is a point which Ishall not disregard. I spoke here on Saturday night. The speech, not verywell reported, appears in the State journal of this morning. You doubtlesswill see it; and I hope that you will perceive in it that I am alreadyimproving. I would mail you a copy now, but have not one [at] hand. Ithank you for your letter and shall be pleased to hear from you again. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JOSEPH GILLESPIE. 

SPRINGFIELD, JULY 25, 1858. 

HON. J. GILLESPIE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your doleful letter of the 8th was received on my returnfrom Chicago last night. I do hope you are worse scared than hurt, thoughyou ought to know best. We must not lose the district. We must make a jobof it, and save it. Lay hold of the proper agencies, and secure all theAmericans you can, at once. I do hope, on closer inspection, you will findthey are not half gone. Make a little test. Run down one of the poll-booksof the Edwardsville precinct, and take the first hundred known Americannames. Then quietly ascertain how many of them are actually going forDouglas. I think you will find less than fifty. But even if you findfifty, make sure of the other fifty, that is, make sure of all you can, atall events. We will set other agencies to work which shall compensate forthe loss of a good many Americans. Don't fail to check the stampede atonce. Trumbull, I think, will be with you before long. 

There is much he cannot do, and some he can. I have reason to hope therewill be other help of an appropriate kind. Write me again. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO B. C. COOK. 

SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 2, 1858. 

Hon. B. C. COOK. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I have a letter from a very true and intelligent maninsisting that there is a plan on foot in La Salle and Bureau to runDouglas Republicans for Congress and for the Legislature in thosecounties, if they can only get the encouragement of our folks nominatingpretty extreme abolitionists. 

It is thought they will do nothing if our folks nominate men who are notvery obnoxious to the charge of abolitionism. Please have your eye uponthis. Signs are looking pretty fair. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO HON. J. M. PALMER. 

SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 5, 1858. 

HON. J. M. PALMER. 

DEAR SIR:--Since we parted last evening no new thought has occurred to[me] on the subject of which we talked most yesterday. 

I have concluded, however, to speak at your town on Tuesday, August 31st, and have promised to have it so appear in the papers of to-morrow. JudgeTrumbull has not yet reached here. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO ALEXANDER SYMPSON. 

SPRINGFIELD, Aug. 11, 1858. 

ALEXANDER SYMPSON, Esq. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 6th received. If life and health continue I shallpretty likely be at Augusta on the 25th. 

Things look reasonably well. Will tell you more fully when I see you. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. O. CUNNINGHAM. 

OTTAWA, August 22, 1858. 

J. O. CUNNINGHAM, Esq. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 18th, signed as secretary of the Republicanclub, is received. In the matter of making speeches I am a good dealpressed by invitations from almost all quarters, and while I hope to beat Urbana some time during the canvass, I cannot yet say when. Can you notsee me at Monticello on the 6th of September?

Douglas and I, for the first time this canvass, crossed swords hereyesterday; the fire flew some, and I am glad to know I am yet alive. Therewas a vast concourse of people--more than could get near enough to hear. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

ON SLAVERY IN A DEMOCRACY. 

August??, 1858

As I would not be a slave, so I would not be a master. This expressesmy idea of democracy. Whatever differs from this, to the extent of thedifference, is no democracy. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO B. C. COOK. 

SPRINGFIELD, August 2, 1858

HON. B. C. COOK. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I have a letter from a very true friend, and intelligentman, writing that there is a plan on foot in La Salle and Bureau, to runDouglas Republican for Congress and for the Legislature in those counties, if they can only get the encouragement of our folks nominating prettyextreme abolitionists. It is thought they will do nothing if our folksnominate men who are not very [undecipherable word looks like "obnoxious"]to the charge of abolitionism. Please have your eye upon this. Signs arelooking pretty fair. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO DR. WILLIAM FITHIAN, DANVILLE, ILL. 

BLOOMINGTON, Sept. 3, 1858

DEAR DOCTOR:--Yours of the 1st was received this morning, as also one fromMr. Harmon, and one from Hiram Beckwith on the same subject. You will seeby the Journal that I have been appointed to speak at Danville on the 22dof Sept. , --the day after Douglas speaks there. My recent experienceshows that speaking at the same place the next day after D. Is the verything, --it is, in fact, a concluding speech on him. Please show thisto Messrs. Harmon and Beckwith; and tell them they must excuse me fromwriting separate letters to them. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN

P. S. --Give full notice to all surrounding country. A. L. 

FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT PARIS, ILL. , SEPT. 8, 1858. 

Let us inquire what Judge Douglas really invented when he introduced theNebraska Bill? He called it Popular Sovereignty. What does that mean?It means the sovereignty of the people over their own affairs--in otherwords, the right of the people to govern themselves. Did Judge Douglasinvent this? Not quite. The idea of popular sovereignty was floating aboutseveral ages before the author of the Nebraska Bill was born--indeed, before Columbus set foot on this continent. In the year 1776 it took formin the noble words which you are all familiar with: "We hold these truthsto be self-evident, that all men are created equal, " etc. Was not this theorigin of popular sovereignty as applied to the American people? Here weare told that governments are instituted among men deriving theirjust powers from the consent of the governed. If that is not popularsovereignty, then I have no conception of the meaning of words. If JudgeDouglas did not invent this kind of popular sovereignty, let us pursuethe inquiry and find out what kind he did invent. Was it the right ofemigrants to Kansas and Nebraska to govern themselves, and a lot of"niggers, " too, if they wanted them? Clearly this was no invention of hisbecause General Cass put forth the same doctrine in 1848 in his so calledNicholson letter, six years before Douglas thought of such a thing. Thenwhat was it that the "Little Giant" invented? It never occurred to GeneralCass to call his discovery by the odd name of popular sovereignty. He hadnot the face to say that the right of the people to govern "niggers" wasthe right of the people to govern themselves. His notions of the fitnessof things were not moulded to the brazenness of calling the right to puta hundred "niggers" through under the lash in Nebraska a "sacred" right ofself-government. And here I submit to you was Judge Douglas's discovery, and the whole of it: He discovered that the right to breed and flognegroes in Nebraska was popular sovereignty. 

SPEECH AT CLINTON, ILLINOIS, SEPTEMBER 8, 1858. 

The questions are sometimes asked "What is all this fuss that is beingmade about negroes? What does it amount to? And where will it end?" Thesequestions imply that those who ask them consider the slavery question avery insignificant matter they think that it amounts to little or nothingand that those who agitate it are extremely foolish. Now it must beadmitted that if the great question which has caused so much trouble isinsignificant, we are very foolish to have anything to do with it--if itis of no importance we had better throw it aside and busy ourselveswith something else. But let us inquire a little into this insignificantmatter, as it is called by some, and see if it is not important enough todemand the close attention of every well-wisher of the Union. In one ofDouglas's recent speeches, I find a reference to one which was made byme in Springfield some time ago. The judge makes one quotation from thatspeech that requires some little notice from me at this time. I regretthat I have not my Springfield speech before me, but the judge has quotedone particular part of it so often that I think I can recollect it. Itruns I think as follows:

"We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated withthe avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slaveryagitation. Under the operation of that policy that agitation has not onlynot ceased but has constantly augmented. In my opinion it will not ceaseuntil a crisis shall have been reached and passed. 

"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this governmentcannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect theUnion to be dissolved. I do not expect the house to fall, but I do expectit will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing or all theother. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread ofit and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that itis in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push itforward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as wellas new, North as well as South. "

Judge Douglas makes use of the above quotation, and finds a great deal offault with it. He deals unfairly with me, and tries to make the people ofthis State believe that I advocated dangerous doctrines in my Springfieldspeech. Let us see if that portion of my Springfield speech of which JudgeDouglas complains so bitterly, is as objectionable to others as it isto him. We are, certainly, far into the fifth year since a policy wasinitiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an endto slavery agitation. On the fourth day of January, 1854, Judge Douglasintroduced the Kansas-Nebraska bill. He initiated a new policy, and thatpolicy, so he says, was to put an end to the agitation of the slaveryquestion. Whether that was his object or not I will not stop to discuss, but at all events some kind of a policy was initiated; and what has beenthe result? Instead of the quiet and good feeling which were promised usby the self-styled author of Popular Sovereignty, we have had nothing butill-feeling and agitation. According to Judge Douglas, the passage of theNebraska bill would tranquilize the whole country--there would be no moreslavery agitation in or out of Congress, and the vexed question would beleft entirely to the people of the Territories. Such was the opinionof Judge Douglas, and such were the opinions of the leading men of theDemocratic Party. Even as late as the spring of 1856 Mr. Buchanan said, ashort time subsequent to his nomination by the Cincinnati convention, thatthe territory of Kansas would be tranquil in less than six weeks. Perhapshe thought so, but Kansas has not been and is not tranquil, and it may bea long time before she may be so. 

We all know how fierce the agitation was in Congress last winter, andwhat a narrow escape Kansas had from being admitted into the Union with aconstitution that was detested by ninety-nine hundredths of her citizens. Did the angry debates which took place at Washington during the lastseason of Congress lead you to suppose that the slavery agitation wassettled?

An election was held in Kansas in the month of August, and theconstitution which was submitted to the people was voted down by a largemajority. So Kansas is still out of the Union, and there is a probabilitythat she will remain out for some time. But Judge Douglas says the slaveryquestion is settled. He says the bill he introduced into the Senate ofthe United States on the 4th day of January, 1854, settled the slaveryquestion forever! Perhaps he can tell us how that bill settled the slaveryquestion, for if he is able to settle a question of such great magnitudehe ought to be able to explain the manner in which he does it. He knowsand you know that the question is not settled, and that his ill-timedexperiment to settle it has made it worse than it ever was before. 

And now let me say a few words in regard to Douglas's great hobby of negroequality. He thinks--he says at least--that the Republican party is infavor of allowing whites and blacks to intermarry, and that a man can't bea good Republican unless he is willing to elevate black men to officeand to associate with them on terms of perfect equality. He knows thatwe advocate no such doctrines as these, but he cares not how much hemisrepresents us if he can gain a few votes by so doing. To show you whatmy opinion of negro equality was in times past, and to prove to you thatI stand on that question where I always stood, I will read you a fewextracts from a speech that was made by me in Peoria in 1854. It was madein reply to one of Judge Douglas's speeches. 

(Mr. Lincoln then read a number of extracts which had the ring of the truemetal. We have rarely heard anything with which we have been more pleased. And the audience after hearing the extracts read, and comparing theirconservative sentiments with those now advocated by Mr. Lincoln, testifiedtheir approval by loud applause. How any reasonable man can hear oneof Mr. Lincoln's speeches without being converted to Republicanism issomething that we can't account for. Ed. )

Slavery, continued Mr. Lincoln, is not a matter of little importance, it overshadows every other question in which we are interested. It hasdivided the Methodist and Presbyterian churches, and has sown discord inthe American Tract Society. The churches have split and the society willfollow their example before long. So it will be seen that slavery isagitated in the religious as well as in the political world. Judge Douglasis very much afraid in the triumph that the Republican party will leadto a general mixture of the white and black races. Perhaps I am wrongin saying that he is afraid, so I will correct myself by saying thathe pretends to fear that the success of our party will result in theamalgamation of the blacks and whites. I think I can show plainly, fromdocuments now before me, that Judge Douglas's fears are groundless. Thecensus of 1800 tells us that in that year there were over four hundredthousand mulattoes in the United States. Now let us take what is calledan Abolition State--the Republican, slavery-hating State of NewHampshire--and see how many mulattoes we can find within her borders. The number amounts to just one hundred and eighty-four. In the OldDominion--in the Democratic and aristocratic State of Virginia--there werea few more mulattoes than the Census-takers found in New Hampshire. Howmany do you suppose there were? Seventy-nine thousand, seven hundred andseventy-five--twenty-three thousand more than there were in all thefree States! In the slave States there were in 1800, three hundred andforty-eight thousand mulattoes all of home production; and in the freeStates there were less than sixty thousand mulattoes--and a large numberof them were imported from the South. 

FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT EDWARDSVILLE, ILL. , SEPT. 13, 1858. 

I have been requested to give a concise statement of the difference, asI understand it, between the Democratic and Republican parties, on theleading issues of the campaign. This question has been put to me by agentleman whom I do not know. I do not even know whether he is a friend ofmine or a supporter of Judge Douglas in this contest, nor does that makeany difference. His question is a proper one. Lest I should forget it, Iwill give you my answer before proceeding with the line of argument I havemarked out for this discussion. 

The difference between the Republican and the Democratic parties on theleading issues of this contest, as I understand it, is that the formerconsider slavery a moral, social and political wrong, while the latterdo not consider it either a moral, a social or a political wrong; and theaction of each, as respects the growth of the country and the expansion ofour population, is squared to meet these views. I will not affirm that theDemocratic party consider slavery morally, socially and politically right, though their tendency to that view has, in my opinion, been constant andunmistakable for the past five years. I prefer to take, as the acceptedmaxim of the party, the idea put forth by Judge Douglas, that he "don'tcare whether slavery is voted down or voted up. " I am quite willing tobelieve that many Democrats would prefer that slavery should be alwaysvoted down, and I know that some prefer that it be always voted up; butI have a right to insist that their action, especially if it be theirconstant action, shall determine their ideas and preferences on thissubject. Every measure of the Democratic party of late years, bearingdirectly or indirectly on the slavery question, has corresponded with thisnotion of utter indifference whether slavery or freedom shall outrun inthe race of empire across to the Pacific--every measure, I say, up to theDred Scott decision, where, it seems to me, the idea is boldly suggestedthat slavery is better than freedom. The Republican party, on thecontrary, hold that this government was instituted to secure the blessingsof freedom, and that slavery is an unqualified evil to the negro, to thewhite man, to the soil, and to the State. Regarding it as an evil, theywill not molest it in the States where it exists, they will not overlookthe constitutional guards which our fathers placed around it; they willdo nothing that can give proper offence to those who hold slaves by legalsanction; but they will use every constitutional method to prevent theevil from becoming larger and involving more negroes, more white men, more soil, and more States in its deplorable consequences. They will, ifpossible, place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that itis in course of ultimate peaceable extinction in God's own good time. Andto this end they will, if possible, restore the government to the policyof the fathers, the policy of preserving the new Territories from thebaneful influence of human bondage, as the Northwestern Territories weresought to be preserved by the Ordinance of 1787, and the Compromise Actof 1820. They will oppose, in all its length and breadth, the modernDemocratic idea, that slavery is as good as freedom, and ought to haveroom for expansion all over the continent, if people can be found to carryit. All, or nearly all, of Judge Douglas's arguments are logical, if youadmit that slavery is as good and as right as freedom, and not one of themis worth a rush if you deny it. This is the difference, as I understandit, between the Republican and Democratic parties. 

My friends, I have endeavored to show you the logical consequences of theDred Scott decision, which holds that the people of a Territory cannotprevent the establishment of slavery in their midst. I have stated whatcannot be gainsaid, that the grounds upon which this decision is made areequally applicable to the free States as to the free Territories, andthat the peculiar reasons put forth by Judge Douglas for indorsing thisdecision commit him, in advance, to the next decision and to all otherdecisions corning from the same source. And when, by all these means, youhave succeeded in dehumanizing the negro; when you have put him down andmade it impossible for him to be but as the beasts of the field; when youhave extinguished his soul in this world and placed him where the ray ofhope is blown out as in the darkness of the damned, are you quitesure that the demon you have roused will not turn and rend you? Whatconstitutes the bulwark of our own liberty and independence? It is notour frowning battlements, our bristling sea coasts, our army and our navy. These are not our reliance against tyranny All of those may be turnedagainst us without making us weaker for the struggle. Our reliance is inthe love of liberty which God has planted in us. Our defense is in thespirit which prizes liberty as the heritage of all men, in all landseverywhere. Destroy this spirit and you have planted the seeds ofdespotism at your own doors. Familiarize yourselves with the chains ofbondage and you prepare your own limbs to wear them. Accustomed to trampleon the rights of others, you have lost the genius of your own independenceand become the fit subjects of the first cunning tyrant who rises amongyou. And let me tell you, that all these things are prepared for you bythe teachings of history, if the elections shall promise that the nextDred Scott decision and all future decisions will be quietly acquiesced inby the people. 

VERSE TO "LINNIE"

September 30, ? 1858. 

TO "LINNIE":

 A sweet plaintive song did I hear And I fancied that she was the singer. May emotions as pure as that song set astir Be the wont that the future shall bring her. 

NEGROES ARE MEN

TO J. U. BROWN. 

SPRINGFIELD, OCT 18, 1858

HON. J. U. BROWN. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I do not perceive how I can express myself more plainlythan I have in the fore-going extracts. In four of them I have expresslydisclaimed all intention to bring about social and political equalitybetween the white and black races and in all the rest I have done the samething by clear implication. 

I have made it equally plain that I think the negro is included in theword "men" used in the Declaration of Independence. 

I believe the declaration that "all men are created equal" is the greatfundamental principle upon which our free institutions rest; thatnegro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame ofgovernment, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; thatby our frame of government, States which have slavery are to retain it, orsurrender it at their own pleasure; and that all others--individuals, freeStates and national Government--are constitutionally bound to leave themalone about it. 

I believe our Government was thus framed because of the necessityspringing from the actual presence of slavery, when it was framed. 

That such necessity does not exist in the Territories when slavery is notpresent. 

In his Mendenhall speech Mr. Clay says: "Now as an abstract principlethere is no doubt of the truth of that declaration (all men createdequal), and it is desirable, in the original construction of society, tokeep it in view as a great fundamental principle. "

Again, in the same speech Mr. Clay says: "If a state of nature existedand we were about to lay the foundations of society, no man would be morestrongly opposed than I should to incorporate the institution of slaveryamong its elements. "

Exactly so. In our new free Territories, a state of nature does exist. In them Congress lays the foundations of society; and in laying thosefoundations, I say, with Mr. Clay, it is desirable that the declarationof the equality of all men shall be kept in view as a great fundamentalprinciple, and that Congress, which lays the foundations of society, should, like Mr. Clay, be strongly opposed to the incorporation of slaveryand its elements. 

But it does not follow that social and political equality between whitesand blacks must be incorporated because slavery must not. The declarationdoes not so require. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN

[Newspaper cuttings of Lincoln's speeches at Peoria, in 1854, atSpringfield, Ottawa, Chicago, and Charleston, in 1858. They were pasted ina little book in which the above letter was also written. ]

TO A. SYMPSON. 

BLANDINSVILLE, Oct 26, 1858

A. SYMPSON, Esq. 

DEAR SIR:--Since parting with you this morning I heard some things whichmake me believe that Edmunds and Morrill will spend this week among theNational Democrats, trying to induce them to content themselves by votingfor Jake Davis, and then to vote for the Douglas candidates for senatorand representative. Have this headed off, if you can. Call Wagley'sattention to it and have him and the National Democrat for Rep. Tocounteract it as far as they can. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

SENATORIAL ELECTION LOST AND OUT OF MONEY

TO N. B. JUDD. 

SPRINGFIELD, NOVEMBER 16, 1858

HON. N. B. JUDD

DEAR SIR:--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 onexpenses so long without earning anything that I am absolutely withoutmoney now for even household purposes. Still, if you can put in twohundred and fifty dollars for me toward discharging the debt of thecommittee, I will allow it when you and I settle the private matterbetween us. This, with what I have already paid, and with an outstandingnote of mine, will exceed my subscription of five hundred dollars. This, too, is exclusive of my ordinary expenses during the campaign, all ofwhich, being added to my loss of time and business, bears pretty heavilyupon one no better off in [this] world's goods than I; but as I hadthe post of honor, it is not for me to be over nice. You are feelingbadly, --"And this too shall pass away, " never fear. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

THE FIGHT MUST GO ON

TO H. ASBURY. 

SPRINGFIELD, November 19, 1858. 

HENRY ASBURY, Esq. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 13th was received some days ago. The fight must goon. The cause of civil liberty must not be surrendered at the end of oneor even one hundred defeats. Douglas had the ingenuity to be supported inthe late contest both as the best means to break down and to uphold theslave interest. No ingenuity can keep these antagonistic elements inharmony long. Another explosion will soon come. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

REALIZATION THAT DEBATES MUST BE SAVED

TO C. H. RAY. 

SPRINGFIELD, Nov. 20, 1858

DR. C. H. RAY

MY DEAR SIR:--I wish to preserve a set of the late debates (if they may becalled so), between Douglas and myself. To enable me to do so, please gettwo copies of each number of your paper containing the whole, and sendthem to me by express; and I will pay you for the papers and foryour trouble. I wish the two sets in order to lay one away in the[undecipherable word] and to put the other in a scrapbook. Remember, ifpart of any debate is on both sides of the sheet it will take two sets tomake one scrap-book. 

I believe, according to a letter of yours to Hatch, you are "feeling likeh-ll yet. " Quit that--you will soon feel better. Another "blow up" iscoming; and we shall have fun again. Douglas managed to be supportedboth as the best instrument to down and to uphold the slave power; but noingenuity can long keep the antagonism in harmony. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN

TO H. C. WHITNEY. 

SPRINGFIELD, November 30, 1858

H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Being desirous of preserving in some permanent form the latejoint discussion between Douglas and myself, ten days ago I wrote to Dr. Ray, requesting him to forward to me by express two sets of the numbers ofthe Tribune which contain the reports of those discussions. Up to date Ihave no word from him on the subject. Will you, if in your power, procurethem and forward them to me by express? If you will, I will pay allcharges, and be greatly obliged, to boot. Hoping to visit you before long, I remain

As ever your friend, A. LINCOLN. 

TO H. D. SHARPE. 

SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 8, 1858. 

H. D. SHARPE, Esq. 

DEAR SIR:--Your very kind letter of Nov. 9th was duly received. I donot know that you expected or desired an answer; but glancing over thecontents of yours again, I am prompted to say that, while I desired theresult of the late canvass to have been different, I still regard it asan exceeding small matter. I think we have fairly entered upon a durablestruggle as to whether this nation is to ultimately become all slave orall free, and though I fall early in the contest, it is nothing if I shallhave contributed, in the least degree, to the final rightful result. 

Respectfully yours, A. LINCOLN. 

TO A. SYMPSON. 

SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 12, 1858. 

ALEXANDER SYMPSON, Esq. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I expect the result of the election went hard with you. Soit did with me, too, perhaps not quite so hard as you may have supposed. I have an abiding faith that we shall beat them in the long run. Step bystep the objects of the leaders will become too plain for the people tostand them. I write merely to let you know that I am neither dead nordying. Please give my respects to your good family, and all inquiringfriends. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

ON BANKRUPTCY

NOTES OF AN ARGUMENT. 

December [?], 1858. 

Legislation and adjudication must follow and conform to the progress ofsociety. 

The progress of society now begins to produce cases of the transfer fordebts of the entire property of railroad corporations; and to enabletransferees to use and enjoy the transferred property, legislation andadjudication begin to be necessary. 

Shall this class of legislation just now beginning with us be general orspecial?

Section Ten of our Constitution requires that it should be general, if possible. (Read the section. )

Special legislation always trenches upon the judicial department; and inso far violates Section Two of the Constitution. (Read it. )

Just reasoning--policy--is in favor of general legislation--else theLegislature will be loaded down with the investigation of smallercases--a work which the courts ought to perform, and can perform much moreperfectly. How can the Legislature rightly decide the facts between P. &B. And S. C. 

It is said that under a general law, whenever a R. R. Co. Gets tiredof its debts, it may transfer fraudulently to get rid of them. So theymay--so may individuals; and which--the Legislature or the courts--is bestsuited to try the question of fraud in either case?

It is said, if a purchaser have acquired legal rights, let him not berobbed of them, but if he needs legislation let him submit to just termsto obtain it. 

Let him, say we, have general law in advance (guarded in every possibleway against fraud), so that, when he acquires a legal right, he will haveno occasion to wait for additional legislation; and if he has practicedfraud let the courts so decide. 

A LEGAL OPINION BY ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

The 11th Section of the Act of Congress, approved Feb. 11, 1805, prescribing rules for the subdivision of sections of land within theUnited States system of surveys, standing unrepealed, in my opinion, is binding on the respective purchasers of different parts of the samesection, and furnishes the true rule for surveyors in establishinglines between them. That law, being in force at the time each became apurchaser, becomes a condition of the purchase. 

And, by that law, I think the true rule for dividing into quarters anyinterior section or sections, which is not fractional, is to run straightlines through the section from the opposite quarter section corners, fixing the point where such straight lines cross, or intersect each other, as the middle or centre of the section. 

Nearly, perhaps quite, all the original surveys are to some extenterroneous, and in some of the sections, greatly so. In each of the latter, it is obvious that a more equitable mode of division than the above mightbe adopted; but as error is infinitely various perhaps no better singlerules can be prescribed. 

At all events I think the above has been prescribed by the competentauthority. 

SPRINGFIELD, Jany. 6, 1859. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO M. W. DELAHAY. 

SPRINGFIELD, March 4, 1859. 

M. W. DELAHAY, Esq. 

MY DEAR SIR: Your second letter in relation to my being with you at yourRepublican convention was duly received. It is not at hand just now, but Ihave the impression from it that the convention was to be at Leavenworth;but day before yesterday a friend handed me a letter from Judge M. F. Caraway, in which he also expresses a wish for me to come, and he fixesthe place at Ossawatomie. This I believe is off of the river, and willrequire more time and labor to get to it. It will push me hard to getthere without injury to my own business; but I shall try to do it, thoughI am not yet quite certain I shall succeed. 

I should like to know before coming, that while some of you wish me tocome, there may not be others who would quite as lief I would stay away. Write me again. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO W. M. MORRIS. 

SPRINGFIELD, March 28, 1859. 

W. M. MORRIS, Esq. 

DEAR SIR:--Your kind note inviting me to deliver a lecture at Galesburg isreceived. I regret to say I cannot do so now; I must stick to the courtsawhile. I read a sort of lecture to three different audiences during thelast month and this; but I did so under circumstances which made it awaste of no time whatever. 

Yours very truly, TO H. L. PIERCE AND OTHERS. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, April 6, 1859. 

GENTLEMEN:--Your kind note inviting me to attend a festival in Boston, onthe 28th instant, in honor of the birthday of Thomas Jefferson, was dulyreceived. My engagements are such that I cannot attend. 

Bearing in mind that about seventy years ago two great political partieswere first formed in this country, that Thomas Jefferson was the head ofone of them and Boston the headquarters of the other, it is both curiousand interesting that those supposed to descend politically from the partyopposed to Jefferson should now be celebrating his birthday in their ownoriginal seat of empire, while those claiming political descent from himhave nearly ceased to breathe his name everywhere. 

Remembering, too, that the Jefferson party was formed upon its supposedsuperior devotion to the personal rights of men, holding the rights ofproperty to be secondary only, and greatly inferior, and assuming that theso-called Democracy of to-day are the Jefferson, and their opponentsthe anti-Jefferson, party, it will be equally interesting to note howcompletely the two have changed hands as to the principle upon which theywere originally supposed to be divided. The Democracy of to-day hold theliberty of one man to be absolutely nothing, when in conflict with anotherman's right of property; Republicans, on the contrary, are for both theman and the dollar, but in case of conflict the man before the dollar. 

I remember being once much amused at seeing two partially intoxicated menengaged in a fight with their great-coats on, which fight, after a longand rather harmless contest, ended in each having fought himself out ofhis own coat and into that of the other. If the two leading parties ofthis day are really identical with the two in the days of Jefferson andAdams, they have performed the same feat as the two drunken men. 

But soberly, it is now no child's play to save the principles of Jeffersonfrom total overthrow in this nation. One would state with great confidencethat he could convince any sane child that the simpler propositions ofEuclid are true; but nevertheless he would fail, utterly, with one whoshould deny the definitions and axioms. The principles of Jefferson arethe definitions and axioms of free society. And yet they are deniedand evaded, with no small show of success. One dashingly calls them"glittering generalities. " Another bluntly calls them "self-evident lies. "And others insidiously argue that they apply to "superior races. " Theseexpressions, differing in form, are identical in object and effect--thesupplanting the principles of free government, and restoring those ofclassification, caste, and legitimacy. They would delight a convocationof crowned heads plotting against the people. They are the vanguard, theminers and sappers, of returning despotism. We must repulse them, or theywill subjugate us. This is a world of compensation; and he who would beno slave must consent to have no slave. Those who deny freedom to othersdeserve it not for themselves, and, under a just God, cannot long retainit. All honor to Jefferson to the man who, in the concrete pressure of astruggle for national independence by a single people, had the coolness, forecast, and capacity to introduce into a mere revolutionary document anabstract truth, applicable to all men and all times, and so to embalmit there that to-day and in all coming days it shall be a rebuke anda stumbling-block to the very harbingers of reappearing tyranny andoppression. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO T. CANISIUS. 

SPRINGFIELD, May 17, 1859. 

DR. THEODORE CANISIUS. 

DEAR SIR:--Your note asking, in behalf of yourself and other Germancitizens, whether I am for or against the constitutional provision inregard to naturalized citizens, lately adopted by Massachusetts, andwhether I am for or against a fusion of the Republicans and otheropposition elements for the canvass of 1860, is received. 

Massachusetts is a sovereign and independent State; and it is no privilegeof mine to scold her for what she does. Still, if from what she has donean inference is sought to be drawn as to what I would do, I maywithout impropriety speak out. I say, then, that, as I understand theMassachusetts provision, I am against its adoption in Illinois, or in anyother place where I have a right to oppose it. Understanding the spirit ofour institutions to aim at the elevation of men, I am opposed to whatevertends to degrade them. I have some little notoriety for commiserating theoppressed negro; and I should be strangely inconsistent if I could favorany project for curtailing the existing rights of white men, even thoughborn in different lands, and speaking different languages from myself. As to the matter of fusion, I am for it if it can be had on Republicangrounds; and I am not for it on any other terms. A fusion on any otherterms would be as foolish as unprincipled. It would lose the whole North, while the common enemy would still carry the whole South. The question ofmen is a different one. There are good, patriotic men and able statesmenin the South whom I would cheerfully support, if they would now placethemselves on Republican ground, but I am against letting down theRepublican standard a hairsbreadth. 

I have written this hastily, but I believe it answers your questionssubstantially. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE GOVERNOR, AUDITOR, AND TREASURER OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS. 

GENTLEMEN:

In reply to your inquiry; requesting our written opinion as to what yourduty requires you to do in executing the latter clause of the SeventhSection of "An Act in relation to the payment of the principal andinterest of the State debt, " approved Feb'y 22, 1859, we reply thatsaid last clause of said section is certainly indefinite, general, andambiguous in its description of the bonds to be issued by you; giving notime at which the bonds are to be made payable, no place at which eitherprincipal or interest are to be paid, and no rate of interest which thebonds are to bear; nor any other description except that they are to becoupon bonds, which in commercial usage means interest-paying bondswith obligations or orders attached to them for the payment of annual orsemiannual interest; there is we suppose no difficulty in ascertaining, if this act stood alone, what ought to be the construction of the terms"coupon bonds" and that it, would mean bonds bearing interest from thetime of issuing the same. And under this act considered by itself thecreditors would have a right to require such bonds. But your inquiry inregard to a class of bonds on which no interest is to be paid or shallbegin to run until January 1, 1860, is whether the Act of February 18, 1857, would not authorize you to refuse to give bonds with any couponsattached payable before the first day of July, 1860. We have very maturelyconsidered this question and have arrived at the conclusion that you havea right to use such measures as will secure the State against the loss ofsix months' interest on these bonds by the indefiniteness of the Act of1859. While it cannot be denied that the letter of the laws favor theconstruction claimed by some of the creditors that interest-bearing bondswere required to be issued to them, inasmuch as the restriction that nointerest is to run on said bonds until 1st January, 1860, relates solelyto the bonds issued under the Act of 1857. And the Act of 1859 directingyou to issue new bonds does not contain this restriction, but directs youto issue coupon bonds. Nevertheless the very indefiniteness and generalityof the Act of 1859, giving no rate of interest, no time due, no place ofpayment, no postponement of the time when interest commences, necessarilyimplies that the Legislature intended to invest you with a discretion toimpose such terms and restrictions as would protect the interest of theState; and we think you have a right and that it is your duty to see thatthe State Bonds are so issued that the State shall not lose six months'interest. Two plans present themselves either of which will secure theState. 1st. If in literal compliance with the law you issue bonds bearinginterest from 1st July, 1859, you may deduct from the bonds presentedthree thousand from every $100, 000 of bonds and issue $97, 000 ofcoupon bonds; by this plan $3000 out of $100, 000 of principal would beextinguished in consideration of paying $2910 interest on the first ofJanuary, 1860--and the interest on the $3000 would forever cease; thiswould be no doubt most advantageous to the State. But if the Auditorwill not consent to this, then, 2nd. Cut off of each bond all the couponspayable before 1st July, 1860. 

One of these plans would undoubtedly have been prescribed by theLegislature if its attention had been directed to this question. 

May 28, 1859. 

ON LINCOLN'S SCRAP BOOK

TO H. C. WHITNEY. 

SPRINGFIELD, December 25, 1858. 

H. C. WHITNEY, ESQ. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I have just received yours of the 23rd inquiring whether Ireceived the newspapers you sent me by express. I did receive them, andam very much obliged. There is some probability that my scrap-book will bereprinted, and if it shall, I will save you a copy. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

1859

FIRST SUGGESTION OF A PRESIDENTIAL OFFER. 

TO S. GALLOWAY. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , July 28, 1859. 

HON. SAMUEL GALLOWAY. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your very complimentary, not to say flattering, letter ofthe 23d inst. Is received. Dr. Reynolds had induced me to expect you here;and I was disappointed not a little by your failure to come. And yet Ifear you have formed an estimate of me which can scarcely be sustained ona personal acquaintance. 

Two things done by the Ohio Republican convention--the repudiation ofJudge Swan, and the "plank" for a repeal of the Fugitive Slave Law--I verymuch regretted. These two things are of a piece; and they are viewed bymany good men, sincerely opposed to slavery, as a struggle against, and indisregard of, the Constitution itself. And it is the very thing thatwill greatly endanger our cause, if it be not kept out of our nationalconvention. There is another thing our friends are doing which gives mesome uneasiness. It is their leaning toward "popular sovereignty. " Thereare three substantial objections to this: First, no party can commandrespect which sustains this year what it opposed last. Secondly, Douglas(who is the most dangerous enemy of liberty, because the most insidiousone) would have little support in the North, and by consequence, nocapital to trade on in the South, if it were not for his friends thusmagnifying him and his humbug. But lastly, and chiefly, Douglas's popularsovereignty, accepted by the public mind as a just principle, nationalizesslavery, and revives the African slave trade inevitably. 

Taking slaves into new Territories, and buying slaves in Africa, areidentical things, identical rights or identical wrongs, and the argumentwhich establishes one will establish the other. Try a thousand years fora sound reason why Congress shall not hinder the people of Kansas fromhaving slaves, and, when you have found it, it will be an equally good onewhy Congress should not hinder the people of Georgia from importing slavesfrom Africa. 

As to Governor Chase, I have a kind side for him. He was one of the fewdistinguished men of the nation who gave us, in Illinois, their sympathylast year. I never saw him, but suppose him to be able and right-minded;but still he may not be the most suitable as a candidate for thePresidency. 

I must say I do not think myself fit for the Presidency. As you propose acorrespondence with me, I shall look for your letters anxiously. 

I have not met Dr. Reynolds since receiving your letter; but when I shall, I will present your respects as requested. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

IT IS BAD TO BE POOR. 

TO HAWKINS TAYLOR

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. Sept. 6, 1859. 

HAWKINS TAYLOR, Esq. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 3d is just received. There is some mistake aboutmy expected attendance of the U. S. Court in your city on the 3d Tuesday ofthis month. I have had no thought of being there. 

It is bad to be poor. I shall go to the wall for bread and meat if Ineglect my business this year as well as last. It would please me muchto see the city and good people of Keokuk, but for this year it is littleless than an impossibility. I am constantly receiving invitations which Iam compelled to decline. I was pressingly urged to go to Minnesota; and Inow have two invitations to go to Ohio. These last are prompted by Douglasgoing there; and I am really tempted to make a flying trip to Columbus andCincinnati. 

I do hope you will have no serious trouble in Iowa. What thinks Grimesabout it? I have not known him to be mistaken about an election in Iowa. Present my respects to Col. Carter, and any other friends, and believe me

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

SPEECH AT COLUMBUS, OHIO. 

SEPTEMBER 16, 1859. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF OHIO: I cannot fail to remember that Iappear for the first time before an audience in this now great State, --anaudience that is accustomed to hear such speakers as Corwin, and Chase, and Wade, and many other renowned men; and, remembering this, I feelthat it will be well for you, as for me, that you should not raise yourexpectations to that standard to which you would have been justified inraising them had one of these distinguished men appeared before you. Youwould perhaps be only preparing a disappointment for yourselves, and, asa consequence of your disappointment, mortification to me. I hope, therefore, that you will commence with very moderate expectations; andperhaps, if you will give me your attention, I shall be able to interestyou to a moderate degree. 

Appearing here for the first time in my life, I have been somewhatembarrassed for a topic by way of introduction to my speech; but I havebeen relieved from that embarrassment by an introduction which the OhioStatesman newspaper gave me this morning. In this paper I have read anarticle, in which, among other statements, I find the following:

"In debating with Senator Douglas during the memorable contest of lastfall, Mr. Lincoln declared in favor of negro suffrage, and attempted todefend that vile conception against the Little Giant. "

I mention this now, at the opening of my remarks, for the purpose ofmaking three comments upon it. The first I have already announced, --itfurnishes me an introductory topic; the second is to show that thegentleman is mistaken; thirdly, to give him an opportunity to correct it. 

In the first place, in regard to this matter being a mistake. I have foundthat it is not entirely safe, when one is misrepresented under his verynose, to allow the misrepresentation to go uncontradicted. Itherefore propose, here at the outset, not only to say that this is amisrepresentation, but to show conclusively that it is so; and you willbear with me while I read a couple of extracts from that very "memorable"debate with Judge Douglas last year, to which this newspaper refers. Inthe first pitched battle which Senator Douglas and myself had, at thetown of Ottawa, I used the language which I will now read. Having beenpreviously reading an extract, I continued as follows:

"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this isthe true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institutionof slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it; and anything thatargues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with thenegro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which aman can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose directly or indirectly tointerfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to doso. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality betweenthe white and the black races. There is a physical difference between thetwo which, in my judgment, will probably forbid their ever living togetherupon the footing of perfect equality; and inasmuch as it becomes anecessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. Ihave never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstandingall this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled toall the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, --theright to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is asmuch entitled to these as the white man. I agree with judge Douglas, heis not my equal in many respects, --certainly not in color, perhaps notin moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the bread, without 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. "

Upon a subsequent occasion, when the reason for making a statement likethis occurred, I said:

"While I was at the hotel to-day an elderly gentleman called upon me toknow whether I was really in favor of producing perfect equality betweenthe negroes and white people. While I had not proposed to myself on thisoccasion to say much on that subject, yet, as the question was asked me, Ithought I would occupy perhaps five minutes in saying something in regardto it. I will say, then, that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor ofbringing about in any way the social and political equality of the whiteand black races; that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of makingvoters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, orintermarry with the white people; and I will say in addition to this thatthere is a physical difference between the white and black races whichI believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms ofsocial and political equality. And inasmuch as they can not so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superiorand inferior, and I, as much as any other man, am in favor of having thesuperior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasionI do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superiorposition, the negro should be denied everything. I do not understand thatbecause I do not want a negro woman for a slave, I must necessarily wanther for a wife. My understanding is that I can just let her alone. I amnow in my fiftieth year, and I certainly never have had a black woman foreither a slave or a wife. So it seems to me quite possible for us to getalong without making either slaves or wives of negroes. I will add to thisthat I have never seen, to my knowledge, a man, woman, or child, who wasin favor of producing perfect equality, social and political, betweennegroes and white men. I recollect of but one distinguished instance thatI ever heard of so frequently as to be satisfied of its correctness, andthat is the case of Judge Douglas's old friend Colonel Richard M. Johnson. I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enterat large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehensionthat I or my friends would marry negroes, if there was no law to keepthem from it; but as judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in greatapprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, Igive him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by thelaw of the State which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. "

There, my friends, you have briefly what I have, upon former occasions, said upon this subject to which this newspaper, to the extent of itsability, has drawn the public attention. In it you not only perceive, as aprobability, that in that contest I did not at any time say I was in favorof negro suffrage, but the absolute proof that twice--once substantially, and once expressly--I declared against it. Having shown you this, thereremains but a word of comment upon that newspaper article. It is this, that I presume the editor of that paper is an honest and truth-loving man, and that he will be greatly obliged to me for furnishing him thus earlyan opportunity to correct the misrepresentation he has made, before it hasrun so long that malicious people can call him a liar. 

The Giant himself has been here recently. I have seen a brief report ofhis speech. If it were otherwise unpleasant to me to introduce the subjectof the negro as a topic for discussion, I might be somewhat relieved bythe fact that he dealt exclusively in that subject while he was here. Ishall, therefore, without much hesitation or diffidence, enter upon thissubject. 

The American people, on the first day of January, 1854, found the Africanslave trade prohibited by a law of Congress. In a majority of the Statesof this Union, they found African slavery, or any other sort of slavery, prohibited by State constitutions. They also found a law existing, supposed to be valid, by which slavery was excluded from almost all theterritory the United States then owned. This was the condition of thecountry, with reference to the institution of slavery, on the first ofJanuary, 1854. A few days after that, a bill was introduced into Congress, which ran through its regular course in the two branches of the nationallegislature, and finally passed into a law in the month of May, by whichthe Act of Congress prohibiting slavery from going into the Territories ofthe United States was repealed. In connection with the law itself, and, infact, in the terms of the law, the then existing prohibition was not onlyrepealed, but there was a declaration of a purpose on the part of Congressnever thereafter to exercise any power that they might have, real orsupposed, to prohibit the extension or spread of slavery. This was a verygreat change; for the law thus repealed was of more than thirty years'standing. Following rapidly upon the heels of this action of Congress, a decision of the Supreme Court is made, by which it is declared thatCongress, if it desires to prohibit the spread of slavery into theTerritories, has no constitutional power to do so. Not only so, butthat decision lays down principles which, if pushed to their logicalconclusion, --I say pushed to their logical conclusion, --would decidethat the constitutions of free States, forbidding slavery, are themselvesunconstitutional. Mark me, I do not say the judges said this, and letno man say I affirm the judges used these words; but I only say it is myopinion that what they did say, if pressed to its logical conclusion, willinevitably result thus. 

Looking at these things, the Republican party, as I understand itsprinciples and policy, believes that there is great danger of theinstitution of slavery being spread out and extended until it isultimately made alike lawful in all the States of this Union; sobelieving, to prevent that incidental and ultimate consummation is theoriginal and chief purpose of the Republican organization. I say "chiefpurpose" of the Republican organization; for it is certainly true that ifthe National House shall fall into the hands of the Republicans, they willhave to attend to all the other matters of national house-keeping, as wellas this. The chief and real purpose of the Republican party is eminentlyconservative. It proposes nothing save and except to restore thisgovernment to its original tone in regard to this element of slavery, andthere to maintain it, looking for no further change in reference to itthan that which the original framers of the Government themselves expectedand looked forward to. 

The chief danger to this purpose of the Republican party is not just nowthe revival of the African slave trade, or the passage of a Congressionalslave code, or the declaring of a second Dred Scott decision, makingslavery lawful in all the States. These are not pressing us just now. Theyare not quite ready yet. The authors of these measures know that we aretoo strong for them; but they will be upon us in due time, and we will begrappling with them hand to hand, if they are not now headed off. They arenot now the chief danger to the purpose of the Republican organization;but the most imminent danger that now threatens that purpose is thatinsidious Douglas popular sovereignty. This is the miner and sapper. Whileit does not propose to revive the African slave trade, nor to pass a slavecode, nor to make a second Dred Scott decision, it is preparing us for theonslaught and charge of these ultimate enemies when they shall be ready tocome on, and the word of command for them to advance shall be given. I saythis "Douglas popular sovereignty"; for there is a broad distinction, as Inow understand it, between that article and a genuine popular sovereignty. 

I believe there is a genuine popular sovereignty. I think a definition of"genuine popular sovereignty, " in the abstract, would be about this: Thateach man shall do precisely as he pleases with himself, and with allthose things which exclusively concern him. Applied to government, thisprinciple would be, that a general government shall do all those thingswhich pertain to it, and all the local governments shall do precisely asthey please in respect to those matters which exclusively concern them. Iunderstand that this government of the United States, under which we live, is based upon this principle; and I am misunderstood if it is supposedthat I have any war to make upon that principle. 

Now, what is judge Douglas's popular sovereignty? It is, as a principle, no other than that if one man chooses to make a slave of another manneither that other man nor anybody else has a right to object. Applied ingovernment, as he seeks to apply it, it is this: If, in a new Territoryinto which a few people are beginning to enter for the purpose of makingtheir homes, they choose to either exclude slavery from their limits or toestablish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to beenslaved, or the infinitely greater number of persons who are afterwardsto inhabit that Territory, or the other members of the families ofcommunities, of which they are but an incipient member, or the generalhead of the family of States as parent of all, however their action mayaffect one or the other of these, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's popular sovereignty applied. 

He has a good deal of trouble with popular sovereignty. His explanationsexplanatory of explanations explained are interminable. The most lengthy, and, as I suppose, the most maturely considered of this long series ofexplanations is his great essay in Harper's Magazine. I will not attemptto enter on any very thorough investigation of his argument as there madeand presented. I will nevertheless occupy a good portion of your time herein drawing your attention to certain points in it. Such of you as mayhave read this document will have perceived that the judge early in thedocument quotes from two persons as belonging to the Republican party, without naming them, but who can readily be recognized as being GovernorSeward of New York and myself. It is true that exactly fifteen months agothis day, I believe, I for the first time expressed a sentiment upon thissubject, and in such a manner that it should get into print, that thepublic might see it beyond the circle of my hearers; and my expression ofit at that time is the quotation that Judge Douglas makes. He has not madethe quotation with accuracy, but justice to him requires me to say that itis sufficiently accurate not to change the sense. 

The sense of that quotation condensed is this: that this slavery elementis a durable element of discord among us, and that we shall probably nothave perfect peace in this country with it until it either masters thefree principle in our government, or is so far mastered by the freeprinciple as for the public mind to rest in the belief that it is going toits end. This sentiment, which I now express in this way, was, at no greatdistance of time, perhaps in different language, and in connection withsome collateral ideas, expressed by Governor Seward. Judge Douglas hasbeen so much annoyed by the expression of that sentiment that he hasconstantly, I believe, in almost all his speeches since it was uttered, been referring to it. I find he alluded to it in his speech here, as wellas in the copyright essay. I do not now enter upon this for the purpose ofmaking an elaborate argument to show that we were right in the expressionof that sentiment. In other words, I shall not stop to say all that mightproperly be said upon this point, but I only ask your attention to it forthe purpose of making one or two points upon it. 

If you will read the copyright essay, you will discover that judgeDouglas himself says a controversy between the American Colonies and theGovernment of Great Britain began on the slavery question in 1699, andcontinued from that time until the Revolution; and, while he did not sayso, we all know that it has continued with more or less violence eversince the Revolution. 

Then we need not appeal to history, to the declarations of the framers ofthe government, but we know from judge Douglas himself that slavery beganto be an element of discord among the white people of this country as farback as 1699, or one hundred and sixty years ago, or five generations ofmen, --counting thirty years to a generation. Now, it would seem to me thatit might have occurred to Judge Douglas, or anybody who had turned hisattention to these facts, that there was something in the nature of thatthing, slavery, somewhat durable for mischief and discord. 

There is another point I desire to make in regard to this matter, beforeI leave it. From the adoption of the Constitution down to 1820 is theprecise period of our history when we had comparative peace upon thisquestion, --the precise period of time when we came nearer to having peaceabout it than any other time of that entire one hundred and sixty yearsin which he says it began, or of the eighty years of our own Constitution. Then it would be worth our while to stop and examine into the probablereason of our coming nearer to having peace then than at any other time. This was the precise period of time in which our fathers adopted, andduring which they followed, a policy restricting the spread of slavery, and the whole Union was acquiescing in it. The whole country lookedforward to the ultimate extinction of the institution. It was when apolicy had been adopted, and was prevailing, which led all just andright-minded men to suppose that slavery was gradually coming to an end, and that they might be quiet about it, watching it as it expired. I thinkJudge Douglas might have perceived that too; and whether he did or not, itis worth the attention of fair-minded men, here and elsewhere, to considerwhether that is not the truth of the case. If he had looked at these twofacts, --that this matter has been an element of discord for one hundredand sixty years among this people, and that the only comparative peace wehave had about it was when that policy prevailed in this government whichhe now wars upon, he might then, perhaps, have been brought to a more justappreciation of what I said fifteen months ago, --that "a house dividedagainst itself cannot stand. I believe that this government cannot endurepermanently, half slave and half free. I do not expect the house to fall, I do not expect the Union to dissolve; but I do expect it will cease tobe divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either theopponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place itwhere the public mind will rest in the belief that it is in the course ofultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward until it shallbecome alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as wellas South. " That was my sentiment at that time. In connection with it, Isaid: "We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was inauguratedwith the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slaveryagitation. Under the operation of the policy that agitation has not onlynot ceased, but has constantly augmented. " I now say to you here that weare advanced still farther into the sixth year since that policy ofJudge Douglas--that popular sovereignty of his--for quieting the slaveryquestion was made the national policy. Fifteen months more have beenadded since I uttered that sentiment; and I call upon you and all otherright-minded men to say whether that fifteen months have belied orcorroborated my words. 

While I am here upon this subject, I cannot but express gratitude thatthis true view of this element of discord among us--as I believe it is--isattracting more and more attention. I do not believe that Governor Sewarduttered that sentiment because I had done so before, but because hereflected upon this subject and saw the truth of it. Nor do I believebecause Governor Seward or I uttered it that Mr. Hickman of Pennsylvania, in, different language, since that time, has declared his belief inthe utter antagonism which exists between the principles of liberty andslavery. You see we are multiplying. Now, while I am speaking of Hickman, let me say, I know but little about him. I have never seen him, and knowscarcely anything about the man; but I will say this much of him: Of allthe anti-Lecompton Democracy that have been brought to my notice, healone has the true, genuine ring of the metal. And now, without indorsinganything else he has said, I will ask this audience to give three cheersfor Hickman. [The audience responded with three rousing cheers forHickman. ]

Another point in the copyright essay to which I would ask your attentionis rather a feature to be extracted from the whole thing, than from anyexpress declaration of it at any point. It is a general feature of thatdocument, and, indeed, of all of Judge Douglas's discussions of thisquestion, that the Territories of the United States and the States of thisUnion are exactly alike; that there is no difference between them at all;that the Constitution applies to the Territories precisely as it does tothe States; and that the United States Government, under the Constitution, may not do in a State what it may not do in a Territory, and what it mustdo in a State it must do in a Territory. Gentlemen, is that a true view ofthe case? It is necessary for this squatter sovereignty, but is it true?

Let us consider. What does it depend upon? It depends altogether upon theproposition that the States must, without the interference of theGeneral Government, do all those things that pertain exclusively tothemselves, --that are local in their nature, that have no connectionwith the General Government. After Judge Douglas has established thisproposition, which nobody disputes or ever has disputed, he proceedsto assume, without proving it, that slavery is one of those little, unimportant, trivial matters which are of just about as much consequenceas the question would be to me whether my neighbor should raise hornedcattle or plant tobacco; that there is no moral question about it, butthat it is altogether a matter of dollars and cents; that when a newTerritory is opened for settlement, the first man who goes into it mayplant there a thing which, like the Canada thistle or some other of thosepests of the soil, cannot be dug out by the millions of men who will comethereafter; that it is one of those little things that is so trivial inits nature that it has nor effect upon anybody save the few men who firstplant upon the soil; that it is not a thing which in any way affects thefamily of communities composing these States, nor any way endangers theGeneral Government. Judge Douglas ignores altogether the very well knownfact that we have never had a serious menace to our political existence, except it sprang from this thing, which he chooses to regard as only upona par with onions and potatoes. 

Turn it, and contemplate it in another view. He says that, accordingto his popular sovereignty, the General Government may give to theTerritories governors, judges, marshals, secretaries, and all the otherchief men to govern them, but they, must not touch upon this otherquestion. Why? The question of who shall be governor of a Territory for ayear or two, and pass away, without his track being left upon the soil, oran act which he did for good or for evil being left behind, is a questionof vast national magnitude; it is so much opposed in its nature tolocality that the nation itself must decide it: while this other matterof planting slavery upon a soil, --a thing which, once planted, cannot beeradicated by the succeeding millions who have as much right there as thefirst comers, or, if eradicated, not without infinite difficulty anda long struggle, he considers the power to prohibit it as one of theselittle local, trivial things that the nation ought not to say a wordabout; that it affects nobody save the few men who are there. 

Take these two things and consider them together, present the question ofplanting a State with the institution of slavery by the side of a questionwho shall be Governor of Kansas for a year or two, and is there a manhere, is there a man on earth, who would not say the governor questionis the little one, and the slavery question is the great one? I ask anyhonest Democrat if the small, the local, and the trivial and temporaryquestion is not, Who shall be governor? while the durable, the important, and the mischievous one is, Shall this soil be planted with slavery?

This is an idea, I suppose, which has arisen in Judge Douglas's mind fromhis peculiar structure. I suppose the institution of slavery really lookssmall to him. He is so put up by nature that a lash upon his back wouldhurt him, but a lash upon anybody else's back does not hurt him. That isthe build of the man, and consequently he looks upon the matter of slaveryin this unimportant light. 

Judge Douglas ought to remember, when he is endeavoring to force thispolicy upon the American people, that while he is put up in that way, a good many are not. He ought to remember that there was once inthis country a man by the name of Thomas Jefferson, supposed to be aDemocrat, --a man whose principles and policy are not very prevalentamongst Democrats to-day, it is true; but that man did not take exactlythis view of the insignificance of the element of slavery which our friendjudge Douglas does. In contemplation of this thing, we all know he was ledto exclaim, "I tremble for my country when I remember that God is just!"We know how he looked upon it when he thus expressed himself. There wasdanger to this country, --danger of the avenging justice of God, in thatlittle unimportant popular sovereignty question of judge Douglas. Hesupposed there was a question of God's eternal justice wrapped up in theenslaving of any race of men, or any man, and that those who did so bravedthe arm of Jehovah; that when a nation thus dared the Almighty, everyfriend of that nation had cause to dread his wrath. Choose ye betweenJefferson and Douglas as to what is the true view of this element amongus. 

There is another little difficulty about this matter of treating theTerritories and States alike in all things, to which I ask your attention, and I shall leave this branch of the case. If there is no differencebetween them, why not make the Territories States at once? What isthe reason that Kansas was not fit to come into the Union when it wasorganized into a Territory, in Judge Douglas's view? Can any of you tellany reason why it should not have come into the Union at once? They arefit, as he thinks, to decide upon the slavery question, --the largest andmost important with which they could possibly deal: what could they do bycoming into the Union that they are not fit to do, according to his view, by staying out of it? Oh, they are not fit to sit in Congress and decideupon the rates of postage, or questions of ad valorem or specific dutieson foreign goods, or live-oak timber contracts, they are not fit to decidethese vastly important matters, which are national in their import, butthey are fit, "from the jump, " to decide this little negro question. But, gentlemen, the case is too plain; I occupy too much time on this head, andI pass on. 

Near the close of the copyright essay, the judge, I think, comes very nearkicking his own fat into the fire. I did not think, when I commenced theseremarks, that I would read that article, but I now believe I will:

"This exposition of the history of these measures shows conclusively thatthe authors of the Compromise measures of 1850 and of the Kansas-NebraskaAct of 1854, as well as the members of the Continental Congress of 1774. , and the founders of our system of government subsequent to the Revolution, regarded the people of the Territories and Colonies as politicalcommunities which were entitled to a free and exclusive power oflegislation in their provisional legislatures, where their representationcould alone be preserved, in all cases of taxation and internal polity. "

When the judge saw that putting in the word "slavery" would contradicthis own history, he put in what he knew would pass synonymous with it, "internal polity. " Whenever we find that in one of his speeches, thesubstitute is used in this manner; and I can tell you the reason. It wouldbe too bald a contradiction to say slavery; but "internal polity" is ageneral phrase, which would pass in some quarters, and which he hopes willpass with the reading community for the same thing. 

"This right pertains to the people collectively, as a law-abiding andpeaceful community, and not in the isolated individuals who may wanderupon the public domain in violation of the law. It can only be exercisedwhere there are inhabitants sufficient to constitute a government, andcapable of performing its various functions and duties, --a fact to beascertained and determined by" who do you think? Judge Douglas says "byCongress!" "Whether the number shall be fixed at ten, fifteen or twentythousand inhabitants, does not affect the principle. "

Now, I have only a few comments to make. Popular sovereignty, by his ownwords, does not pertain to the few persons who wander upon the publicdomain in violation of law. We have his words for that. When it doespertain to them, is when they are sufficient to be formed into anorganized political community, and he fixes the minimum for that at tenthousand, and the maximum at twenty thousand. Now, I would like to knowwhat is to be done with the nine thousand? Are they all to be treated, until they are large enough to be organized into a political community, aswanderers upon the public land, in violation of law? And if so treatedand driven out, at what point of time would there ever be ten thousand?If they were not driven out, but remained there as trespassers upon thepublic land in violation of the law, can they establish slavery there? No;the judge says popular sovereignty don't pertain to them then. Can theyexclude it then? No; popular sovereignty don't pertain to them then. Iwould like to know, in the case covered by the essay, what conditionthe people of the Territory are in before they reach the number of tenthousand?

But the main point I wish to ask attention to is, that the question asto when they shall have reached a sufficient number to be formed into aregular organized community is to be decided "by Congress. " Judge Douglassays so. Well, gentlemen, that is about all we want. No, that is all theSoutherners want. That is what all those who are for slavery want. Theydo not want Congress to prohibit slavery from coming into the newTerritories, and they do not want popular sovereignty to hinder it; and asCongress is to say when they are ready to be organized, all that the Southhas to do is to get Congress to hold off. Let Congress hold off until theyare ready to be admitted as a State, and the South has all it wants intaking slavery into and planting it in all the Territories that we nowhave or hereafter may have. In a word, the whole thing, at a dash of thepen, is at last put in the power of Congress; for if they do not have thispopular sovereignty until Congress organizes them, I ask if it at lastdoes not come from Congress? If, at last, it amounts to anything at all, Congress gives it to them. I submit this rather for your reflectionthan for comment. After all that is said, at last, by a dash of the pen, everything that has gone before is undone, and he puts the whole questionunder the control of Congress. After fighting through more than threehours, if you undertake to read it, he at last places the whole matterunder the control of that power which he has been contending against, andarrives at a result directly contrary to what he had been laboring to do. He at last leaves the whole matter to the control of Congress. 

There are two main objects, as I understand it, of this Harper's Magazineessay. One was to show, if possible, that the men of our Revolutionarytimes were in favor of his popular sovereignty, and the other was to showthat the Dred Scott decision had not entirely squelched out this popularsovereignty. I do not propose, in regard to this argument drawn fromthe history of former times, to enter into a detailed examination of thehistorical statements he has made. I have the impression that they areinaccurate in a great many instances, --sometimes in positive statement, but very much more inaccurate by the suppression of statements that reallybelong to the history. But I do not propose to affirm that this is so toany very great extent, or to enter into a very minute examination of hishistorical statements. I avoid doing so upon this principle, --that if itwere important for me to pass out of this lot in the least period of timepossible, and I came to that fence, and saw by a calculation of my knownstrength and agility that I could clear it at a bound, it would be follyfor me to stop and consider whether I could or not crawl through a crack. So I say of the whole history contained in his essay where he endeavoredto link the men of the Revolution to popular sovereignty. It only requiresan effort to leap out of it, a single bound to be entirely successful. If you read it over, you will find that he quotes here and there fromdocuments of the Revolutionary times, tending to show that the people ofthe colonies were desirous of regulating their own concerns in their ownway, that the British Government should not interfere; that at one timethey struggled with the British Government to be permitted to excludethe African slave trade, --if not directly, to be permitted to excludeit indirectly, by taxation sufficient to discourage and destroy it. Fromthese and many things of this sort, judge Douglas argues that they werein favor of the people of our own Territories excluding slavery if theywanted to, or planting it there if they wanted to, doing just as theypleased from the time they settled upon the Territory. Now, however hishistory may apply and whatever of his argument there may be that is soundand accurate or unsound and inaccurate, if we can find out what these mendid themselves do upon this very question of slavery in the Territories, does it not end the whole thing? If, after all this labor and effortto show that the men of the Revolution were in favor of his popularsovereignty and his mode of dealing with slavery in the Territories, wecan show that these very men took hold of that subject, and dealt withit, we can see for ourselves how they dealt with it. It is not a matter ofargument or inference, but we know what they thought about it. 

It is precisely upon that part of the history of the country that oneimportant omission is made by Judge Douglas. He selects parts of thehistory of the United States upon the subject of slavery, and treats it asthe whole, omitting from his historical sketch the legislation of Congressin regard to the admission of Missouri, by which the Missouri Compromisewas established and slavery excluded from a country half as large as thepresent United States. All this is left out of his history, and in nowisealluded to by him, so far as I can remember, save once, when he makesa remark, that upon his principle the Supreme Court were authorized topronounce a decision that the act called the Missouri Compromise wasunconstitutional. All that history has been left out. But this part of thehistory of the country was not made by the men of the Revolution. 

There was another part of our political history, made by the very menwho were the actors in the Revolution, which has taken the name of theOrdinance of '87. Let me bring that history to your attention. In 1784, Ibelieve, this same Mr. Jefferson drew up an ordinance for the governmentof the country upon which we now stand, or, rather, a frame or draft of anordinance for the government of this country, here in Ohio, our neighborsin Indiana, us who live in Illinois, our neighbors in Wisconsin andMichigan. In that ordinance, drawn up not only for the government of thatTerritory, but for the Territories south of the Ohio River, Mr. Jeffersonexpressly provided for the prohibition of slavery. Judge Douglas says, and perhaps is right, that that provision was lost from that ordinance. Ibelieve that is true. When the vote was taken upon it, a majority of allpresent in the Congress of the Confederation voted for it; but there wereso many absentees that those voting for it did not make the clear majoritynecessary, and it was lost. But three years after that, the Congress ofthe Confederation were together again, and they adopted a new ordinancefor the government of this Northwest Territory, not contemplatingterritory south of the river, for the States owning that territory hadhitherto refrained from giving it to the General Government; hence theymade the ordinance to apply only to what the Government owned. In fact, the provision excluding slavery was inserted aside, passed unanimously, orat any rate it passed and became a part of the law of the land. Underthat ordinance we live. First here in Ohio you were a Territory; then anenabling act was passed, authorizing you to form a constitution andState Government, provided it was republican and not in conflict with theOrdinance of '87. When you framed your constitution and presented it foradmission, I think you will find the legislation upon the subject willshow that, whereas you had formed a constitution that was republican, andnot in conflict with the Ordinance of '87, therefore you were admittedupon equal footing with the original States. The same process in a fewyears was gone through with in Indiana, and so with Illinois, and the samesubstantially with Michigan and Wisconsin. 

Not only did that Ordinance prevail, but it was constantly looked towhenever a step was taken by a new Territory to become a State. Congressalways turned their attention to it, and in all their movements uponthis subject they traced their course by that Ordinance of '87. When theyadmitted new States, they advertised them of this Ordinance, as a part ofthe legislation of the country. They did so because they had traced theOrdinance of '87 throughout the history of this country. Begin with themen of the Revolution, and go down for sixty entire years, and until thelast scrap of that Territory comes into the Union in the form of the Stateof Wisconsin, everything was made to conform with the Ordinance of '87, excluding slavery from that vast extent of country. 

I omitted to mention in the right place that the Constitution of theUnited States was in process of being framed when that Ordinance wasmade by the Congress of the Confederation; and one of the first Acts ofCongress itself, under the new Constitution itself, was to give force tothat Ordinance by putting power to carry it out in the hands of the newofficers under the Constitution, in the place of the old ones, who hadbeen legislated out of existence by the change in the Government from theConfederation to the Constitution. Not only so, but I believe Indiana onceor twice, if not Ohio, petitioned the General Government for the privilegeof suspending that provision and allowing them to have slaves. A reportmade by Mr. Randolph, of Virginia, himself a slaveholder, was directlyagainst it, and the action was to refuse them the privilege of violatingthe Ordinance of '87. 

This period of history, which I have run over briefly, is, I presume, asfamiliar to most of this assembly as any other part of the history of ourcountry. I suppose that few of my hearers are not as familiar with thatpart of history as I am, and I only mention it to recall your attentionto it at this time. And hence I ask how extraordinary a thing it is that aman who has occupied a position upon the floor of the Senate of the UnitedStates, who is now in his third term, and who looks to see the governmentof this whole country fall into his own hands, pretending to give atruthful and accurate history o the slavery question in this country, should so entirely ignore the whole of that portion of our history--themost important of all. Is it not a most extraordinary spectacle that a manshould stand up and ask for any confidence in his statements who sets outas he does with portions of history, calling upon the people to believethat it is a true and fair representation, when the leading part andcontrolling feature of the whole history is carefully suppressed?

But the mere leaving out is not the most remarkable feature of this mostremarkable essay. His proposition is to establish that the leading menof the Revolution were for his great principle of nonintervention by thegovernment in the question of slavery in the Territories, while historyshows that they decided, in the cases actually brought before them, inexactly the contrary way, and he knows it. Not only did they so decideat that time, but they stuck to it during sixty years, through thick andthin, as long as there was one of the Revolutionary heroes upon the stageof political action. Through their whole course, from first to last, theyclung to freedom. And now he asks the community to believe that the menof the Revolution were in favor of his great principle, when we have thenaked history that they themselves dealt with this very subject matterof his principle, and utterly repudiated his principle, acting upona precisely contrary ground. It is as impudent and absurd as if aprosecuting attorney should stand up before a jury and ask them to convictA as the murderer of B, while B was walking alive before them. 

I say, again, if judge Douglas asserts that the men of the Revolutionacted upon principles by which, to be consistent with themselves, theyought to have adopted his popular sovereignty, then, upon a considerationof his own argument, he had a right to make you believe that theyunderstood the principles of government, but misapplied them, that hehas arisen to enlighten the world as to the just application of thisprinciple. He has a right to try to persuade you that he understands theirprinciples better than they did, and, therefore, he will apply them now, not as they did, but as they ought to have done. He has a right to gobefore the community and try to convince them of this, but he has no rightto attempt to impose upon any one the belief that these men themselvesapproved of his great principle. There are two ways of establishing aproposition. One is by trying to demonstrate it upon reason, and the otheris, to show that great men in former times have thought so and so, andthus to pass it by the weight of pure authority. Now, if Judge Douglaswill demonstrate somehow that this is popular sovereignty, --the right ofone man to make a slave of another, without any right in that other orany one else to object, --demonstrate it as Euclid demonstratedpropositions, --there is no objection. But when he comes forward, seekingto carry a principle by bringing to it the authority of men who themselvesutterly repudiate that principle, I ask that he shall not be permitted todo it. 

I see, in the judge's speech here, a short sentence in these words: "Ourfathers, when they formed this government under which we live, understoodthis question just as well, and even better than, we do now. " That istrue; I stick to that. I will stand by Judge Douglas in that to the bitterend. And now, Judge Douglas, come and stand by me, and truthfully show howthey acted, understanding it better than we do. All I ask of you, JudgeDouglas, is to stick to the proposition that the men of the Revolutionunderstood this subject better than we do now, and with that betterunderstanding they acted better than you are trying to act now. 

I wish to say something now in regard to the Dred Scott decision, as dealtwith by Judge Douglas. In that "memorable debate" between Judge Douglasand myself, last year, the judge thought fit to commence a process ofcatechising me, and at Freeport I answered his questions, and propoundedsome to him. Among others propounded to him was one that I have here now. The substance, as I remember it, is, "Can the people of a United StatesTerritory, under the Dred Scott decision, in any lawful way, against thewish of any citizen of the United States, exclude slavery from its limits, prior to the formation of a State constitution?" He answered that theycould lawfully exclude slavery from the United States Territories, notwithstanding the Dred Scot decision. There was something about thatanswer that has probably been a trouble to the judge ever since. 

The Dred Scott decision expressly gives every citizen of the United Statesa right to carry his slaves into the United States Territories. And nowthere was some inconsistency in saying that the decision was right, andsaying, too, that the people of the Territory could lawfully drive slaveryout again. When all the trash, the words, the collateral matter, wascleared away from it, all the chaff was fanned out of it, it was a bareabsurdity, --no less than that a thing may be lawfully driven away fromwhere it has a lawful right to be. Clear it of all the verbiage, andthat is the naked truth of his proposition, --that a thing may be lawfullydriven from the place where it has a lawful right to stay. Well, it wasbecause the judge could n't help seeing this that he has had so muchtrouble with it; and what I want to ask your especial attention to, justnow, is to remind you, if you have not noticed the fact, that the judgedoes not any longer say that the people can exclude slavery. He does notsay so in the copyright essay; he did not say so in the speech that hemade here; and, so far as I know, since his re-election to the Senate hehas never said, as he did at Freeport, that the people of the Territoriescan exclude slavery. He desires that you, who wish the Territories toremain free, should believe that he stands by that position; but he doesnot say it himself. He escapes to some extent the absurd position I havestated, by changing his language entirely. What he says now is somethingdifferent in language, and we will consider whether it is not differentin sense too. It is now that the Dred Scott decision, or rather theConstitution under that decision, does not carry slavery into theTerritories beyond the power of the people of the Territories to controlit as other property. He does not say the people can drive it out, butthey can control it as other property. The language is different; weshould consider whether the sense is different. Driving a horse out ofthis lot is too plain a proposition to be mistaken about; it is puttinghim on the other side of the fence. Or it might be a sort of exclusion ofhim from the lot if you were to kill him and let the worms devour him;but neither of these things is the same as "controlling him as otherproperty. " That would be to feed him, to pamper him, to ride him, to useand abuse him, to make the most money out of him, "as other property";but, please you, what do the men who are in favor of slavery want morethan this? What do they really want, other than that slavery, being in theTerritories, shall be controlled as other property? If they want anythingelse, I do not comprehend it. I ask your attention to this, first, for thepurpose of pointing out the change of ground the judge has made; and, inthe second place, the importance of the change, --that that change is notsuch as to give you gentlemen who want his popular sovereignty the powerto exclude the institution or drive it out at all. I know the judgesometimes squints at the argument that in controlling it as other propertyby unfriendly legislation they may control it to death; as you might, inthe case of a horse, perhaps, feed him so lightly and ride him so muchthat he would die. But when you come to legislative control, there issomething more to be attended to. I have no doubt, myself, that if theTerritories should undertake to control slave property as other propertythat is, control it in such a way that it would be the most valuable asproperty, and make it bear its just proportion in the way of burdensas property, really deal with it as property, --the Supreme Court of theUnited States will say, "God speed you, and amen. " But I undertake togive the opinion, at least, that if the Territories attempt by any directlegislation to drive the man with his slave out of the Territory, or todecide that his slave is free because of his being taken in there, or totax him to such an extent that he cannot keep him there, the Supreme Courtwill unhesitatingly decide all such legislation unconstitutional, as longas that Supreme Court is constructed as the Dred Scott Supreme Court is. The first two things they have already decided, except that there is alittle quibble among lawyers between the words "dicta" and "decision. "They have already decided a negro cannot be made free by Territoriallegislation. 

What is the Dred Scott decision? Judge Douglas labors to show that it isone thing, while I think it is altogether different. It is a long opinion, but it is all embodied in this short statement: "The Constitution of theUnited States forbids Congress to deprive a man of his property, withoutdue process of law; the right of property in slaves is distinctly andexpressly affirmed in that Constitution: therefore, if Congress shallundertake to say that a man's slave is no longer his slave when he crossesa certain line into a Territory, that is depriving him of his propertywithout due process of law, and is unconstitutional. " There is the wholeDred Scott decision. They add that if Congress cannot do so itself, Congress cannot confer any power to do so; and hence any effort by theTerritorial Legislature to do either of these things is absolutely decidedagainst. It is a foregone conclusion by that court. 

Now, as to this indirect mode by "unfriendly legislation, " all lawyershere will readily understand that such a proposition cannot be toleratedfor a moment, because a legislature cannot indirectly do that which itcannot accomplish directly. Then I say any legislation to control thisproperty, as property, for its benefit as property, would be hailed bythis Dred Scott Supreme Court, and fully sustained; but any legislationdriving slave property out, or destroying it as property, directly orindirectly, will most assuredly, by that court, be held unconstitutional. 

Judge Douglas says if the Constitution carries slavery into theTerritories, beyond the power of the people of the Territories to controlit as other property; then it follows logically that every one who swearsto support the Constitution of the United States must give that supportto that property which it needs. And, if the Constitution carries slaveryinto the Territories, beyond the power of the people, to control it asother property, then it also carries it into the States, because theConstitution is the supreme law of the land. Now, gentlemen, if it werenot for my excessive modesty, I would say that I told that very thing toJudge Douglas quite a year ago. This argument is here in print, and if itwere not for my modesty, as I said, I might call your attention to it. Ifyou read it, you will find that I not only made that argument, but made itbetter than he has made it since. 

There is, however, this difference: I say now, and said then, there is nosort of question that the Supreme Court has decided that it is the rightof the slave holder to take his slave and hold him in the Territory; andsaying this, judge Douglas himself admits the conclusion. He says if thatis so, this consequence will follow; and because this consequencewould follow, his argument is, the decision cannot, therefore, be thatway, --"that would spoil my popular sovereignty; and it cannot be possiblethat this great principle has been squelched out in this extraordinaryway. It might be, if it were not for the extraordinary consequences ofspoiling my humbug. "

Another feature of the judge's argument about the Dred Scott case is, an effort to show that that decision deals altogether in declarations ofnegatives; that the Constitution does not affirm anything as expoundedby the Dred Scott decision, but it only declares a want of power a totalabsence of power, in reference to the Territories. It seems to be hispurpose to make the whole of that decision to result in a mere negativedeclaration of a want of power in Congress to do anything in relation tothis matter in the Territories. I know the opinion of the Judges statesthat there is a total absence of power; but that is, unfortunately; notall it states: for the judges add that the right of property in a slave isdistinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. It does not stopat saying that the right of property in a slave is recognized in theConstitution, is declared to exist somewhere in the Constitution, but saysit is affirmed in the Constitution. Its language is equivalent to sayingthat it is embodied and so woven in that instrument that it cannot bedetached without breaking the Constitution itself. In a word, it is partof the Constitution. 

Douglas is singularly unfortunate in his effort to make out that decisionto be altogether negative, when the express language at the vital part isthat this is distinctly affirmed in the Constitution. I think myself, andI repeat it here, that this decision does not merely carry slavery intothe Territories, but by its logical conclusion it carries it into theStates in which we live. One provision of that Constitution is, that itshall be the supreme law of the land, --I do not quote the language, --anyconstitution or law of any State to the contrary notwithstanding. ThisDred Scott decision says that the right of property in a slave is affirmedin that Constitution which is the supreme law of the land, any Stateconstitution or law notwithstanding. Then I say that to destroy a thingwhich is distinctly affirmed and supported by the supreme law of the land, even by a State constitution or law, is a violation of that supreme law, and there is no escape from it. In my judgment there is no avoiding thatresult, save that the American people shall see that constitutions arebetter construed than our Constitution is construed in that decision. Theymust take care that it is more faithfully and truly carried out than it isthere expounded. 

I must hasten to a conclusion. Near the beginning of my remarks I saidthat this insidious Douglas popular sovereignty is the measure that nowthreatens the purpose of the Republican party to prevent slavery frombeing nationalized in the United States. I propose to ask your attentionfor a little while to some propositions in affirmance of that statement. Take it just as it stands, and apply it as a principle; extend and applythat principle elsewhere; and consider where it will lead you. I now putthis proposition, that Judge Douglas's popular sovereignty applied willreopen the African slave trade; and I will demonstrate it by any varietyof ways in which you can turn the subject or look at it. 

The Judge says that the people of the Territories have the right, by hisprinciple, to have slaves, if they want them. Then I say that the peoplein Georgia have the right to buy slaves in Africa, if they want them;and I defy any man on earth to show any distinction between the twothings, --to show that the one is either more wicked or more unlawful; toshow, on original principles, that one is better or worse than the other;or to show, by the Constitution, that one differs a whit from the other. He will tell me, doubtless, that there is no constitutional provisionagainst people taking slaves into the new Territories, and I tell himthat there is equally no constitutional provision against buying slavesin Africa. He will tell you that a people, in the exercise of popularsovereignty, ought to do as they please about that thing, and have slavesif they want them; and I tell you that the people of Georgia are as muchentitled to popular sovereignty and to buy slaves in Africa, if they wantthem, as the people of the Territory are to have slaves if they want them. I ask any man, dealing honestly with himself, to point out a distinction. 

I have recently seen a letter of Judge Douglas's in which, without statingthat to be the object, he doubtless endeavors to make a distinctionbetween the two. He says he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of thelaws against the African slave trade. And why? He then seeks to give areason that would not apply to his popular sovereignty in the Territories. What is that reason? "The abolition of the African slave trade is acompromise of the Constitution!" I deny it. There is no truth in theproposition that the abolition of the African slave trade is a compromiseof the Constitution. No man can put his finger on anything in theConstitution, or on the line of history, which shows it. It is a merebarren assertion, made simply for the purpose of getting up a distinctionbetween the revival of the African slave trade and his "great principle. "

At the time the Constitution of the United States was adopted, it wasexpected that the slave trade would be abolished. I should assert andinsist upon that, if judge Douglas denied it. But I know that it wasequally expected that slavery would be excluded from the Territories, andI can show by history that in regard to these two things public opinionwas exactly alike, while in regard to positive action, there was more donein the Ordinance of '87 to resist the spread of slavery than was ever doneto abolish the foreign slave trade. Lest I be misunderstood, I say againthat at the time of the formation of the Constitution, public expectationwas that the slave trade would be abolished, but no more so than thespread of slavery in the Territories should be restrained. They standalike, except that in the Ordinance of '87 there was a mark left by publicopinion, showing that it was more committed against the spread of slaveryin the Territories than against the foreign slave trade. 

Compromise! What word of compromise was there about it? Why, the publicsense was then in favor of the abolition of the slave trade; but there wasat the time a very great commercial interest involved in it, and extensivecapital in that branch of trade. There were doubtless the incipient stagesof improvement in the South in the way of farming, dependent on the slavetrade, and they made a proposition to Congress to abolish the trade afterallowing it twenty years, --a sufficient time for the capital and commerceengaged in it to be transferred to other channel. They made no provisionthat it should be abolished in twenty years; I do not doubt that theyexpected it would be, but they made no bargain about it. The publicsentiment left no doubt in the minds of any that it would be done away. I repeat, there is nothing in the history of those times in favor ofthat matter being a compromise of the constitution. It was the publicexpectation at the time, manifested in a thousand ways, that the spread ofslavery should also be restricted. 

Then I say, if this principle is established, that there is no wrongin slavery, and whoever wants it has a right to have it, is a matterof dollars and cents, a sort of question as to how they shall deal withbrutes, that between us and the negro here there is no sort of question, but that at the South the question is between the negro and the crocodile, that is all, it is a mere matter of policy, there is a perfect right, according to interest, to do just as you please, --when this is done, wherethis doctrine prevails, the miners and sappers will have formed publicopinion for the slave trade. They will be ready for Jeff. Davis andStephens and other leaders of that company to sound the bugle for therevival of the slave trade, for the second Dred Scott decision, for theflood of slavery to be poured over the free States, while we shall be heretied down and helpless and run over like sheep. 

It is to be a part and parcel of this same idea to say to men who want toadhere to the Democratic party, who have always belonged to thatparty, and are only looking about for some excuse to stick to it, butnevertheless hate slavery, that Douglas's popular sovereignty is as gooda way as any to oppose slavery. They allow themselves to be persuadedeasily, in accordance with their previous dispositions, into this belief, that it is about as good a way of opposing slavery as any, and we can dothat without straining our old party ties or breaking up old politicalassociations. We can do so without being called negro-worshipers. Wecan do that without being subjected to the jibes and sneers that are soreadily thrown out in place of argument where no argument can be found. So let us stick to this popular sovereignty, --this insidious popularsovereignty. 

Now let me call your attention to one thing that has really happened, which shows this gradual and steady debauching of public opinion, this course of preparation for the revival of the slave trade, for theTerritorial slave code, and the new Dred Scott decision that is to carryslavery into the Free States. Did you ever, five years ago, hear ofanybody in the world saying that the negro had no share in the Declarationof National Independence; that it does not mean negroes at all; and when"all men" were spoken of, negroes were not included?

I am satisfied that five years ago that proposition was not put upon paperby any living being anywhere. I have been unable at any time to find a manin an audience who would declare that he had ever known of anybody sayingso five years ago. But last year there was not a Douglas popular sovereignin Illinois who did not say it. Is there one in Ohio but declares his firmbelief that the Declaration of Independence did not mean negroes at all? Ido not know how this is; I have not been here much; but I presume you arevery much alike everywhere. Then I suppose that all now express the beliefthat the Declaration of Independence never did mean negroes. I call uponone of them to say that he said it five years ago. 

If you think that now, and did not think it then, the next thing thatstrikes me is to remark that there has been a change wrought in you, --anda very significant change it is, being no less than changing the negro, in your estimation, from the rank of a man to that of a brute. Theyare taking him down and placing him, when spoken of, among reptiles andcrocodiles, as Judge Douglas himself expresses it. 

Is not this change wrought in your minds a very important change? Publicopinion in this country is everything. In a nation like ours, this popularsovereignty and squatter sovereignty have already wrought a change in thepublic mind to the extent I have stated. There is no man in this crowd whocan contradict it. 

Now, if you are opposed to slavery honestly, as much as anybody, I ask youto note that fact, and the like of which is to follow, to be plastered on, layer after layer, until very soon you are prepared to deal with the negroevery where as with the brute. If public sentiment has not been debauchedalready to this point, a new turn of the screw in that direction is allthat is wanting; and this is constantly being done by the teachers ofthis insidious popular sovereignty. You need but one or two turns further, until your minds, now ripening under these teachings, will be ready forall these things, and you will receive and support, or submit to, theslave trade, revived with all its horrors, a slave code enforced in ourTerritories, and a new Dred Scott decision to bring slavery up into thevery heart of the free North. This, I must say, is but carrying out thosewords prophetically spoken by Mr. Clay, --many, many years ago, --I believemore than thirty years, when he told an audience that if they wouldrepress all tendencies to liberty and ultimate emancipation they must goback to the era of our independence, and muzzle the cannon which thunderedits annual joyous return on the Fourth of July; they must blow out themoral lights around us; they must penetrate the human soul, and eradicatethe love of liberty: but until they did these things, and otherseloquently enumerated by him, they could not repress all tendencies toultimate emancipation. 

I ask attention to the fact that in a pre-eminent degree these popularsovereigns are at this work: blowing out the moral lights around us;teaching that the negro is no longer a man, but a brute; that theDeclaration has nothing to do with him; that he ranks with the crocodileand the reptile; that man, with body and soul, is a matter of dollars andcents. I suggest to this portion of the Ohio Republicans, or Democrats, ifthere be any present, the serious consideration of this fact that thereis now going on among you a steady process of debauching public opinion onthis subject. With this, my friends, I bid you adieu. 

SPEECH AT CINCINNATI OHIO, SEPTEMBER 17, 1859

My Fellow-Citizens of the State of Ohio: This is the first time in mylife that I have appeared before an audience in so great a city as this:I therefore--though I am no longer a young man--make this appearanceunder some degree of embarrassment. But I have found that when one isembarrassed, usually the shortest way to get through with it is to quittalking or thinking about it, and go at something else. 

I understand that you have had recently with you my very distinguishedfriend Judge Douglas, of Illinois; and I understand, without having hadan opportunity (not greatly sought, to be sure) of seeing a report of thespeech that he made here, that he did me the honor to mention my humblename. I suppose that he did so for the purpose of making some objection tosome sentiment at some time expressed by me. I should expect, it is true, that judge Douglas had reminded you, or informed you, if you had neverbefore heard it, that I had once in my life declared it as my opinion thatthis government cannot endure permanently, half slave and half free; thata house divided against itself cannot stand, and, as I had expressed it, I did not expect the house to fall, that I did not expect the Union to bedissolved, but that I did expect that it would cease to be divided, thatit would become all one thing, or all the other; that either the opponentsof slavery would arrest the further spread of it, and place it where thepublic mind would rest in the belief that it was in the course of ultimateextinction, or the friends of slavery will push it forward until itbecomes alike lawful in all the States, old or new, free as well as slave. I did, fifteen months ago, express that opinion, and upon many occasionsJudge Douglas has denounced it, and has greatly, intentionally orunintentionally, misrepresented my purpose in the expression of thatopinion. 

I presume, without having seen a report of his speech, that he didso here. I presume that he alluded also to that opinion, in differentlanguage, having been expressed at a subsequent time by Governor Seward ofNew York, and that he took the two in a lump and denounced them; that hetried to point out that there was something couched in this opinion whichled to the making of an entire uniformity of the local institutions of thevarious States of the Union, in utter disregard of the different States, which in their nature would seem to require a variety of institutionsand a variety of laws, conforming to the differences in the nature of thedifferent States. 

Not only so: I presume he insisted that this was a declaration of warbetween the free and slave States, that it was the sounding to the onsetof continual war between the different States, the slave and free States. 

This charge, in this form, was made by Judge Douglas on, I believe, the9th of July, 1858, in Chicago, in my hearing. On the next evening, I madesome reply to it. I informed him that many of the inferences he drew fromthat expression of mine were altogether foreign to any purpose entertainedby me, and in so far as he should ascribe these inferences to me, as mypurpose, he was entirely mistaken; and in so far as he might argue that, whatever might be my purpose, actions conforming to my views would leadto these results, he might argue and establish if he could; but, so far aspurposes were concerned, he was totally mistaken as to me. 

When I made that reply to him, I told him, on the question of declaringwar between the different States of the Union, that I had not said thatI did not expect any peace upon this question until slavery wasexterminated; that I had only said I expected peace when that institutionwas put where the public mind should rest in the belief that it was incourse of ultimate extinction; that I believed, from the organization ofour government until a very recent period of time, the institution hadbeen placed and continued upon such a basis; that we had had comparativepeace upon that question through a portion of that period of time, onlybecause the public mind rested in that belief in regard to it, and thatwhen we returned to that position in relation to that matter, I supposedwe should again have peace as we previously had. I assured him, as I now, assure you, that I neither then had, nor have, or ever had, any purpose inany way of interfering with the institution of slavery, where it exists. Ibelieve we have no power, under the Constitution of the United States, orrather under the form of government under which we live, to interfere withthe institution of slavery, or any other of the institutions of oursister States, be they free or slave States. I declared then, and Inow re-declare, that I have as little inclination to interfere with theinstitution of slavery where it now exists, through the instrumentality ofthe General Government, or any other instrumentality, as I believe we haveno power to do so. I accidentally used this expression: I had no purposeof entering into the slave States to disturb the institution of slavery. So, upon the first occasion that Judge Douglas got an opportunity to replyto me, he passed by the whole body of what I had said upon that subject, and seized upon the particular expression of mine that I had no purpose ofentering into the slave States to disturb the institution of slavery. "Oh, no, " said he, "he [Lincoln] won't enter into the slave States to disturbthe institution of slavery, he is too prudent a man to do such a thing asthat; he only means that he will go on to the line between the free andslave States, and shoot over at them. This is all he means to do. He meansto do them all the harm he can, to disturb them all he can, in such a wayas to keep his own hide in perfect safety. "

Well, now, I did not think, at that time, that that was either a verydignified or very logical argument but so it was, I had to get along withit as well as I could. 

It has occurred to-me here to-night that if I ever do shoot over theline at the people on the other side of the line into a slave State, andpurpose to do so, keeping my skin safe, that I have now about thebest chance I shall ever have. I should not wonder if there are someKentuckians about this audience--we are close to Kentucky; and whetherthat be so or not, we are on elevated ground, and, by speaking distinctly, I should not wonder if some of the Kentuckians would hear me on the otherside of the river. For that reason I propose to address a portion of whatI have to say to the Kentuckians. 

I say, then, in the first place, to the Kentuckians, that I am what theycall, as I understand it, a "Black Republican. " I think slavery is wrong, morally and politically. I desire that it should be no further spreadin--these United States, and I should not object if it should graduallyterminate in the whole Union. While I say this for myself, I say to youKentuckians that I understand you differ radically with me upon thisproposition; that you believe slavery is a good thing; that slavery isright; that it ought to be extended and perpetuated in this Union. Now, there being this broad difference between us, I do not pretend, inaddressing myself to you Kentuckians, to attempt proselyting you; thatwould be a vain effort. I do not enter upon it. I only propose to tryto show you that you ought to nominate for the next Presidency, atCharleston, my distinguished friend Judge Douglas. In all that there is adifference between you and him, I understand he is sincerely for you, andmore wisely for you than you are for yourselves. I will try to demonstratethat proposition. Understand, now, I say that I believe he is as sincerelyfor you, and more wisely for you, than you are for yourselves. 

What do you want more than anything else to make successful your views ofslavery, --to advance the outspread of it, and to secure and perpetuatethe nationality of it? What do you want more than anything else? What--isneeded absolutely? What is indispensable to you? Why, if I may, be allowedto answer the question, it is to retain a hold upon the North, it is toretain support and strength from the free States. If you can get thissupport and strength from the free States, you can succeed. If you do notget this support and this strength from the free States, you are in theminority, and you are beaten at once. 

If that proposition be admitted, --and it is undeniable, --then the nextthing I say to you is, that Douglas, of all the men in this nation, is theonly man that affords you any hold upon the free States; that no other mancan give you any strength in the free States. This being so, if you doubtthe other branch of the proposition, whether he is for you--whether he isreally for you, as I have expressed it, --I propose asking your attentionfor a while to a few facts. 

The issue between you and me, understand, is, that I think slavery iswrong, and ought not to be outspread; and you think it is right, andought to be extended and perpetuated. [A voice, "Oh, Lord!"] That is myKentuckian I am talking to now. 

I now proceed to try to show you that Douglas is as sincerely for you andmore wisely for you than you are for yourselves. 

In the first place, we know that in a government like this, in agovernment of the people, where the voice of all the men of the country, substantially, enters into the execution--or administration, rather--ofthe government, in such a government, what lies at the bottom of all of itis public opinion. I lay down the proposition, that Judge Douglas isnot only the man that promises you in advance a hold upon the North, andsupport in the North, but he constantly moulds public opinion to yourends; that in every possible way he can he constantly moulds the publicopinion of the North to your ends; and if there are a few things in whichhe seems to be against you, --a few things which he says that appear tobe against you, and a few that he forbears to say which you would liketo have him say you ought to remember that the saying of the one, or theforbearing to say the other, would lose his hold upon the North, and, byconsequence, would lose his capacity to serve you. 

Upon this subject of moulding public opinion I call your attention to thefact--for a well established fact it is--that the Judge never says yourinstitution of slavery is wrong. There is not a public man in the UnitedStates, I believe, with the exception of Senator Douglas, who has not, atsome time in his life, declared his opinion whether the thing is right orwrong; but Senator Douglas never declares it is wrong. He leaves himselfat perfect liberty to do all in your favor which he would be hindered fromdoing if he were to declare the thing to be wrong. On the contrary, hetakes all the chances that he has for inveigling the sentiment of theNorth, opposed to slavery, into your support, by never saying it is right. This you ought to set down to his credit: You ought to give him fullcredit for this much; little though it be, in comparison to the wholewhich he does for you. 

Some other, things I will ask your attention to. He said upon the floor ofthe United States Senate, and he has repeated it, as I understand, a greatmany times, that he does not care whether slavery is "voted up or voteddown. " This again shows you, or ought to show you, if you would reasonupon it, that he does not believe it to be wrong; for a man may say whenhe sees nothing wrong in a thing; that he, dues not care whether it bevoted up or voted down but no man can logically say that he cares notwhether a thing goes up or goes down which to him appears to be wrong. Youtherefore have a demonstration in this that to Judge Douglas's mind yourfavorite institution, which you would have spread out and made perpetual, is no wrong. 

Another thing he tells you, in a speech made at Memphis in Tennessee, shortly after the canvass in Illinois, last year. He there distinctlytold the people that there was a "line drawn by the Almighty across thiscontinent, on the one side of which the soil must always be cultivated byslaves"; that he did not pretend to know exactly where that line was, but that there was such a line. I want to ask your attention to thatproposition again; that there is one portion of this continent where theAlmighty has signed the soil shall always be cultivated by slaves; thatits being cultivated by slaves at that place is right; that it has thedirect sympathy and authority of the Almighty. Whenever you can get theseNorthern audiences to adopt the opinion that slavery is right on the otherside of the Ohio, whenever you can get them, in pursuance of Douglas'sviews, to adopt that sentiment, they will very readily make the otherargument, which is perfectly logical, that that which is right on thatside of the Ohio cannot be wrong on this, and that if you have thatproperty on that side of the Ohio, under the seal and stamp of theAlmighty, when by any means it escapes over here it is wrong to haveconstitutions and laws "to devil" you about it. So Douglas is moulding thepublic opinion of the North, first to say that the thing is right in yourState over the Ohio River, and hence to say that that which is right thereis not wrong here, and that all laws and constitutions here recognizingit as being wrong are themselves wrong, and ought to be repealed andabrogated. He will tell you, men of Ohio, that if you choose here to havelaws against slavery, it is in conformity to the idea that your climateis not suited to it, that your climate is not suited to slave labor, andtherefore you have constitutions and laws against it. 

Let us attend to that argument for a little while and see if it be sound. You do not raise sugar-cane (except the new-fashioned sugar-cane, and youwon't raise that long), but they do raise it in Louisiana. You don't raiseit in Ohio, because you can't raise it profitably, because the climatedon't suit it. They do raise it in Louisiana, because there it isprofitable. Now, Douglas will tell you that is precisely the slaveryquestion: that they do have slaves there because they are profitable, andyou don't have them here because they are not profitable. If that is so, then it leads to dealing with the one precisely as with the other. Isthere, then, anything in the constitution or laws of Ohio against raisingsugar-cane? Have you found it necessary to put any such provision in yourlaw? Surely not! No man desires to raise sugar-cane in Ohio, but ifany man did desire to do so, you would say it was a tyrannical law thatforbids his doing so; and whenever you shall agree with Douglas, wheneveryour minds are brought to adopt his argument, as surely you will havereached the conclusion that although it is not profitable in Ohio, if anyman wants it, is wrong to him not to let him have it. 

In this matter Judge Douglas is preparing the public mind for you ofKentucky to make perpetual that good thing in your estimation, about whichyou and I differ. 

In this connection, let me ask your attention to another thing. I believeit is safe to assert that five years ago no living man had expressed theopinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration of Independence. Let me state that again: five years ago no living man had expressed theopinion that the negro had no share in the Declaration of Independence. If there is in this large audience any man who ever knew of that opinionbeing put upon paper as much as five years ago, I will be obliged to himnow or at a subsequent time to show it. 

If that be true I wish you then to note the next fact: that within thespace of five years Senator Douglas, in the argument of this question, hasgot his entire party, so far as I know, without exception, in saying thatthe negro has no share in the Declaration of Independence. If there be nowin all these United States one Douglas man that does not say this, I havebeen unable upon any occasion to scare him up. Now, if none of you saidthis five years ago, and all of you say it now, that is a matter that youKentuckians ought to note. That is a vast change in the Northern publicsentiment upon that question. 

Of what tendency is that change? The tendency of that change is to bringthe public mind to the conclusion that when men are spoken of, thenegro is not meant; that when negroes are spoken of, brutes alone arecontemplated. That change in public sentiment has already degradedthe black man in the estimation of Douglas and his followers from thecondition of a man of some sort, and assigned him to the condition of abrute. Now, you Kentuckians ought to give Douglas credit for this. That isthe largest possible stride that can be made in regard to the perpetuationof your thing of slavery. 

A voice: Speak to Ohio men, and not to Kentuckians!

Mr. LINCOLN: I beg permission to speak as I please. 

In Kentucky perhaps, in many of the slave States certainly, you are tryingto establish the rightfulness of slavery by reference to the Bible. Youare trying to show that slavery existed in the Bible times by divineordinance. Now, Douglas is wiser than you, for your own benefit, upon thatsubject. Douglas knows that whenever you establish that slavery was--rightby the Bible, it will occur that that slavery was the slavery of the whiteman, of men without reference to color; and he knows very well that youmay entertain that idea in Kentucky as much as you please, but you willnever win any Northern support upon it. He makes a wiser argument for you:he makes the argument that the slavery of the black man; the slavery ofthe man who has a skin of a different color from your own, is right. Hethereby brings to your support Northern voters who could not for a momentbe brought by your own argument of the Bible right of slavery. Will yougive him credit for that? Will you not say that in this matter he is morewisely for you than you are for yourselves?

Now, having established with his entire party this doctrine, having beenentirely successful in that branch of his efforts in your behalf, he isready for another. 

At this same meeting at Memphis he declared that in all contests betweenthe negro and the white man he was for the white man, but that in allquestions between the negro and the crocodile he was for the negro. He didnot make that declaration accidentally at Memphis. He made it a great manytimes in the canvass in Illinois last year (though I don't know that itwas reported in any of his speeches there, but he frequently made it). Ibelieve he repeated it at Columbus, and I should not wonder if he repeatedit here. It is, then, a deliberate way of expressing himself upon thatsubject. It is a matter of mature deliberation with him thus to expresshimself upon that point of his case. It therefore requires deliberateattention. 

The first inference seems to be that if you do not enslave the negro, you are wronging the white man in some way or other, and that whoever isopposed to the negro being enslaved, is, in some way or other, againstthe white man. Is not that a falsehood? If there was a necessary conflictbetween the white man and the negro, I should be for the white man as muchas Judge Douglas; but I say there is no such necessary conflict. I saythat there is room enough for us all to be free, and that it not only doesnot wrong the white man that the negro should be free, but it positivelywrongs the mass of the white men that the negro should be enslaved; thatthe mass of white men are really injured by the effects of slave labor inthe vicinity of the fields of their own labor. 

But I do not desire to dwell upon this branch of the question more than tosay that this assumption of his is false, and I do hope that that fallacywill not long prevail in the minds of intelligent white men. At allevents, you ought to thank Judge Douglas for it; it is for your benefit itis made. 

The other branch of it is, that in the struggle between the negro andthe crocodile; he is for the negro. Well, I don't know that there is anystruggle between the negro and the crocodile, either. I suppose that if acrocodile (or, as we old Ohio River boatmen used to call them, alligators)should come across a white man, he would kill him if he could; and so hewould a negro. But what, at last, is this proposition? I believe it is asort of proposition in proportion, which may be stated thus: "As the negrois to the white man, so is the crocodile to the negro; and as the negromay rightfully treat the crocodile as a beast or reptile, so the white manmay rightfully treat the negro as a beast or a reptile. " That is reallythe "knip" of all that argument of his. 

Now, my brother Kentuckians, who believe in this, you ought to thankJudge Douglas for having put that in a much more taking way than any ofyourselves have done. 

Again, Douglas's great principle, "popular sovereignty, " as he calls it, gives you, by natural consequence, the revival of the slave trade wheneveryou want it. If you question this, listen awhile, consider awhile what Ishall advance in support of that proposition. 

He says that it is the sacred right of the man who goes into theTerritories to have slavery if he wants it. Grant that for argument'ssake. Is it not the sacred right of the man who don't go there equally tobuy slaves in Africa, if he wants them? Can you point out the difference?The man who goes into the Territories of Kansas and Nebraska, or any othernew Territory, with the sacred right of taking a slave there which belongsto him, would certainly have no more right to take one there than I would, who own no slave, but who would desire to buy one and take him there. Youwill not say you, the friends of Judge Douglas but that the man whodoes not own a slave has an equal right to buy one and take him to theTerritory as the other does. 

A voice: I want to ask a question. Don't foreign nations interfere withthe slave trade?

Mr. LINCOLN: Well! I understand it to be a principle of Democracy to whipforeign nations whenever, they interfere with us. 

Voice: I only asked for information. I am a Republican myself. 

Mr. LINCOLN: You and I will be on the best terms in the world, but I donot wish to be diverted from the point I was trying to press. 

I say that Douglas's popular sovereignty, establishing his sacred rightin the people, if you please, if carried to its logical conclusion givesequally the sacred right to the people of the States or the Territoriesthemselves to buy slaves wherever they can buy them cheapest; and if anyman can show a distinction, I should like to hear him try it. If any mancan show how the people of Kansas have a better right to slaves, becausethey want them, than the people of Georgia have to buy them in Africa, I want him to do it. I think it cannot be done. If it is "popularsovereignty" for the people to have slaves because they want them, it ispopular sovereignty for them to buy them in Africa because they desire todo so. 

I know that Douglas has recently made a little effort, not seeming tonotice that he had a different theory, has made an effort to get ridof that. He has written a letter, addressed to somebody, I believe, whoresides in Iowa, declaring his opposition to the repeal of the laws thatprohibit the Africa slave trade. He bases his opposition to such repealupon the ground that these laws are themselves one of the compromises ofthe Constitution of the United States. Now, it would be very interestingto see Judge Douglas or any of his friends turn, to the Constitution ofthe United States and point out that compromise, to show where there isany compromise in the Constitution, or provision in the Constitution;express or implied, by which the administrators of that Constitution areunder any obligation to repeal the African slave trade. I know, or atleast I think I know, that the framers of that Constitution did expectthe African slave trade would be abolished at the end of twenty years, towhich time their prohibition against its being abolished extended thereis abundant contemporaneous history to show that the framers of theConstitution expected it to be abolished. But while they so expected, they gave nothing for that expectation, and they put no provision inthe Constitution requiring it should be so abolished. The migration orimportation of such persons as the States shall see fit to admit shall notbe prohibited, but a certain tax might be levied upon such importation. But what was to be done after that time? The Constitution is as silentabout that as it is silent, personally, about myself. There is absolutelynothing in it about that subject; there is only the expectation of theframers of the Constitution that the slave trade would be abolished at theend of that time; and they expected it would be abolished, owing to publicsentiment, before that time; and the put that provision in, in order thatit should not be abolished before that time, for reasons which I supposethey thought to be sound ones, but which I will not now try to enumeratebefore you. 

But while, they expected the slave trade would be abolished at that time, they expected that the spread of slavery into the new Territories shouldalso be restricted. It is as easy to prove that the framers of theConstitution of the United States expected that slavery should beprohibited from extending into the new Territories, as it is to provethat it was expected that the slave trade should be abolished. Both thesethings were expected. One was no more expected than the other, and one wasno more a compromise of the Constitution than the other. There was nothingsaid in the Constitution in regard to the spread of slavery into theTerritory. I grant that; but there was something very important said aboutit by the same generation of men in the adoption of the old Ordinance of'87, through the influence of which you here in Ohio, our neighbors inIndiana, we in Illinois, our neighbors in Michigan and Wisconsin, arehappy, prosperous, teeming millions of free men. That generation of men, though not to the full extent members of the convention that framed theConstitution, were to some extent members of that convention, holdingseats at the same time in one body and the other, so that if there was anycompromise on either of these subjects, the strong evidence is thatthat compromise was in favor of the restriction of slavery from the newTerritories. 

But Douglas says that he is unalterably opposed to the repeal of thoselaws because, in his view, it is a compromise of the Constitution. YouKentuckians, no doubt, are somewhat offended with that. You ought not tobe! You ought to be patient! You ought to know that if he said less thanthat, he would lose the power of "lugging" the Northern States to yoursupport. Really, what you would push him to do would take from himhis entire power to serve you. And you ought to remember how long, byprecedent, Judge Douglas holds himself obliged to stick by compromises. You ought to remember that by the time you yourselves think you are readyto inaugurate measures for the revival of the African slave trade, thatsufficient time will have arrived, by precedent, for Judge Douglas tobreak through, that compromise. He says now nothing more strong thanhe said in 1849 when he declared in favor of Missouri Compromise, --andprecisely four years and a quarter after he declared that Compromise tobe a sacred thing, which "no ruthless hand would ever daze to touch, " hehimself brought forward the measure ruthlessly to destroy it. By a merecalculation of time it will only be four years more until he is ready totake back his profession about the sacredness of the Compromise abolishingthe slave trade. Precisely as soon as you are ready to have his servicesin that direction, by fair calculation, you may be sure of having them. 

But you remember and set down to Judge Douglas's debt, or discredit, thathe, last year, said the people of Territories can, in spite of the DredScott decision, exclude your slaves from those Territories; that hedeclared, by "unfriendly legislation" the extension of your property intothe new Territories may be cut off, in the teeth of the decision of theSupreme Court of the United States. 

He assumed that position at Freeport on the 27th of August, 1858. He saidthat the people of the Territories can exclude slavery, in so many words:You ought, however, to bear in mind that he has never said it since. Youmay hunt in every speech that he has since made, and he has never usedthat expression once. He has never seemed to notice that he is stating hisviews differently from what he did then; but by some sort of accident, hehas always really stated it differently. He has always since then declaredthat "the Constitution does not carry slavery into the Territories of theUnited States beyond the power of the people legally to control it, asother property. " Now, there is a difference in the language used uponthat former occasion and in this latter day. There may or may not be adifference in the meaning, but it is worth while considering whether thereis not also a difference in meaning. 

What is it to exclude? Why, it is to drive it out. It is in some way toput it out of the Territory. It is to force it across the line, or changeits character so that, as property, it is out of existence. But what isthe controlling of it "as other property"? Is controlling it as otherproperty the same thing as destroying it, or driving it away? I shouldthink not. I should think the controlling of it as other property would bejust about what you in Kentucky should want. I understand the controllingof property means the controlling of it for the benefit of the owner ofit. While I have no doubt the Supreme Court of the United States wouldsay "God speed" to any of the Territorial Legislatures that should thuscontrol slave property, they would sing quite a different tune if, bythe pretence of controlling it, they were to undertake to pass laws whichvirtually excluded it, --and that upon a very well known principle toall lawyers, that what a Legislature cannot directly do, it cannot do byindirection; that as the Legislature has not the power to drive slavesout, they have no power, by indirection, by tax, or by imposing burdens inany way on that property, to effect the same end, and that any attempt todo so would be held by the Dred Scott court unconstitutional. 

Douglas is not willing to stand by his first proposition that they canexclude it, because we have seen that that proposition amounts to nothingmore nor less than the naked absurdity that you may lawfully drive outthat which has a lawful right to remain. He admitted at first that theslave might be lawfully taken into the Territories under the Constitutionof the United States, and yet asserted that he might be lawfully drivenout. That being the proposition, it is the absurdity I have stated. Heis not willing to stand in the face of that direct, naked, and impudentabsurdity; he has, therefore, modified his language into that of being"controlled as other property. "

The Kentuckians don't like this in Douglas! I will tell you where it willgo. He now swears by the court. He was once a leading man in Illinois tobreak down a court, because it had made a decision he did not like. Buthe now not only swears by the court, the courts having got to workingfor you, but he denounces all men that do not swear by the courts, as unpatriotic, as bad citizens. When one of these acts of unfriendlylegislation shall impose such heavy burdens as to, in effect, destroyproperty in slaves in a Territory, and show plainly enough that therecan be no mistake in the purpose of the Legislature to make themso burdensome, this same Supreme Court will decide that law to beunconstitutional, and he will be ready to say for your benefit "I swear bythe court; I give it up"; and while that is going on he has been gettingall his men to swear by the courts, and to give it up with him. In thisagain he serves you faithfully, and, as I say, more wisely than you serveyourselves. 

Again: I have alluded in the beginning of these remarks to the fact thatJudge Douglas has made great complaint of my having expressed the opinionthat this government "cannot endure permanently, half slave and halffree. " He has complained of Seward for using different language, anddeclaring that there is an "irrepressible conflict" between the principlesof free and slave labor. [A voice: "He says it is not original withSeward. That it is original with Lincoln. "] I will attend to thatimmediately, sir. Since that time, Hickman of Pennsylvania expressed thesame sentiment. He has never denounced Mr. Hickman: why? There is a littlechance, notwithstanding that opinion in the mouth of Hickman, that he mayyet be a Douglas man. That is the difference! It is not unpatriotic tohold that opinion if a man is a Douglas man. 

But neither I, nor Seward, nor Hickman is entitled to the enviable orunenviable distinction of having first expressed that idea. That same ideawas expressed by the Richmond Enquirer, in Virginia, in 1856, --quite twoyears before it was expressed by the first of us. And while Douglas waspluming himself that in his conflict with my humble self, last year, hehad "squelched out" that fatal heresy, as he delighted to call it, andhad suggested that if he only had had a chance to be in New York and meetSeward he would have "squelched" it there also, it never occurred to himto breathe a word against Pryor. I don't think that you can discover thatDouglas ever talked of going to Virginia to "squelch" out that idea there. No. More than that. That same Roger A. Pryor was brought to WashingtonCity and made the editor of the par excellence Douglas paper, after makinguse of that expression, which, in us, is so unpatriotic and heretical. From all this, my Kentucky friends may see that this opinion is hereticalin his view only when it is expressed by men suspected of a desire thatthe country shall all become free, and not when expressed by those fairlyknown to entertain the desire that the whole country shall become slave. When expressed by that class of men, it is in nowise offensive to him. Inthis again, my friends of Kentucky, you have Judge Douglas with you. 

There is another reason why you Southern people ought to nominate Douglasat your convention at Charleston. That reason is the wonderful capacity ofthe man, --the power he has of doing what would seem to be impossible. Letme call your attention to one of these apparently impossible things:

Douglas had three or four very distinguished men of the most extremeanti-slavery views of any men in the Republican party expressing theirdesire for his re-election to the Senate last year. That would, of itself, have seemed to be a little wonderful; but that wonder is heightened whenwe see that Wise of Virginia, a man exactly opposed to them, a man whobelieves in the divine right of slavery, was also expressing his desirethat Douglas should be reelected; that another man that may be said tobe kindred to Wise, Mr. Breckinridge, the Vice-President, and of yourown State, was also agreeing with the anti-slavery men in the North thatDouglas ought to be re-elected. Still to heighten the wonder, a senatorfrom Kentucky, whom I have always loved with an affection as tenderand endearing as I have ever loved any man, who was opposed to theanti-slavery men for reasons which seemed sufficient to him, and equallyopposed to Wise and Breckinridge, was writing letters into Illinois tosecure the reelection of Douglas. Now, that all these conflicting elementsshould be brought, while at daggers' points with one another, to supporthim, is a feat that is worthy for you to note and consider. It is quiteprobable that each of these classes of men thought, by the re-election ofDouglas, their peculiar views would gain something: it is probable thatthe anti-slavery men thought their views would gain something; that Wiseand Breckinridge thought so too, as regards their opinions; that Mr. Crittenden thought that his views would gain something, although he wasopposed to both these other men. It is probable that each and all of themthought that they were using Douglas; and it is yet an unsolved problemwhether he was not using them all. If he was, then it is for you toconsider whether that power to perform wonders is one for you lightly tothrow away. 

There is one other thing that I will say to you, in this relation. It isbut my opinion, I give it to you without a fee. It is my opinion that itis for you to take him or be defeated; and that if you do take him youmay be beaten. You will surely be beaten if you do not take him. We, theRepublicans and others forming the opposition of the country, intend to"stand by our guns, " to be patient and firm, and in the long run to beatyou, whether you take him or not. We know that before we fairly beatyou we have to beat you both together. We know that you are "all of afeather, " and that we have to beat you all together, and we expect todo it. We don't intend to be very impatient about it. We mean to be asdeliberate and calm about it as it is possible to be, but as firm andresolved as it is possible for men to be. When we do as we say, --beatyou, --you perhaps want to know what we will do with you. 

I will tell you, so far as I am authorized to speak for the opposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as near as we possiblycan, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison treated you. We mean to leaveyou alone, and in no way interfere with your institution; to abide by alland every compromise of the Constitution, and, in a word, coming back tothe original proposition, to treat you, so far as degenerated men (if wehave degenerated) may, according to the examples of those noble fathers, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. We mean to remember that you areas good as we; that there is no difference between us other than thedifference of circumstances. We mean to recognize and bear in mind alwaysthat you have as good hearts in your bosoms as other people, or as weclaim to have, and treat you accordingly. We mean to marry your girls whenwe have a chance, the white ones I mean; and I have the honor to informyou that I once did have a chance in that way. 

I have told you what we mean to do. I want to know, now, when that thingtakes place, what do you mean to do? I often hear it intimated that youmean to divide the Union whenever a Republican, or anything like it, iselected President of the United States. [A voice: "That is so. "] "That isso, " one of them says; I wonder if he is a Kentuckian? [A voice: "He isa Douglas man. "] Well, then, I want to know what you are going to do withyour half of it? Are you going to split the Ohio down through, and pushyour half off a piece? Or are you going to keep it right alongside of usoutrageous fellows? Or are you going to build up a wall some way betweenyour country and ours, by which that movable property of yours can't comeover here any more, to the danger of your losing it? Do you think you canbetter yourselves, on that subject, by leaving us here under no obligationwhatever to return those specimens of your movable property that comehither? You have divided the Union because we would not do right with you, as you think, upon that subject; when we cease to be under obligations todo anything for you, how much better off do you think you will be? Willyou make war upon us and kill us all? Why, gentlemen, I think you are asgallant and as brave men as live; that you can fight as bravely in agood cause, man for man, as any other people living; that you have shownyourselves capable of this upon various occasions: but, man for man, youare not better than we are, and there are not so many of you as there areof us. You will never make much of a hand at whipping us. If we were fewerin numbers than you, I think that you could whip us; if we were equal, itwould likely be a drawn battle; but being inferior in numbers, you willmake nothing by attempting to master us. 

But perhaps I have addressed myself as long, or longer, to the Kentuckiansthan I ought to have done, inasmuch as I have said that whatever courseyou take we intend in the end to beat you. I propose to address a fewremarks to our friends, by way of discussing with them the best means ofkeeping that promise that I have in good faith made. 

It may appear a little episodical for me to mention the topic of whichI will speak now. It is a favorite position of Douglas's that theinterference of the General Government, through the Ordinance of '87, orthrough any other act of the General Government never has made or ever canmake a free State; the Ordinance of '87 did not make free States ofOhio, Indiana, or Illinois; that these States are free upon his "greatprinciple" of popular sovereignty, because the people of those severalStates have chosen to make them so. At Columbus, and probably here, heundertook to compliment the people that they themselves have made theState of Ohio free, and that the Ordinance of '87 was not entitled in anydegree to divide the honor with them. I have no doubt that the peopleof the State of Ohio did make her free according to their own will andjudgment, but let the facts be remembered. 

In 1802, I believe, it was you who made your first constitution, withthe clause prohibiting slavery, and you did it, I suppose, very nearlyunanimously; but you should bear in mind that you--speaking of you asone people--that you did so unembarrassed by the actual presence ofthe institution amongst you; that you made it a free State not with theembarrassment upon you of already having among you many slaves, which ifthey had been here, and you had sought to make a free State, you wouldnot know what to do with. If they had been among you, embarrassingdifficulties, most probably, would have induced you to tolerate a slaveconstitution instead of a free one, as indeed these very difficulties haveconstrained every people on this continent who have adopted slavery. 

Pray what was it that made you free? What kept you free? Did you notfind your country free when you came to decide that Ohio should be a freeState? It is important to inquire by what reason you found it so. Let ustake an illustration between the States of Ohio and Kentucky. Kentucky isseparated by this River Ohio, not a mile wide. A portion of Kentucky, byreason of the course of the Ohio, is farther north than this portion ofOhio, in which we now stand. Kentucky is entirely covered with slavery;Ohio is entirely free from it: What made that difference? Was it climate?No. A portion of Kentucky was farther north than this portion of Ohio. Was it soil? No. There is nothing in the soil of the one more favorableto slave than the other. It was not climate or soil that mused one side ofthe line to be entirely covered with slavery, and the other side free ofit. What was it? Study over it. Tell us, if you can, in all the rangeof conjecture, if there be anything you can conceive of that made thatdifference, other than that there was no law of any sort keeping it out ofKentucky, while the Ordinance of '87 kept it out of Ohio. If there is anyother reason than this, I confess that it is wholly beyond my power toconceive of it. This, then, I offer to combat the idea that that Ordinancehas never made any State free. 

I don't stop at this illustration. I come to the State of Indiana; andwhat I have said as between Kentucky and Ohio, I repeat as betweenIndiana and Kentucky: it is equally applicable. One additional argumentis applicable also to Indiana. In her Territorial condition she more thanonce petitioned Congress to abrogate the Ordinance entirely, or at leastso far as to suspend its operation for a time, in order that they shouldexercise the "popular sovereignty" of having slaves if they wanted them. The men then controlling the General Government, imitating the men of theRevolution, refused Indiana that privilege. And so we have the evidencethat Indiana supposed she could have slaves, if it were not for thatOrdinance; that she besought Congress to put that barrier out of the way;that Congress refused to do so; and it all ended at last in Indiana beinga free State. Tell me not then that the Ordinance of '87 had nothing to dowith making Indiana a free State, when we find some men chafing against, and only restrained by, that barrier. 

Come down again to our State of Illinois. The great Northwest Territory, including Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, and Wisconsin, was acquiredfirst, I believe, by the British Government, in part at least, from theFrench. Before the establishment of our independence it became a partof Virginia, enabling Virginia afterward to transfer it to the GeneralGovernment. There were French settlements in what is now Illinois, and atthe same time there were French settlements in what is now Missouri, inthe tract of country that was not purchased till about 1803. In theseFrench settlements negro slavery had existed for many years, perhaps morethan a hundred; if not as much as two hundred years, --at Kaskaskia, inIllinois, and at St. Genevieve, or Cape Girardeau, perhaps, in Missouri. The number of slaves was not very great, but there was about the samenumber in each place. They were there when we acquired the Territory. There was no effort made to break up the relation of master and slave, andeven the Ordinance of 1787 was not so enforced as to destroy that slaveryin Illinois; nor did the Ordinance apply to Missouri at all. 

What I want to ask your attention to; at this point, is that Illinois andMissouri came into the Union about the same time, Illinois in the latterpart of 1818, and Missouri, after a struggle, I believe sometime in 1820. They had been filling up with American people about the same period oftime; their progress enabling them to come into the Union about the sametime. At the end of that ten years, in which they had been so preparing(for it was about that period of time), the number of slaves in Illinoishad actually decreased; while in Missouri, beginning with very few, at theend of that ten years there were about ten thousand. This being so, and itbeing remembered that Missouri and Illinois are, to a certain extent, inthe same parallel of latitude, that the northern half of Missouri and thesouthern half of Illinois are in the same parallel of latitude, so thatclimate would have the same effect upon one as upon the other, and that inthe soil there is no material difference so far as bears upon the questionof slavery being settled upon one or the other, --there being none of thosenatural causes to produce a difference in filling them, and yet therebeing a broad difference to their filling up, we are led again to inquirewhat was the cause of that difference. 

It is most natural to say that in Missouri there was no law to keep thatcountry from filling up with slaves, while in Illinois there was theOrdinance of The Ordinance being there, slavery decreased during that tenyears; the Ordinance not being in the other, it increased from a few toten thousand. Can anybody doubt the reason of the difference?

I think all these facts most abundantly prove that my friend JudgeDouglas's proposition, that the Ordinance of '87, or the nationalrestriction of slavery, never had a tendency to make a free State, is afallacy, --a proposition without the shadow or substance of truth about it. 

Douglas sometimes says that all the States (and it is part of this sameproposition I have been discussing) that have become free have become soupon his "great principle"; that the State of Illinois itself cameinto the Union as a slave State, and that the people, upon the "greatprinciple" of popular sovereignty, have since made it a free State. Allowme but a little while to state to you what facts there are to justify himin saying that Illinois came into the Union as a slave State. 

I have mentioned to you that there were a few old French slaves there. They numbered, I think, one or two hundred. Besides that, there had beena Territorial law for indenturing black persons. Under that law, inviolation of the Ordinance of '87, but without any enforcement of theOrdinance to overthrow the system, there had been a small number ofslaves introduced as indentured persons. Owing to this, the clause forthe prohibition of slavery was slightly modified. Instead of running likeyours, that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except for crime, of which the party shall have been duly convicted, should exist in theState, they said that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude shouldthereafter be introduced; and that the children of indentured servantsshould be born free; and nothing was said about the few old French slaves. Out of this fact, that the clause for prohibiting slavery was modifiedbecause of the actual presence of it, Douglas asserts again and again thatIllinois came into the Union as a slave State. How far the facts sustainthe conclusion that he draws, it is for intelligent and impartial mento decide. I leave it with you, with these remarks, worthy of beingremembered, that that little thing, those few indentured servants beingthere, was of itself sufficient to modify a constitution made by a peopleardently desiring to have a free constitution; showing the power of theactual presence of the institution of slavery to prevent any people, however anxious to make a free State, from making it perfectly so. 

I have been detaining you longer, perhaps, than I ought to do. 

I am in some doubt whether to introduce another topic upon which I couldtalk a while. [Cries of "Go on, " and "Give us it. "] It is this, then:Douglas's Popular sovereignty, as a principle, is simply this: If one manchooses to make a slave of another man, neither that man nor anybody elsehas a right to object. Apply it to government, as he seeks to applyit, and it is this: If, in a new Territory into which a few people arebeginning to enter for the purpose of making their homes, they chooseto either exclude slavery from their limits, or to establish it there, however one or the other may affect the persons to be enslaved, or theinfinitely greater number of persons who are afterward to inhabit thatTerritory, or the other members of the family of communities of which theyare but an incipient member, or the general head of the family of Statesas parent of all, however their action may affect one or the other ofthese, there is no power or right to interfere. That is Douglas's popularsovereignty applied. Now, I think that there is a real popular sovereigntyin the world. I think the definition of popular sovereignty, in theabstract, would be about this: that each man shall do precisely as hepleases with himself, and with all those things which exclusively concernhim. Applied in government, this principle would be that a generalgovernment shall do all those things which pertain to it, and all thelocal governments shall do precisely as they please in respect to thosematters which exclusively concern them. 

Douglas looks upon slavery as so insignificant that the people must decidethat question for themselves; and yet they are not fit to decide whoshall be their governor, judge, or secretary, or who shall be any oftheir officers. These are vast national matters in his estimation; but thelittle matter in his estimation is that of planting slavery there. Thatis purely of local interest, which nobody should be allowed to say a wordabout. 

Labor is the great source from which nearly all, if not all, humancomforts and necessities are drawn. There is a difference in opinion aboutthe elements of labor in society. Some men assume that there is necessaryconnection between capital and labor, and that connection draws withinit the whole of the labor of the community. They assume that nobody worksunless capital excites them to work. They begin next to consider what isthe best way. They say there are but two ways: one is to hire men, and toallure them to labor by their consent; the other is to buy the men, anddrive them, to it, and that is slavery. Having assumed that, they proceedto discuss the question of whether the laborers themselves are better offin the condition of slaves or of hired laborers, and they usually decidethat they are better off in the condition of slaves. 

In the first place, I say that the whole thing is a mistake. That there isa certain relation between capital and labor, I admit. That it does exist, and rightfully exists, I think is true. That men who are industrious, andsober, and honest in the pursuit of their own interests should after awhile accumulate capital, and after that should be allowed to enjoy it inpeace, and also, if they should choose, when they have accumulated it, to use it to save themselves from actual labor, and hire other peopleto labor for them, is right. In doing so they do not wrong the man theyemploy, for they find men who have not of their own land to work upon, or shops to work in, and who are benefited by working for others, hiredlaborers, receiving their capital for it. Thus a few men, that owncapital, hire a few others, and these establish the relation of capitaland labor rightfully, a relation of which I make no complaint. But Iinsist that that relation, after all, does not embrace more than oneeighth of the labor of the country. 

[The speaker proceeded to argue that the hired laborer, with his abilityto become an employer, must have every precedence over him who laborsunder the inducement of force. He continued:]

I have taken upon myself in the name of some of you to say that we expectupon these principles to ultimately beat them. In order to do so, I thinkwe want and must have a national policy in regard to the institution ofslavery that acknowledges and deals with that institution as beingwrong. Whoever desires the prevention of the spread of slavery and thenationalization of that institution yields all when he yields to anypolicy that either recognizes slavery as being right or as being anindifferent thing. Nothing will make you successful but setting up apolicy which shall treat the thing as being wrong: When I say this, I donot mean to say that this General Government is charged with the duty ofredressing or preventing all the wrongs in the world, but I do think thatit is charged with preventing and redressing all wrongs which are wrongsto itself. This Government is expressly charged with the duty of providingfor the general welfare. We believe that the spreading out andperpetuity of the institution of slavery impairs the general welfare. We believe--nay, we know--that that is the only thing that has everthreatened the perpetuity of the Union itself. The only thing which hasever menaced the destruction of the government under which we live is thisvery thing. To repress this thing, we think, is, Providing for the generalwelfare. Our friends in Kentucky differ from us. We need not make ourargument for them, but we who think it is wrong in all its relations, orin some of them at least, must decide as to our own actions and our owncourse, upon our own judgment. 

I say that we must not interfere with the institution of slavery in theStates where it exists, because the Constitution forbids it, and thegeneral welfare does not require us to do so. We must not withhold anefficient Fugitive Slave law, because the Constitution requires us, asI understand it, not to withhold such a law. But we must prevent theoutspreading of the institution, because neither the Constitution norgeneral welfare requires us to extend it. We must prevent the revival ofthe African slave trade, and the enacting by Congress of a Territorialslave code. We must prevent each of these things being done by eitherCongresses or courts. The people of these United States are the rightfulmasters of both Congresses and courts, not to overthrow the Constitution, but to overthrow the men who pervert the Constitution. 

To do these things we must employ instrumentalities. We must holdconventions; we must adopt platforms, if we conform to ordinary custom;we must nominate candidates; and we must carry elections. In all thesethings, I think that we ought to keep in view our real purpose, and innone do anything that stands adverse to our purpose. If we shall adopt aplatform that fails to recognize or express our purpose, or elect a manthat declares himself inimical to our purpose, we not only take nothing byour success, but we tacitly admit that we act upon no other principlethan a desire to have "the loaves and fishes, " by which, in the end, ourapparent success is really an injury to us. 

I know that this is very desirable with me, as with everybody else, thatall the elements of the opposition shall unite in the next Presidentialelection and in all future time. I am anxious that that should be; butthere are things seriously to be considered in relation to that matter. If the terms can be arranged, I am in favor of the union. But supposewe shall take up some man, and put him upon one end or the other of theticket, who declares himself against us in regard to the prevention of thespread of slavery, who turns up his nose and says he is tired of hearinganything more about it, who is more against us than against the enemy, what will be the issue? Why, he will get no slave States, after all, --hehas tried that already until being beat is the rule for him. If wenominate him upon that ground, he will not carry a slave State; andnot only so, but that portion of our men who are high-strung upon theprinciple we really fight for will not go for him, and he won't get asingle electoral vote anywhere, except, perhaps, in the State of Maryland. There is no use in saying to us that we are stubborn and obstinate becausewe won't do some such thing as this. We cannot do it. We cannot get ourmen to vote it. I speak by the card, that we cannot give the State ofIllinois in such case by fifty thousand. We would be flatter down than the"Negro Democracy" themselves have the heart to wish to see us. 

After saying this much let me say a little on the other side. There areplenty of men in the slave States that are altogether good enough for meto be either President or Vice-President, provided they will profess theirsympathy with our purpose, and will place themselves on the ground thatour men, upon principle, can vote for them. There are scores of them, goodmen in their character for intelligence and talent and integrity. If sucha one will place himself upon the right ground, I am for his occupying oneplace upon the next Republican or opposition ticket. I will heartilygo for him. But unless he does so place himself, I think it a matter ofperfect nonsense to attempt to bring about a union upon any other basis;that if a union be made, the elements will scatter so that there can be nosuccess for such a ticket, nor anything like success. The good old maximsof the Bible axe applicable, and truly applicable, to human affairs, andin this, as in other things, we may say here that he who is not for us isagainst us; he who gathereth not with us, scattereth. I should be glad tohave some of the many good and able and noble men of the South to placethemselves where we can confer upon them the high honor of an electionupon one or the other end of our ticket. It would do my soul good to dothat thing. It would enable us to teach them that, inasmuch as we selectone of their own number to carry out our principles, we are free from thecharge that we mean more than we say. 

But, my friends, I have detained you much longer than I expected to do. I believe I may do myself the compliment to say that you have stayedand heard me with great patience, for which I return you my most sincerethanks. 

ON PROTECTIVE TARIFFS

TO EDWARD WALLACE. 

CLINTON, October 11, 1859

Dr. EDWARD WALLACE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I am here just now attending court. Yesterday, before I leftSpringfield, your brother, Dr. William S. Wallace, showed me a letter ofyours, in which you kindly mention my name, inquiring for my tariff views, and suggest the propriety of my writing a letter upon the subject. I wasan old Henry-Clay-Tariff Whig. In old times I made more speeches on thatsubject than any other. 

I have not since changed my views. I believe yet, if we could have amoderate, carefully adjusted protective tariff, so far acquiesced in asnot to be a perpetual subject of political strife, squabbles changes, anduncertainties, it would be better for us. Still it is my opinion that justnow the revival of that question will not advance the cause itself, or theman who revives it. 

I have not thought much on the subject recently, but my general impressionis that the necessity for a protective tariff will ere long force itsold opponents to take it up; and then its old friends can join in andestablish it on a more firm and durable basis. We, the Old Whigs, havebeen entirely beaten out on the tariff question, and we shall not be ableto re-establish the policy until the absence of it shall have demonstratedthe necessity for it in the minds of men heretofore opposed to it. With this view, I should prefer to not now write a public letter on thesubject. I therefore wish this to be considered confidential. I shall bevery glad to receive a letter from you. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ON MORTGAGES

TO W. DUNGY. 

SPRINGFIELD, November, 2, 1859. 

WM. DUNGY, Esq. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours of October 27 is received. When a mortgage is givento secure two notes, and one of the notes is sold and assigned, if themortgaged premises are only sufficient to pay one note, the one assignedwill take it all. Also, an execution from a judgment on the assigned notemay take it all; it being the same thing in substance. There is redemptionon execution sales from the United States Court just as from any othercourt. 

You did not mention the name of the plaintiff or defendant in the suit, and so I can tell nothing about it as to sales, bids, etc. Write again. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

FRAGMENT OF SPEECH AT LEAVENWORTH, KANSAS, DECEMBER, 1859. 

. .. .. .. .. .. .. But you Democrats are for the Union; and you greatly fearthe success of the Republicans would destroy the Union. Why? Do theRepublicans declare against the Union? Nothing like it. Your own statementof it is that if the Black Republicans elect a President, you "won't standit. " You will break up the Union. If we shall constitutionally elect aPresident, it will be our duty to see that you submit. Old John Brown hasbeen executed for treason against a State. We cannot object, even thoughhe agreed with us in thinking slavery wrong. That cannot excuse violence, bloodshed and treason. It could avail him nothing that he might thinkhimself right. So, if we constitutionally elect a President, and thereforeyou undertake to destroy the Union, it will be our duty to deal with youas old John Brown has been dealt with. We shall try to do our duty. Wehope and believe that in no section will a majority so act as to rendersuch extreme measures necessary. 

TO G. W. DOLE, G. S. HUBBARD, AND W. H. BROWN. 

SPRINGFIELD, Dec. 14, 1859

MESSRS. DOLE, HUBBARD & BROWN. 

GENT. :--Your favor of the 12th is at hand, and it gives me pleasure tobe able to answer it. It is not my intention to take part in any ofthe rivalries for the gubernatorial nomination; but the fear of beingmisunderstood upon that subject ought not to deter me from doing justiceto Mr. Judd, and preventing a wrong being done to him by the use of nayname in connection with alleged wrongs to me. 

In answer to your first question, as to whether Mr. Judd was guilty ofany unfairness to me at the time of Senator Trumbull's election, I answerunhesitatingly in the negative; Mr. Judd owed no political allegianceto any party whose candidate I was. He was in the Senate, holding over, having been elected by a Democratic Constituency. He never was in anycaucus of the friends who sought to make me U. S. Senator, never gave meany promises or pledges to support me, and subsequent events have greatlytended to prove the wisdom, politically, of Mr. Judd's course. Theelection of Judge Trumbull strongly tended to sustain and preserve theposition of that lion of the Democrats who condemned the repeal of theMissouri Compromise, and left them in a position of joining with us informing the Republican party, as was done at the Bloomington convention in1856. 

During the canvass of 1858 for the senatorship my belief was, andstill is, that I had no more sincere and faithful friend than Mr. Judd--certainly none whom I trusted more. His position as chairman of theState Central Committee led to my greater intercourse with him, and tomy giving him a larger share of my confidence, than with or to almost anyother friend; and I have never suspected that that confidence was, to anydegree, misplaced. 

My relations with Mr. Judo since the organization of the Republicanparty, in, our State, in 1856, and especially since the adjournment of theLegislature in Feb. , 1857, have been so very intimate that I deem it animpossibility that he could have been dealing treacherously with me. Hehas also, at all times, appeared equally true and faithful to the party. In his position as chairman of the committee, I believe he did all thatany man could have done. The best of us are liable to commit errors, whichbecome apparent by subsequent developments; but I do not know of a singleerror, even, committed by Mr. Judd, since he and I have acted togetherpolitically. 

I, had occasionally heard these insinuations against Mr. Judd, before thereceipt of your letter; and in no instance have I hesitated to pronouncethem wholly unjust, to the full extent of my knowledge and belief. I havebeen, and still am, very anxious to take no part between the many friends, all good and true, who are mentioned as candidates for a Republicangubernatorial nomination; but I can not feel that my own honor is quiteclear if I remain silent when I hear any one of them assailed aboutmatters of which I believe I know more than his assailants. 

I take pleasure in adding that, of all the avowed friends I had in thecanvass of last year, I do not suspect any of having acted treacherouslyto me, or to our cause; and that there is not one of them in whosehonesty, honor, and integrity I, today, have greater confidence than Ihave in those of Mr. Judd. 

I dislike to appear before the public in this matter; but you are atliberty to make such use of this letter as you may think justice requires. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO G. M. PARSONS AND OTHERS. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 19, 1859. 

MESSRS. G. M. PARSONS AND OTHERS, CENTRAL EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE, ETC. 

GENTLEMEN:--Your letter of the 7th instant, accompanied by a similar onefrom the governor-elect, the Republican State officers, and the Republicanmembers of the State Board of Equalization of Ohio, both requesting of me, for publication in permanent form, copies of the political debates betweenSenator Douglas and myself last year, has been received. With my gratefulacknowledgments to both you and them for the very flattering terms inwhich the request is communicated, I transmit you the copies. The copies Isend you are as reported and printed by the respective friends of SenatorDouglas and myself, at the time--that is, his by his friends, and mine bymine. It would be an unwarrantable liberty for us to change a word ora letter in his, and the changes I have made in mine, you perceive, areverbal only, and very few in number. I wish the reprint to be precisely asthe copies I send, without any comment whatever. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

AUTOBIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

TO J. W. FELL, SPRINGFIELD, December 20, 1859. 

J. W. FELL, Esq. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is a little sketch, as you requested. There is notmuch of it, for the reason, I suppose, that there is not much of me. Ifanything be made out of it, I wish it to be modest, and not to go beyondthe material. If it were thought necessary to incorporate anything fromany of my speeches I suppose there would be no objection. Of course itmust not appear to have been written by myself. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN

------

I was born February 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky. My parentswere both born in Virginia, of undistinguished families--second families, perhaps I should say. My mother, who died in my tenth year, was of afamily of the name of Hanks, some of whom now reside in Adams, and othersin Macon County, Illinois. My paternal grandfather, Abraham Lincoln, emigrated from Rockingham County, Virginia, to Kentucky about 1781 or1782, where a year or two later he was killed by the Indians, not inbattle, but by stealth, when he was laboring to open a farm in the forest. His ancestors, who were Quakers, went to Virginia from Berks County, Pennsylvania. An effort to identify them with the New England familyof the same name ended in nothing more definite than a similarity ofChristian names in both families, such as Enoch, Levi, Mordecai, Solomon, Abraham, and the like. 

My father, at the death of his father, was but six years of age, and hegrew up literally without education. He removed from Kentucky to what isnow Spencer County, Indiana, in my eighth year. We reached our new homeabout the time that State came into the Union. It was a wild region, withmany bears and other wild animals still in the woods. There I grew up. There were some schools, so called, but no qualification was ever requiredof a teacher beyond "readin', writin', and cipherin"' to the Rule ofThree. If a straggler supposed to understand Latin happened to sojournin the neighborhood he was looked upon as a wizard. There was absolutelynothing to excite ambition for education. Of course, when I came of age Idid not know much. Still, somehow, I could read, write, and cipher tothe Rule of Three, but that was all. I have not been to school since. Thelittle advance I now have upon this store of education I have picked upfrom time to time under the pressure of necessity. 

I was raised to farm work, which I continued till I was twenty-two. Attwenty-one I came to Illinois, Macon County. Then I got to New Salem, atthat time in Sangamon, now in Menard County, where I remained a year as asort of clerk in a store. Then came the Black Hawk war; and I was electeda captain of volunteers, a success which gave me more pleasure than any Ihave had since. I went the campaign, was elected, ran for the Legislaturethe same year (1832), and was beaten--the only time I ever have beenbeaten by the people. The next and three succeeding biennial elections Iwas elected to the Legislature. I was not a candidate afterward. Duringthis legislative period I had studied law, and removed to Springfield topractice it. In 1846 I was once elected to the lower House of Congress. Was not a candidate for re-election. From 1849 to 1854, both inclusive, practiced law more assiduously than ever before. Always a Whig inpolitics; and generally on the Whig electoral tickets, making activecanvasses. I was losing interest in politics when the repeal of theMissouri Compromise aroused me again. What I have done since then ispretty well known. 

If any personal description of me is thought desirable, it may be said Iam, in height, six feet four inches, nearly; lean in flesh, weighing on anaverage one hundred and eighty pounds; dark complexion, with coarse blackhair and gray eyes. No other marks or brands recollected. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ON NOMINATION TO THE NATIONAL TICKET

To N. B. JUDD. 

SPRINGFIELD, FEBRUARY 9, 1859

HON. N. B. JUDD. 

DEAR Sir:--I am not in a position where it would hurt much for me to notbe nominated on the national ticket; but I am where it would hurt somefor me to not get the Illinois delegates. What I expected when I wrotethe letter to Messrs. Dole and others is now happening. Your discomfitedassailants are most bitter against me; and they will, for revenge upon me, lay to the Bates egg in the South, and to the Seward egg in the North, andgo far toward squeezing me out in the middle with nothing. Can you helpme a little in this matter in your end of the vineyard. I mean this to beprivate. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN

1860

SPEECH AT THE COOPER INSTITUTE, NEW YORK FEBRUARY 27, 1860

MR. PRESIDENT AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW YORK:--The facts with which Ishall deal this evening are mainly old and familiar; nor is there anythingnew in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be anynovelty, it will be in the mode of presenting the facts, and theinferences and observations following that presentation. 

In his speech last autumn at Columbus, Ohio, as reported in the New YorkTimes, Senator Douglas said:

"Our fathers, when they framed the Government under which we live, understood this question just as well, and even better than we do now. "

I fully indorse this, and I adopt it as a text for this discourse. I soadopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting-point fora discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed bySenator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: What was the understandingthose fathers had of the question mentioned?

What is the frame of Government under which we live?

The answer must be--the Constitution of the United States. ThatConstitution consists of the original, framed in 1787 (and under whichthe present Government first went into operation), and twelve subsequentlyframed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789. 

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? I suppose the"thirty-nine" who signed the original instrument may be fairly calledour fathers who framed that part of the present Government. It is almostexactly true to say they framed it, and it is altogether true to say theyfairly represented the opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at thattime. 

Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated. 

I take these "thirty-nine, " for the present, as being our "fathers whoframed the Government under which we live. "

What is the question which, according to the text, those fathersunderstood "just as well, and even better than we do now"?

It is this: Does the proper division of local from Federal authority, oranything in the Constitution, forbid our Federal Government to control asto slavery in our Federal Territories?

Upon this Senator Douglas holds the affirmative, and Republicans thenegative. This affirmation and denial form an issue, and this issue--thisquestion is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood"better than we. "

Let us now inquire whether the "thirty-nine, " or any of them, acted uponthis question; and if they did, how they acted upon it--how they expressedthat better understanding. 

In 1784, three years before the Constitution--the United States thenowning the Northwestern Territory, and no other--the Congress of theConfederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery inthat Territory; and four of the "thirty nine" who afterward framed theConstitution were in that Congress and voted on that question. Ofthese, Roger Sherman, Thomas Mifflin, and Hugh Williamson voted for theprohibition, thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividinglocal from Federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade theFederal Government to control as to slavery in Federal territory. Theother of the four--James McHenry voted against the prohibition, showingthat, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it. 

In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the convention was insession framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still wasthe only Territory owned by the United States, the same question ofprohibiting slavery in the Territory again came before the Congress of theConfederation; and two more of the "thirty-nine" who afterward signed theConstitution were in that Congress, and voted on the question. They wereWilliam Blount and William Few; and they both voted for the prohibitionthus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local fromFederal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the FederalGovernment to control as to slavery in Federal territory. This time theprohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as theOrdinance of '87. 

The question of Federal control of slavery in the Territories seems notto have been directly before the convention which framed the originalConstitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine, " or anyof them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on thatprecise question. 

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an actwas passed to enforce the Ordinance of '87, including the prohibition ofslavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reportedby one of the "thirty-nine, " Thomas Fitzsimmons, then a member of theHouse of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stageswithout a word of opposition, and finally passed both branches withoutyeas and nays, which is equivalent to a unanimous passage. In thisCongress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed theoriginal Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, Wm. S. Johnnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Claimer, RichardBassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison. 

This shows that, in their understanding, no line dividing local fromFederal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbadeCongress to prohibit slavery in the Federal territory; else both theirfidelity to correct principles and their oath to support the Constitutionwould have constrained them to oppose the prohibition. 

Again: George Washington, another of the "thirty nine, " was then Presidentof the United States, and, as such, approved and signed the bill;thus completing its validity as a law, and thus showing that, in hisunderstanding, no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anythingin the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control as toslavery in Federal territory. 

No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution, NorthCarolina ceded to the Federal Government the country now constituting theState of Tennessee; and, a few years later, Georgia ceded that whichnow constitutes the States of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds ofcession it was made a condition by the ceding States that the FederalGovernment should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances, Congress, on taking charge of these countries, did not absolutely prohibitslavery within them. But they did interfere with it--take control ofit--even there, to a certain extent. In 1798, Congress organized theTerritory of Mississippi: In the act of organization they prohibited thebringing of slaves into the Territory from any place without the UnitedStates, by fine and giving freedom to slaves so brought. This act passedboth branches of Congress without yeas and nays. In that Congress werethree of the "thirty-nine" who framed the original Constitution. They wereJohn Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. They all, probably, votedfor it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it uponrecord, if, in their understanding, any line dividing local from Federalauthority, or anything in the Constitution, properly forbade the FederalGovernment to control as to slavery in Federal territory. 

In 1803, the Federal Government purchased the Louisiana country. Ourformer territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own States;but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804, Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which nowconstitutes the State of Lousiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerabletowns and settlements, and slavery was extensively and thoroughlyintermingled with the people. Congress did not, in the Territorial Act, prohibit slavery; but they did interfere with it take control of it--ina more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was:

First. That no slave should be imported into the Territory from foreignparts. 

Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported intothe United States since the first day of May, 1798. 

Third. That no slave should be carried into it except by the owner, andfor his own use as a settler; the penalty in all the cases being a fineupon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. 

This act also was passed without yeas and nays. In the Congress whichpassed it there were two of the "thirty-nine. " They were Abraham Baldwinand Jonathan Dayton. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probablethey both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass withoutrecording their opposition to it, if, in their understanding, it violatedeither the line properly dividing local from Federal authority, or anyprovision of the Constitution. 

In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various phasesof the general question. Two of the "thirty-nine"--Rufus King and CharlesPinckney were members of that Congress. Mr. King steadily voted forslavery prohibition and against all compromises, while Mr. Pinckney assteadily voted against slavery prohibition, and against all compromises. By this, Mr. King showed that, in his understanding, no line dividinglocal from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, wasviolated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney, by his vote, showed that in his understanding there was somesufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case. 

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirty-nine, " or ofany of them, upon the direct issue, which I have been able to discover. 

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, twoin 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804, and two in1819-20--there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting, JohnLangdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read, eachtwice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the"thirty-nine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which, bythe text, they understood better than we, is twenty-three, leaving sixteennot shown to have acted upon it in any way. 

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "whoframed the Government under which we live, " who have, upon their officialresponsibility and their corporal oaths, acted upon the very questionwhich the text affirms they "understood just as well, and even betterthan 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 politicalimpropriety and wilful perjury, if, in their understanding, any properdivision between local and Federal authority, or anything in theConstitution they had made themselves, and sworn to support, forbade theFederal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. Thus the twenty-one acted; and, as actions speak louder than words, soactions under such responsibilities speak still louder. 

Two of the twenty-three voted against Congressional prohibition of slaveryin the Federal Territories, in the instances in which they acted upon thequestion. But for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may havedone so because they thought a proper division of local from Federalauthority, or some provision or principle of the Constitution, stood inthe way; or they may, without any such question, have voted againstthe prohibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient groundsof expediency. No one who has sworn to support the Constitution canconscientiously vote for what he understands to be an unconstitutionalmeasure, however expedient he may think it; but one may and ought to voteagainst a measure which he deems constitutional, if, at the same time, hedeems it inexpedient. It therefore would be unsafe to set down even thetwo who voted against the prohibition as having done so because, in theirunderstanding, any proper division of local from Federal authority, oranything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal Government to control asto slavery in Federal territory. 

The remaining sixteen of the "thirty-nine, " so far as I have discovered, have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question ofFederal control on slavery in the Federal Territories. But there is muchreason to believe that their understanding upon that question would nothave appeared different from that of their twenty-three compeers, had itbeen manifested at all. 

For the purpose of adhering rigidly to the text, I have purposely omittedwhatever understanding may have been manifested by any person, howeverdistinguished, other than the thirty-nine fathers who framed the originalConstitution; and, for the same reason, I have also omitted whateverunderstanding may have been manifested by any of the "thirty tine" even onany other phase of the general question of slavery. If we should look intotheir acts and declarations on those other phases, as the foreign slavetrade, and the morality and policy of slavery generally, it would appearto us that on the direct question of Federal control of slavery in FederalTerritories, the sixteen, if they had acted at all, would probably haveacted just as the twenty-three did. Among that sixteen were several ofthe most noted anti-slavery men of those times--as Dr. Franklin, AlexanderHamilton, and Gouverneur Morris while there was not one now known to havebeen otherwise, unless it may be John Rutledge, of South Carolina. 

The sum of the whole is, that of our thirty-nine fathers who framedthe original Constitution, twenty-one--a clear majority of thewhole--certainly understood that no proper division of local fromFederal authority, nor any part of the Constitution, forbade the FederalGovernment to control slavery in the Federal Territories; whilst all therest probably had the same understanding. Such, unquestionably, was theunderstanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution; and thetext affirms that they understood the question "better than we. "

But, so far, I have been considering the understanding of the questionmanifested by the framers of the original Constitution. In and by theoriginal instrument, a mode was provided for amending it; and, as I havealready stated, the present frame of "the Government under which we live"consists of that original, and twelve amendatory articles framed andadopted since. Those who now insist that Federal control of slavery inFederal Territories violates the Constitution, point us to the provisionswhich they suppose it thus violates; and, as I understand, they all fixupon provisions in these amendatory articles, and not in the originalinstrument. The Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, plant themselvesupon the fifth amendment, which provides that no person shall be deprivedof "life, liberty, or property without due process of law"; while SenatorDouglas and his peculiar adherents plant themselves upon the tenthamendment, providing that "the powers not delegated to the United Statesby the Constitution" "are reserved to the States respectively, or to thepeople. "

Now, it so happens that these amendments were framed by the first Congresswhich sat under the Constitution--the identical Congress which passedthe act already mentioned, enforcing the prohibition of slavery in theNorthwestern Territory. Not only was it the same Congress, but they werethe identical same individual men who, at the same session, and at thesame time within the session, had under consideration, and in progresstoward maturity, these Constitutional amendments, and this act prohibitingslavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The Constitutionalamendments were introduced before and passed after the act enforcing theOrdinance of '87; so that, during the whole pendency of the act to enforcethe Ordinance, the Constitutional amendments were also pending. 

The seventy-six members of that Congress, including sixteen of the framersof the original Constitution, as before stated, were pre-eminently ourfathers who framed that part of "the Government under which we live, "which is now claimed as forbidding the Federal Government to controlslavery in the Federal Territories. 

Is it not a little presumptuous in any one at this day to affirm thatthe two things which that Congress deliberately framed, and carried tomaturity at the same time, are absolutely inconsistent with each other?And does not such affirmation become impudently absurd when coupled withthe other affirmation from the same mouth, that those who did the twothings alleged to be inconsistent understood whether they really wereinconsistent better than we--better than he who affirms that they areinconsistent?

It is surely safe to assume that the thirty-nine framers of the originalConstitution, and the seventy-six members of the Congress which framed theamendments thereto, taken together, do certainly include those who may befairly called "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live. "And, so assuming, I defy any man to show that any one of them ever, in hiswhole life, declared that, in his understanding, any proper division oflocal from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade theFederal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. Igo a step further. I defy any one to show that any living man in theworld ever did, prior to the beginning of the present century (and Imight almost say prior to the beginning of the last half of the presentcentury), declare that, in his understanding, any proper division oflocal from Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbade theFederal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories. To those who now so declare, I give not only "our fathers who framed theGovernment under which we live, " but with them all other living men withinthe century in which it was framed, among whom to search, and they shallnot be able to find the evidence of a single man agreeing with them. 

Now and here let me guard a little against being misunderstood. I do notmean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathersdid. To do so would be to discard all the lights of current experience toreject all progress, all improvement. What I do say is that, if we wouldsupplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case, we shoulddo so upon evidence so conclusive, and argument so clear, that even theirgreat authority, fairly considered and weighed, cannot stand; and mostsurely not in a case whereof we ourselves declare they understood thequestion better than we. 

If any man at this day sincerely believes that proper division of localfrom Federal authority, or any part of the Constitution, forbids theFederal Government to control as to slavery in the Federal Territories, heis right to say so, and to enforce his position by all truthful evidenceand fair argument which he can. But he has no right to mislead others whohave less access to history, and less leisure to study it, into the falsebelief that "our fathers who framed the Government under which we live"were of the same opinion thus substituting falsehood and deception fortruthful evidence and fair argument. If any man at this day sincerelybelieves "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, "used and applied principles, in other cases, which ought to have led themto understand that a proper division of local from Federal authority, orsome part of the Constitution, forbids the Federal Government to controlas to slavery in the Federal Territories, he is right to say so. But heshould, at the same time, brave the responsibility of declaring that, in his opinion, he understands their principles better than they didthemselves; and especially should he not shirk that responsibility byasserting that they "understood the question just as well, and even betterthan we do now. "

But enough! Let all who believe that "our fathers, who framed theGovernment under which we live, understood this question just as well, andeven better than we do now, " speak as they spoke, and act as they actedupon it. This is all Republicans ask--all Republicans desire--in relationto slavery. As those fathers marked it, so let it be again marked, as anevil not to be extended, but to be tolerated and protected only becauseof, and so far as, its actual presence among us makes that toleration andprotection a necessity. Let all the guaranties those fathers gave it benot grudgingly, but fully and fairly maintained. For this Republicanscontend, and with this, so far as I know or believe, they will be content. 

And now, if they would listen--as I suppose they will not--I would addressa few words to the Southern people. 

I would say to them: You consider yourselves a reasonable and a justpeople; and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justiceyou are not inferior to any other people. Still, when you speak of usRepublicans, you do so only to denounce us as reptiles, or, at thebest, as no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to piratesor murderers, but nothing like it to "Black Republicans. " In allyour contentions with one another, each of you deems an unconditionalcondemnation of "Black Republicanism" as the first thing to be attendedto. Indeed, such condemnation of us seems to be an indispensableprerequisite license, so to speak among you, to be admitted or permittedto speak at all: Now; can you, or not, be prevailed upon to pause, and toconsider whether this is quite just to us, or even to yourselves? Bringforward your charges and specifications, and then be patient long enoughto hear us deny or justify. 

You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burdenof proof is upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, thatour party has no existence in your section--gets no votes in your section. The fact is substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then in case we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes inyour section, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escapethis conclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, youwill probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shallget votes in your section this very year. You will then begin to discover, as the truth plainly is, that your proof, does not touch the issue. Thefact that we get no votes in your section is a fact of your making, andnot of ours. And if there be fault in that fact, that fault is primarilyyours, and remains so until you show that we repel you by, some wrongprinciple or practice. If we do repel you by any wrong principle orpractice, the fault is ours; but this brings you to where you ought tohave started to a discussion of the right or wrong of our principle. Ifour principle, put in practice, would wrong your section for the benefitof ours, or for any other object, then our principle, and we with it, aresectional, and are justly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, onthe question of whether our principle, put in practice, would wrong yoursection; and so meet us as if it were possible that something may be saidon our side. Do you accept the challenge? No! Then you really believe thatthe principle which "our fathers who framed the Government under which welive" thought so clearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again andagain, upon their official oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demandyour condemnation without a moment's consideration. 

Some of you delight to flaunt in our faces the warning against sectionalparties given by Washington in his Farewell Address. Less than eight yearsbefore Washington gave that warning, he had, as President of the UnitedStates, approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibitionof slavery in the Northwestern Territory, which act embodied the policy ofthe Government upon that subject up to, and at, the very moment he pennedthat warning; and about one year after he penned it, he wrote La Fayettethat he considered that prohibition a wise measure, expressing in the sameconnection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of freeStates. 

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen uponthis same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, orin our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he castthe blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or uponyou, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and wecommend it to you, together with his example pointing to the rightapplication of it. 

But you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while weare revolutionary, destructive, or something, of the sort. What isconservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against a new anduntried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the pointin controversy which was adopted by "our fathers who framed the Governmentunder which we live"; while you with one accord reject, and scout, andspit upon that old policy and insist upon substituting something new. True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You are divided on new propositions and plans, but you are unanimous inrejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Some of you arefor reviving the foreign slave trade; some for a Congressional slavecode for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding the Territories toprohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintaining slavery in theTerritories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reat pur-rinciple"that "if one man would enslave another, no third man should object, "fantastically called "popular sovereignty"; but never a man among you infavor of Federal prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, accordingto the practice of "our fathers who framed the Government under whichwe live. " Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or anadvocate in the century within which our Government originated. Consider, then, whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves, and your chargeof destructiveness against us, are based on the most clear and stablefoundations. 

Again: You say we have made the slavery question more prominent than itformerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent, but we denythat we made it so. It was not we, but you, who discarded the old policyof the fathers. We resisted and still resist your innovation; and thencecomes the greater prominence of the question. Would you have that questionreduced to its former proportions? Go back to that old policy. What hasbeen will be again, under the same conditions. If you would have the peaceof the old times, readopt the precepts and policy of the old times. 

You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it;and what is your proof'? Harper's Ferry! John Brown!! John Brown was noRepublican; and you have failed to implicate a single Republican in hisHarper's Ferry enterprise. If any member of our party is guilty in thatmatter you know it or you do not know it. If you do know it, you areinexcusable for not designating the man and proving the fact. If you donot know it, you are inexcusable for asserting it, and especially forpersisting in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make theproof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one does notknow to be true is simply malicious slander. 

Some of you admit that no Republican designedly aided or encouragedthe Harper's Ferry affair, but still insist that our doctrines anddeclarations necessarily lead to such results. We do not believe it. Weknow we hold to no doctrine, and make no declaration, which were not heldto and made by our fathers who framed the Government under which we live. You never dealt fairly by us in relation to this affair. When it occurred, some important State elections were near at hand, and you were in evidentglee with the belief that, by charging the blame upon us, you could getan advantage of us in those elections. The elections came, and yourexpectations were not quite fulfilled. Every Republican man knew that, as to himself at least, your charge was a slander, and he was not muchinclined by it to cast his vote in your favor. Republican doctrinesand declarations are accompanied with a continued protest against anyinterference whatever with your slaves, or with you about your slaves. Surely, this does not encourage them to revolt. True, we do, in commonwith "our fathers, who framed the Government under which we live, " declareour belief that slavery is wrong; but the slaves do not hear us declareeven this. For any thing we say or do, the slaves would scarcely knowthere is a Republican party. I believe they would not, in fact, generallyknow it but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing. In yourpolitical contests among yourselves, each faction charges the other withsympathy with Black Republicanism; and then, to give point to the charge, defines Black Republicanism to simply be insurrection, blood, and thunderamong the slaves. 

Slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before theRepublican party was organized. What induced the Southampton insurrection, twenty-eight years ago, in which, at least, three times as many liveswere lost as at Harper's Ferry? You can scarcely stretch your veryelastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was "got up by BlackRepublicanism. " In the present state of things in the United States, Ido not think a general or even a very extensive slave insurrection ispossible. The indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. Theslaves have no means of rapid communication; nor can incendiary freemen, black or white, supply it. The explosive materials are everywhere inparcels; but there neither are, nor can be supplied the indispensableconnecting trains. 

Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for theirmasters and mistresses; and a part of it, at least, is true. A plot for anuprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to twenty individualsbefore some one of them, to save the life of a favorite master ormistress, would divulge it. This is the rule; and the slave revolutionin Hayti was not an exception to it, but a case occurring under peculiarcircumstances. The gunpowder plot of British history, though not connectedwith slaves, was more in point. In that case, only about twenty wereadmitted to the secret; and yet one of them, in his anxiety to save afriend, betrayed the plot to that friend, and, by consequence, avertedthe calamity. Occasional poisonings from the kitchen, and open or stealthyassassinations in the field, and local revolts, extending to a scoreor so, will continue to occur as the natural results of slavery; but nogeneral insurrection of slaves, as I think, can happen in this country fora long time. Whoever much fears or much hopes for such an event will bealike disappointed. 

In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, "It is still inour power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably, and in such slow degrees as that the evil will wear off insensibly, andtheir places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on thecontrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at theprospect held up. "

Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say, nor do I, that the power ofemancipation is in the Federal Government. He spoke of Virginia; and, asto the power of emancipation, I speak of the slave holding Statesonly. The Federal Government, however, as we insist, has the power ofrestraining the extension of the institution--the power to insure thata slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is nowfree from slavery. 

John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. Itwas an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves, in which theslaves refused to participate. In fact, it was so absurd that the slaves, with all their ignorance, saw plainly enough it could not succeed. Thataffair, in its philosophy, corresponds with the many attempts related inhistory at the assassination of kings and emperors. An enthusiast broodsover the oppression of a people till he fancies himself commissioned byHeaven to liberate them. He ventures the attempt, which ends in littleelse than his own execution. Orsini's attempt on Louis Napoleon and JohnBrown's attempt at Harper's Ferry were, in their philosophy, precisely thesame. The eagerness to cast blame on old England in the one case, andon New England in the other, does not disprove the sameness of the twothings. 

And how much would it avail you, if you could, by the use of John Brown, Helper's Book, and the like, break up the Republican organization? Humanaction can be modified to some extent, but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgment and a feeling against slavery in this nation, whichcast at least a million and a half of votes. You cannot destroy thatjudgment and feeling--that sentiment--by breaking up the politicalorganization which rallies around it. You can scarcely scatter anddisperse an army which has been formed into order in the face of yourheaviest fire; but if you could, how much would you gain by forcing thesentiment which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot-box, into some other channel? What would that other channel probably be? Wouldthe number of John Browns be lessened or enlarged by the operation?

But you will break up the Union rather than submit to a denial of yourconstitutional rights. 

That has a somewhat reckless sound; but it would be palliated, if notfully justified, were we proposing, by the mere force of numbers, todeprive you of some right plainly written down in the Constitution. But weare proposing no such thing. 

When you make these declarations, you have a specific and well-understoodallusion to an assumed constitutional right of yours to take slaves intothe Federal Territories, and to hold them there as property. But no suchright is specifically written in the Constitution. That instrument isliterally silent about any such right. We, on the contrary, deny that sucha right has any existence in the Constitution, even by implication. 

Your purpose, then, plainly stated, is that you will destroy theGovernment unless you be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitutionas you please on all points in dispute between you and us. You will ruleor ruin, in all events. 

This, plainly stated, is your language. Perhaps you will say the SupremeCourt has decided the disputed constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so. But, waiving the lawyer's distinction between dictum anddecision, the court have decided the question for you in a sort of way. The court have substantially said it is your constitutional right to takeslaves 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 madein a divided court, by a bare majority of the judges, and they not quiteagreeing with one another in the reasons for making it; that it is so madeas that its avowed supporters disagree with one another about its meaning, and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact--thestatement in the opinion that "the right of property in a slave isdistinctly and expressly affirmed in the Constitution. "

An inspection of the Constitution will show that the right of property ina slave is not "distinctly and expressly affirmed" in it. Bear in mind, the judges do not pledge their judicial opinion that such right isimpliedly affirmed in the Constitution; but they pledge their veracitythat it is "distinctly and expressly" affirmed there--"distinctly, " thatis, not mingled with anything else; "expressly, " that is, in words meaningjust that, without the aid of any inference, and susceptible of no othermeaning. 

If they had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right isaffirmed in the instrument by implication, it would be open to others toshow that neither the word "slave" nor "slavery" is to be found inthe Constitution, nor the word "property" even, in any connection withlanguage alluding to the things slave or slavery; and that wherever inthat instrument the slave is alluded to, he is called a "person"; andwherever his master's legal right in relation to him is alluded to, itis spoken of as "service or labor which may be due, " as a debt payablein service or labor. Also, it would be open to show, by contemporaneoushistory, that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery, instead ofspeaking of them, was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitutionthe 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 mistakenstatement, and reconsider the conclusion based upon it?

And then it is to be remembered that "our fathers; who framedthe Government under which we live", --the men who made theConstitution--decided this same constitutional question in our favor, long ago; decided it without division among themselves, when making thedecision, without division among themselves about the meaning of it afterit was made, and, so far as any evidence is left, without basing it uponany mistaken statement of facts. 

Under all these circumstances, do you really feel yourselves justified tobreak up this Government unless such a court decision as yours is shall beat once submitted to as a conclusive and final rule of political action?But you will not abide the election of a Republican President! In thatsupposed 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. Ahighwayman holds a pistol to my ear, and mutters through his teeth, "standand deliver, or I shall kill you, and then you'll be a murderer!"

To be sure, what the robber demanded of me-my money was my own, and I hada clear right to keep it; but it was no more my own than my vote is myown; and the threat of death to me, to extort my money, and the threat ofdestruction to the Union, to extort my vote, can scarcely be distinguishedin principle. 

A few words now to Republicans: It is exceedingly desirable that allparts of this great confederacy shall be at peace and in harmony one withanother. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so. Even though muchprovoked, let us do nothing through passion and ill temper. Even thoughthe Southern people will not so much as listen to us, let us calmlyconsider their demands, and yield to them if, in our deliberate view ofour duty, we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do, and by thesubject and nature of their controversy with us, let us determine, if wecan, what will satisfy them. 

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrenderedto them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints againstus, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrectionsare the rage now. Will it satisfy them if, in the future, we have nothingto do with invasions and, insurrections? We know it will not. We soknow because we know we never had anything to do with invasions andinsurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from thecharge and the denunciation. 

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: We must not onlylet them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let themalone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been sotrying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, butwith no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantlyprotested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency toconvince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that theyhave never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. 

These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what willconvince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and jointhem in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly--done inacts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated--we must placeourselves avowedly with them. Senator Douglas's new sedition law must beenacted and enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whether made in politics, in presses, in pulpits; or in private. We mustarrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We mustpull down our free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must bedisinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they willcease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. 

I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Mostof them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, andsay what you please about slavery. " But we do let them alone have neverdisturbed them--so that after all it is what we say which dissatisfiesthem. 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 ofour free State constitutions. Yet those constitutions declare the wrong ofslavery, with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings against it;and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrowof these constitutions will be demanded, and nothing be left to resist thedemand. It is nothing to the contrary, that they do not demand the wholeof this just now. Demanding what they do, and for the reason they do, theycan voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation. Holding, as theydo, that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannotcease to demand a full national recognition of it, as a legal right and asocial blessing. 

Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our convictionthat slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, andconstitutions against it are themselves wrong, and should be silenced andswept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to its nationalityits universality; if it is wrong, they cannot justly insist upon itsextension--its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant if wethought slavery right; all we ask they could as readily grant, if theythought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking it wrong is theprecise fact upon which depends the whole controversy. Thinking it right, as they do, they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition, asbeing right; but thinking it wrong, as we do, can we yield to them? Can wecast 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 yet afford to let it alone where it is, because thatmuch is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in thenation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allow it to spreadinto the national Territories, and to overrun us here in these freeStates? If our sense of duty forbids this, then let us stand by ourduty, fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of thosesophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied andbelabored-contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between theright and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who should be neither aliving man nor a dead man-such as a policy of "don't care" on a questionabout which all true men do care--such as Union appeals beseechingtrue Union men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and calling, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance--such asinvocations to Washington, imploring men to unsay what Washington said, and undo what Washington did. 

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor ofdungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND INTHAT FAITH LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT. 

SPEECH AT NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT, MARCH 6, 1860

MR. PRESIDENT, AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF NEW HAVEN:--If the Republicanparty of this nation shall ever have the national House entrusted to itskeeping, it will be the duty of that party to attend to all the affairsof national housekeeping. Whatever matters of importance may come up, whatever difficulties may arise in its way of administration of theGovernment, that party will then have to attend to. It will then becompelled to attend to other questions, besides this question which nowassumes an overwhelming importance--the question of slavery. It is truethat in the organization of the Republican party this question of slaverywas more important than any other: indeed, so much more important hasit become that no more national question can even get a hearing just atpresent. The old question of tariff--a matter that will remain one of thechief affairs of national house-keeping to all time; the question of themanagement of financial affairs; the question of the disposition of thepublic domain how shall it be managed for the purpose of getting it wellsettled, and of making there the homes of a free and happy people? thesewill remain open and require attention for a great while yet, and thesequestions will have to be attended to by whatever party has the control ofthe Government. Yet, just now, they cannot even obtain a hearing, and I donot propose to detain you upon these topics or what sort of hearing theyshould have when opportunity shall come. 

For, whether we will or not, the question of slavery is the question, theall-absorbing topic of the day. It is true that all of us--and by that Imean, not the Republican party alone, but the whole American people, hereand elsewhere--all of us wish this question settled, wish it out of theway. It stands in the way, and prevents the adjustment, and the givingof necessary attention to other questions of national house-keeping. Thepeople of the whole nation agree that this question ought to be settled, and yet it is not settled. And the reason is that they are not yet agreedhow it shall be settled. All wish it done, but some wish one way andsome another, and some a third, or fourth, or fifth; different bodiesare pulling in different directions, and none of them, having a decidedmajority, are able to accomplish the common object. 

In the beginning of the year 1854, a new policy was inaugurated with theavowed object and confident promise that it would entirely and foreverput an end to the slavery agitation. It was again and again declared thatunder this policy, when once successfully established, the country wouldbe forever rid of this whole question. Yet under the operation of thatpolicy this agitation has not only not ceased, but it has been constantlyaugmented. And this too, although, from the day of its introduction, itsfriends, who promised that it would wholly end all agitation, constantlyinsisted, down to the time that the Lecompton Bill was introduced, that itwas working admirably, and that its inevitable tendency was to remove thequestion forever from the politics of the country. Can you call to mindany Democratic speech, made after the repeal of the Missouri Compromise, down to the time of the Lecompton Bill, in which it was not predicted thatthe slavery agitation was just at an end, that "the abolition excitementwas played out, " "the Kansas question was dead, " "they have made the mostthey can out of this question and it is now forever settled"? But sincethe Lecompton Bill no Democrat, within my experience, has ever pretendedthat he could see the end. That cry has been dropped. They themselves donot pretend, now, that the agitation of this subject has come to an endyet. 

The truth is that this question is one of national importance, and wecannot help dealing with it; we must do something about it, whetherwe will or not. We cannot avoid it; the subject is one we cannot avoidconsidering; we can no more avoid it than a man can live without eating. It is upon us; it attaches to the body politic as much and closely as thenatural wants attach to our natural bodies. Now I think it important thatthis matter should be taken up in earnest, and really settled: And one wayto bring about a true settlement of the question is to understand its truemagnitude. 

There have been many efforts made to settle it. Again and again it hasbeen fondly hoped that it was settled; but every time it breaks outafresh, and more violently than ever. It was settled, our fathershoped, by the Missouri Compromise, but it did not stay settled. Then thecompromises of 1850 were declared to be a full and final settlement ofthe question. The two great parties, each in national convention, adoptedresolutions declaring that the settlement made by the Compromise of 1850was a finality that it would last forever. Yet how long before it wasunsettled again? It broke out again in 1854, and blazed higher and ragedmore furiously than ever before, and the agitation has not rested since. 

These repeated settlements must have some faults about them. There mustbe some inadequacy in their very nature to the purpose to which they weredesigned. We can only speculate as to where that fault, that inadequacy, is, but we may perhaps profit by past experiences. 

I think that one of the causes of these repeated failures is that our bestand greatest men have greatly underestimated the size of this question. They have constantly brought forward small cures for great sores--plasterstoo small to cover the wound. That is one reason that all settlements haveproved temporary--so evanescent. 

Look at the magnitude of this subject: One sixth of our population, inround numbers--not quite one sixth, and yet more than a seventh, --aboutone sixth of the whole population of the United States are slaves. Theowners of these slaves consider them property. The effect upon the mindsof the owners is that of property, and nothing else it induces them toinsist upon all that will favorably affect its value as property, todemand laws and institutions and a public policy that shall increase andsecure its value, and make it durable, lasting, and universal. The effecton the minds of the owners is to persuade them that there is no wrongin it. The slaveholder does not like to be considered a mean fellow forholding that species of property, and hence, he has to struggle withinhimself and sets about arguing himself into the belief that slavery isright. The property influences his mind. The dissenting minister whoargued some theological point with one of the established church wasalways met with the reply, "I can't see it so. " He opened a Bible andpointed him a passage, but the orthodox minister replied, "I can't seeit so. " Then he showed him a single word--"Can you see that?" "Yes, I seeit, " was the reply. The dissenter laid a guinea over the word and asked, "Do you see it now?" So here. Whether the owners of this species ofproperty do really see it as it is, it is not for me to say, but if theydo, they see it as it is through two thousand millions of dollars, andthat is a pretty thick coating. Certain it is that they do not see itas we see it. Certain it is that this two thousand millions of dollars, invested in this species of property, all so concentrated that the mindcan grasp it at once--this immense pecuniary interest--has its influenceupon their minds. 

But here in Connecticut and at the North slavery does not exist, and wesee it through no such medium. 

To us it appears natural to think that slaves are human beings; men, not property; that some of the things, at least, stated about men inthe Declaration of Independence apply to them as well as to us. I say wethink, most of us, that this charter of freedom applies to the slaves aswell as to ourselves; that the class of arguments put forward to batterdown that idea are also calculated to break down the very idea of a freegovernment, even for white men, and to undermine the very foundations offree society. We think slavery a great moral wrong, and, while we do notclaim the right to touch it where it exists, we wish to treat it as awrong in the Territories, where our votes will reach it. We think thata respect for ourselves, a regard for future generations and for the Godthat made us, require that we put down this wrong where our votes willproperly reach it. We think that species of labor an injury to free whitemen--in short, we think slavery a great moral, social, and politicalevil, tolerable only because, and so far as, its actual existence makes itnecessary to tolerate it, and that beyond that it ought to be treated as awrong. 

Now these two ideas, the property idea that slavery is right, and theidea that it is wrong, come into collision, and do actually produce thatirrepressible conflict which Mr. Seward has been so roundly abused formentioning. The two ideas conflict, and must conflict. 

Again, in its political aspect, does anything in any way endanger theperpetuity of this Union but that single thing, slavery? Many of ouradversaries are anxious to claim that they are specially devoted to theUnion, and take pains to charge upon us hostility to the Union. Now weclaim that we are the only true Union men, and we put to them this oneproposition: Whatever endangers this Union, save and except slavery? Didany other thing ever cause a moment's fear? All men must agree that thisthing alone has ever endangered the perpetuity of the Union. But if itwas threatened by any other influence, would not all men say that thebest thing that could be done, if we could not or ought not to destroy it, would be at least to keep it from growing any larger? Can any man believe, that the way to save the Union is to extend and increase the only thingthat threatens the Union, and to suffer it to grow bigger and bigger?

Whenever this question shall be settled, it must be settled on somephilosophical basis. No policy that does not rest upon some philosophicalopinion can be permanently maintained. And hence there are but twopolicies in regard to slavery that can be at all maintained. The first, based on the property view that slavery is right, conforms to that ideathroughout, and demands that we shall do everything for it that we oughtto do if it were right. We must sweep away all opposition, for oppositionto the right is wrong; we must agree that slavery is right, and we mustadopt the idea that property has persuaded the owner to believethat slavery is morally right and socially elevating. This gives aphilosophical basis for a permanent policy of encouragement. 

The other policy is one that squares with the idea that slavery is wrong, and it consists in doing everything that we ought to do if it is wrong. Now, I don't wish to be misunderstood, nor to leave a gap down to bemisrepresented, even. I don't mean that we ought to attack it where itexists. To me it seems that if we were to form a government anew, in viewof the actual presence of slavery we should find it necessary to framejust such a government as our fathers did--giving to the slaveholder theentire control where the system was established, while we possessed thepower to restrain it from going outside those limits. From the necessitiesof the case we should be compelled to form just such a government as ourblessed fathers gave us; and, surely, if they have so made it, that addsanother reason why we should let slavery alone where it exists. 

If I saw a venomous snake crawling in the road, any man would say I mightseize the nearest stick and kill it; but if I found that snake in bed withmy children, that would be another question. I might hurt the childrenmore than the snake, and it might bite them. Much more if I found itin bed with my neighbor's children, and I had bound myself by a solemncompact not to meddle with his children under any circumstances, it wouldbecome me to let that particular mode of getting rid of the gentlemanalone. But if there was a bed newly made up, to which the children were tobe taken, and it was proposed to take a batch of young snakes and put themthere with them, I take it no man would say there was any question how Iought to decide!

That is just the case. The new Territories are the newly made bed to whichour children are to go, and it lies with the nation to say whether theyshall have snakes mixed up with them or not. It does not seem as if therecould be much hesitation what our policy should be!

Now I have spoken of a policy based on the idea that slavery is wrong, anda policy based on the idea that it is right. But an effort has been madefor a policy that shall treat it as neither right nor wrong. It is basedupon utter indifference. Its leading advocate [Douglas] has said, "I don'tcare whether it be voted up or down. " "It is merely a matter of dollarsand cents. " "The Almighty has drawn a line across this continent, on oneside of which all soil must forever be cultivated by slave labor, and onthe other by free. " "When the struggle is between the white man andthe negro, I am for the white man; when it is between the negro and thecrocodile, I am for the negro. " Its central idea is indifference. It holdsthat it makes no more difference to us whether the Territories becomefree or slave States than whether my neighbor stocks his farm with hornedcattle or puts in tobacco. All recognize this policy, the plausiblesugar-coated name of which is "popular sovereignty. "

This policy chiefly stands in the way of a permanent settlement of thequestion. I believe there is no danger of its becoming the permanentpolicy of the country, for it is based on a public indifference. There isnobody that "don't care. " All the people do care one way or the other! Ido not charge that its author, when he says he "don't care, " states hisindividual opinion; he only expresses his policy for the government. Iunderstand that he has never said as an individual whether he thoughtslavery right or wrong--and he is the only man in the nation that has not!Now such a policy may have a temporary run; it may spring up as necessaryto the political prospects of some gentleman; but it is utterly baseless:the people are not indifferent, and it can therefore have no durability orpermanence. 

But suppose it could: Then it could be maintained only by a public opinionthat shall say, "We don't care. " There must be a change in public opinion;the public mind must be so far debauched as to square with this policyof caring not at all. The people must come to consider this as "merelya question of dollars and cents, " and to believe that in some places theAlmighty has made slavery necessarily eternal. This policy can be broughtto prevail if the people can be brought round to say honestly, "We don'tcare"; if not, it can never be maintained. It is for you to say whetherthat can be done. 

You are ready to say it cannot, but be not too fast! Remember what a longstride has been taken since the repeal of the Missouri Compromise! Do youknow of any Democrat, of either branch of the party--do you know one whodeclares that he believes that the Declaration of Independence has anyapplication to the negro? Judge Taney declares that it has not, and JudgeDouglas even vilifies me personally and scolds me roundly for saying thatthe Declaration applies to all men, and that negroes are men. Is there aDemocrat here who does not deny that the Declaration applies to thenegro? Do any of you know of one? Well, I have tried before perhapsfifty audiences, some larger and some smaller than this, to find one suchDemocrat, and never yet have I found one who said I did not place himright in that. I must assume that Democrats hold that, and now, not oneof these Democrats can show that he said that five years ago! I venture todefy the whole party to produce one man that ever uttered the beliefthat the Declaration did not apply to negroes, before the repeal of theMissouri Compromise! Four or five years ago we all thought negroes weremen, and that when "all men" were named, negroes were included. But thewhole Democratic party has deliberately taken negroes from the class ofmen and put them in the class of brutes. Turn it as you will it is simplythe truth! Don't be too hasty, then, in saying that the people cannot bebrought to this new doctrine, but note that long stride. One more as longcompletes the journey from where negroes are estimated as men to wherethey are estimated as mere brutes--as rightful property!

That saying "In the struggle between white men and the negro, " etc. , whichI know came from the same source as this policy--that saying marks anotherstep. There is a falsehood wrapped up in that statement. "In the strugglebetween the white man and the negro" assumes that there is a struggle, in which either the white man must enslave the negro or the negro mustenslave the white. There is no such struggle! It is merely the ingeniousfalsehood to degrade and brutalize the negro. Let each let the otheralone, and there is no struggle about it. If it was like two wreckedseamen on a narrow plank, when each must push the other off or drownhimself, I would push the negro off or a white man either, but it is not;the plank is large enough for both. This good earth is plenty broad enoughfor white man and negro both, and there is no need of either pushing theother off. 

So that saying, "In the struggle between the negro and the crocodile, "etc. , is made up from the idea that down where the crocodile inhabits, awhite man can't labor; it must be nothing else but crocodile or negro; ifthe negro does not the crocodile must possess the earth; in that case hedeclares for the negro. The meaning of the whole is just this: As a whiteman is to a negro, so is a negro to a crocodile; and as the negro mayrightfully treat the crocodile, so may the white man rightfully treat thenegro. This very dear phrase coined by its author, and so dear that hedeliberately repeats it in many speeches, has a tendency to still furtherbrutalize the negro, and to bring public opinion to the point of utterindifference whether men so brutalized are enslaved or not. When that timeshall come, if ever, I think that policy to which I refer may prevail. ButI hope the good freemen of this country will never allow it to come, anduntil then the policy can never be maintained. 

Now consider the effect of this policy. We in the States are not tocare whether freedom or slavery gets the better, but the people in theTerritories may care. They are to decide, and they may think what theyplease; it is a matter of dollars and cents! But are not the people of theTerritories detailed from the States? If this feeling of indifference thisabsence of moral sense about the question prevails in the States, willit not be carried into the Territories? Will not every man say, "I don'tcare, it is nothing to me"? If any one comes that wants slavery, must theynot say, "I don't care whether freedom or slavery be voted up or voteddown"? It results at last in nationalizing the institution of slavery. Even if fairly carried out, that policy is just as certain to nationalizeslavery as the doctrine of Jeff Davis himself. These are only two roadsto the same goal, and "popular sovereignty" is just as sure and almost asshort as the other. 

What we want, and all we want, is to have with us the men who thinkslavery wrong. But those who say they hate slavery, and are opposed to it, but yet act with the Democratic party--where are they? Let us apply afew tests. You say that you think slavery is wrong, but you denounce allattempts to restrain it. Is there anything else that you think wrong thatyou are not willing to deal with as wrong? Why are you so careful, sotender, of this one wrong and no other? You will not let us do a singlething as if it was wrong; there is no place where you will even allow itto be called wrong! We must not call it wrong in the free States, becauseit is not there, and we must not call it wrong in the slave States, because it is there; we must not call it wrong in politics because thatis bringing morality into politics, and we must not call it wrong in thepulpit because that is bringing politics into religion; we must not bringit into the Tract Society or the other societies, because those are suchunsuitable places--and there is no single place, according to you, wherethis wrong thing can properly be called wrong!

Perhaps you will plead that if the people of the slave States shouldthemselves set on foot an effort for emancipation, you would wishthem success, and bid them God-speed. Let us test that: In 1858 theemancipation party of Missouri, with Frank Blair at their head, tried toget up a movement for that purpose, and having started a party contestedthe State. Blair was beaten, apparently if not truly, and when the newscame to Connecticut, you, who knew that Frank Blair was taking hold ofthis thing by the right end, and doing the only thing that you say canproperly be done to remove this wrong--did you bow your heads in sorrowbecause of that defeat? Do you, any of you, know one single Democrat thatshowed sorrow over that result? Not one! On the contrary every man threwup his hat, and hallooed at the top of his lungs, "Hooray for Democracy!"

Now, gentlemen, the Republicans desire to place this great question ofslavery on the very basis on which our fathers placed it, and no other. Itis easy to demonstrate that "our fathers, who framed this Governmentunder which we live, " looked on slavery as wrong, and so framed it andeverything about it as to square with the idea that it was wrong, so faras the necessities arising from its existence permitted. In forming theConstitution they found the slave trade existing, capital invested in it, fields depending upon it for labor, and the whole system resting uponthe importation of slave labor. They therefore did not prohibit the slavetrade at once, but they gave the power to prohibit it after twenty years. Why was this? What other foreign trade did they treat in that way? Wouldthey have done this if they had not thought slavery wrong?

Another thing was done by some of the same men who framed theConstitution, and afterwards adopted as their own the act by the firstCongress held under that Constitution, of which many of the framers weremembers, that prohibited the spread of slavery into Territories. Thusthe same men, the framers of the Constitution, cut off the supply andprohibited the spread of slavery, and both acts show conclusively thatthey considered that the thing was wrong. 

If additional proof is wanted it can be found in the phraseology of theConstitution. When men are framing a supreme law and chart of government, to secure blessings and prosperity to untold generations yet to come, theyuse language as short and direct and plain as can be found, to expresstheir meaning In all matters but this of slavery the framers of theConstitution used the very clearest, shortest, and most direct language. But the Constitution alludes to slavery three times without mentioning itonce The language used becomes ambiguous, roundabout, and mystical. Theyspeak of the "immigration of persons, " and mean the importation of slaves, but do not say so. In establishing a basis of representation they say "allother persons, " when they mean to say slaves--why did they not usethe shortest phrase? In providing for the return of fugitives they say"persons held to service or labor. " If they had said slaves it would havebeen plainer, and less liable to misconstruction. Why did n't they do it?We cannot doubt that it was done on purpose. Only one reason is possible, and that is supplied us by one of the framers of the Constitution--andit is not possible for man to conceive of any other--they expected anddesired that the system would come to an end, and meant that when it did, the Constitution should not show that there ever had been a slave in thisgood free country of ours. 

I will dwell on that no longer. I see the signs of approaching triumphof the Republicans in the bearing of their political adversaries. A greatdeal of their war with us nowadays is mere bushwhacking. At the battleof Waterloo, when Napoleon's cavalry had charged again and again uponthe unbroken squares of British infantry, at last they were giving upthe attempt, and going off in disorder, when some of the officers in merevexation and complete despair fired their pistols at those solid squares. The Democrats are in that sort of extreme desperation; it is nothing else. I will take up a few of these arguments. 

There is "the irrepressible conflict. " How they rail at Seward for thatsaying! They repeat it constantly; and, although the proof has been thrustunder their noses again and again that almost every good man since theformation of our Government has uttered that same sentiment, from GeneralWashington, who "trusted that we should yet have a confederacy of freeStates, " with Jefferson, Jay, Monroe, down to the latest days, yet theyrefuse to notice that at all, and persist in railing at Seward for sayingit. Even Roger A. Pryor, editor of the Richmond Enquirer, uttered the samesentiment in almost the same language, and yet so little offence didit give the Democrats that he was sent for to Washington to edit theStates--the Douglas organ there--while Douglas goes into hydrophobia andspasms of rage because Seward dared to repeat it. This is what I callbushwhacking, a sort of argument that they must know any child can seethrough. 

Another is John Brown: "You stir up insurrections, you invade the South;John Brown! Harper's Ferry!" Why, John Brown was not a Republican!You have never implicated a single Republican in that Harper's Ferryenterprise. We tell you that if any member of the Republican party isguilty in that matter, you know it or you do not know it. If you do knowit, you are inexcusable not to designate the man and prove the fact. Ifyou do not know it, you are inexcusable to assert it, and especiallyto persist in the assertion after you have tried and failed to make theproof. You need not be told that persisting in a charge which one doesnot know to be true is simply malicious slander. Some of you admit that noRepublican designedly aided or encouraged the Harper's Ferry affair, butstill insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to suchresults. We do not believe it. We know we hold to no doctrines, and makeno declarations, which were not held to and made by our fathers who framedthe Government 'under which we live, and we cannot see how declarationsthat were patriotic when they made them are villainous when we make them. You never dealt fairly by us in relation to that affair--and I will sayfrankly that I know of nothing in your character that should lead us tosuppose that you would. You had just been soundly thrashed in electionsin several States, and others were soon to come. You rejoiced at theoccasion, and only were troubled that there were not three times as manykilled in the affair. You were in evident glee; there was no sorrow forthe killed nor for the peace of Virginia disturbed; you were rejoicingthat by charging Republicans with this thing you might get an advantage ofus in New York, and the other States. You pulled that string as tightly asyou could, but your very generous and worthy expectations were not quitefulfilled. Each Republican knew that the charge was a slander as tohimself at least, and was not inclined by it to cast his vote in yourfavor. It was mere bushwhacking, because you had nothing else to do. Youare still on that track, and I say, go on! If you think you can slandera woman into loving you or a man into voting for you, try it till you aresatisfied!

Another specimen of this bushwhacking, that "shoe strike. " Now be itunderstood that I do not pretend to know all about the matter. I am merelygoing to speculate a little about some of its phases. And at the outset, Iam glad to see that a system of labor prevails in New England under whichlaborers can strike when they want to, where they are not obliged towork under all circumstances, and are not tied down and obliged to laborwhether you pay them or not! I like the system which lets a man quit whenhe wants to, and wish it might prevail everywhere. One of the reasons whyI am opposed to slavery is just here. What is the true condition of thelaborer? I take it that it is best for all to leave each man free toacquire property as fast as he can. Some will get wealthy. I don't believein a law to prevent a man from getting rich; it would do more harm thangood. So, while we do not propose any war upon capital, we do wish toallow the humblest man an equal chance to get rich with everybody else. When one starts poor, as most do in the race of life, free society is suchthat he knows he can better his condition; he knows that there is no fixedcondition of labor for his whole life. I am not ashamed to confess thattwenty-five years ago I was a hired laborer, mauling rails, at work on aflatboat--just what might happen to any poor man's son! I want every manto have a chance--and I believe a Black man is entitled to it--in which hecan better his condition; when he may look forward and hope to be a hiredlaborer this year and the next, work for himself afterward, and finally tohire men to work for him! That is the system. Up here in New England, youhave a soil that scarcely sprouts black-eyed beans, and yet where will youfind wealthy men so wealthy, and poverty so rarely in extremity? There isnot another such place on earth! I desire that if you get too thick here, and find it hard to better your condition on this soil, you may have achance to strike and go somewhere else, where you may not be degraded, norhave your families corrupted, by forced rivalry with negro slaves. I wantyou to have a clean bed and no snakes in it! Then you can better yourcondition, and so it may go on and on in one endless round so long as manexists on the face of the earth!

Now, to come back to this shoe strike, --if, as the senator from Illinoisasserts, this is caused by withdrawal of Southern votes, considerbriefly how you will meet the difficulty. You have done nothing, and haveprotested that you have done nothing, to injure the South. And yet, to getback the shoe trade, you must leave off doing something which you arenow doing. What is it? You must stop thinking slavery wrong! Let yourinstitutions be wholly changed; let your State constitutions be subverted;glorify slavery, and so you will get back the shoe trade--for what? Youhave brought owned labor with it, to compete with your own labor, tounderwork you, and to degrade you! Are you ready to get back the trade onthose terms?

But the statement is not correct. You have not lost that trade; orderswere never better than now! Senator Mason, a Democrat, comes into theSenate in homespun, a proof that the dissolution of the Union has actuallybegun! but orders are the same. Your factories have not struck work, neither those where they make anything for coats, nor for pants norfor shirts, nor for ladies' dresses. Mr. Mason has not reached themanufacturers who ought to have made him a coat and pants! To make hisproof good for anything he should have come into the Senate barefoot!

Another bushwhacking contrivance; simply that, nothing else! I find a goodmany people who are very much concerned about the loss of Southern trade. Now either these people are sincere or they are not. I will speculate alittle about that. If they are sincere, and are moved by any real dangerof the loss of Southern trade, they will simply get their names on thewhite list, and then, instead of persuading Republicans to do likewise, they will be glad to keep you away! Don't you see that they cut offcompetition? They would not be whispering around to Republicans to comein and share the profits with them. But if they are not sincere, and aremerely trying to fool Republicans out of their votes, they will grow veryanxious about your pecuniary prospects; they are afraid you are going toget broken up and ruined; they do not care about Democratic votes, oh, no, no, no! You must judge which class those belong to whom you meet: I leaveit to you to determine from the facts. 

Let us notice some more of the stale charges against Republicans. You saywe are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue; and the burden of proofis upon you. You produce your proof; and what is it? Why, that our partyhas no existence in your section--gets no votes in your section. The factis substantially true; but does it prove the issue? If it does, then incase we should, without change of principle, begin to get votes in yoursection, we should thereby cease to be sectional. You cannot escape thisconclusion; and yet, are you willing to abide by it? If you are, you willprobably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional, for we shall getvotes in your section this very year. The fact that we get no votes inyour section is a fact of your making and not of ours. And if there befault in that fact, that fault is primarily yours, and remains so untilyou show that we repel you by some wrong principle or practice. If we ours; but this brings you to where you ought to have started--to adiscussion of the right or wrong of our principle. If our principle, putin practice, would wrong your section for the benefit of ours, or for anyother object, then our principle, and we with it, are sectional, and arejustly opposed and denounced as such. Meet us, then, on the question ofwhether our principle put in practice would wrong your section; and someet it as if it were possible that something may be said on our side. Doyou accept the challenge? No? Then you really believe that the principlewhich our fathers who framed the Government under which we live thought soclearly right as to adopt it, and indorse it again and again, upon theirofficial oaths, is in fact so clearly wrong as to demand our condemnationwithout a moment's consideration. Some of you delight to flaunt in ourfaces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in hisFarewell Address. Less than eight years before Washington gave thatwarning, he had, as President of the United States, approved and signed anact of Congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the NorthwesternTerritory, which act embodied the policy of government upon that subject, up to and at the very moment he penned that warning; and about one yearafter he penned it he wrote La Fayette that he considered that prohibitiona wise measure, expressing in the same connection his hope that we shouldsometime have a confederacy of free States. 

Bearing this in mind, and seeing that sectionalism has since arisen uponthis same subject, is that warning a weapon in your hands against us, orin our hands against you? Could Washington himself speak, would he castthe blame of that sectionalism upon us, who sustain his policy, or uponyou, who repudiate it? We respect that warning of Washington, and wecommend it to you, together with his example pointing to the rightapplication of it. 

But you say you are conservative--eminently conservative--while weare revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What isconservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the newand untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on thepoint in controversy which was adopted by our fathers who framed theGovernment under which we live; while you with one accord reject and scoutand spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new. 

True, you disagree among yourselves as to what that substitute shall be. You have considerable variety of new propositions and plans, but you areunanimous in rejecting and denouncing the old policy of the fathers. Someof you are for reviving the foreign slave-trade; some for a congressionalslave code for the Territories; some for Congress forbidding theTerritories to prohibit slavery within their limits; some for maintainingslavery in the Territories through the judiciary; some for the "gur-reatpur-rinciple" that if one man would enslave another, no third man shouldobject--fantastically called "popular sovereignty. " But never a man amongyou in favor of prohibition of slavery in Federal Territories, accordingto the practice of our fathers who framed the Government under whichwe live. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or anadvocate in the century within which our Government originated. And yetyou draw yourselves up and say, "We are eminently conservative. "

It is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great confederacy shallbe at peace, and in harmony one with another. Let us Republicans do ourpart to have it so. Even though much provoked, let us do nothing throughpassion and ill-temper. Even though the Southern people will not so muchas listen to us, let us calmly consider their demands, and yield to themif, in our deliberate view of our duty, we possibly can. Judging by allthey say and do, and by the subject and nature of their controversy withus, let us determine, if we can, what will satisfy them. 

Will they be satisfied if the Territories be unconditionally surrenderedto them? We know they will not. In all their present complaints againstus, the Territories are scarcely mentioned. Invasions and insurrectionsare the rage now. Will it satisfy them, in the future, if we have nothingto do with invasions and insurrections? We know it will not. We soknow because we know we never had anything to do with invasions andinsurrections; and yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from thecharge and the denunciation. 

The question recurs, what will satisfy them? Simply this: we must not onlylet them alone, but we must, somehow, convince them that we do let themalone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been sotrying to convince them, from the very beginning of our organization, butwith no success. In all our platforms and speeches, we have constantlyprotested our purpose to let them alone; but this had no tendency toconvince them. Alike unavailing to convince them is the fact that theyhave never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. 

These natural and apparently adequate means all failing, what willconvince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and jointhem in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly--done inacts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated--we must placeourselves avowedly with them. Douglas's new sedition law must be enactedand enforced, suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong, whethermade in politics, in presses, in pulpits, or in private. We must arrestand return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull downour free State constitutions. The whole atmosphere must be disinfected ofall taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believethat all their troubles proceed from us. So long as we call slavery wrong, whenever a slave runs away they will overlook the obvious fact that he ranaway because he was oppressed, and declare he was stolen off. Whenevera master cuts his slaves with a lash, and they cry out under it, he willoverlook the obvious fact that the negroes cry out because they are hurt, and insist that they were put up to it by some rascally abolitionist. 

I am quite aware that 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--havenever disturbed them--so that, after all, it is what we say whichdissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until wecease saying. 

I am also aware that they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrowof our free-State constitutions. Yet those constitutions declare the wrongof slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings against it;and when all these other sayings shall have been silenced, the overthrowof these constitutions will be demanded. It is nothing to the contrarythat they do not demand the whole of this just now. Demanding what theydo, and for the reason they do, they can voluntarily stop nowhere short ofthis consummation. Holding as they do that slavery is morally right, and socially elevating, they cannot cease to demand a full nationalrecognition of it, as a legal right, and a social blessing. 

Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any ground save our convictionthat slavery is wrong. If slavery is right, all words, acts, laws, andconstitutions against it are themselves wrong and should be silencedand swept away. If it is right, we cannot justly object to itsnationality--its universality: if it is wrong, they cannot justly insistupon its extension--its enlargement. All they ask, we could readily grant, if we thought slavery right; all we ask, they could as readily grant, ifthey thought it wrong. Their thinking it right and our thinking it wrongis the precise fact on which depends the whole controversy. Thinking itright 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 ourmoral, social, and political responsibilities, can we do this?

Wrong as we think slavery is, we can yet afford to let it alone whereit is because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actualpresence in the nation; but can we, while our votes will prevent it, allowit to spread into the national Territories, and to overrun us here inthese 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 thosesophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied andbelabored--contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between theright and the wrong, vain as the search for a man who would be neither aliving man nor a dead man--such as a policy of "don't care" on a questionabout which all free men do care--such as Union appeals beseeching trueUnion men to yield to Disunionists, reversing the divine rule, and caning, not the sinners, but the righteous to repentance--such as invocations ofWashington, imploring men to unsay what Washington did. 

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government, norof dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might; and inthat faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it. 

[As Mr. Lincoln concluded his address, there was witnessed the wildestscene of enthusiasm and excitement that has been in New Haven for years. The Palladium editorially says: "We give up most of our space to-day toa very full report of the eloquent speech of the HON. Abraham Lincoln, ofIllinois, delivered last night at Union Hall. "]

RESPONSE TO AN ELECTOR'S REQUEST FOR MONEY

TO ------------ March 16, 1860

As to your kind wishes for myself, allow me to say I cannot enter the ringon the money basis--first, because in the main it is wrong; and secondly, I have not and cannot get the money. 

I say, in the main, the use of money is wrong; but for certain objects ina political contest, the use of some is both right and indispensable. Withme, as with yourself, the long struggle has been one of great pecuniaryloss. 

I now distinctly say this--if you shall be appointed a delegate toChicago, I will furnish one hundred dollars to bear the expenses of thetrip. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

[Extract from a letter to a Kansas delegate. ]

TO J. W. SOMERS. 

SPRINGFIELD, March 17, 1860

JAMES W. SOMERS, Esq. 

DEAR SIR:--Reaching home three days ago, I found your letter of February26th. Considering your difficulty of hearing, I think you had bettersettle in Chicago, if, as you say, a good man already in fair practicethere will take you into partnership. If you had not that difficulty, Istill should think it an even balance whether you would not better remainin Chicago, with such a chance for copartnership. 

If I went west, I think I would go to Kansas, to Leavenworth or Atchison. Both of them are and will continue to be fine growing places. 

I believe I have said all I can, and I have said it with the deepestinterest for your welfare. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ACCUSATION OF HAVING BEEN PAID FOR A POLITICAL SPEECH

TO C. F. McNEIL. 

SPRINGFIELD, April 6, 1860

C. F. MCNEIL, Esq. 

DEAR SIR:--Reaching home yesterday, I found yours of the 23d March, inclosing a slip from The Middleport Press. It is not true that I evercharged anything for a political speech in my life; but this much is true:Last October I was requested by letter to deliver some sort of speech inMr. Beecher's church, in Brooklyn--two hundred dollars being offered inthe first letter. I wrote that I could do it in February, provided theywould take a political speech if I could find time to get up no other. They agreed; and subsequently I informed them the speech would have tobe a political one. When I reached New York, I for the first time learnedthat the place was changed to "Cooper Institute. " I made the speech, andleft for New Hampshire, where I have a son at school, neither asking forpay nor having any offered me. Three days after a check for two hundreddollars was sent to me at New Hampshire; and I took it, and did not knowit was wrong. My understanding now is--though I knew nothing of it at thetime--that they did charge for admittance to the Cooper Institute, andthat they took in more than twice two hundred dollars. 

I have made this explanation to you as a friend; but I wish no explanationmade to our enemies. What they want is a squabble and a fuss, and thatthey can have if we explain; and they cannot have it if we don't. 

When I returned through New York from New England, I was told by thegentlemen who sent me the Check that a drunken vagabond in the club, having learned something about the two hundred dollars, made theexhibition out of which The Herald manufactured the article quoted by ThePress of your town. 

My judgment is, and therefore my request is, that you give no denial andno explanation. 

Thanking you for your kind interest in the matter, I remain, Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO H. TAYLOR. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , April 21, 1860. 

HAWKINS TAYLOR, Esq. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 15th is just received. It surprises me that youhave written twice, without receiving an answer. I have answered all Iever received from you; and certainly one since my return from the East. 

Opinions here, as to the prospect of Douglas being nominated, are quiteconflicting--some very confident he will, and others that he will not be. I think his nomination possible, but that the chances are against him. 

I am glad there is a prospect of your party passing this way to Chicago. Wishing to make your visit here as pleasant as we can, we wish you tonotify us as soon as possible whether you come this way, how many, andwhen you will arrive. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO A MEMBER OF THE ILLINOIS DELEGATION

AT THE CHICAGO CONVENTION. SPRINGFIELD, May 17? 1860. 

I authorize no bargains and will be bound by none. 

A. LINCOLN. 

REPLY TO THE COMMITTEE SENT BY THE CHICAGO CONVENTION TO INFORM

LINCOLN OF HIS NOMINATION, MAY 19, 1860. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE:--I tender to you, and throughyou to the Republican National Convention, and all the people representedin it, my profoundest thanks for the high honor done me, which younow formally announce. Deeply and even painfully sensible of the greatresponsibility which is inseparable from this high honor--a responsibilitywhich I could almost wish had fallen upon some one of the far more eminentmen and experienced statesmen whose distinguished names were before theconvention--I shall, by your leave, consider more fully the resolutions ofthe convention, denominated their platform, and without any unnecessary orunreasonable delay respond to you, Mr. Chairman, in writing--notdoubting that the platform will be found satisfactory, and the nominationgratefully accepted. 

And now I will not longer defer the pleasure of taking you, and each ofyou, by the hand. 

ACCEPTANCE OF NOMINATION AS REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE FOR PRESIDENT

OF THE UNITED STATES

TO GEORGE ASHMUN AND OTHERS. 

SPRINGFIELD ILLINOIS, May 23, 1860

HON. GEORGE ASHMUN, President of Republican National Convention. 

SIR:--I accept the nomination tendered me by the convention over which youpresided, and of which I am formally apprised in the letter of yourselfand others, acting as a committee of the convention for that purpose. 

The declaration of principles and sentiments which accompanies your lettermeets my approval; and it shall be my care not to violate or disregard itin any part. 

Imploring the assistance of Divine Providence, and with due regard to theviews and feelings of all who were represented in the convention, to therights of all the States and Territories and people of the nation, to theinviolability of the Constitution, and the perpetual union, harmony, andprosperity of all--I am most happy to co-operate for the practical successof the principles declared by the convention. 

Your obliged friend and fellow-citizen, A. LINCOLN. 

To C. B. SMITH. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , May 26, 1860. 

HON. C. B. SMITH. 

MY DEAR SIR:-Yours of the 21st was duly received, but have found no timeuntil now to say a word in the way of answer. I am indeed much indebtedto Indiana; and, as my home friends tell me, much to you personally. Yoursaying, you no longer consider it a doubtful State is very gratifying. Thething starts well everywhere--too well, I almost fear, to last. But we arein, and stick or go through must be the word. 

Let me hear from Indiana occasionally. 

Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

FORM OF REPLY PREPARED BY MR. LINCOLN, WITH WHICH HIS PRIVATE SECRETARY WAS INSTRUCTED TO ANSWER A NUMEROUS CLASSOF LETTERS IN THE CAMPAIGN OF 1860. 

(Doctrine. )

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, ------, 1860

DEAR SIR:--Your letter to Mr. Lincoln of and by which you seek to obtainhis opinions on certain political points, has been received by him. He hasreceived others of a similar character, but he also has a greater numberof the exactly opposite character. The latter class beseech him to writenothing whatever upon any point of political doctrine. They say hispositions were well known when he was nominated, and that he must not nowembarrass the canvass by undertaking to shift or modify them. He regretsthat he cannot oblige all, but you perceive it is impossible for him to doso. 

Yours, etc. , JNO. J. NICOLAY. 

TO E. B. WASHBURNE. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, MAY 26, 1860

HON. E. B. WASHBURNE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I have several letters from you written since thenomination, but till now have found no moment to say a word by way ofanswer. Of course I am glad that the nomination is well received by ourfriends, and I sincerely thank you for so informing me. So far as Ican learn, the nominations start well everywhere; and, if they get noback-set, it would seem as if they are going through. I hope you willwrite often; and as you write more rapidly than I do, don't make yourletters so short as mine. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO S. HAYCRAFT. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , June 4, 1860. 

HON. SAMUEL HAYCRAFT. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Like yourself I belonged to the old Whig party from itsorigin to its close. I never belonged to the American party organization, nor ever to a party called a Union party; though I hope I neither amor ever have been less devoted to the Union than yourself or any otherpatriotic man. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ABRAHAM OR "ABRAM"

TO G. ASHMUN. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. June 4, 1860

HON. GEORGE ASHMUN. 

MY DEAR SIR:--It seems as if the question whether my first name is"Abraham" or "Abram" will never be settled. It is "Abraham, " and if theletter of acceptance is not yet in print, you may, if you think fit, havemy signature thereto printed "Abraham Lincoln. " Exercise your judgmentabout this. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

UNAUTHORIZED BIOGRAPHY

TO S. GALLOWAY. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , June 19, 1860

HON. SAM'L GALLOWAY. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your very kind letter of the 15th is received. Messrs. Follett, Foster, & Co. 's Life of me is not by my authority; and Ihave scarcely been so much astounded by anything, as by their publicannouncement that it is authorized by me. They have fallen into somestrange misunderstanding. I certainly knew they contemplated publishinga biography, and I certainly did not object to their doing so, upon theirown responsibility. I even took pains to facilitate them. But, at the sametime, I made myself tiresome, if not hoarse, with repeating to Mr. Howard, their only agent seen by me, my protest that I authorized nothing--wouldbe responsible for nothing. How they could so misunderstand me, passescomprehension. As a matter wholly my own, I would authorize no biography, without time and opportunity [sic] to carefully examine and consider everyword of it and, in this case, in the nature of things, I can have no suchtime and Opportunity [sic]. But, in my present position, when, by thelessons of the past, and the united voice of all discreet friends, I canneither write nor speak a word for the public, how dare I to send forth, by my authority, a volume of hundreds of pages, for adversaries to makepoints upon without end? Were I to do so, the convention would have aright to re-assemble and substitute another name for mine. 

For these reasons, I would not look at the proof sheets--I am determinedto maintain the position of [sic] truly saying I never saw the proofsheets, or any part of their work, before its publication. 

Now, do not mistake me--I feel great kindness for Messrs. F. , F. , &Co. --do not think they have intentionally done wrong. There may be nothingwrong in their proposed book--I sincerely hope there will not. I barelysuggest that you, or any of the friends there, on the party account, lookit over, and exclude what you may think would embarrass the party bearingin mind, at all times, that I authorize nothing--will be responsible fornothing. 

Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

[The custom then, and it may have been a good one, was for thePresidential candidate to do no personal canvassing or speaking--or as wehave it now "running for election. " He stayed at home and kept his mouthshut. Ed. ]

TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, July 18, 1860. 

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN. MY DEAR SIR:--It appears to me that you and I oughtto be acquainted, and accordingly I write this as a sort of introductionof myself to you. You first entered the Senate during the single term Iwas a member of the House of Representatives, but I have no recollectionthat we were introduced. I shall be pleased to receive a line from you. 

The prospect of Republican success now appears very flattering, so far asI can perceive. Do you see anything to the contrary?

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO A. JONAS. 

(Confidential. ) SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, JULY 21, 1860. 

HON. A. JONAS. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 20th is received. I suppose as good or evenbetter men than I may have been in American or Know-Nothing lodges; but inpoint of fact, I never was in one at Quincy or elsewhere. I was neverin Quincy but one day and two nights while Know-Nothing lodges were inexistence, and you were with me that day and both those nights. I hadnever been there before in my life, and never afterward, till the jointdebate with Douglas in 1858. It was in 1854 when I spoke in somehall there, and after the speaking, you, with others, took me to anoyster-saloon, passed an hour there, and you walked with me to, and partedwith me at, the Quincy House, quite late at night. I left by stage forNaples before daylight in the morning, having come in by the same routeafter dark the evening, previous to the speaking, when I found you waitingat the Quincy House to meet me. A few days after I was there, Richardson, as I understood, started this same story about my having been in aKnow-Nothing lodge. When I heard of the charge, as I did soon after; Itaxed my recollection for some incident which could have suggested it; andI remembered that on parting with you the last night I went to the officeof the hotel to take my stage-passage for the morning, was told that nostage-office for that line was kept there, and that I must see the driverbefore retiring, to insure his calling for me in the morning; and aservant was sent with me to find the driver, who, after taking me a squareor two, stopped me, and stepped perhaps a dozen steps farther, and in myhearing called to some one, who answered him, apparently from the upperpart of a building, and promised to call with the stage for me at theQuincy House. I returned, and went to bed, and before day the stage calledand took me. This is all. 

That I never was in a Know-Nothing lodge in Quincy, I should expect couldbe easily proved by respectable men who were always in the lodges andnever saw me there. An affidavit of one or two such would put the matterat rest. 

And now a word of caution. Our adversaries think they can gain a pointif they could force me to openly deny the charge, by which some degreeof offence would be given to the Americans. For this reason it must notpublicly appear that I am paying any attention to the charge. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JOHN B. FRY. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, August 15, 1860. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 9th, inclosing the letter of HON. John MinorBotts, was duly received. The latter is herewith returned according toyour request. It contains one of the many assurances I receive from theSouth, that in no probable event will there be any very formidable effortto break up the Union. The people of the South have too much of good senseand good temper to attempt the ruin of the government rather than see itadministered as it was administered by the men who made it. At least so Ihope and believe. I thank you both for your own letter and a sight of thatof Mr. Botts. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO THURLOW WEED

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. August 17 1860. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 13th was received this morning. Douglasis managing the Bell element with great adroitness. He had his men inKentucky to vote for the Bell candidate, producing a result which hasbadly alarmed and damaged Breckenridge, and at the same time has inducedthe Bell men to suppose that Bell will certainly be President, if theycan keep a few of the Northern States away from us by throwing them toDouglas. But you, better than I, understand all this. 

I think there will be the most extraordinary effort ever made to carry NewYork for Douglas. You and all others who write me from your State thinkthe effort cannot succeed, and I hope you are right. Still, it willrequire close watching and great efforts on the other side. 

Herewith I send you a copy of a letter written at New York, whichsufficiently explains itself, and which may or may not give you a valuablehint. You have seen that Bell tickets have been put on the track both hereand in Indiana. In both cases the object has been, I think, the same asthe Hunt movement in New York--to throw States to Douglas. In our State, we know the thing is engineered by Douglas men, and we do not believe theycan make a great deal out of it. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

SLOW TO LISTEN TO CRIMINATIONS

TO HON. JOHN ------------

(Private. )

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , Aug. 31, 1860

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 27th is duly received. It consists almostexclusively of a historical detail of some local troubles, among someof our friends in Pennsylvania; and I suppose its object is to guard meagainst forming a prejudice against Mr. McC------____, I have not heardnear so much upon that subject as you probably suppose; and I am slow tolisten to criminations among friends, and never expose their quarrels oneither side. My sincere wish is that both sides will allow bygones to bebygones, and look to the present and future only. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, September 4, 1860

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I am annoyed some by a letter from a friend in Chicago, inwhich the following passage occurs: "Hamlin has written Colfax that twomembers of Congress will, he fears, be lost in Maine, the first and sixthdistricts; and that Washburne's majority for governor will not exceed sixthousand. "

I had heard something like this six weeks ago, but had been assured sincethat it was not so. Your secretary of state, --Mr. Smith, I think, --whomyou introduced to me by letter, gave this assurance; more recently, Mr. Fessenden, our candidate for Congress in one of those districts, wrote arelative here that his election was sure by at least five thousand, andthat Washburne's majority would be from 14, 000 to 17, 000; and stilllater, Mr. Fogg, of New Hampshire, now at New York serving on a nationalcommittee, wrote me that we were having a desperate fight in Maine, whichwould end in a splendid victory for us. 

Such a result as you seem to have predicted in Maine, in your letter toColfax, would, I fear, put us on the down-hill track, lose us the Stateelections in Pennsylvania and Indiana, and probably ruin us on the mainturn in November. 

You must not allow it. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO E. B. WASHBURNE. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, September 9, 1860

HON. E. B. WASHBURNE. 

MY DEAR SIR: Yours of the 5th was received last evening. I was rightglad to see it. It contains the freshest "posting" which I now have. Itrelieved me some from a little anxiety I had about Maine. Jo Medill, onAugust 30th, wrote me that Colfax had a letter from Mr. Hamlin saying wewere in great danger of losing two members of Congress in Maine, and thatyour brother would not have exceeding six thousand majority for Governor. I addressed you at once, at Galena, asking for your latest information. As you are at Washington, that letter you will receive some time after theMaine election. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO W. H. HERNDON. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , OCTOBER 10, 1860

DEAR WILLIAM:--I cannot give you details, but it is entirely certain thatPennsylvania and Indiana have gone Republican very largely. Pennsylvania25, 000, and Indiana 5000 to 10, 000. Ohio of course is safe. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO L. M. BOND. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , October 15, 1860

L. MONTGOMERY BOND, Esq. 

MY DEAR SIR: I certainly am in no temper and have no purpose to embitterthe feelings of the South, but whether I am inclined to such a course aswould in fact embitter their feelings you can better judge by my publishedspeeches than by anything I would say in a short letter if I were inclinednow, as I am not, to define my position anew. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

LETTER SUGGESTING A BEARD

TO MISS GRACE BEDELL, RIPLEY N. Y. 

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , October 19, 1860

MISS GRACE BEDELL. 

MY DEAR LITTLE MISS:--Your very agreeable letter of the 15th is received. I regret the necessity of saying I have no daughter. I have threesons--one seventeen, one nine, and one seven. They with their motherconstitute my whole family. As to the whiskers, as I have never worn any, do you not think that people would call it a piece of silly affectationwere I to begin wearing them now?

I am your true friend and sincere well-wisher, A. LINCOLN. 

EARLY INFORMATION ON ARMY DEFECTION IN SOUTH

TO D. HUNTER. 

(Private and Confidential. ) SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, October 26, 1860

MAJOR DAVID HUNTER

MY DEAR SIR:--Your very kind letter of the 20th was duly received, forwhich please accept my thanks. I have another letter, from a writerunknown to me, saying the officers of the army at Fort Kearny havedetermined in case of Republican success at the approaching Presidentialelection, to take themselves, and the arms at that point, south, for thepurpose of resistance to the government. While I think there are manychances to one that this is a humbug, it occurs to me that any realmovement of this sort in the Army would leak out and become known to you. In such case, if it would not be unprofessional or dishonorable (of whichyou are to be judge), I shall be much obliged if you will apprise me ofit. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN

(Confidential. ) SPRINGFIELD. ILLINOIS, November 8, 1860

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I am anxious for a personal interview with you at as early aday as possible. Can you, without much inconvenience, meet me at Chicago?If you can, please name as early a day as you conveniently can, andtelegraph me, unless there be sufficient time before the day named tocommunicate by mail. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO SAMUEL HAYCRAFT. 

(Private and Confidential. )

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , Nov. 13, 1860

HON. SAMUEL HAYCRAFT. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 9th is just received. I can only answerbriefly. Rest fully assured that the good people of the South who will putthemselves in the same temper and mood towards me which you do will findno cause to complain of me. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

CELEBRATION OF LINCOLN'S ELECTION, REMARKS AT THE MEETING AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS

NOVEMBER 20, 1860

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--Please excuse me on this occasion frommaking a speech. I thank you in common with all those who have thought fitby their votes to indorse the Republican cause. I rejoice with you in thesuccess which has thus far attended that cause. Yet in all our rejoicingslet us neither express nor cherish any hard feelings toward any citizenwho by his vote has differed with us. Let us at all times remember thatall American citizens are brothers of a common country, and should dwelltogether in the bonds of fraternal feeling. Let me again beg you to acceptmy thanks, and to excuse me from further speaking at this time. 

TO ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. NOV. 30, 1860

HON. A. H. STEPHENS. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I have read in the newspapers your speech recently delivered(I think) before the Georgia Legislature, or its assembled members. If youhave revised it, as is probable, I shall be much obliged if you will sendme a copy. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN

(Private)

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 8, 1860

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 4th was duly received. The inclosed to GovernorSeward covers two notes to him, copies of which you find open for yourinspection. Consult with Judge Trumbull; and if you and he see no reasonto the contrary, deliver the letter to Governor Seward at once. If you seereason to the contrary write me at once. 

I have an intimation that Governor Banks would yet accept a place in theCabinet. Please ascertain and write me how this is, Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

BLOCKING "COMPROMISE" ON SLAVERY ISSUE

TO E. B. WASHBURNE

(Private and Confidential. )

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , December 13, 1860

HON. E. B. WASHBURNE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your long letter received. Prevent, as far as possible, anyof our friends from demoralizing themselves and our cause by entertainingpropositions for compromise of any sort on "slavery extension. " There isno possible compromise upon it but which puts us under again, and leavesall our work to do over again. Whether it be a Missouri line or EliThayer's popular sovereignty, it is all the same. Let either be done, andimmediately filibustering and extending slavery recommences. On that pointhold firm, as with a chain of steel. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

OPINION ON SECESSION

TO THURLOW WEED

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, DECEMBER 17, 1860

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 11th was received two days ago. Should theconvocation of governors of which you speak seem desirous to know my viewson the present aspect of things, tell them you judge from my speeches thatI will be inflexible on the territorial question; but I probably thinkeither the Missouri line extended, or Douglas's and Eli Thayer's popularsovereignty would lose us everything we gain by the election; thatfilibustering for all south of us and making slave States of it wouldfollow in spite of us, in either case; also that I probably think allopposition, real and apparent, to the fugitive slave clause of theConstitution ought to be withdrawn. 

I believe you can pretend to find but little, if anything, in my speeches, about secession. But my opinion is that no State can in any way lawfullyget out of the Union without the consent of the others; and that it isthe duty of the President and other government functionaries to run themachine as it is. 

Truly yours, A. LINCOLN. 

SOME FORTS SURRENDERED TO THE SOUTH

TO E. B. WASHBURNE

(Confidential)

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 21, 1860

HON. E. B. WASHBURNE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Last night I received your letter giving an account of yourinterview with General Scott, and for which I thank you. Please present myrespects to the General, and tell him, confidentially, I shall be obligedto him to be as well prepared as he can to either hold or retake theforts, as the case may require, at and after the inauguration. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO A. H. STEPHENS. 

(For your own eye only) SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, DECEMBER 22, 1860

HON. ALEXANDER STEVENS

MY DEAR SIR:--Your obliging answer to my short note is just received, andfor which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present perilthe country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me. Do the peopleof the South really entertain fear that a Republican administration would, directly or indirectly, interfere with the slaves, or with them about theslaves? If they do, I wish to assure you, as once a friend, and still, Ihope, not an enemy, that there is no cause for such fears. The Southwould be in no more danger in this respect than it was in the days ofWashington. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You thinkslavery is right and ought to be extended, while we think it is wrong andought to be restricted. That, I suppose, is the rub. It certainly is theonly substantial difference between us. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

SUPPORT OF THE FUGITIVE SLAVE CLAUSE

MEMORANDUM

December [22?], 1860

Resolved: That the fugitive slave clause of the Constitution ought to beenforced by a law of Congress, with efficient provisions for that object, not obliging private persons to assist in its execution, but punishing allwho resist it, and with the usual safeguards to liberty, securing free menagainst being surrendered as slaves. 

That all State laws, if there be such, really or apparently in conflictwith such law of Congress, ought to be repealed; and no opposition to theexecution of such law of Congress ought to be made. 

That the Federal Union must be preserved. 

Prepared for the consideration of the Republican members of the SenateCommittee of Thirteen. 

TO D. HUNTER. 

(Confidential. )

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS December 22, 1860

MAJOR DAVID HUNTER. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I am much obliged by the receipt of yours of the 18th. Themost we can do now is to watch events, and be as well prepared as possiblefor any turn things may take. If the forts fall, my judgment is that theyare to be retaken. When I shall determine definitely my time of startingto Washington, I will notify you. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO I. N. MORRIS

(Confidential. )

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , Dec 24, 1860

HON. I. N. MORRIS. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Without supposing that you and I are any nearer together, politically, than heretofore, allow me to tender you my sincere thanks foryour Union resolution, expressive of views upon which we never were, and, I trust, never will be at variance. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ATTEMPT TO FORM A COALITION CABINET

TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN

SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, December 14, 1860. 

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I need a man of Democratic antecedents from New England. Icannot get a fair share of that element in without. This stands in the wayof Mr. Adams. I think of Governor Banks, Mr. Welles, and Mr. Tuck. Whichof them do the New England delegation prefer? Or shall I decide formyself?

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

1861

TO WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

(Private. )

SPRINGFIELD. ILL. , January 3, 1861. 

HON. W. H. SEWARD. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours without signature was received last night. I have beenconsidering your suggestions as to my reaching Washington somewhat earlierthan is usual. It seems to me the inauguration is not the most dangerouspoint for us. Our adversaries have us now clearly at disadvantage on thesecond Wednesday of February, when the votes should be officially counted. If the two houses refuse to meet at all, or meet without a quorum of each, where shall we be? I do not think that this counting is constitutionallyessential to the election, but how are we to proceed in the absence ofit? In view of this, I think it is best for me not to attempt appearing inWashington till the result of that ceremony is known. 

It certainly would be of some advantage if you could know who are to beat the heads of the War and Navy departments, but until I can ascertaindefinitely whether I can get any suitable men from the South, and who, andhow many, I can not well decide. As yet, I have no word from Mr. Gilmerin answer to my request for an interview with him. I look for something onthe subject, through you, before long. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO W. H. SEWARD. 

(Private. )

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , January 12, 1861

HON. W. H. SEWARD. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 8th received. I still hope Mr. Gilmer will, ona fair understanding with us, consent to take a place in the Cabinet. Thepreference for him over Mr. Hunt or Mr. Gentry is that, up to date--hehas a living position in the South, while they have not. He is only betterthan Winter Davis in that he is farther south. I fear, if we could get, wecould not safely take more than one such man--that is, not more than onewho opposed us in the election--the danger being to lose the confidenceof our own friends. Your selection for the State Department having becomepublic, I am happy to find scarcely any objection to it. I shall havetrouble with every other Northern Cabinet appointment--so much so that Ishall have to defer them as long as possible to avoid being teased intoinsanity, to make changes. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN

TO E. D. MORGAN

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. FEB. 4, 1861

SIR:--Your letter of the 30th ult. Inviting me, on behalf of theLegislature of New York, to pass through that State on my way toWashington, and tendering me the hospitalities of her authorities andpeople, has been duly received. With the feelings of deep gratitude toyou and them for this testimonial of regard and esteem I beg you to notifythem that I accept the invitation so kindly tendered. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN

P. S. --Please let the ceremonies be only such as to take the least timepossible. A. L. 

PATRONAGE CLAIMS

TO THURLOW WEED

SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , February 4, 1861

DEAR SIR:--I have both your letter to myself and that to Judge Davis, in relation to a certain gentleman in your State claiming to dispensepatronage in my name, and also to be authorized to use my name to advancethe chances of Mr. Greeley for an election to the United States Senate. 

It is very strange that such things should be said by any one. Thegentleman you mention did speak to me of Mr. Greeley in connection withthe senatorial election, and I replied in terms of kindness toward Mr. Greeley, which I really feel, but always with an expressed protest thatmy name must not be used in the senatorial election in favor of or againstany one. Any other representation of me is a misrepresentation. 

As to the matter of dispensing patronage, it perhaps will surprise youto learn that I have information that you claim to have my authority toarrange that matter in New York. I do not believe you have so claimed; butstill so some men say. On that subject you know all I have said to you is"justice to all, " and I have said nothing more particular to any one. Isay this to reassure you that I have not changed my position. 

In the hope, however, that you will not use my name in the matter, I am, Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

FAREWELL ADDRESS AT SPRINGFIELD, ILLINOIS, FEBRUARY 11, 1861

MY FRIENDS:--One who has never been placed in a like position cannotunderstand my feelings at this hour, nor the oppressive sadness I feel atthis parting. For more than twenty-five years I have lived among you, andduring all that time I have received nothing but kindness at your hands. Here the most cherished ties of earth were assumed. Here my children wereborn, and here one of them lies buried. To you, my friends, I owe all thatI have, all that I am. All the strange checkered past seems to crowd uponmy mind. To-day I leave you. I go to assume a task more difficult thanthat which devolved upon General Washington. Unless the great God whoassisted him shall be with and aid me I cannot prevail; but if the samealmighty arm that directed and protected him shall guide and support me Ishall not fail; I shall succeed. Let us pray that the God of our fathersmay not forsake us now. To Him I commend you all. Permit me to ask thatwith equal sincerity and faith you will all invoke His wisdom and goodnessfor me. 

With these words I must leave you; for how long I know not. Friends, oneand all, I must now wish you an affectionate farewell. 

REMARKS AT TOLONO, ILLINOIS, FEBRUARY 11, 1861

I am leaving you on an errand of national importance, attended, as you areaware, with considerable difficulties. Let us believe, as some poet hasexpressed it, "Behind the cloud the sun is still shining. " I bid you anaffectionate farewell. 

REPLY TO ADDRESS OF WELCOME, INDIANAPOLIS, INDIANA, FEBRUARY 11, 1861

GOVERNOR MORTON AND FELLOW CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA:

Most heartily do I thank you for this magnificent reception, and whileI cannot take to myself any share of the compliment thus paid, morethan that which pertains to a mere instrument, an accidental instrument, perhaps I should say, of a great cause, I yet must look upon it as a mostmagnificent reception, and as such most heartily do thank you for it. You have been pleased to address yourself to me chiefly in behalf ofthis glorious Union in which we live, in all of which you have my heartysympathy, and, as far as may be within my power, will have, one andinseparable, my hearty consideration. While I do not expect, upon thisoccasion, or until I get to Washington, to attempt any lengthy speech, I will only say to the salvation of the Union there needs but one singlething--the hearts of a people like yours. 

The people--when they rise in mass in behalf of the Union and theliberties of their country, truly may it be said, "The gates of hellcannot prevail against them. " In all trying positions in which I shall beplaced--and, doubtless, I shall be placed in many such--my reliance willbe placed upon you and the people of the United States; and I wish you toremember, now and forever, that it is your business, and not mine; that ifthe union of these States and the liberties of this people shall be lost, it is but little to any one man of fifty-two years of age, but a greatdeal to the thirty millions of people who inhabit these United States, andto their posterity in all coming time. It is your business to rise up andpreserve the Union and liberty for yourselves, and not for me. 

I desire they should be constitutionally performed. I, as alreadyintimated, am but an accidental instrument, temporary, and to serve butfor a limited time; and I appeal to you again to constantly bear in mindthat with you, and not with politicians, not with Presidents, not withoffice-seekers, but with you is the question, Shall the Union and shallthe liberties of this country be preserved to the latest generations?

ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF INDIANA, AT INDIANAPOLIS, FEBRUARY 12, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE STATE OF INDIANA:--I am here to thank you much forthis magnificent welcome, and still more for the generous support givenby your State to that political cause which I think is the true and justcause of the whole country and the whole world. 

Solomon says there is "a time to keep silence, " and when men wrangle bythe mouth with no certainty that they mean the same thing while using thesame word, it perhaps were as well if they would keep silence. 

The words "coercion" and "invasion" are much used in these days, and oftenwith some temper and hot blood. Let us make sure, if we can, the meaningof those who use them. Let us get the exact definitions of these words, not from dictionaries, but from the men themselves, who certainlydeprecate the things they would represent by the use of the words. 

What, then, is coercion? What is invasion? Would the marching of an armyinto South Carolina, without the consent of her people, and with hostileintent toward them, be invasion? I certainly think it would, and it wouldbe coercion also, if the South Carolinians were forced to submit. But ifthe United States should merely hold and retake its own forts and otherproperty, and collect the duties on foreign importations, or even withholdthe mails from places where they were habitually violated, would any orall of these things be invasion or coercion? Do our professed loversof the Union, who spitefully resolve that they will resist coercion andinvasion, understand that such things as these, on the part of the UnitedStates, would be coercion or invasion of a State? If so, their idea ofmeans to preserve the object of their great affection would seem to beexceedingly thin and airy. If sick, the little pills of the homoeopathistwould be much too large for it to swallow. In their view, the Union, as afamily relation, would seem to be no regular marriage, but rather a sortof "free-love" arrangement, to be maintained on passional attraction. 

By the way, in what consists the special sacredness of a State? I speaknot of the position assigned to a State in the Union by the Constitution, for that is a bond we all recognize. That position, however, a Statecannot carry out of the Union with it. I speak of that assumed primaryright of a State to rule all which is less than itself, and to ruin allwhich is larger than itself. If a State and a county, in a given case, should be equal in number of inhabitants, in what, as a matter ofprinciple, is the State better than the county? Would an exchange ofname be an exchange of rights? Upon what principle, upon what rightfulprinciple, may a State, being no more than one fiftieth part of thenation in soil and population, break up the nation, and then coerce aproportionably large subdivision of itself in the most arbitrary way? Whatmysterious right to play tyrant is conferred on a district of country, with its people, by merely calling it a State? Fellow-citizens, I am notasserting anything. I am merely asking questions for you to consider. Andnow allow me to bid you farewell. 

INTENTIONS TOWARD THE SOUTH

ADDRESS TO THE MAYOR AND CITIZENS OF

CINCINNATI, OHIO, FEBRUARY 12, 1861

Mr. MAYOR, AND GENTLEMEN:--Twenty-four hours ago, at the capital ofIndiana, I said to myself, "I have never seen so many people assembledtogether in winter weather. " I am no longer able to say that. But itis what might reasonably have been expected--that this great city ofCincinnati would thus acquit herself on such an occasion. My friends, I amentirely overwhelmed by the magnificence of the reception which has beengiven, I will not say to me, but to the President-elect of the UnitedStates of America. Most heartily do I thank you, one and all, for it. 

I have spoken but once before this in Cincinnati. That was a year previousto the late Presidential election. On that occasion, in a playfulmanner, but with sincere words, I addressed much of what I said to theKentuckians. I gave my opinion that we, as Republicans, would ultimatelybeat them as Democrats, but that they could postpone that result longer bynominating Senator Douglas for the Presidency than they could by any otherway. They did not, in any true sense of the word, nominate Mr. Douglas, and the result has come certainly as soon as ever I expected. I also toldthem how I expected they would be treated after they should have beenbeaten, and I now wish to call their attention to what I then said uponthat subject. I then said:

"When we do as we say, beat you, you perhaps want to know what we willdo with you. I will tell you, as far as I am authorized to speak for theOpposition, what we mean to do with you. We mean to treat you, as nearas we possibly can, as Washington, Jefferson, and Madison treated you. We mean to leave you alone, and in no way to interfere with yourinstitutions; to abide by all and every compromise of the Constitution, and, in a word, coming back to the original proposition, to treat youso far as degenerate men, if we have degenerated, may, according to theexample of those noble fathers, Washington, Jefferson, and Madison. 

"We mean to remember that you are as good as we; that there is nodifference between us other than the difference of circumstances. We meanto recognize and bear in mind always that you have as good hearts inyour bosoms as other people, or as we claim to have, and treat youaccordingly. "

Fellow-citizens of Kentucky--friends and brethren, may I call you in mynew position?--I see no occasion and feel no inclination to retract a wordof this. If it shall not be made good, be assured the fault shall not bemine. 

ADDRESS TO THE GERMAN CLUB OF CINCINNATI, OHIO, FEBRUARY 12, 1861

Mr. CHAIRMAN:--I thank you and those whom you represent for the complimentyou have paid me by tendering me this address. In so far as there is anallusion to our present national difficulties, which expresses, as youhave said, the views of the gentlemen present, I shall have to beg pardonfor not entering fully upon the questions which the address you have nowread suggests. 

I deem it my duty--a duty which I owe to my constituents--to you, gentlemen, that I should wait until the last moment for a development ofthe present national difficulties before I express myself decidedly as towhat course I shall pursue. I hope, then, not to be false to anything thatyou have expected of me. 

I agree with you, Mr. Chairman, that the working men are the basis of allgovernments, for the plain reason that they are all the more numerous, and as you added that those were the sentiments of the gentlemen present, representing not only the working class, but citizens of other callingsthan those of the mechanic, I am happy to concur with you in thesesentiments, not only of the native-born citizens, but also of the Germansand foreigners from other countries. 

Mr. Chairman, I hold that while man exists it is his duty to improve notonly his own condition, but to assist in ameliorating the condition ofmankind; and therefore, without entering upon the details of the question, I will simply say that I am for those means which will give the greatestgood to the greatest number. 

In regard to the Homestead law, I have to say that, in so far as thegovernment lands can be disposed of, I am in favor of cutting up the wildlands into parcels, so that every poor man may have a home. 

In regard to the Germans and foreigners, I esteem them no better thanother people, nor any worse. It is not my nature, when I see a peopleborne down by the weight of their shackles--the oppression of tyranny--tomake their life more bitter by heaping upon them greater burdens; butrather would I do all in my power to raise the yoke than to add anythingthat would tend to crush them. 

Inasmuch as our own country is extensive and new, and the countries ofEurope are densely populated, if there are any abroad who desire to makethis the land of their adoption, it is not in my heart to throw aught intheir way to prevent them from coming to the United States. 

Mr. Chairman and gentlemen, I will bid you an affectionate farewell. 

ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF OHIO AT COLUMBUS

FEBRUARY 13, 1861

Mr. PRESIDENT AND Mr. SPEAKER, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OFOHIO:--It is true, as has been said by the president of the Senate, thatvery great responsibility rests upon me in the position to which thevotes of the American people have called me. I am deeply sensible of thatweighty responsibility. I cannot but know what you all know, that withouta name, perhaps without a reason why I should have a name, there hasfallen upon me a task such as did not rest even upon the Father of hisCountry; and so feeling, I can turn and look for that support withoutwhich it will be impossible for me to perform that great task. I turn, then, and look to the American people and to that God who has neverforsaken them. Allusion has been made to the interest felt in relation tothe policy of the new administration. In this I have received from somea degree of credit for having kept silence, and from others somedeprecation. I still think that I was right. 

In the varying and repeatedly shifting scenes of the present, and withouta precedent which could enable me to judge by the past, it has seemedfitting that before speaking upon the difficulties of the country I shouldhave gained a view of the whole field, being at liberty to modify andchange the course of policy as future events may make a change necessary. 

I have not maintained silence from any want of real anxiety. It is agood thing that there is no more than anxiety, for there is nothing goingwrong. It is a consoling circumstance that when we look out there isnothing that really hurts anybody. We entertain different views uponpolitical questions, but nobody is suffering anything. This is a mostconsoling circumstance, and from it we may conclude that all we want istime, patience, and a reliance on that God who has never forsaken thispeople. 

Fellow-citizens, what I have said I have said altogether extemporaneously, and I will now come to a close. 

ADDRESS AT STEUBENVILLE, OHIO, FEBRUARY 14, 1861

I fear that the great confidence placed in my ability is unfounded. Indeed, I am sure it is. Encompassed by vast difficulties as I am, nothingshall be wanting on my part, if sustained by God and the American people. I believe the devotion to the Constitution is equally great on both sidesof the river. It is only the different understanding of that instrumentthat causes difficulty. The only dispute on both sides is, "What are theirrights?" If the majority should not rule, who would be the judge? Whereis such a judge to be found? We should all be bound by the majority ofthe American people; if not, then the minority must control. Would that beright? Would it be just or generous? Assuredly not. I reiterate thatthe majority should rule. If I adopt a wrong policy, the opportunity forcondemnation will occur in four years' time. Then I can be turned out, anda better man with better views put in my place. 

ADDRESS AT PITTSBURGH, PENNSYLVANIA

FEBRUARY 15, 1861

I most cordially thank his Honor Mayor Wilson, and the citizens ofPittsburg generally, for their flattering reception. I am the moregrateful because I know that it is not given to me alone, but to the causeI represent, which clearly proves to me their good-will, and that sincerefeeling is at the bottom of it. And here I may remark that in every shortaddress I have made to the people, in every crowd through which I havepassed of late, some allusion has been made to the present distractedcondition of the country. It is natural to expect that I should saysomething on this subject; but to touch upon it at all would involvean elaborate discussion of a great many questions and circumstances, requiring more time than I can at present command, and would, perhaps, unnecessarily commit me upon matters which have not yet fully developedthemselves. The condition of the country is an extraordinary one, andfills the mind of every patriot with anxiety. It is my intention togive this subject all the consideration I possibly can before speciallydeciding in regard to it, so that when I do speak it may be as nearlyright as possible. When I do speak I hope I may say nothing in oppositionto the spirit of the Constitution, contrary to the integrity of the Union, or which will prove inimical to the liberties of the people, or to thepeace of the whole country. And furthermore, when the time arrives for meto speak on this great subject, I hope I may say nothing to disappoint thepeople generally throughout the country, especially if the expectation hasbeen based upon anything which I may have heretofore said. Notwithstandingthe troubles across the river [the speaker pointing southwardly across theMonongahela, and smiling], there is no crisis but an artificial one. Whatis there now to warrant the condition of affairs presented by our friendsover the river? Take even their own view of the questions involved, andthere is nothing to justify the course they are pursuing. I repeat, then, there is no crisis, excepting such a one as may be gotten up at any timeby turbulent men aided by designing politicians, My advice to them, undersuch circumstances, is to keep cool. If the great American people onlykeep their temper on both sides of the line, the troubles will come toan end, and the question which now distracts the country will be settled, just as surely as all other difficulties of a like character which haveoriginated in this government have been adjusted. Let the people on bothsides keep their self-possession, and just as other clouds have clearedaway in due time, so will this great nation continue to prosper asheretofore. But, fellow-citizens, I have spoken longer on this subjectthan I intended at the outset. 

It is often said that the tariff is the specialty of Pennsylvania. Assuming that direct taxation is not to be adopted, the tariff questionmust be as durable as the government itself. It is a question of nationalhousekeeping. It is to the government what replenishing the meal-tub isto the family. Every varying circumstances will require frequentmodifications as to the amount needed and the sources of supply. Sofar there is little difference of opinion among the people. It is as towhether, and how far, duties on imports shall be adjusted to favor homeproduction in the home market, that controversy begins. One party insiststhat such adjustment oppresses one class for the advantage of another;while the other party argues that, with all its incidents, in the long runall classes are benefited. In the Chicago platform there is a plank uponthis subject which should be a general law to the incoming administration. We should do neither more nor less than we gave the people reasonto believe we would when they gave us their votes. Permit me, fellow-citizens, to read the tariff plank of the Chicago platform, orrather have it read in your hearing by one who has younger eyes. 

[Mr. Lincoln's private secretary then read Section 12 of the Chicagoplatform, as follows:]

"That, while providing revenue for the support of the General Governmentby duties upon imports, sound policy requires such an adjustment of theseimposts as will encourage the development of the industrial interest ofthe whole country; and we commend that policy of national exchanges whichsecures to working-men liberal wages, to agriculture remunerating prices, to mechanics and manufacturers adequate return for their skill, labor, andenterprise, and to the nation commercial prosperity and independence. "

As with all general propositions, doubtless, there will be shades ofdifference in construing this. I have by no means a thoroughly maturedjudgment upon this subject, especially as to details; some general ideasare about all. I have long thought it would be to our advantage to produceany necessary article at home which can be made of as good quality andwith as little labor at home as abroad, at least by the difference of thecarrying from abroad. In such case the carrying is demonstrably a deadloss of labor. For instance, labor being the true standard of value, is itnot plain that if equal labor get a bar of railroad iron out of a mine inEngland and another out of a mine in Pennsylvania, each can be laid downin a track at home cheaper than they could exchange countries, at leastby the carriage? If there be a present cause why one can be both madeand carried cheaper in money price than the other can be made withoutcarrying, that cause is an unnatural and injurious one, and oughtgradually, if not rapidly, to be removed. The condition of the treasuryat this time would seem to render an early revision of the tariffindispensable. The Morrill [tariff] bill, now pending before Congress, mayor may not become a law. I am not posted as to its particular provisions, but if they are generally satisfactory, and the bill shall now pass, therewill be an end for the present. If, however, it shall not pass, I supposethe whole subject will be one of the most pressing and important for thenext Congress. By the Constitution, the executive may recommend measureswhich he may think proper, and he may veto those he thinks improper, andit is supposed that he may add to these certain indirect influences toaffect the action of Congress. My political education strongly inclines meagainst a very free use of any of these means by the executive to controlthe legislation of the country. As a rule, I think it better that Congressshould originate as well as perfect its measures without external bias. Itherefore would rather recommend to every gentleman who knows he is to bea member of the next Congress to take an enlarged view, and post himselfthoroughly, so as to contribute his part to such an adjustment of thetariff as shall produce a sufficient revenue, and in its other bearings, so far as possible, be just and equal to all sections of the country andclasses of the people. 

ADDRESS AT CLEVELAND, OHIO, FEBRUARY 15, 1861

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF CLEVELAND:--We have been marchingabout two miles through snow, rain, and deep mud. The large numbers thathave turned out under these circumstances testify that you are in earnestabout something or other. But do I think so meanly of you as to supposethat that earnestness is about me personally? I would be doing you aninjustice to suppose you did. You have assembled to testify your respectfor the Union, the Constitution, and the laws; and here let me say that itis with you, the people, to advance the great cause of the Union and theConstitution, and not with any one man. It rests with you alone. This factis strongly impressed upon my mind at present. In a community like this, whose appearance testifies to their intelligence, I am convinced that thecause of liberty and the Union can never be in danger. Frequent allusionis made to the excitement at present existing in our national politics, and it is as well that I should also allude to it here. I think thatthere is no occasion for any excitement. 'The crisis, as it is called, is altogether an artificial crisis. In all parts of the nation there aredifferences of opinion on politics. There are differences of opinion evenhere. You did not all vote for the person who now addresses you. What ishappening now will not hurt those who are farther away from here. Havethey not all their rights now as they ever have had? Do they not havetheir fugitive slaves returned now as ever? Have they not the sameConstitution that they have lived under for seventy-odd years? Have theynot a position as citizens of this common country, and have we any powerto change that position? What, then, is the matter with them? Why all thisexcitement? Why all these complaints?

As I said before, this crisis is all artificial! It has no foundation infacts. It is not argued up, as the saying is, and cannot, therefore, beargued down. Let it alone and it will go down of itself. 

[Mr. Lincoln then said that they must be content with a few words fromhim, as he was tired, etc. Having been given to understand that thecrowd was not all Republican, but consisted of men of all parties, hecontinued:]

This is as it should be. If Judge Douglas had been elected and had beenhere on his way to Washington, as I am to-night, the Republicans shouldhave joined his supporters in welcoming him, just as his friends havejoined with mine tonight. If all do not join now to save the good oldship of the Union this voyage, nobody will have a chance to pilot her onanother voyage. 

ADDRESS AT BUFFALO, NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 16, 1861

Mr. MAYOR AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF BUFFALO AND THE STATE OF NEW YORK:--Iam here to thank you briefly for this grand reception given to me, notpersonally, but as the representative of our great and beloved country. Your worthy mayor has been pleased to mention, in his address to me, thefortunate and agreeable journey which I have had from home, on my rathercircuitous route to the Federal capital. I am very happy that he wasenabled in truth to congratulate myself and company on that fact. It istrue we have had nothing thus far to mar the pleasure of the trip. We havenot been met alone by those who assisted in giving the election to me--Isay not alone by them, but by the whole population of the country throughwhich we have passed. This is as it should be. Had the election fallento any other of the distinguished candidates instead of myself, under thepeculiar circumstances, to say the least, it would have been proper forall citizens to have greeted him as you now greet me. It is an evidence ofthe devotion of the whole people to the Constitution, the Union, andthe perpetuity of the liberties of this country. I am unwilling on anyoccasion that I should be so meanly thought of as to have it supposed fora moment that these demonstrations are tendered to me personally. They aretendered to the country, to the institutions of the country, and to theperpetuity of the liberties of the country, for which these institutionswere made and created. 

Your worthy mayor has thought fit to express the hope that I may be ableto relieve the country from the present, or, I should say, the threateneddifficulties. I am sure I bring a heart true to the work. For the abilityto perform it, I must trust in that Supreme Being who has never forsakenthis favored land, through the instrumentality of this great andintelligent people. Without that assistance I shall surely fail; with it, I cannot fail. When we speak of threatened difficulties to the Country, it is natural that it should be expected that something should be said bymyself with regard to particular measures. Upon more mature reflection, however, others will agree with me that, when it is considered that thesedifficulties are without precedent, and have never been acted upon by anyindividual situated as I am, it is most proper I should wait and see thedevelopments, and get all the light possible, so that when I do speakauthoritatively, I may be as near right as possible. When I shall speakauthoritatively, I hope to say nothing inconsistent with the Constitution, the Union, the rights of all the States, of each State, and of eachsection of the country, and not to disappoint the reasonable expectationsof those who have confided to me their votes. In this connection allow meto say that you, as a portion of the great American people, need only tomaintain your composure, stand up to your sober convictions of right, toyour obligations to the Constitution, and act in accordance with thosesober convictions, and the clouds now on the horizon will be dispelled, and we shall have a bright and glorious future; and when this generationhas passed away, tens of thousands will inhabit this country where onlythousands inhabit it now. I do not propose to address you at length; Ihave no voice for it. Allow me again to thank you for this magnificentreception, and bid you farewell. 

ADDRESS AT ROCHESTER, NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 18, 1861

I confess myself, after having seen many large audiences since leavinghome, overwhelmed with this vast number of faces at this hour of themorning. I am not vain enough to believe that you are here from anywish to see me as an individual, but because I am for the time being therepresentative of the American people. I could not, if I would, addressyou at any length. I have not the strength, even if I had the time, for aspeech at each of these many interviews that are afforded me on my way toWashington. I appear merely to see you, and to let you see me, and tobid you farewell. I hope it will be understood that it is from nodisinclination to oblige anybody that I do not address you at greaterlength. 

ADDRESS AT SYRACUSE, NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 18, 1861. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I See you have erected a very fine and handsomeplatform here for me, and I presume you expected me to speak from it. IfI should go upon it, you would imagine that I was about to deliver youa much longer speech than I am. I wish you to understand that I mean nodiscourtesy to you by thus declining. I intend discourtesy to no one. But I wish you to understand that, though I am unwilling to go upon thisplatform, you are not at liberty to draw inferences concerning any otherplatform with which my name has been or is connected. I wish you long lifeand prosperity individually, and pray that with the perpetuity of thoseinstitutions under which we have all so long lived and prospered, ourhappiness may be secured, our future made brilliant, and the gloriousdestiny of our country established forever. I bid you a kind farewell. 

ADDRESS AT UTICA, NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 18, 1860

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have no speech to make to you; and no time tospeak in. I appear before you that I may see you, and that you may see me;and I am willing to admit that so far as the ladies are concerned I havethe best of the bargain, though I wish it to be understood that I do notmake the same acknowledgment concerning the men. 

REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF ALBANY, NEW YORK

FEBRUARY 18, 1861. 

MR. MAYOR:--I can hardly appropriate to myself the flattering terms inwhich you communicate the tender of this reception, as personal to myself. I most gratefully accept the hospitalities tendered to me, and will notdetain you or the audience with any extended remarks at this time. Ipresume that in the two or three courses through which I shall have to go, I shall have to repeat somewhat, and I will therefore only express to youmy thanks for this kind reception. 

REPLY TO GOVERNOR MORGAN OF NEW YORK, AT ALBANY, FEBRUARY 18, 1861. 

GOVERNOR MORGAN:--I was pleased to receive an invitation to visit thecapital of the great Empire State of this nation while on my way to theFederal capital. I now thank you, Mr. Governor, and you, the people ofthe capital of the State of New York, for this most hearty and magnificentwelcome. If I am not at fault, the great Empire State at this timecontains a larger population than did the whole of the United States ofAmerica at the time they achieved their national independence, and I wasproud--to be invited to visit its capital, to meet its citizens, as I nowhave the honor to do. I am notified by your governor that this receptionis tendered by citizens without distinction of party. Because of thisI accept it the more gladly. In this country, and in any country wherefreedom of thought is tolerated, citizens attach themselves to politicalparties. It is but an ordinary degree of charity to attribute this act tothe supposition that, in thus attaching themselves to the various parties, each man in his own judgment supposes he thereby best advances theinterests of the whole country. And when an election is past it isaltogether befitting a free people, as I suppose, that, until the nextelection, they should be one people. The reception you have extended meto-day is not given to me personally, --it should not be so, --but as therepresentative, for the time being, of the majority of the nation. If theelection had fallen to any of the more distinguished citizens who receivedthe support of the people, this same honor should have greeted him thatgreets me this day, in testimony of the universal, unanimous devotionof the whole people to the Constitution, the Union, and to the perpetualliberties of succeeding generations in this country. 

I have neither the voice nor the strength to address you at any greaterlength. I beg you will therefore accept my most grateful thanks for thismanifest devotion--not to me, but the institutions of this great andglorious country. 

ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF NEW YORK, AT ALBANY, FEBRUARY 18, 1861. 

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OF NEWYORK:--It is with feelings of great diffidence, and, I may say, withfeelings of awe, perhaps greater than I have recently experienced, that Imeet you here in this place. The history of this great State, the renownof those great men who have stood here, and have spoken here, and havebeen heard here, all crowd around my fancy, and incline me to shrink fromany attempt to address you. Yet I have some confidence given me by thegenerous manner in which you have invited me, and by the still moregenerous manner in which you have received me, to speak further. Youhave invited and received me without distinction of party. I cannot fora moment suppose that this has been done in any considerable degree withreference to my personal services, but that it is done in so far as I amregarded, at this time, as the representative of the majesty of this greatnation. I doubt not this is the truth, and the whole truth of the case, and this is as it should be. It is much more gratifying to me that thisreception has been given to me as the elected representative of a freepeople, than it could possibly be if tendered merely as an evidence ofdevotion to me, or to any one man personally. 

And now I think it were more fitting that I should close these hastyremarks. It is true that, while I hold myself, without mock modesty, the humblest of all individuals that have ever been elevated to thePresidency, I have a more difficult task to perform than any one of them. 

You have generously tendered me the support--the united support--of thegreat Empire State. For this, in behalf of the nation--in behalf of thepresent and future of the nation--in behalf of civil and religious libertyfor all time to come, most gratefully do I thank you. I do not proposeto enter into an explanation of any particular line of policy, as to ourpresent difficulties, to be adopted by the incoming administration. I deemit just to you, to myself, to all, that I should see everything, that Ishould hear everything, that I should have every light that can be broughtwithin my reach, in order that, when I do so speak, I shall have enjoyedevery opportunity to take correct and true ground; and for this reason Ido not propose to speak at this time of the policy of the Government. Butwhen the time comes, I shall speak, as well as I am able, for the good ofthe present and future of this country for the good both of the North andof the South--for the good of the one and the other, and of all sectionsof the country. In the meantime, if we have patience, if we restrainourselves, if we allow ourselves not to run off in a passion, I still haveconfidence that the Almighty, the Maker of the universe, will, throughthe instrumentality of this great and intelligent people, bring us throughthis as He has through all the other difficulties of our country. Relyingon this, I again thank you for this generous reception. 

ADDRESS AT TROY, NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 19, 1861

MR. MAYOR AND CITIZENS OF TROY:--I thank you very kindly for this greatreception. Since I left my home it has not been my fortune to meetan assemblage more numerous and more orderly than this. I am the moregratified at this mark of your regard since you assure me it is tendered, not to the individual but to the high office you have called me to fill. I have neither strength nor time to make any extended remarks on thisoccasion, and I can only repeat to you my sincere thanks for the kindreception you have thought proper to extend to me. 

ADDRESS AT POUGHKEEPSIE, NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 19, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--It is altogether impossible I should make myself heardby any considerable portion of this vast assemblage; but, although Iappear before you mainly for the purpose of seeing you, and to let yousee rather than hear me, I cannot refrain from saying that I am highlygratified--as much here, indeed, under the circumstances, as I have beenanywhere on my route--to witness this noble demonstration--made, notin honor of an individual, but of the man who at this time humbly, butearnestly, represents the majesty of the nation. 

This reception, like all the others that have been tendered to me, doubtless emanates from all the political parties, and not from one alone. As such I accept it the more gratefully, since it indicates an earnestdesire on the part of the whole people, with out regard to politicaldifferences, to save--not the country, because the country will saveitself but to save the institutions of the country, those institutionsunder which, in the last three quarters of a century, we have grown toa great, and intelligent, and a happy people--the greatest, themost intelligent, and the happiest people in the world. These noblemanifestations indicate, with unerring certainty, that the whole peopleare willing to make common cause for this object; that if, as it ever mustbe, some have been successful in the recent election and some have beenbeaten, if some are satisfied and some are dissatisfied, the defeatedparty are not in favor of sinking the ship, but are desirous of running itthrough the tempest in safety, and willing, if they think the people havecommitted an error in their verdict now, to wait in the hope of reversingit and setting it right next time. I do not say that in the recentelection the people did the wisest thing, that could have beendone--indeed, I do not think they did; but I do say that in accepting thegreat trust committed to me, which I do with a determination to endeavorto prove worthy of it, I must rely upon you, upon the people of the wholecountry, for support; and with their sustaining aid, even I, humble as Iam, cannot fail to carry the ship of state safely through the storm. 

I have now only to thank you warmly for your kind attendance, and bid youall an affectionate farewell. 

ADDRESS AT HUDSON, NEW YORK. 

FEBRUARY 19, 1860

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I see that you are providing a platform for me. I shallhave to decline standing upon it, because the president of the companytells me that I shall not have time to wait until it is brought to me. AsI said yesterday, under similar circumstances at another gathering, youmust not draw the inference that I have any intention of deserting anyplatform with which I have a legitimate connection because I do not standon yours. Allow me to thank you for this splendid reception, and I now bidyou farewell. 

ADDRESS AT PEEKSKILL, NEW YORK, FEBRUARY 19, 1861

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I have but a moment to stand before you to listento and return your kind greeting. I thank you for this reception, and forthe pleasant manner in which it is tendered to me by our mutual friends. I will say in a single sentence, in regard to the difficulties that liebefore me and our beloved country, that if I can only be as generously andunanimously sustained as the demonstrations I have witnessed indicate Ishall be, I shall not fail; but without your sustaining hands I am surethat neither I nor any other man can hope to surmount these difficulties. I trust that in the course I shall pursue I shall be sustained not onlyby the party that elected me, but by the patriotic people of the wholecountry. 

ADDRESS AT FISHKILL LANDING

FEBRUARY 19, 1861

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--I appear before you not to make a speech. I havenot sufficient time, if I had the strength, to repeat speeches at everystation where the people kindly gather to welcome me as we go along. If Ihad the strength, and should take the time, I should not get to Washingtonuntil after the inauguration, which you must be aware would not fitexactly. That such an untoward event might not transpire, I know you willreadily forego any further remarks; and I close by bidding you farewell. 

REMARKS AT THE ASTOR HOUSE, NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 19, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I have stepped before you merely in compliance with whatappears to be your wish, and not with the purpose of making a speech. Ido not propose making a speech this afternoon. I could not be heard by anybut a small fraction of you, at best; but, what is still worse than that, I have nothing just now to say that is worthy of your hearing. I beg youto believe that I do not now refuse to address you from any disposition todisoblige you, but to the contrary. But, at the same time, I beg of you toexcuse me for the present. 

ADDRESS AT NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 19, 1861

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN:--I am rather an old man to avail myself ofsuch an excuse as I am now about to do. Yet the truth is so distinct, andpresses itself so distinctly upon me, that I cannot well avoid it--andthat is, that I did not understand when I was brought into this room thatI was to be brought here to make a speech. It was not intimated to me thatI was brought into the room where Daniel Webster and Henry Clay had madespeeches, and where one in my position might be expected to do somethinglike those men or say something worthy of myself or my audience. Itherefore beg you to make allowance for the circumstances in which Ihave been by surprise brought before you. Now I have been in the habitof thinking and sometimes speaking upon political questions that have forsome years past agitated the country; and, if I were disposed to do so, and we could take up some one of the issues, as the lawyers call them, andI were called upon to make an argument about it to the best of my ability, I could do so without much preparation. But that is not what you desire tohave done here to-night. 

I have been occupying a position, since the Presidential election, ofsilence--of avoiding public speaking, of avoiding public writing. I havebeen doing so because I thought, upon full consideration, that was theproper course for me to take. I am brought before you now, and requiredto make a speech, when you all approve more than anything else of the factthat I have been keeping silence. And now it seems to me that the responseyou give to that remark ought to justify me in closing just here. Ihave not kept silence since the Presidential election from any partywantonness, or from any indifference to the anxiety that pervades theminds of men about the aspect of the political affairs of this country. Ihave kept silence for the reason that I supposed it was peculiarly properthat I should do so until the time came when, according to the custom ofthe country, I could speak officially. 

I still suppose that, while the political drama being enacted in thiscountry at this time is rapidly shifting its scenes--forbidding ananticipation with any degree of certainty to-day of what we shall seeto-morrow--it is peculiarly fitting that I should see it all, up to thelast minute, before I should take ground that I might be disposed, by theshifting of the scenes afterward, also to shift. I have said several timesupon this journey, and I now repeat it to you, that when the time doescome, I shall then take the ground that I think is right--right for theNorth, for the South, for the East, for the West, for the whole country. And in doing so I hope to feel no necessity pressing upon me to sayanything in conflict with the Constitution, in conflict with the continuedunion of these States, in conflict with the perpetuation of the libertiesof this people, or anything in conflict with anything whatever that I haveever given you reason to expect from me. And now, my friends, have I saidenough? [Loud cries of "No, no!" and, "Three cheers for LINCOLN!"] Now, myfriends, there appears to be a difference of opinion between you and me, and I really feel called upon to decide the question myself. 

REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF NEW YORK CITY, FEBRUARY 20, 1861

Mr. MAYOR:--It is with feelings of deep gratitude that I make myacknowledgments for the reception that has been given me in the greatcommercial city of New York. I cannot but remember that it is done bythe people who do not, by a large majority, agree with me in politicalsentiment. It is the more grateful to me because in this I see that forthe great principles of our Government the people are pretty nearly orquite unanimous. In regard to the difficulties that confront us at thistime, and of which you have seen fit to speak so becomingly and so justly, I can only say I agree with the sentiments expressed. In my devotion tothe Union I hope I am behind no man in the nation. As to my wisdom inconducting affairs so as to tend to the preservation of the Union, I feartoo great confidence may have been placed in me. I am sure I bring aheart devoted to the work. There is nothing that could ever bring me toconsent--willingly to consent--to the destruction of this Union (in whichnot only the great city of New York, but the whole country, has acquiredits greatness), unless it would be that thing for which the Unionitself was made. I understand that the ship is made for the carrying andpreservation of the cargo; and so long as the ship is safe with the cargo, it shall not be abandoned. This Union shall never be abandoned, unless thepossibility of its existence shall cease to exist without the necessity ofthrowing passengers and cargo overboard. So long, then, as it is possiblethat the prosperity and liberties of this people can be preserved withinthis Union, it shall be my purpose at all tunes to preserve it. And now, Mr. Mayor, renewing my thanks for this cordial reception, allow me to cometo a close. 

ADDRESS AT JERSEY CITY, NEW JERSEY

FEBRUARY 21, 1860

MR. DAYTON AND GENTLEMEN OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY:--I shall only thankyou briefly for this very kind reception given me, not personally, but asthe temporary representative of the majesty of the nation. To the kindnessof your hearts, and of the hearts of your brethren in your State, I shouldbe very proud to respond, but I shall not have strength to address youor other assemblages at length, even if I had the time to do so. I appearbefore you, therefore, for little else than to greet you, and to brieflysay farewell. You have done me the very high honor to present yourreception courtesies to me through your great man a man with whom it is anhonor to be associated anywhere, and in owning whom no State can be poor. He has said enough, and by the saying of it suggested enough, to require aresponse of an hour, well considered. I could not in an hour make a worthyresponse to it. I therefore, ladies and gentlemen of New Jersey, contentmyself with saying, most heartily do I indorse all the sentiments he hasexpressed. Allow me, most gratefully, to bid you farewell. 

REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF NEWARK, NEW JERSEY, FEBRUARY 21, 1861. 

MR. MAYOR:--I thank you for this reception at the city of Newark. Withregard to the great work of which you speak, I will say that I bring to ita heart filled with love for my country, and an honest desire to do whatis right. I am sure, however, that I have not the ability to do anythingunaided of God, and that without His support and that of this free, happy, prosperous, and intelligent people, no man can succeed in doing thatthe importance of which we all comprehend. Again thanking you for thereception you have given me, I will now bid you farewell, and proceed uponmy journey. 

ADDRESS IN TRENTON AT THE TRENTON HOUSE, FEBRUARY 21, 1861

I have been invited by your representatives to the Legislature to visitthis the capital of your honored State, and in acknowledging their kindinvitation, compelled to respond to the welcome of the presiding officersof each body, and I suppose they intended I should speak to you throughthem, as they are the representatives of all of you; and if I were tospeak again here, I should only have to repeat in a great measure muchthat I have said, which would be disgusting to my friends around me whohave met here. I have no speech to make, but merely appear to see you andlet you look at me; and as to the latter I think I have greatly the bestof the bargain. My friends, allow me to bid you farewell. 

ADDRESS TO THE SENATE OF NEW JERSEY

FEBRUARY 21, 1861

MR. PRESIDENT AND GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE OF THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY:--Iam very grateful to you for the honorable reception of which I have beenthe object. I cannot but remember the place that New Jersey holds in ourearly history. In the Revolutionary struggle few of the States among theOld Thirteen had more of the battle-fields of the country within theirlimits than New Jersey. May I be pardoned if, upon this occasion, Imention that away back in my childhood, the earliest days of my beingable to read, I got hold of a small book, such a one as few of the youngermembers have ever seen Weems's Life of Washington. I remember all theaccounts there given of the battle-fields and struggles for the libertiesof the country; and none fixed themselves upon my imagination so deeply asthe struggle here at Trenton, New Jersey. The crossing of the river, thecontest with the Hessians, the great hardships endured at that time, allfixed themselves on my memory more than any single Revolutionary event;and you all know, for you have all been boys, how these early impressionslast longer than any others. I recollect thinking then, boy even though Iwas, that there must have been something more than common that these menstruggled for. I am exceedingly anxious that that thing that somethingeven more than national independence, that something that held out agreat promise to all the people of the world to all time to come--I amexceedingly anxious that this Union, the Constitution, and the libertiesof the people shall be perpetuated in accordance with the original ideafor which that struggle was made; and I shall be most happy indeed if Ishall be a humble instrument in the hands of the Almighty, and of this hisalmost chosen people, for perpetuating the object of that great struggle. You give me this reception, as I understand, without distinction of party. I learn that this body is composed of a majority of gentlemen who, in theexercise of their best judgment in the choice of a chief magistrate, did not think I was the man. I understand, nevertheless, that they comeforward here to greet me as the constitutionally elected President of theUnited States--as citizens of the United States to meet the man who, forthe time being, is the representative of the majesty of the nation--unitedby the single purpose to perpetuate the Constitution, the union, and theliberties of the people. As such, I accept this reception more gratefullythan I could do did I believe it were tendered to me as an individual. 

ADDRESS TO THE ASSEMBLY OF NEW JERSEY, FEBRUARY 21, 1861

MR. SPEAKER AND GENTLEMEN: I have just enjoyed the honor of a receptionby the other branch of this Legislature, and I return to you and them mythanks for the reception which the people of New Jersey have given throughtheir chosen representatives to me as the representative, for the timebeing, of the majesty of the people of the United States. I appropriate tomyself very little of the demonstrations of respect with which I have beengreeted. I think little should be given to any man, but that it shouldbe a manifestation of adherence to the Union and the Constitution. Iunderstand myself to be received here by the representatives of the peopleof New Jersey, a majority of whom differ in opinion from those with whomI have acted. This manifestation is therefore to be regarded by meas expressing their devotion to the Union, the Constitution, and theliberties of the people. 

You, Mr. Speaker, have well said that this is a time when the bravest andwisest look with doubt and awe upon the aspect presented by our nationalaffairs. Under these circumstances you will readily see why I should notspeak in detail of the course I shall deem it best to pursue. It is properthat I should avail myself of all the information and all the time atmy command, in order that when the time arrives in which I must speakofficially, I shall be able to take the ground which I deem best andsafest, and from which I may have no occasion to swerve. I shall endeavorto take the ground I deem most just to the North, the East, the West, theSouth, and the whole country. I shall take it, I hope, in good temper, certainly with no malice toward any section. I shall do all that may be inmy power to promote a peaceful settlement of all our difficulties. The mandoes not live who is more devoted to peace than I am, none who would domore to preserve it, but it may be necessary to put the foot down firmly. And if I do my duty and do right, you will sustain me, will you not? [Loudcheers, and cries of "Yes, yes; we will. "] Received as I am by the membersof a Legislature the majority of whom do not agree with me in politicalsentiments, I trust that I may have their assistance in piloting the shipof state through this voyage, surrounded by perils as it is; for if itshould suffer wreck now, there will be no pilot ever needed for anothervoyage. 

Gentlemen, I have already spoken longer than I intended, and must begleave to stop here. 

REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF PHILADELPHIA, PENNSYLVANIA, FEBRUARY 21, 1861

MR. MAYOR AND FELLOW-CITIZENS OF PHILADELPHIA:--I appear before you tomake no lengthy speech, but to thank you for this reception. The receptionyou have given me to-night is not to me, the man, the individual, but tothe man who temporarily represents, or should represent, the majesty ofthe nation. It is true, as your worthy mayor has said, that there is greatanxiety amongst the citizens of the United States at this time. I deem ita happy circumstance that this dissatisfied portion of our fellow-citizensdoes not point us to anything in which they are being injured or aboutto be injured; for which reason I have felt all the while justified inconcluding that the crisis, the panic, the anxiety of the country atthis time is artificial. If there be those who differ with me upon thissubject, they have not pointed out the substantial difficulty that exists. I do not mean to say that an artificial panic may not do considerableharm; that it has done such I do not deny. The hope that has beenexpressed by your mayor, that I may be able to restore peace, harmony, andprosperity to the country, is most worthy of him; and most happy, indeed, will I be if I shall be able to verify and fulfil that hope. I promiseyou that I bring to the work a sincere heart. Whether I will bring a headequal to that heart will be for future times to determine. It were uselessfor me to speak of details of plans now; I shall speak officially nextMonday week, if ever. If I should not speak then, it were useless for meto do so now. If I do speak then, it is useless for me to do so now. WhenI do speak, I shall take such ground as I deem best calculated to restorepeace, harmony, and prosperity to the country, and tend to the perpetuityof the nation and the liberty of these States and these people. Yourworthy mayor has expressed the wish, in which I join with him, that itwere convenient for me to remain in your city long enough to consult yourmerchants and manufacturers; or, as it were, to listen to those breathingsrising within the consecrated walls wherein the Constitution of the UnitedStates and, I will add, the Declaration of Independence, were originallyframed and adopted. I assure you and your mayor that I had hoped on thisoccasion, and upon all occasions during my life, that I shall do nothinginconsistent with the teachings of these holy and most sacred walls. Ihave never asked anything that does not breathe from those walls. All mypolitical warfare has been in favor of the teachings that come forth fromthese sacred walls. May my right hand forget its cunning and my tonguecleave to the roof of my mouth if ever I prove false to those teachings. Fellow-citizens, I have addressed you longer than I expected to do, andnow allow me to bid you goodnight. 

ADDRESS IN THE HALL OF INDEPENDENCE, PHILADELPHIA, FEBRUARY 22, 1861

MR. CUYLER:--I am filled with deep emotion at finding myself standinghere, in this place, where were collected together the wisdom, thedevotion to principle, from which sprang the institutions under whichwe live. You have kindly suggested to me that in my hands is the task ofrestoring peace to the present distracted condition of the country. I cansay in return, sir, that all the political sentiments I entertain havebeen drawn, so far as I have been able to draw them, from the sentimentswhich originated and were given to the world from this hall. I have neverhad a feeling politically that did not spring from the sentiments embodiedin the Declaration of Independence. I have often pondered over the dangerswhich were incurred by the men who assembled here and framed and adoptedthat Declaration of Independence. I have pondered over the toils thatwere endured by the officers and soldiers of the army who achieved thatindependence. I have often inquired of myself what great principle or ideait was that kept the confederacy so long together. It was not the merematter of separation of the colonies from the motherland, but thatsentiment in the Declaration of Independence which gave liberty, not aloneto the people of this country, but, I hope, to the world for all futuretime. It was that which gave promise that in due time the weight would belifted from the shoulders of all men. This is the sentiment embodied inthe Declaration of Independence. Now, my friends, can the country be savedupon that basis? If it can, I will consider myself one of the happiestmen in the world if I can help to save it. If it cannot be saved upon thatprinciple, it will be truly awful. But if this country cannot be savedwithout giving up that principle, I was about to say I would ratherbe assassinated on this spot than surrender it. Now, in my view of thepresent aspect of affairs, there need be no bloodshed or war. There is nonecessity for it. I am not in favor of such a course, and I may say, inadvance, that there will be no bloodshed unless it is forced upon theGovernment, and then it will be compelled to act in self-defence. 

My friends; this is wholly an unexpected speech, and I did not expect tobe called upon to say a word when I came here. I supposed it was merelyto do something toward raising the flag. I may, therefore, have saidsomething indiscreet. I have said nothing but what I am willing to live byand, if it be the pleasure of Almighty God, die by. 

REPLY TO THE WILMINGTON DELEGATION, FEBRUARY 22, 1861

MR. CHAIRMAN:--I feel highly flattered by the encomiums you have seen fitto bestow upon me. Soon after the nomination of General Taylor, I attendeda political meeting in the city of Wilmington, and have since carried withme a fond remembrance of the hospitalities of the city on that occasion. The programme established provides for my presence in Harrisburg intwenty-four hours from this time. I expect to be in Washington onSaturday. It is, therefore, an impossibility that I should accept yourkind invitation. There are no people whom I would more gladly accommodatethan those of Delaware; but circumstances forbid, gentlemen. With manyregrets for the character of the reply I am compelled to give you, I bidyou adieu. 

ADDRESS AT LANCASTER, PENNSYLVANIA, FEBRUARY 22, 1860

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF OLD LANCASTER:--I appear not to make a speech. Ihave not time to make a speech at length, and not strength to make them onevery occasion; and, worse than all, I have none to make. There is plentyof matter to speak about in these times, but it is well known that themore a man speaks the less he is understood--the more he says one thing, the more his adversaries contend he meant something else. I shall soonhave occasion to speak officially, and then I will endeavor to put mythoughts just as plain as I can express myself--true to the Constitutionand Union of all the States, and to the perpetual liberty of all thepeople. Until I so speak, there is no need to enter upon details. Inconclusion, I greet you most heartily, and bid you an affectionatefarewell. 

ADDRESS TO THE LEGISLATURE OF PENNSYLVANIA, AT HARRISBURG, FEBRUARY 22, 1861

MR. SPEAKER OF THE SENATE, AND ALSO MR. SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE OFREPRESENTATIVES, AND GENTLEMEN OF THE GENERAL ASSEMBLY OF THE STATE OFPENNSYLVANIA:--I appear before you only for a very few brief remarks inresponse to what has been said to me. I thank you most sincerely for thisreception, and the generous words in which support has been promised meupon this occasion. I thank your great commonwealth for the overwhelmingsupport it recently gave, not me personally, but the cause which I think ajust one, in the late election. 

Allusion has been made to the fact--the interesting fact perhaps weshould say--that I for the first time appear at the capital of the greatcommonwealth of Pennsylvania upon the birthday of the Father of hisCountry. In connection with that beloved anniversary connected with thehistory of this country, I have already gone through one exceedinglyinteresting scene this morning in the ceremonies at Philadelphia. Underthe kind conduct of gentlemen there, I was for the first time allowedthe privilege of standing in old Independence Hall to have a few wordsaddressed to me there, and opening up to me an opportunity of manifestingmy deep regret that I had not more time to express something of my ownfeelings excited by the occasion, that had been really the feelings of mywhole life. 

Besides this, our friends there had provided a magnificent flag of thecountry. They had arranged it so that I was given the honor of raising itto the head of its staff, and when it went up I was pleased that it wentto its place by the strength of my own feeble arm. When, according to thearrangement, the cord was pulled, and it floated gloriously to the wind, without an accident, in the bright, glowing sunshine of the morning, I could not help hoping that there was in the entire success of thatbeautiful ceremony at least something of an omen of what is to come. Norcould I help feeling then, as I have often felt, that in the whole of thatproceeding I was a very humbled instrument. I had not provided the flag; Ihad not made the arrangements for elevating it to its place; I had appliedbut a very small portion of even my feeble strength in raising it. In thewhole transaction I was in the hands of the people who had arranged it, and if I can have the same generous co-operation of the people ofthis nation, I think the flag of our country may yet be kept flauntinggloriously. 

I recur for a moment but to repeat some words uttered at the hotel inregard to what has been said about the military support which the GeneralGovernment may expect from the commonwealth of Pennsylvania in a properemergency. To guard against any possible mistake do I recur to this. It isnot with any pleasure that I contemplate the possibility that a necessitymay arise in this country for the use of the military arm. While I amexceedingly gratified to see the manifestation upon your streets of yourmilitary force here, and exceedingly gratified at your promise to use thatforce upon a proper emergency--while I make these acknowledgments I desireto repeat, in order to preclude any possible misconstruction, that I domost sincerely hope that we shall have no use for them; that it willnever become their duty to shed blood, and most especially never to shedfraternal blood. I promise that so far as I may have wisdom to direct, if so painful a result shall in any wise be brought about, it shall bethrough no fault of mine. 

Allusion has also been made by one of your honored speakers to someremarks recently made by myself at Pittsburg in regard to what is supposedto be the especial interest of this great commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Inow wish only to say in regard to that matter, that the few remarks whichI uttered on that occasion were rather carefully worded. I took painsthat they should be so. I have seen no occasion since to add to them orsubtract from them. I leave them precisely as they stand, adding onlynow that I am pleased to have an expression from you, gentlemen ofPennsylvania, signifying that they are satisfactory to you. 

And now, gentlemen of the General Assembly of the Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, allow me again to return to you my most sincere thanks. 

REPLY TO THE MAYOR OF WASHINGTON, D. C. , FEBRUARY 27, 1861

Mr. MAYOR:--I thank you, and through you the municipal authorities of thiscity who accompany you, for this welcome. And as it is the first time inmy life, since the present phase of politics has presented itself in thiscountry, that I have said anything publicly within a region of countrywhere the institution of slavery exists, I will take this occasion tosay that I think very much of the ill feeling that has existed and stillexists between the people in the section from which I came and the peoplehere, is dependent upon a misunderstanding of one another. I thereforeavail myself of this opportunity to assure you, Mr. Mayor, and all thegentlemen present, that I have not now, and never have had, any other thanas kindly feelings toward you as to the people of my own section. I havenot now, and never have had, any disposition to treat you in any respectotherwise than as my own neighbors. I have not now any purpose to withholdfrom you any of the benefits of the Constitution, under any circumstances, that I would not feel myself constrained to withhold from my ownneighbors; and I hope, in a word, that when we shall become betteracquainted--and I say it with great confidence--we shall like each otherbetter. I thank you for the kindness of this reception. 

REPLY TO A SERENADE AT WASHINGTON, D. C. , FEBRUARY 28, 1861

MY FRIENDS:--I suppose that I may take this as a compliment paid to me, and as such please accept my thanks for it. I have reached this city ofWashington under circumstances considerably differing from those underwhich any other man has ever reached it. I am here for the purpose oftaking an official position amongst the people, almost all of whom werepolitically opposed to me, and are yet opposed to me, as I suppose. 

I propose no lengthy address to you. I only propose to say, as I did onyesterday, when your worthy mayor and board of aldermen called upon me, that I thought much of the ill feeling that has existed between you andthe people of your surroundings and that people from among whom I came, has depended, and now depends, upon a misunderstanding. 

I hope that, if things shall go along as prosperously as I believe we alldesire they may, I may have it in my power to remove something of thismisunderstanding; that I may be enabled to convince you, and the peopleof your section of the country, that we regard you as in all thingsour equals, and in all things entitled to the same respect and the sametreatment that we claim for ourselves; that we are in no wise disposed, ifit were in our power, to oppress you, to deprive you of any of your rightsunder the Constitution of the United States, or even narrowly to splithairs with you in regard to these rights, but are determined to give you, as far as lies in our hands, all your rights under the Constitution--notgrudgingly, but fully and fairly. I hope that, by thus dealing with you, we will become better acquainted, and be better friends. 

And now, my friends, with these few remarks, and again returning my thanksfor this compliment, and expressing my desire to hear a little more ofyour good music, I bid you good-night. 

WASHINGTON, SUNDAY, MARCH 3, 1861

[During the struggle over the appointments of LINCOLN's Cabinet, thePresident-elect spoke as follows:]

Gentlemen, it is evident that some one must take the responsibilityof these appointments, and I will do it. My Cabinet is completed. Thepositions are not definitely assigned, and will not be until I announcethem privately to the gentlemen whom I have selected as my Constitutionaladvisers. 

FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS, MARCH 4, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES:--In compliance with a custom as oldas the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, andto take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution ofthe United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on theexecution of his office. "

I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those mattersof administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. 

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States thatby the accession of a Republican administration their property and theirpeace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been anyreasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence tothe contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addressesyou. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that

"I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with theinstitution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have nolawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. "

Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I hadmade this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And, more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as alaw to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I nowread:

"Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, andespecially the right of each State to order and control its own domesticinstitutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essentialto that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of ourpolitical fabric depend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armedforce of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as amongst the gravest of crimes. "

I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press uponthe public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case issusceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are tobe in any wise endangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution andthe laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States whenlawfully demanded, for whatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as toanother. 

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives fromservice or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in theConstitution as any other of its provisions:

"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulationtherein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be deliveredup on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due. "

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by thosewho made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and theintention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear theirsupport to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to anyother. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within theterms of this clause "shall be delivered up, " their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not withnearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep goodthat unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforcedby national or by State authority; but surely that difference is not avery material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of butlittle consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. Andshould any one in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on amerely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?

Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards ofliberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, sothat a free man be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might itnot be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of thatclause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of eachState shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens inthe several States"?

I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations, and with nopurpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And, while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress asproper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by allthose acts which stand unrepealed, than to violate any of them, trustingto find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. 

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a Presidentunder our national Constitution. During that period fifteen differentand greatly distinguished citizens have, in succession, administered theexecutive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through manyperils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope ofprecedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutionalterm of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption ofthe Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. 

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if notexpressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safeto assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organiclaw for its own termination. Continue to execute all the expressprovisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endureforever--it being impossible to destroy it except by some action notprovided for in the instrument itself. 

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an associationof States in the nature of contract merely, can it as a contract bepeaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party toa contract may violate it--break it, so to speak; but does it not requireall to lawfully rescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that inlegal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history ofthe Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It wasformed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was maturedand continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was furthermatured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plightedand engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederationin 1778. And, finally, in 1787 one of the declared objects for ordainingand establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union. "

But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of theStates be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before theConstitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. 

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion canlawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effectare legally void; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary orrevolutionary, according to circumstances. 

I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, theUnion is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, asthe Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of theUnion be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem tobe only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it so far aspracticable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shallwithhold the requisite means, or in some authoritative manner direct thecontrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as thedeclared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend andmaintain itself. 

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and thereshall be none, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The powerconfided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property andplaces belonging to the Government, and to collect the duties and imposts;but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be noinvasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Wherehostility to the United States, in any interior locality, shall be sogreat and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holdingthe Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangersamong the people for that object. While the strict legal right may existin the government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt todo so would be so irritating, and so nearly impracticable withal, that Ideem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. 

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts ofthe Union. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have thatsense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought andreflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless currentevents and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercisedaccording to circumstances actually existing, and with a view and a hopeof a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration offraternal sympathies and affections. 

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy theUnion at all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neitheraffirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. Tothose, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?

Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our nationalfabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it notbe wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperatea step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you flyfrom have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you flyto are greater than all the real ones you fly from--will you risk thecommission of so fearful a mistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights canbe maintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in theConstitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is soconstituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision ofthe Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers amajority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutionalright, it might, in a moral point of view, justify revolution--certainlywould if such a right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All thevital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured tothem by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in theConstitution, that controversies never arise concerning them. But noorganic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable toevery question which may occur in practical administration. No foresightcan anticipate, nor any document of reasonable length contain, expressprovisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor besurrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution doesnot expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? TheConstitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in theTerritories? The Constitution does not expressly say. 

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minoritywill not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. Thereis no other alternative; for continuing the Government is acquiescence onone side or the other. 

If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make aprecedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of theirown will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled bysuch minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacya year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions ofthe present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunionsentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. 

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose anew Union as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. Amajority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, andalways changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions andsentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejectsit does, of necessity, fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity isimpossible; the rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is whollyinadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy ordespotism in some form is all that is left. 

I do not forget the position assumed by some, that constitutionalquestions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that suchdecisions must be binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as tothe object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respectand consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of thegovernment. And, while it is obviously possible that such decision maybe erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, beinglimited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruledand never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne thancould the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candidcitizen must confess that if the policy of the government, upon vitalquestions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed bydecisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinarylitigation between parties in personal actions, the people will haveceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resignedthe government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there inthis view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty fromwhich they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions topolitical purposes. 

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to beextended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to beextended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive slave clauseof the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slavetrade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in acommunity where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the lawitself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligationin both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot beperfectly cured; and it would be worse in both cases after the separationof the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectlysuppressed, would be ultimately revived, without restriction, in onesection, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would notbe surrendered at all by the other. 

Physically speaking, we cannot separate. We cannot remove our respectivesections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. Ahusband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyondthe reach of each other; but the different parts of our country cannotdo this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, eitheramicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory afterseparation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends canmake laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens thanlaws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight always;and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain on either, you ceasefighting, the identical old questions as to terms of intercourse are againupon you. 

This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabitit. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing government, they canexercise their constitutional right of amending it, or their revolutionaryright to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact thatmany worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the nationalConstitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the wholesubject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in theinstrument itself, and I should, under existing circumstances, favorrather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to actupon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seemspreferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the peoplethemselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositionsoriginated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, and whichmight not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that theFederal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutionsof the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoidmisconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speakof particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provisionto now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its beingmade express and irrevocable. 

The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, andthey have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of theStates. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but theexecutive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administerthe present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successors. 

Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice ofthe people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our presentdifferences is either party without faith of being in the right? If theAlmighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on yourside of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justicewill surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the Americanpeople. 

By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people havewisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; andhave, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to theirown hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtueand vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years. 

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an objectto hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never takedeliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no goodobject can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied stillhave the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, thelaws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will haveno immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admittedthat you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, therestill is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yetforsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust in the best wayall our present difficulty. 

In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is themomentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You canhave no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oathregistered in heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have themost solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend" it. 

I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not beenemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break, our bonds ofaffection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-fieldand patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over thisbroad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union when again touched, assurely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. 

REFUSAL OF SEWARD RESIGNATION

TO WM. H. SEWARD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 4, 1861. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your note of the 2d instant, asking to withdraw youracceptance of my invitation to take charge of the State Department, wasduly received. It is the subject of the most painful solicitude with me, and I feel constrained to beg that you will countermand the withdrawal. The public interest, I think, demands that you should; and my personalfeelings are deeply enlisted in the same direction. Please consider andanswer by 9 A. M. To-morrow. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

REPLY TO THE PENNSYLVANIA DELEGATION, WASHINGTON, MARCH 5, 1861

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PENNSYLVANIAN DELEGATION:--As I have sofrequently said heretofore, when I have had occasion to address the peopleof the Keystone, in my visits to that State, I can now but repeat theassurance of my gratification at the support you gave me at the election, and at the promise of a continuation of that support which is now tenderedto me. 

Allusion has been made to the hope that you entertain that you have aPresident and a government. In respect to that I wish to say to you thatin the position I have assumed I wish to do more than I have ever givenreason to believe I would do. I do not wish you to believe that I assumeto be any better than others who have gone before me. I prefer rather tohave it understood that if we ever have a government on the principles weprofess, we should remember, while we exercise our opinion, that othershave also rights to the exercise of their opinions, and that we shouldendeavor to allow these rights, and act in such a manner as to create nobad feeling. I hope we have a government and a President. I hope, andwish it to be understood, that there may be no allusion to unpleasantdifferences. 

We must remember that the people of all the States are entitled to all theprivileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States. We shouldbear this in mind, and act in such a way as to say nothing insultingor irritating. I would inculcate this idea, so that we may not, likePharisees, set ourselves up to be better than other people. 

Now, my friends, my public duties are pressing to-day, and will preventmy giving more time to you. Indeed, I should not have left them now, but Icould not well deny myself to so large and respectable a body. 

REPLY TO THE MASSACHUSETTS DELEGATION, WASHINGTON, MARCH 5, 1861

I am thankful for this renewed assurance of kind feeling and confidence, and the support of the old Bay State, in so far as you, Mr. Chairman, haveexpressed, in behalf of those whom you represent, your sanction of whatI have enunciated in my inaugural address. This is very grateful to myfeelings. The object was one of great delicacy, in presenting views at theopening of an administration under the peculiar circumstances attending myentrance upon the official duties connected with the Government. I studiedall the points with great anxiety, and presented them with whateverof ability and sense of justice I could bring to bear. If it met theapprobation of our good friends in Massachusetts, I shall be exceedinglygratified, while I hope it will meet the approbation of friendseverywhere. I am thankful for the expressions of those who have votedwith us; and like every other man of you, I like them as certainly as I doothers. As the President in the administration of the Government, Ihope to be man enough not to know one citizen of the United States fromanother, nor one section from another. I shall be gratified to have goodfriends of Massachusetts and others who have thus far supported me inthese national views still to support me in carrying them out. 

TO SECRETARY SEWARD

EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, MARCH 7, 1861

MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is the diplomatic address and my reply. To whom thereply should be addressed--that is, by what title or style--I do not quiteunderstand, and therefore I have left it blank. 

Will you please bring with you to-day the message from the War Department, with General Scott's note upon it, which we had here yesterday? I wish toexamine the General's opinion, which I have not yet done. 

Yours very truly

A. LINCOLN. 

REPLY TO THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS

WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1861

Mr. FIGANIERE AND GENTLEMEN OF THE DIPLOMATIC BODY:--Please accept mysincere thanks for your kind congratulations. It affords me pleasureto confirm the confidence you so generously express in the friendlydisposition of the United States, through me, towards the sovereigns andgovernments you respectively represent. With equal satisfaction I acceptthe assurance you are pleased to give, that the same disposition isreciprocated by your sovereigns, your governments, and yourselves. 

Allow me to express the hope that these friendly relations may remainundisturbed, and also my fervent wishes for the health and happiness ofyourselves personally. 

TO SECRETARY SEWARD

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 11, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF STATE. DEAR SIR:--What think you of sending ministersat once as follows: Dayton to England; Fremont to France; Clay to Spain;Corwin to Mexico?

We need to have these points guarded as strongly and quickly as possible. This is suggestion merely, and not dictation. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. COLLAMER

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 12, 1861

HON. JACOB COLLAMER. MY DEAR SIR:--God help me. It is said I have offendedyou. I hope you will tell me how. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

March 14, 1861. DEAR SIR:--I am entirely unconscious that you have any wayoffended me. I cherish no sentiment towards you but that of kindness andconfidence. Your humble servant, J. COLLAMER. 

 [Returned with indorsement:]

Very glad to know that I have n't. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 13, 1861

HON. P. M. G. 

DEAR SIR:--The bearer of this, Mr. C. T. Hempstow, is a Virginian whowishes to get, for his son, a small place in your Dept. I think Virginiashould be heard, in such cases. 

LINCOLN. 

NOTE ASKING CABINET OPINIONS ON FORT SUMTER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 15, 1861

THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Assuming it to be possible to now provision Fort Sumter, under all the circumstances is it wise to attempt it? Please give me youropinion in writing on this question. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

[Same to other members of the Cabinet. ]

ON ROYAL ARBITRATION OF AMERICAN BOUNDARY LINE

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

The Senate has transmitted to me a copy of the message sent by mypredecessor to that body on the 21st of February last, proposing to takeits advice on the subject of a proposition made by the British Governmentthrough its minister here to refer the matter in controversy between thatgovernment and the Government of the United States to the arbitramentof the King of Sweden and Norway, the King of the Netherlands, or theRepublic of the Swiss Confederation. 

In that message my predecessor stated that he wished to present to theSenate the precise questions following, namely:

"Will the Senate approve a treaty referring to either of the sovereignpowers above named the dispute now existing between the governments ofthe United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line betweenVancouver's Island and the American continent? In case the referee shallfind himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of itin the treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a lineaccording to the treaty as nearly as possible? Which of the three powersnamed by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the UnitedStates?"

I find no reason to disapprove of the course of my predecessor in thisimportant matter; but, on the contrary, I not only shall receive theadvice of the Senate thereon cheerfully, but I respectfully ask the Senatefor their advice on the three questions before recited. 

ABRAHAM LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON, March 16, 1861

AMBASSADORIAL APPOINTMENTS

TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 18, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF STATE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I believe it is a necessity with us to make the appointmentsI mentioned last night--that is, Charles F. Adams to England, William L. Dayton to France, George P. Marsh to Sardinia, and Anson Burlingame toAustria. These gentlemen all have my highest esteem, but no one of them isoriginally suggested by me except Mr. Dayton. Mr. Adams I take because yousuggested him, coupled with his eminent fitness for the place. Mr. Marsh and Mr. Burlingame I take because of the intense pressure of theirrespective States, and their fitness also. 

The objection to this card is that locally they are so huddled up--threebeing in New England and two from a single State. I have considered this, and will not shrink from the responsibility. This, being done, leaves butfive full missions undisposed of--Rome, China, Brazil, Peru, and Chili. And then what about Carl Schurz; or, in other words, what about our Germanfriends?

Shall we put the card through, and arrange the rest afterward? What sayyou?

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO G. E. PATTEN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 19, 1861. 

TO MASTER GEO. EVANS PATTEN. 

WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:--I did see and talk with Master Geo. Evans Pattenlast May at Springfield, Ill. 

Respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

[Written because of a denial that any interview with young Patten, then aschoolboy, had ever taken place. ]

RESPONSE TO SENATE INQUIRY RE. FORT SUMTER

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:--I have received a copy of theresolution of the Senate, passed on the 25th instant, requesting me, ifin my opinion not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate tothe Senate the despatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War Departmentduring the time he has been in command of Fort Sumter. On examination ofthe correspondence thus called for, I have, with the highest respectfor the Senate, come to the conclusion that at the present moment thepublication of it would be inexpedient. 

A. LINCOLN

WASHINGTON, MARCH 16, 1861

PREPARATION OF FIRST NAVAL ACTION

TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 29, 1861

HONORABLE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

SIR:--I desire that an expedition to move by sea be got ready to sailas early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandumattached, and that you cooperate with the Secretary of the Navy for thatobject. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

[Inclosure. ]

Steamers Pocahontas at Norfolk, Paunee at Washington, Harriet Lane atNew York, to be under sailing orders for sea, with stores, etc. , for onemonth. Three hundred men to be kept ready for departure from on boardthe receiving-ships at New York. Two hundred men to be ready to leaveGovernor's Island in New York. Supplies for twelve months for one hundredmen to be put in portable shape, ready for instant shipping. A largesteamer and three tugs conditionally engaged. 

TO ------ STUART. 

WASHINGTON, March 30, 1861

DEAR STUART:

Cousin Lizzie shows me your letter of the 27th. The question of giving herthe Springfield post-office troubles me. You see I have already appointedWilliam Jayne a Territorial governor and Judge Trumbull's brother to aland-office. Will it do for me to go on and justify the declaration thatTrumbull and I have divided out all the offices among our relatives? Dr. Wallace, you know, is needy, and looks to me; and I personally owe himmuch. 

I see by the papers, a vote is to be taken as to the post-office. Couldyou not set up Lizzie and beat them all? She, being here, need knownothing of it, so therefore there would be no indelicacy on her part. 

Yours as ever, TO THE COMMANDANT OF THE NEW YORK NAVY-YARD. 

NAVY DEPT. , WASHINGTON, April 1, 1861

TO THE COMMANDANT OF THE NAVY-YARD, Brooklyn, N. Y. 

Fit out the Powhatan to go to sea at the earnest possible moment undersealed orders. Orders by a confidential messenger go forward to-morrow. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO LIEUTENANT D. D. PORTER

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1861

LIEUTENANT D. D. PORTER, United States Navy. 

SIR:--You will proceed to New York, and with the least possible delay, assuming command of any naval steamer available, proceed to PensacolaHarbor, and at any cost or risk prevent any expedition from the mainlandreaching Fort Pickens or Santa Rosa Island. 

You will exhibit this order to any naval officer at Pensacola, if you deemit necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor, andwill request co-operation by the entrance of at least one other steamer. 

This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to noperson whatever until you reach the harbor of Pensacola. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Recommended, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

RELIEF EXPEDITION FOR FORT SUMTER

ORDER TO OFFICERS OF THE ARMY AND NAVY. 

WASHINGTON, EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1861. 

All officers of the army and navy to whom this order may be exhibitedwill aid by every means in their power the expedition under the commandof Colonel Harvey Brown, supplying him with men and material, andco-operating with him as he may desire. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER TO CAPTAIN SAMUEL MERCER. 

(Confidential. )

WASHINGTON CITY, April 1, 1861

SIR:--Circumstances render it necessary to place in command of yourship (and for a special purpose) an officer who is fully informed andinstructed in relation to the wishes of the Government, and you willtherefore consider yourself detached. But in taking this step theGovernment does not in the least reflect upon your efficiency orpatriotism; on the contrary, have the fullest confidence in your abilityto perform any duty required of you. Hoping soon to be able to give you abetter command than the one you now enjoy, and trusting that you will havefull confidence in the disposition of the Government toward you, I remain, etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

SECRETARY SEWARD'S BID FOR POWER

MEMORANDUM FROM SECRETARY SEWARD, APRIL 1, 1861

Some thoughts for the President's Consideration, First. We are at the end of a month's administration, and yet without apolicy either domestic or foreign. 

Second. This, however, is not culpable, and it has even been unavoidable. The presence of the Senate, with the need to meet applications forpatronage, have prevented attention to other and more grave matters. 

Third. But further delay to adopt and prosecute our policies forboth domestic and foreign affairs would not only bring scandal on theadministration, but danger upon the country. 

Fourth. To do this we must dismiss the applicants for office. But how? Isuggest that we make the local appointments forthwith, leaving foreign orgeneral ones for ulterior and occasional action. 

Fifth. The policy at home. I am aware that my views are singular, andperhaps not sufficiently explained. My system is built upon this idea asa ruling one, namely, that we must CHANGE THE QUESTION BEFORE THE PUBLICFROM ONE UPON SLAVERY, OR ABOUT SLAVERY, for a question upon UNION ORDISUNION: In other words, from what would be regarded as a party question, to one of patriotism or union. 

The occupation or evacuation of Fort Sumter, although not in fact aslavery or a party question, is so regarded. Witness the temper manifestedby the Republicans in the free States, and even by the Union men in theSouth. 

I would therefore terminate it as a safe means for changing the issue. Ideem it fortunate that the last administration created the necessity. 

For the rest, I would simultaneously defend and reinforce all the ports inthe gulf, and have the navy recalled from foreign stations to be preparedfor a blockade. Put the island of Key West under martial law. 

This will raise distinctly the question of union or disunion. I wouldmaintain every fort and possession in the South. 

FOR FOREIGN NATIONS, I would demand explanations from Spain and France, categorically, at once. 

I would seek explanations from Great Britain and Russia, and send agentsinto Canada, Mexico, and Central America to rouse a vigorous continentalspirit of independence on this continent against European intervention. 

And, if satisfactory explanations are not received from Spain and France, Would convene Congress and declare war against them. 

But whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution ofit. 

For this purpose it must be somebody's business to pursue and direct itincessantly. 

Either the President must do it himself, and be all the while active init, or Devolve it on some member of his Cabinet. Once adopted, debates onit must end, and all agree and abide. 

It is not in my especial province; But I neither seek to evade nor assumeresponsibility. 

REPLY TO SECRETARY SEWARD'S MEMORANDUM

EXECUTIVE MANSION, APRIL 1, 1861

HON. W. H. SEWARD. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Since parting with you I have been considering yourpaper dated this day, and entitled "Some Thoughts for the President'sConsideration. " The first proposition in it is, "First, We are at the endof a month's administration, and yet without a policy either domestic orforeign. "

At the beginning of that month, in the inaugural, I said: "The powerconfided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the propertyand places belonging to the Government, and to Collect the duties andimposts. " This had your distinct approval at the time; and, taken inconnection with the order I immediately gave General Scott, directinghim to employ every means in his power to strengthen and hold theforts, comprises the exact domestic policy you now urge, with the singleexception that it does not propose to abandon Fort Sumter. 

Again, I do not perceive how the reinforcement of Fort Sumter would bedone on a slavery or a party issue, while that of Fort Pickens would be ona more national and patriotic one. 

The news received yesterday in regard to St. Domingo certainly brings anew item within the range of our foreign policy; but up to that time wehave been preparing circulars and instructions to ministers and the like, all in perfect harmony, without even a suggestion that we had no foreignpolicy. 

Upon your Closing propositions--that, "Whatever policy we adopt, there must be an energetic prosecution of it. 

"For this purpose it must be somebody's business to pursue and direct itincessantly. 

"Either the President must do it himself, and be all the while active init, or, "Devolve it on some member of his Cabinet. Once adopted, debates on itmust end, and all agree and abide"--

I remark that if this must be done, I must do it. When a general line ofpolicy is adopted, I apprehend there is no danger of its being changedwithout good reason, or continuing to be a subject of unnecessary debate;still, upon points arising in its progress I wish, and suppose I amentitled to have, the advice of all the Cabinet. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

REPLY TO A COMMITTEE FROM THE VIRGINIA CONVENTION, APRIL 13, 1861

HON. WILLIAM BALLARD PRESTON, ALEXANDER H. H. STUART, GEORGE W. RANDOLPH, Esq. 

GENTLEMEN:--As a committee of the Virginia Convention now in Session, youpresent me a preamble and resolution in these words:

"Whereas, in the opinion of this Convention, the uncertainty whichprevails in the public mind as to the policy which the Federal Executiveintends to pursue toward the seceded States is extremely injurious to theindustrial and commercial interests of the country, tends to keep up anexcitement which is unfavorable to the adjustment of pending difficulties, and threatens a disturbance of the public peace: therefore

"Resolved, that a committee of three delegates be appointed by thisConvention to wait upon the President of the United States, present to himthis preamble and resolution, and respectfully ask him to communicate tothis Convention the policy which the Federal Executive intends to pursuein regard to the Confederate States. 

"Adopted by the Convention of the State of Virginia, Richmond, April 8, 1861. "

In answer I have to say that, having at the beginning of my official termexpressed my intended policy as plainly as I was able, it is withdeep regret and some mortification I now learn that there is great andinjurious uncertainty in the public mind as to what that policy is, andwhat course I intend to pursue. Not having as yet seen occasion to change, it is now my purpose to pursue the course marked out in the inauguraladdress. I commend a careful consideration of the whole document as thebest expression I can give of my purposes. 

As I then and therein said, I now repeat: "The power confided to me willbe used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging tothe Government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what isnecessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of forceagainst or among the people anywhere. " By the words "property and placesbelonging to the Government, " I chiefly allude to the military posts andproperty which were in the possession of the Government when it came to myhands. 

But if, as now appears to be true, in pursuit of a purpose to drive theUnited States authority from these places, an unprovoked assault has beenmade upon Fort Sumter, I shall hold myself at liberty to repossess, if Ican, like places which had been seized before the Government was devolvedupon me. And in every event I shall, to the extent of my ability, repel force by force. In case it proves true that Fort Sumter has beenassaulted, as is reported, I shall perhaps cause the United States mailsto be withdrawn from all the States which claim to have seceded, believingthat the commencement of actual war against the Government justifies andpossibly demands this. 

I scarcely need to say that I consider the military posts and propertysituated within the States which claim to have seceded as yet belongingto the Government of the United States as much as they did before thesupposed secession. 

Whatever else I may do for the purpose, I shall not attempt to collect theduties and imposts by any armed invasion of any part of the country; notmeaning by this, however, that I may not land a force deemed necessary torelieve a fort upon a border of the country. 

From the fact that I have quoted a part of the inaugural address, it mustnot be inferred that I repudiate any other part, the whole of which Ireaffirm, except so far as what I now say of the mails may be regarded asa modification. 

PROCLAMATION CALLING FOR 75, 000 MILITIA, AND CONVENING CONGRESS IN EXTRA SESSION, APRIL 15, 1861. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas the laws of the United States have been for some time past and noware opposed, and the execution thereof obstructed, in the States of SouthCarolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinary course ofjudicial proceedings, or by the powers vested in the marshals bylaw:

Now, therefore, I, A. LINCOLN, President of the United States, in virtueof the power in me vested by the Constitution and the laws, have thoughtfit to call forth, and hereby do call forth, the militia of the severalStates of the Union, to the aggregate number of seventy-five thousand, in order to suppress said combinations, and to cause the laws to be dulyexecuted. 

The details for this object will be immediately communicated to the Stateauthorities through the War Department. 

I appeal to all loyal citizens to favor, facilitate, and aid this effortto maintain the honor, the integrity, and the existence of our NationalUnion, and the perpetuity of popular government; and to redress wrongsalready long enough endured. 

I deem it proper to say that the first service assigned to the forceshereby called forth will probably be to repossess the forts, places, andproperty which have been seized from the Union; and in every event theutmost care will be observed, consistently with the objects aforesaid, toavoid any devastation, any destruction of or interference with property, or any disturbance of peaceful citizens in any part of the country. 

And I hereby command the persons composing the combinations aforesaid todisperse and retire peacefully to their respective abodes within twentydays from date. 

Deeming that the present condition of public affairs presents anextraordinary occasion, I do hereby, in virtue of the power in me vestedby the Constitution, convene both Houses of Congress. Senators andRepresentatives are therefore summoned to assemble at their respectivechambers, at twelve o'clock noon, on Thursday, the fourth day of Julynext, then and there to consider and determine such measures as, in theirwisdom, the public safety and interest may seem to demand. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this fifteenth day of April, in theyear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of theindependence of the United States the eighty-fifth. 

A. LINCOLN

By the President:

 WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

PROCLAMATION OF BLOCKADE, APRIL 19, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas an insurrection against the Government of the United States hasbroken out in the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and the laws of the United Statesfor the collection of the revenue cannot be effectually executed thereinconformably to that provision of the Constitution which requires duties tobe uniform throughout the United States:

And Whereas a combination of persons engaged in such insurrection havethreatened to grant pretended letters of marque to authorize the bearersthereof to commit assaults on the lives, vessels, and property of goodcitizens of the country lawfully engaged in commerce on the high seas, andin waters of the United States:

And Whereas an executive proclamation has been already issued requiringthe persons engaged in these disorderly proceedings to desist therefrom, calling out a militia force for the purpose of repressing the same, andconvening Congress in extraordinary session to deliberate and determinethereon:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham LINCOLN, President of the United States, witha view to the same purposes before mentioned, and to the protection ofthe public peace, and the lives and property of quiet and orderly citizenspursuing their lawful occupations, until Congress shall have assembled anddeliberated on the said unlawful proceedings, or until the same shall haveceased, have further deemed it advisable to set on foot a blockade of theports within the States aforesaid, in pursuance of the laws of the UnitedStates, and of the law of nations in such case provided. For this purposea competent force will be posted so as to prevent entrance and exit ofvessels from the ports aforesaid. If, therefore, with a view to violatesuch blockade, a vessel shall approach or shall attempt to leave eitherof the said ports, she will be duly warned by the commander of one of theblockading vessels, who will indorse on her register the fact and date ofsuch warning, and if the same vessel shall again attempt to enter orleave the blockaded port, she will be captured and sent to the nearestconvenient port, for such proceedings against her and her cargo, as prize, as may be deemed advisable. 

And I hereby proclaim and declare that if any person, under the pretendedauthority of the said States, or under any other pretense, shall molest avessel of the United States, or the persons or cargo on board of her, such person will be held amenable to the laws of the United States for theprevention and punishment of piracy. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this nineteenth day of April, in theyear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of theindependence of the United States the eighty-fifth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TO GOVERNOR HICKS AND MAYOR BROWN. 

WASHINGTON, April 20, 1861

GOVERNOR HICKS AND MAYOR BROWN. 

GENTLEMEN:--Your letter by Messrs. Bond, Dobbin, and Brune is received. I tender you both my sincere thanks for your efforts to keep the peace inthe trying situation in which you are placed. 

For the future troops must be brought here, but I make no point ofbringing them through Baltimore. Without any military knowledge myself, ofcourse I must leave details to General Scott. He hastily said this morningin the presence of these gentlemen, "March them around Baltimore, andnot through it. " I sincerely hope the General, on fuller reflection, willconsider this practical and proper, and that you will not object to it. By this a collision of the people of Baltimore with the troops will beavoided, unless they go out of their way to seek it. I hope you will exertyour influence to prevent this. 

Now and ever I shall do all in my power for peace consistently with themaintenance of the Government. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR HICKS. 

WASHINGTON, April 20, 1861

GOVERNOR HICKS:

I desire to consult with you and the Mayor of Baltimore relative topreserving the peace of Maryland. Please come immediately by specialtrain, which you can take at Baltimore; or, if necessary, one can be sentfrom here. Answer forthwith. 

LINCOLN. 

ORDER TO DEFEND FROM A MARYLAND INSURRECTION

ORDER TO GENERAL SCOTT. WASHINGTON, April 25, 1861

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL SCOTT. 

MY DEAR SIR--The Maryland Legislature assembles to-morrow at Annapolis, and not improbably will take action to arm the people of that Stateagainst the United States. The question has been submitted to andconsidered by me whether it would not be justifiable, upon the ground ofnecessary defense, for you, as General in Chief of the United States Army, to arrest or disperse the members of that body. I think it would not bejustifiable nor efficient for the desired object. 

First. They have a clearly legal right to assemble, and we cannot know inadvance that their action will not be lawful and peaceful, and if we waituntil they shall have acted their arrest or dispersion will not lessen theeffect of their action. 

Secondly. We cannot permanently prevent their action. If we arrest them, we cannot long hold them as prisoners, and when liberated they willimmediately reassemble and take their action; and precisely the same ifwe simply disperse them--they will immediately reassemble in some otherplace. 

I therefore conclude that it is only left to the Commanding General towatch and await their action, which, if it shall be to arm their peopleagainst the United States, he is to adopt the most prompt and efficientmeans to counteract, even, if necessary, to the bombardment of theircities and, in the extremist necessity, the suspension of the writ ofhabeas corpus. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION OF BLOCKADE, APRIL 27, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas, for the reasons assigned in my proclamation of the nineteenthinstant, a blockade of the ports of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas was ordered to beestablished:

And whereas, since that date, public property of the United Stateshas been seized, the collection of the revenue obstructed, and dulycommissioned officers of the United States, while engaged in executingthe orders of their superiors, have been arrested and held in custody asprisoners, or have been impeded in the discharge of their official duties, without due legal process, by persons claiming to act under authorities ofthe States of Virginia and North Carolina:

An efficient blockade of the ports of those States will also beestablished. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this twenty seventh day of April, in theyear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-one, and of theindependence of the United States the eighty-fifth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

REMARKS TO A MILITARY COMPANY, WASHINGTON, APRIL 27, 1861

I have desired as sincerely as any man, and I sometimes think more thanany other man, that our present difficulties might be settled without theshedding of blood. I will not say that all hope has yet gone; but if thealternative is presented whether the Union is to be broken in fragmentsand the liberties of the people lost, or blood be shed, you will probablymake the choice with which I shall not be dissatisfied. 

LOCALIZED REPEAL OF WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS

TO GENERAL SCOTT. 

TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL, ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES. 

You are engaged in suppressing an insurrection against the laws of theUnited States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of any military linewhich is now or which shall be used between the City of Philadelphia andthe city of Washington you find resistance which renders it necessary tosuspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally, or through the officer in command at the point at which resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ. 

A. LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON, April 17, 1861

MILITARY ENROLLMENT OF ST. LOUIS CITIZENS

FROM THE SECRETARY OF WAR WAR DEPARTMENT, April 30, 1861

TO CAPTAIN NATHANIEL LYON. 

CAPT. NATHANIEL LYON, Commanding Department of the West. 

SIR:--The President of the United States directs that you enroll in themilitary service of the United States the loyal citizens of Saint Louisand vicinity, not exceeding, with those heretofore enlisted, ten thousandin number, for the purpose of maintaining the authority of the UnitedStates; for the protection of the peaceful inhabitants of Missouri; andyou will, if deemed necessary for that purpose by yourself, by Messrs. Oliver F. Ferny, John How, James O. Broadhead, Samuel T. Glover, J. Wilzie, Francis P. Blair, Jr. , proclaim martial law in the city of SaintLouis. 

The additional force hereby authorized shall be discharged in part or inwhole, if enlisted. As soon as it appears to you and the gentlemen abovementioned that there is no danger of an attempt on the part of the enemiesof the Government to take military possession of the city of Saint Louis, or put the city in control of the combination against the Government ofthe United States; and whilst such additional force remains in the servicethe same shall be governed by the Rules and Articles of War, and suchspecial regulations as you may prescribe. I shall like the force hereafterdirected to be enrolled to be under your command. 

The arms and other military stores in the Saint Louis Arsenal not neededfor the forces of the United States in Missouri must be removed toSpringfield, or some other safe place of deposit in the State of Illinois, as speedily as practicable, by the ordnance officers in charge at SaintLouis. 

(Indorsement. )

It is revolutionary times, and therefore I do not object to theirregularity of this. W. S. 

Approved, April 30, 1861. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Colonel Thomas will make this order. SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War. 

CONDOLENCE OVER FAILURE OF FT. SUMTER RELIEF

TO GUSTAVUS V. FOX. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 1, 1861

CAPTAIN G. V. Fox. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I sincerely regret that the failure of the late attempt toprovision Fort Sumter should be the source of any annoyance to you. 

The practicability of your plan was not, in fact, brought to a test. Byreason of a gale, well known in advance to be possible and not improbable, the tugs, an essential part of the plan, never reached the ground; while, by an accident for which you were in no wise responsible, and possibly Ito some extent was, you were deprived of a war vessel, with her men, whichyou deemed of great importance to the enterprise. 

I most cheerfully and truly declare that the failure of the undertakinghas not lowered you a particle, while the qualities you developed in theeffort have greatly heightened you in my estimation. 

For a daring and dangerous enterprise of a similar character you wouldto-day be the man of all my acquaintances whom I would select. You and Iboth anticipated that the cause of the country would be advanced by makingthe attempt to provision Fort Sumter, even if it should fail; and it isno small consolation now to feel that our anticipation is justified by theresult. 

Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION CALLING FOR 42, 034 VOLUNTEERS, MAY 3, 1861

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES. 

A Proclamation. . 

Whereas existing exigencies demand immediate and adequate measures forthe protection of the National Constitution and the preservation of theNational Union by the suppression of the insurrectionary combinationsnow existing in several States for opposing the laws of the Union andobstructing the execution thereof, to which end a military force inaddition to that called forth by my proclamation of the 15th day of Aprilin the present year appears to be indispensably necessary:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States andCommander in Chief of the Army and Navy thereof and of the militia of theseveral States when called into actual service, do hereby call into theservice of the United States 42, 034 volunteers to serve for the period ofthree years, unless sooner discharged, and to be mustered into serviceas infantry and cavalry. The proportions of each arm and the details ofenrollment and organization will be made known through the Department ofWar. 

And I also direct that the Regular Army of the United States be increasedby the addition of eight regiments of infantry, one regiment of cavalry, and one regiment of artillery, making altogether a maximum aggregateincrease of 22, 714 officers and enlisted men, the details of whichincrease will also be made known through the Department of War. 

And I further direct the enlistment for not less than one or more thanthree years of 18, 000 seamen, in addition to the present force, for thenaval service of the United States. The details of the enlistment andorganization will be made known through the Department of the Navy. 

The call for volunteers hereby made and the direction for the increase ofthe Regular Army and for the enlistment of seamen hereby given, togetherwith the plan of organization adopted for the volunteer and for theregular forces hereby authorized, will be submitted to Congress as soon asassembled. 

In the meantime I earnestly invoke the co-operation of all good citizensin the measures hereby adopted for the effectual suppression of unlawfulviolence, for the impartial enforcement of constitutional laws, and forthe speediest possible restoration of peace and order, and with these ofhappiness and prosperity, throughout our country. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my band and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

COMMUNICATION WITH VICE-PRESIDENT

TO VICE-PRESIDENT HAMLIN. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 6, 1861

HON. H. HAMLIN, New York. 

MY DEAR SIR:-Please advise me at the close of each day what troops leftduring the day, where going, and by what route; what remaining at NewYork, and what expected in the next day. Give the numbers, as near asconvenient, and what corps they are. This information, reaching us daily, will be very useful as well as satisfactory. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER TO COLONEL ANDERSON, MAY 7, 1861

TO ALL WHO SHALL SEE THESE PRESENTS, GREETING:

Know ye that, reposing special trust and confidence in the patriotism, valor, fidelity, and ability of Colonel Robert Anderson, U. S. Army, Ihave empowered him, and do hereby empower him, to receive into the army ofthe United States as many regiments of volunteer troops from the State ofKentucky and from the western part of the State of Virginia as shall bewilling to engage in the Service of the United States for the term ofthree years, upon the terms and according to the plan proposed by theproclamation of May 3, 1861, and General Orders No. 15, from the WarDepartment, of May 4, 1861. 

The troops whom he receives shall be on the same footing in every respectas those of the like kind called for in the proclamation above cited, except that the officers shall be commissioned by the United States. He istherefore carefully and diligently to discharge the duty hereby devolvedupon him by doing and performing all manner of things thereunto belonging. 

Given under my hand, at the city of Washington, this 7th day of May, A. D. 1861, and in the eighty-fifth year of the independence of the UnitedStates. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: SIMON CAMERON, Secretary of War, PROCLAMATION SUSPENDING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IN FLORIDA, MAY 10, 1861. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OP AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas an insurrection exists in the State of Florida, by which thelives, liberty, and property of loyal citizens of the United States areendangered:

And whereas it is deemed proper that all needful measures should be takenfor the protection of such citizens and all officers of the United Statesin the discharge of their public duties in the State aforesaid:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham LINCOLN, President of theUnited States, do hereby direct the commander of the forces of the UnitedStates on the Florida coast to permit no person to exercise any officeor authority upon the islands of Key West, the Tortugas, and Santa Rosa, which may be inconsistent with the laws and Constitution of the UnitedStates, authorizing him at the same time, if he shall find it necessary, to suspend there the writ of habeas corpus, and to remove from thevicinity of the United States fortresses all dangerous or suspectedpersons. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TO SECRETARY WELLES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 11, 1861

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 

SIR:-Lieut. D. D. Porter was placed in command of the steamer Powhatan, and Captain Samuel Mercer was detached therefrom, by my special order, andneither of them is responsible for any apparent or real irregularity ontheir part or in connection with that vessel. 

Hereafter Captain Porter is relieved from that special service and placedunder the direction of the Navy Department, from which he will receiveinstructions and to which he will report. 

Very respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S CORRECTIONS OF A DIPLOMATIC DESPATCH

WRITTEN BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE TO MINISTER ADAMS

NO. 10. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE. WASHINGTON, May 21, 1861

SIR:---Mr. Dallas, in a brief despatch of May 2d (No. 333), tells us thatLord John Russell recently requested an interview with him on account ofthe solicitude which his lordship felt concerning the effect of certainmeasures represented as likely to be adopted by the President. Inthat conversation the British secretary told Mr. Dallas that the threerepresentatives of the Southern Confederacy were then in London, that LordJohn Russell had not yet seen them, but that he was not unwilling to seethem unofficially. He further informed Mr. Dallas that an understandingexists between the British and French governments which would lead both totake one and the same course as to recognition. His lordship then referredto the rumor of a meditated blockade by us of Southern ports, and adiscontinuance of them as ports of entry. Mr. Dallas answered that he knewnothing on those topics, and therefore

 (The President's corrections, both in notes and text, are in caps. All matter between brackets was to be marked out. )

could say nothing. He added that you were expected to arrive in two weeks. Upon this statement Lord John Russell acquiesced in the expediency ofwaiting for the full knowledge you were expected to bring. 

Mr. Dallas transmitted to us some newspaper reports of ministerialexplanations made in Parliament. 

You will base no proceedings on parliamentary debates further than to seekexplanations when necessary and communicate them to this department. [We intend to have a clear and simple record of whatever issue may arisebetween us and Great Britain. ]

The President [is surprised and grieved] regrets that Mr. Dallas did notprotest against the proposed unofficial intercourse between the BritishGovernment and the missionaries of the insurgents [as well as againstthe demand for explanations made by the British Government]. It is due, however, to Mr. Dallas to say that our instructions had been given only toyou and not to him, and that his loyalty and fidelity, too rare in thesetimes [among our late representatives abroad, are confessed and] areappreciated. 

Intercourse of any kind with the so-called commissioners is liable to beconstrued as a recognition of the authority which appointed them. Suchintercourse would be none the less [wrongful] hurtful to us for beingcalled unofficial, and it might be even more injurious, because we shouldhave no means of knowing what points might be resolved by it. Moreover, unofficial intercourse is useless and meaningless if it is not expectedto ripen into official intercourse and direct recognition. It is leftdoubtful here whether the proposed unofficial intercourse has yet actuallybegun. Your own [present] antecedent instructions are deemed explicitenough, and it is hoped that you have not misunderstood them. You willin any event desist from all intercourse whatever, unofficial as wellas official, with the British Government, so long as it shall continueintercourse of either kind with the domestic enemies of this country[confining yourself to a delivery of a copy of this paper to the Secretaryof State. After doing this. ] When intercourse shall have been arrested forthis cause, you will communicate with this department and receive furtherdirections. 

Lord John Russell has informed us of an understanding between the Britishand French governments that they will act together in regard to ouraffairs. This communication, however, loses something of its value fromthe circumstance that the communication was withheld until after knowledgeof the fact had been acquired by us from other sources. We know alsoanother fact that has not yet been officially communicated to us--namely, that other European States are apprised by France and England of theiragreement, and are expected to concur with or follow them in whatevermeasures they adopt on the subject of recognition. The United States havebeen impartial and just in all their conduct toward the several nations ofEurope. They will not complain, however, of the combination now announcedby the two leading powers, although they think they had a right to expecta more independent, if not a more friendly, course from each of them. Youwill take no notice of that or any other alliance. Whenever the Europeangovernments shall see fit to communicate directly with us, we shall be, asheretofore, frank and explicit in our reply. 

As to the blockade, you will say that by [the] our own laws [of nature]and the laws of nature and the laws of nations, this Government hasa clear right to suppress insurrection. An exclusion of commerce fromnational ports which have been seized by the insurgents, in the equitableform of blockade, is the proper means to that end. You will [admit] notinsist that our blockade is [not] to be respected if it be not maintainedby a competent force; but passing by that question as not now a practical, or at least an urgent, one, you will add that [it] the blockade is now, and it will continue to be so maintained, and therefore we expect it to berespected by Great Britain. You will add that we have already revoked theexequatur of a Russian consul who had enlisted in the military service ofthe insurgents, and we shall dismiss or demand the recall of every foreignagent, consular or diplomatic, who shall either disobey the Federal lawsor disown the Federal authority. 

As to the recognition of the so-called Southern Confederacy, it is notto be made a subject of technical definition. It is, of course, [quasi]direct recognition to publish an acknowledgment of the sovereignty andindependence of a new power. It is [quasi] direct recognition to receiveits ambassadors, ministers, agents, or commissioners officially. A concession of belligerent rights is liable to be construed as arecognition of them. No one of these proceedings will [be borne] pass[unnoticed] unquestioned by the United States in this case. 

Hitherto recognition has been moved only on the assumption that theso-called Confederate States are de facto a self-sustaining power. Now, after long forbearance, designed to soothe discontent and avert the needof civil war, the land and naval forces of the United States have been putin motion to repress the insurrection. The true character of the pretendednew State is at once revealed. It is seen to be a power existing inpronunciamento only, It has never won a field. It has obtained no fortsthat were not virtually betrayed into its hands or seized in breach oftrust. It commands not a single port on the coast nor any highway out fromits pretended capital by land. Under these circumstances Great Britain iscalled upon to intervene and give it body and independence by resistingour measures of suppression. British recognition would be Britishintervention to create within our own territory a hostile state byoverthrowing this republic itself. [When this act of intervention isdistinctly performed, we from that hour shall cease to be friends, andbecome once more, as we have twice before been forced to be, enemies ofGreat Britain. ]

As to the treatment of privateers in the insurgent service, you will saythat this is a question exclusively our own. We treat them as pirates. They are our own citizens, or persons employed by our citizens, preyingon the commerce of our country. If Great Britain shall choose to recognizethem as lawful belligerents, and give them shelter from our pursuit andpunishment, the laws of nations afford an adequate and proper remedy[and we shall avail ourselves of it. And while you need not say this inadvance, be sure that you say nothing inconsistent with it. ]

Happily, however, her Britannic Majesty's government can avoid all thesedifficulties. It invited us in 1856 to accede to the declaration of theCongress of Paris, of which body Great Britain was herself a member, abolishing privateering everywhere in all cases and forever. You alreadyhave our authority to propose to her our accession to that declaration. Ifshe refuse to receive it, it can only be because she is willing to becomethe patron of privateering when aimed at our devastation. 

These positions are not elaborately defended now, because to vindicatethem would imply a possibility of our waiving them. 

1 We are not insensible of the grave importance of

1 (Drop all from this line to the end, and in lieu of it write, "Thispaper is for your own guidance only, and not [sic] to be read or shown toany one. ")

(Secretary Seward, when the despatch was returned to him, addedan introductory paragraph stating that the document was strictlyconfidential. For this reason these last two paragraphs remained as theyare here printed. )

this occasion. We see how, upon the result of the debate in which we areengaged, a war may ensue between the United States and one, two, or evenmore European nations. War in any case is as exceptionable from the habitsas it is revolting from the sentiments of the American people. But ifit come, it will be fully seen that it results from the action of GreatBritain, not our own; that Great Britain will have decided to fraternizewith our domestic enemy, either without waiting to hear from you ourremonstrances and our warnings, or after having heard them. War in defenseof national life is not immoral, and war in defense of independence is aninevitable part of the discipline of nations. 

The dispute will be between the European and the American branches of theBritish race. All who belong to that race will especially deprecate it, as they ought. It may well be believed that men of every race and kindredwill deplore it. A war not unlike it between the same parties occurred atthe close of the last century. Europe atoned by forty years of sufferingfor the error that Great Britain committed in provoking that contest. Ifthat nation shall now repeat the same great error, the social convulsionswhich will follow may not be so long, but they will be more general. Whenthey shall have ceased, it will, we think, be seen, whatever may have beenthe fortunes of other nations, that it is not the United States thatwill have come out of them with its precious Constitution altered or itshonestly obtained dominion in any degree abridged. Great Britain has butto wait a few months and all her present inconveniences will cease withall our own troubles. If she take a different course, she will calculatefor herself the ultimate as well as the immediate consequences, and willconsider what position she will hold when she shall have forever lost thesympathies and the affections of the only nation on whose sympathies andaffections she has a natural claim. In making that calculation she will dowell to remember that in the controversy she proposes to open we shall beactuated by neither pride, nor passion, nor cupidity, nor ambition; butwe shall stand simply on the principle of self-preservation, and that ourcause will involve the independence of nations and the rights of humannature. 

I am, Sir, respectfully your obedient servant, W. H. S. 

CHARLES FRANCIS ADAMS, Esq. , etc, TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR, EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 21, 1861. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. MY DEAR SIR:--Why cannot Colonel Small'sPhiladelphia regiment be received? I sincerely wish it could. There issomething strange about it. Give these gentlemen an interview, and taketheir regiment. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR MORGAN. 

WASHINGTON, May 12, 1861

GOVERNOR E. D. MORGAN, Albany, N. Y. 

I wish to see you face to face to clear these difficulties aboutforwarding troops from New York. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO CAPTAIN DAHLGREEN. 

EXECUTIVE, MANSION, May 23, 1863. 

CAPT. DAHLGREEN. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Allow me to introduce Col. J. A. McLernand, M. C. Of my owndistrict in Illinois. If he should desire to visit Fortress Monroe, pleaseintroduce him to the captain of one of the vessels in our service, andpass him down and back. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

LETTER OF CONDOLENCE TO ONE OF FIRST CASUALTIES

TO COLONEL ELLSWORTH'S PARENTS, WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 25, 1861

TO THE FATHER AND MOTHER OF COL. ELMER E. ELLSWORTH. 

MY DEAR SIR AND MADAME:--In the untimely loss of your noble son, ouraffliction here is scarcely less than your own. So much of promisedusefulness to one's country, and of bright hopes for one's self andfriends, have never been so suddenly dashed as in his fall. In size, inyears, and in youthful appearance a boy only, his power to command menwas surpassingly great. This power, combined with a fine intellectual andindomitable energy, and a taste altogether military, constituted in him, as seemed to me, the best natural talent in that department I ever knew. And yet he was singularly modest and deferential in social intercourse. My acquaintance with him began less than two years ago; yet, through thelatter half of the intervening period, it was as intense as the disparityof our ages and my engrossing engagements would permit. To me he appearedto have no indulgences or pastimes, and I never heard him utter a profaneor an intemperate word. What was conclusive of his good heart, he neverforgot his parents. The honors he labored for so laudably, and for which, in the sad end, he so gallantly gave his life, he meant for them no lessthan for himself. 

In the hope that it may be no intrusion upon the sacredness of yoursorrow, I have ventured to address you this tribute to the memory of myyoung friend and your brave and early fallen son. 

May God give you the consolation which is beyond all early power. 

Sincerely your friend in common affliction, A. LINCOLN. 

TO COLONEL BARTLETT. 

WASHINGTON, May 27, 1861

COL. W. A. BARTLETT, New York. 

The Naval Brigade was to go to Fort Monroe without trouble to thegovernment, and must so go or not at all. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MEMORANDUM ABOUT INDIANA REGIMENTS. 

WASHINGTON, JUNE 11, 1861

 The government has already accepted ten regiments from the State ofIndiana. I think at least six more ought to be received from that State, two to be those of Colonel James W. McMillan and Colonel William L. Brown, and the other four to be designated by the Governor of the Stateof Indiana, and to be received into the volunteer service of the UnitedStates according to the "Plan of Organization" in the General Orders ofthe War Department, No. 15. When they report to Major-General McClellan incondition to pass muster according to that order, and with the approval ofthe Secretary of War to be indorsed hereon, and left in his department, I direct that the whole six, or any smaller number of such regiments, bereceived. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, JUNE 13, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--There is, it seems, a regiment in Massachusetts commandedby Fletcher Webster, and which HON. Daniel Webster's old friends very muchwish to get into the service. If it can be received with the approval ofyour department and the consent of the Governor of Massachusetts I shallindeed be much gratified. Give Mr. Ashmun a chance to explain fully. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, JUNE 13, 1861 HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

MY DEAR SIR--I think it is entirely safe to accept a fifth regiment fromMichigan, and with your approbation I should say a regiment presented byCol. T. B. W. Stockton, ready for service within two weeks from now, willbe received. Look at Colonel Stockton's testimonials. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 17, 1861

HON. SECRETARY Of WAR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--With your concurrence, and that of the Governor of Indiana, I am in favor of accepting into what we call the three years' service anynumber not exceeding four additional regiments from that State. Probablythey should come from the triangular region between the Ohio and WabashRivers, including my own old boyhood home. Please see HON. C. M. Allen, Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives, and unless you perceivegood reason to the contrary, draw up an order for him according to theabove. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, JUNE 17, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. MY DEAR SIR:--With your concurrence, and that ofthe Governor of Ohio, I am in favor of receiving into what we call thethree years' service any number not exceeding six additional regimentsfrom that State, unless you perceive good reasons to the contrary. Pleasesee HON. John A. Gurley, who bears this, and make an order correspondingwith the above. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO N. W. EDWARDS

WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 19, 1861

Hon. N. W. EDWARDS MY DEAR SIR:

. .. . When you wrote me some time ago in reference to looking up somethingin the departments here, I thought I would inquire into the thing andwrite you, but the extraordinary pressure upon me diverted me from it, andsoon it passed out of my mind. The thing you proposed, it seemed to me, Iought to understand myself before it was set on foot by my direction orpermission; and I really had no time to make myself acquainted with it. Nor have I yet. And yet I am unwilling, of course, that you should bedeprived of a chance to make something, if it can be done withoutinjustice to the Government, or to any individual. If you choose to comehere and point out to me how this can be done I shall not only not object, but shall be gratified to be able to oblige you. 

Your friend as ever

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY CAMERON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 20, 1861. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Since you spoke to me yesterday about General J. H. Lane, ofKansas, I have been reflecting upon the subject, and have concluded thatwe need the service of such a man out there at once; that we had betterappoint him a brigadier-general of volunteers to-day, and send him offwith such authority to raise a force (I think two regiments better thanthree, but as to this I am not particular) as you think will get him intoactual work quickest. Tell him, when he starts, to put it through not tobe writing or telegraphing back here, but put it through. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

[Indorsement. ]

General Lane has been authorized to raise two additional regiments ofvolunteers. 

SIMON CAMERON, Secretary o f War. 

TO THE KENTUCKY DELEGATION. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 29, 1861. 

GENTLEMEN OF THE KENTUCKY DELEGATION WHO ARE FOR THE UNION:

I somewhat wish to authorize my friend Jesse Bayles to raise a Kentuckyregiment, but I do not wish to do it without your consent. If you consent, please write so at the bottom of this. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

 We consent: R. MALLORY. H. GRIDER. G. W. DUNLAP. J. S. JACKSON. C. A. WICKLIFFE. 

August 5, 1861. 

I repeat, I would like for Col. Bayles to raise a regiment of cavalrywhenever the Union men of Kentucky desire or consent to it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER AUTHORIZING GENERAL SCOTT TO SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, JULY2, 1861

TO THE COMMANDING GENERAL, ARMY OF THE UNITED STATES:

You are engaged in suppressing an insurrection against the laws of theUnited States. If at any point on or in the vicinity of any military linewhich is now or which shall be used between the city of New York andthe city of Washington you find resistance which renders it necessary tosuspend the writ of habeas corpus for the public safety, you personally, or through the officer in command at the point where resistance occurs, are authorized to suspend that writ. 

Given under my hand and the seal of the United States at the city ofWashington, this second day of July, A. D. 1861, and of the independence ofthe United States the eighty-fifth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, JULY 3, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF STATE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--General Scott had sent me a copy of the despatch of whichyou kindly sent one. Thanks to both him and you. Please assemble theCabinet at twelve to-day to look over the message and reports. 

And now, suppose you step over at once and let us see General Scott (and)General Cameron about assigning a position to General Fremont. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS IN SPECIAL SESSION, JULY 4, 1861. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:--Having beenconvened on an extraordinary occasion, as authorized by the Constitution, your attention is not called to any ordinary subject of legislation. 

At the beginning of the present Presidential term, four months ago, thefunctions of the Federal Government were found to be generallysuspended within the several States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, excepting only those of thePost-Office Department. 

Within these States all the forts, arsenals, dockyards, custom-houses, andthe like, including the movable and stationary property in and aboutthem, had been seized, and were held in open hostility to this government, excepting only Forts Pickens, Taylor, and Jefferson, on and near theFlorida coast, and Fort Sumter, in Charleston Harbor, South Carolina. Theforts thus seized had been put in improved condition, new ones had beenbuilt, and armed forces had been organized and were organizing, allavowedly with the same hostile purpose. 

The forts remaining in the possession of the Federal Government in andnear these States were either besieged or menaced by warlike preparations, and especially Fort Sumter was nearly surrounded by well-protectedhostile batteries, with guns equal in quality to the best of its own, andoutnumbering the latter as perhaps ten to one. A disproportionate shareof the Federal muskets and rifles had somehow found their way intothese States, and had been seized to be used against the government. Accumulations of the public revenue lying within them had been seized forthe same object. The navy was scattered in distant seas, leaving buta very small part of it within the immediate reach of the government. Officers of the Federal army and navy had resigned in great numbers;and of those resigning a large proportion had taken up arms against thegovernment. Simultaneously, and in connection with all this, the purposeto sever the Federal Union was openly avowed. In accordance with thispurpose, an ordinance had been adopted in each of these States, declaringthe States respectively to be separated from the national Union. Aformula for instituting a combined government of these States hadbeen promulgated; and this illegal organization, in the characterof confederate States, was already invoking recognition, aid, andintervention from foreign powers. 

Finding this condition of things, and believing it to be an imperativeduty upon the incoming executive to prevent, if possible, the consummationof such attempt to destroy the Federal Union, a choice of means to thatend became indispensable. This choice was made and was declared in theinaugural address. The policy chosen looked to the exhaustion of allpeaceful measures before a resort to any stronger ones. It sought onlyto hold the public places and property not already wrested from thegovernment, and to collect the revenue, relying for the rest on time, discussion, and the ballot-box. It promised a continuance of the mails, atgovernment expense, to the very people who were resisting the government;and it gave repeated pledges against any disturbance to any of thepeople, or any of their rights. Of all that which a President mightconstitutionally and justifiably do in such a case, everything wasforborne without which it was believed possible to keep the government onfoot. 

On the 5th of March (the present incumbent's first full day in office), aletter of Major Anderson, commanding at Fort Sumter, written on the 28thof February and received at the War Department on the 4th of March, wasby that department placed in his hands. This letter expressed theprofessional opinion of the writer that reinforcements could not be throwninto that fort within the time for his relief, rendered necessary by thelimited supply of provisions, and with a view of holding possession of thesame, with a force of less than twenty thousand good and well-disciplinedmen. This opinion was concurred in by all the officers of his command, andtheir memoranda on the subject were made inclosures of Major Anderson'sletter. The whole was immediately laid before Lieutenant-General Scott, who at once concurred with Major Anderson in opinion. On reflection, however, he took full time, consulting with other officers, both ofthe army and the navy, and at the end of four days came reluctantly butdecidedly to the same conclusion as before. He also stated at thesame time that no such sufficient force was then at the control of thegovernment, or could be raised and brought to the ground within the timewhen the provisions in the fort would be exhausted. In a purely militarypoint of view, this reduced the duty of the administration in the case tothe mere matter of getting the garrison safely out of the fort. 

It was believed, however, that to so abandon that position, under thecircumstances, would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity under whichit was to be done would not be fully understood; that by many it wouldbe construed as a part of a voluntary policy; that at home it woulddiscourage the friends of the Union, embolden its adversaries, and go farto insure to the latter a recognition abroad; that in fact, it wouldbe our national destruction consummated. This could not be allowed. Starvation was not yet upon the garrison, and ere it would be reachedFort Pickens might be reinforced. This last would be a clear indicationof policy, and would better enable the country to accept the evacuation ofFort Sumter as a military necessity. An order was at once directed to besent for the landing of the troops from the steamship Brooklyn into FortPickens. This order could not go by land, but must take the longer andslower route by sea. The first return news from the order was receivedjust one week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The news itself was thatthe officer commanding the Sabine, to which vessel the troops had beentransferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi armistice ofthe late administration (and of the existence of which the presentadministration, up to the time the order was despatched, had only toovague and uncertain rumors to fix attention), had refused to land thetroops. To now reinforce Fort Pickens before a crisis would be reachedat Fort Sumter was impossible--rendered so by the near exhaustionof provisions in the latter-named fort. In precaution against such aconjuncture, the government had, a few days before, commenced preparingan expedition as well adapted as might be to relieve Fort Sumter, whichexpedition was intended to be ultimately used, or not, according tocircumstances. The strongest anticipated case for using it was nowpresented, and it was resolved to send it forward. As had been intendedin this contingency, it was also resolved to notify the governor of SouthCarolina that he might expect an attempt would be made to provision thefort; and that, if the attempt should not be resisted, there would be noeffort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, without further notice, orin case of an attack upon the fort. This notice was accordingly given;whereupon the fort was attacked and bombarded to its fall, without evenawaiting the arrival of the provisioning expedition. 

It is thus seen that the assault upon and reduction of Fort Sumter was inno sense a matter of self-defense on the part of the assailants. Theywell knew that the garrison in the fort could by no possibility commitaggression upon them. They knew--they were expressly notified--that thegiving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the garrison was allwhich would on that occasion be attempted, unless themselves, by resistingso much, should provoke more. They knew that this government desired tokeep the garrison in the fort, not to assail them, but merely to maintainvisible possession, and thus to preserve the Union from actual andimmediate dissolution--trusting, as hereinbefore stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot-box for final adjustment; and they assailedand reduced the fort for precisely the reverse object--to drive out thevisible authority of the Federal Union, and thus force it to immediatedissolution. That this was their object the executive well understood; andhaving said to them in the inaugural address, "You can have no conflictwithout being yourselves the aggressors, " he took pains not only to keepthis declaration good, but also to keep the case so free from the power ofingenious sophistry that the world should not be able to misunderstandit. By the affair at Fort Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, thatpoint was reached. Then and thereby the assailants of the government beganthe conflict of arms, without a gun in sight or in expectancy to returntheir fire, save only the few in the fort sent to that harbor years beforefor their own protection, and still ready to give that protection inwhatever was lawful. In this act, discarding all else, they have forcedupon the country the distinct issue, "immediate dissolution or blood. "

And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. Itpresents to the whole family of man the question whether a constitutionalrepublic or democracy--a government of the people by the same people--canor cannot maintain its territorial integrity against its own domesticfoes. It presents the question whether discontented individuals, too fewin numbers to control administration according to organic law in anycase, can always, upon the pretenses made in this case, or on any otherpretenses, or arbitrarily without any pretense, break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free government upon the earth. Itforces us to ask: Is there in all republics this inherent and fatalweakness? Must a government, of necessity, be too strong for the libertiesof its own people, or too weak to maintain its own existence?

So viewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war powerof the government, and so to resist force employed for its destruction byforce for its preservation. 

The call was made, and the response of the country was most gratifying, surpassing in unanimity and spirit the most sanguine expectation. Yetnone of the States commonly called slave States, except Delaware, gavea regiment through regular State organization. A few regiments have beenorganized within some others of those States by individual enterprise, and received into the government service. Of course the seceded States, so called (and to which Texas had been joined about the time of theinauguration), gave no troops to the cause of the Union. 

The border States, so called, were not uniform in their action, someof them being almost for the Union, while in others--as Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas--the Union sentiment was nearlyrepressed and silenced. The course taken in Virginia was the mostremarkable--perhaps the most important. A convention elected by the peopleof that State to consider this very question of disrupting the FederalUnion was in session at the capital of Virginia when Fort Sumter fell. Tothis body the people had chosen a large majority of professed Union men. Almost immediately after the fall of Sumter, many members of that majoritywent over to the original disunion minority, and with them adopted anordinance for withdrawing the State from the Union. Whether this changewas wrought by their great approval of the assault upon Sumter, or theirgreat resentment at the government's resistance to that assault, is notdefinitely known. Although they submitted the ordinance for ratificationto a vote of the people, to be taken on a day then somewhat more thana month distant, the convention and the Legislature (which was also insession at the same time and place), with leading men of the State notmembers of either, immediately commenced acting as if the State werealready out of the Union. They pushed military preparations vigorouslyforward all over the State. They seized the United States armory atHarper's Ferry, and the navy-yard at Gosport, near Norfolk. They receivedperhaps invited--into their State large bodies of troops, with theirwarlike appointments, from the so-called seceded States. They formallyentered into a treaty of temporary alliance and co-operation with theso-called "Confederate States, " and sent members to their congress atMontgomery. And finally, they permitted the insurrectionary government tobe transferred to their capital at Richmond. 

The people of Virginia have thus allowed this giant insurrection to makeits nest within her borders; and this government has no choice left butto deal with it where it finds it. And it has the less regret as the loyalcitizens have, in due form, claimed its protection. Those loyal citizensthis government is bound to recognize and protect, as being Virginia. 

In the border States, so called, --in fact, the middle States, --there arethose who favor a policy which they call "armed neutrality"; that is, anarming of those States to prevent the Union forces passing one way, orthe disunion the other, over their soil. This would be disunion completed. Figuratively speaking, it would be the building of an impassable wallalong the line of separation--and yet not quite an impassable one, forunder the guise of neutrality it would tie the hands of Union men andfreely pass supplies from among them to the insurrectionists, which itcould not do as an open enemy. At a stroke it would take all the troubleoff the hands of secession, except only what proceeds from the externalblockade. It would do for the disunionists that which, of all things, theymost desire--feed them well and give them disunion without a struggle oftheir own. It recognizes no fidelity to the Constitution, no obligation tomaintain the Union; and while very many who have favored it are doubtlessloyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very injurious in effect. 

Recurring to the action of the government, it may be stated that atfirst a call was made for 75, 000 militia; and, rapidly following this, a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insurrectionarydistricts by proceedings in the nature of blockade. So far all wasbelieved to be strictly legal. At this point the insurrectionistsannounced their purpose to enter upon the practice of privateering. 

Other calls were made for volunteers to serve for three years, unlesssooner discharged, and also for large additions to the regular army andnavy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were venturedupon, under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity;trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily ratify them. It isbelieved that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional competencyof Congress. 

Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty toauthorize the commanding general in proper cases, according to hisdiscretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinaryprocesses and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerousto the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but verysparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been doneunder it are questioned, and the attention of the country has been calledto the proposition that one who has sworn to "take care that the lawsbe faithfully executed" should not himself violate them. Of course someconsideration was given to the questions of power and propriety beforethis matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required tobe faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution innearly one third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail ofexecution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of themeans necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extremetenderness of the citizen's liberty that, practically, it relieves moreof the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent beviolated? To state the question more directly, are all the laws but oneto go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces lest that one beviolated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken ifthe government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregardingthe single law would tend to preserve it? But it was not believedthat this question was presented. It was not believed that any law wasviolated. The provision of the Constitution that "the privilege of thewrit of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases ofrebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it, " is equivalent toa provision--is a provision--that such privilege may be suspended when, incase of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does require it. It wasdecided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety doesrequire the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which wasauthorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not theexecutive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself issilent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provisionwas plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed theframers of the instrument intended that in every case the dangershould run its course until Congress could be called together, the veryassembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, bythe rebellion. 

No more extended argument is now offered, as an opinion at some lengthwill probably be presented by the attorney-general. Whether there shall beany legislation upon the subject, and if any, what, is submitted entirelyto the better judgment of Congress. 

The forbearance of this government had been so extraordinary and so longcontinued as to lead some foreign nations to shape their action as if theysupposed the early destruction of our national Union was probable. Whilethis, on discovery, gave the executive some concern, he is now happyto say that the sovereignty and rights of the United States are noweverywhere practically respected by foreign powers; and a general sympathywith the country is manifested throughout the world. 

The reports of the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and the Navy willgive the information in detail deemed necessary and convenient for yourdeliberation and action; while the executive and all the departments willstand ready to supply omissions, or to communicate new facts consideredimportant for you to know. 

It is now recommended that you give the legal means for making thiscontest a short and decisive one: that you place at the control ofthe government for the work at least four hundred thousand men and$400, 000, 000. That number of men is about one-tenth of those of properages within the regions where, apparently, all are willing to engage; andthe sum is less than a twenty-third part of the money value owned by themen who seem ready to devote the whole. A debt of $600, 000, 000 now is aless sum per head than was the debt of our Revolution when we came out ofthat struggle; and the money value in the country now bears even a greaterproportion to what it was then than does the population. Surely each manhas as strong a motive now to preserve our liberties as each had then toestablish them. 

A right result at this time will be worth more to the world than ten timesthe men and ten times the money. The evidence reaching us from the countryleaves no doubt that the material for the work is abundant, and that itneeds only the hand of legislation to give it legal sanction, and the handof the executive to give it practical shape and efficiency. One of thegreatest perplexities of the government is to avoid receiving troopsfaster than it can provide for them. In a word, the people will save theirgovernment if the government itself will do its part only indifferentlywell. 

It might seem, at first thought, to be of little difference whether thepresent movement at the South be called "secession" or "rebellion. " Themovers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning theyknew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude byany name which implies violation of law. They knew their people possessedas much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as muchpride in and reverence for the history and government of their commoncountry as any other civilized and patriotic people. They knew theycould make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noblesentiments. Accordingly, they commenced by an insidious debauching of thepublic mind. They invented an ingenious sophism which, if conceded, wasfollowed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to thecomplete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any State ofthe Union may consistently with the national Constitution, and thereforelawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the consent ofthe Union or of any other State. The little disguise that the supposedright is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the solejudges of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice. 

With rebellion thus sugar-coated they have been drugging the public mindof their section for more than thirty years, and until at length theyhave brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against thegovernment the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the farcicalpretense of taking their State out of the Union, who could have beenbrought to no such thing the day before. 

This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from theassumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertainingto a State--to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neithermore nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by theConstitution--no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off theirBritish colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Uniondirectly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texasin its temporary independence was never designated a State. The new onesonly took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while thatname was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration ofIndependence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free andindependent States"; but even then the object plainly was not to declaretheir independence of one another or of the Union, but directly thecontrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at thetime, and afterward, abundantly show. The express plighting of faith byeach and all of the original thirteen in the Articles of Confederation, two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive. Having never been States either in substance or in name outside of theUnion, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights, " asserting aclaim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said aboutthe "sovereignty" of the States; but the word even is not in the nationalConstitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. Whatis "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrongto define it as "a political community without a political superior"?Tested by this, no one of our States except Texas ever was a sovereignty. And even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union; by whichact she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States, and the lawsand treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution, to be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status inthe Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union, and notthemselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. Byconquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independenceor liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the States, and, infact, it created them as States. Originally some dependent colonies madethe Union, and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence forthem, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever hada State constitution independent of the Union. Of course, it is notforgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions before theyentered the Union nevertheless, dependent upon and preparatory to cominginto the Union. 

Unquestionably the States have the powers and rights reserved to them inand by the national Constitution; but among these surely are not includedall conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive, but, at most, such only as were known in the world at the time as governmental powers;and certainly a power to destroy the government itself had never beenknown as a governmental, as a merely administrative power. This relativematter of national power and State rights, as a principle, is no otherthan the principle of generality and locality. Whatever concerns the wholeshould be confided to the whole--to the General Government; while whateverconcerns only the State should be left exclusively to the State. Thisis all there is of original principle about it. Whether the nationalConstitution in defining boundaries between the two has applied theprinciple with exact accuracy, is not to be questioned. We are all boundby that defining, without question. 

What is now combated is the position that secession is consistent with theConstitution--is lawful and peaceful. It is not contended that there isany express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law whichleads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased with moneythe countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is it justthat they shall go off without leave and without refunding? The nationpaid very large sums (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundredmillions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that sheshall now be off without consent or without making any return? Thenation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of these so-calledseceding States in common with the rest. Is it just either that creditorsshall go unpaid or the remaining States pay the whole? A part of thepresent national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is itjust that she shall leave and pay no part of this herself?

Again, if one State may secede, so may another; and when all shall haveseceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just for creditors?Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money?If we now recognize this doctrine by allowing the seceders to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do if others choose to go or to extortterms upon which they will promise to remain. 

The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. Theyhave assumed to make a national constitution of their own, in which ofnecessity they have either discarded or retained the right of secessionas they insist it exists in ours. If they have discarded it, they therebyadmit that on principle it ought not to be in ours. If they have retainedit, by their own construction of ours, they show that to be consistentthey must secede from one another whenever they shall find it the easiestway of settling their debts, or effecting any other selfish or unjustobject. The principle itself is one of disintegration and upon which nogovernment can possibly endure. 

If all the States save one should assert the power to drive that one outof the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians wouldat once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage uponState rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of beingcalled "driving the one out, " should be called "the seceding of the othersfrom that one, " it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do, unless, indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may notrightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights ofminorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitutionand speaks from the preamble calling itself "We, the People. "

It may well be questioned whether there is to-day a majority of thelegally qualified voters of any State except perhaps South Carolina infavor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men arethe majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called secededStates. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of them. It isventured to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result ofan election held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one sideof the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as demonstratingpopular sentiment. At such an election, all that large class who are atonce for the Union and against coercion would be coerced to vote againstthe Union. 

It may be affirmed without extravagance that the free institutions weenjoy have developed the powers and improved the condition of our wholepeople beyond any example in the world. Of this we now have a striking andan impressive illustration. So large an army as the government has now onfoot was never before known without a soldier in it but who has taken hisplace there of his own free choice. But more than this, there are manysingle regiments whose members, one and another, possess full practicalknowledge of all the arts, sciences, professions, and whatever else, whether useful or elegant, is known in the world; and there is scarcelyone from which there could not be selected a President, a Cabinet, aCongress, and perhaps a court, abundantly competent to administer thegovernment itself. Nor do I say this is not true also in the army ofour late friends, now adversaries in this contest; but if it is, so muchbetter the reason why the government which has conferred such benefits onboth them and us should not be broken up. Whoever in any section proposesto abandon such a government would do well to consider in deference towhat principle it is that he does it; what better he is likely to get inits stead; whether the substitute will give, or be intended to give, somuch of good to the people. There are some foreshadowings on this subject. Our adversaries have adopted some declarations of independence in which, unlike the good old one, penned by Jefferson, they omit the words "allmen are created equal. " Why? They have adopted a temporary nationalconstitution, in the preamble of which, unlike our good old one, signed byWashington, they omit "We, the People, " and substitute, "We, the deputiesof the sovereign and independent States. " Why? Why this deliberatepressing out of view the rights of men and the authority of the people?

This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it isa struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance ofgovernment whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men tolift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudablepursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair chancein the race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures, from necessity; this is the leading object of the government for whoseexistence we contend. 

I am most happy to believe that the plain people understand and appreciatethis. It is worthy of note that, while in this the government's hour oftrial large numbers of those in the army and navy who have been favoredwith the offices have resigned and proved false to the hand which hadpampered them, not one common soldier or common sailor is known to havedeserted his flag. 

Great honor is due to those officers who remained true, despite theexample of their treacherous associates; but the greatest honor, and mostimportant fact of all, is the unanimous firmness of the common soldiersand common sailors. To the last man, so far as known, they havesuccessfully resisted the traitorous efforts of those whose commands, but an hour before, they obeyed as absolute law. This is the patrioticinstinct of the plain people. They understand, without an argument, thatthe destroying of the government which was made by Washington means nogood to them. 

Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points init our people have already settled--the successful establishing andthe successful administering of it. One still remains--its successfulmaintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It isnow for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carryan election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightfuland peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairlyand constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal backto bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballotsthemselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace:teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can theytake it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of a war. 

Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of candid men as to what isto be the course of the government toward the Southern States after therebellion shall have been suppressed, the executive deems it proper to sayit will be his purpose then, as ever, to be guided by the Constitution andthe laws; and that he probably will have no different understanding of thepowers and duties of the Federal Government relatively to the rights ofthe States and the people, under the Constitution, than that expressed inthe inaugural address. 

He desires to preserve the government, that it may be administered for allas it was administered by the men who made it. Loyal citizens everywherehave the right to claim this of their government, and the government hasno right to withhold or neglect it. It is not perceived that in giving itthere is any coercion, any conquest, or any subjugation, in any just senseof those terms. 

The Constitution provides, and all the States have accepted the provision, that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union arepublican form of government. " But if a State may lawfully go out ofthe Union, having done so it may also discard the republican form ofgovernment, so that to prevent its going out is an indispensable means tothe end of maintaining the guarantee mentioned; and when an end islawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it are also lawful andobligatory. 

It was with the deepest regret that the executive found the duty ofemploying the war power in defense of the government forced upon him. Hecould but perform this duty or surrender the existence of the government. No compromise by public servants could, in this case, be a cure; not thatcompromises are not often proper, but that no popular government can longsurvive a marked precedent that those who carry an election can only savethe government from immediate destruction by giving up the main point uponwhich the people gave the election. The people themselves, and not theirservants, can safely reverse their own deliberate decisions. 

As a private citizen the executive could not have consented that theseinstitutions shall perish; much less could he in betrayal of so vast andso sacred a trust as these free people had confided to him. He felt thathe had no moral right to shrink, nor even to count the chances of his ownlife, in what might follow. In full view of his great responsibility hehas, so far, done what he has deemed his duty. You will now, according toyour own judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views andyour action may so accord with his as to assure all faithful citizens whohave been disturbed in their rights of a certain and speedy restoration tothem, under the Constitution and the laws. 

And having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure purpose, let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear and with manlyhearts. 

A. LINCOLN, July 4, 1861

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1861. 

HON. SEC. OF INTERIOR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Please ask the Comr. Of Indian Affairs, and of the Gen'lLand Office to come with you, and see me at once. I want the assistance ofall of you in overhauling the list of appointments a little before I sendthem to the Senate. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 9thinstant, requesting a copy of correspondence upon the subject of theincorporation of the Dominican republic with the Spanish monarchy, Itransmit a report from the Secretary of State; to whom the resolution wasreferred. 

WASHINGTON, July 11, 1861. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I transmit to Congress a copy of correspondence between the Secretaryof State and her Britannic Majesty's envoy extraordinary and ministerplenipotentiary accredited to this government, relative to the exhibitionof the products of industry of all nations, which is to take place atLondon in the course of next year. As citizens of the United States mayjustly pride themselves upon their proficiency in industrial arts, it isdesirable that they should have proper facilities toward taking part inthe exhibition. With this view I recommend such legislation by Congress atthis session as may be necessary for that purpose. 

A. LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON, July 16, 1861

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

As the United States have, in common with Great Britain and France, a deepinterest in the preservation and development of the fisheries adjacent tothe northeastern coast and islands of this continent, it seems proper thatwe should concert with the governments of those countries such measures asmay be conducive to those important objects. With this view I transmit toCongress a copy of a correspondence between the Secretary of State andthe British minister here, in which the latter proposes, on behalf ofhis government, the appointment of a joint commission to inquire intothe matter, in order that such ulterior measures may be adopted as may beadvisable for the objects proposed. Such legislation recommended as may benecessary to enable the executive to provide for a commissioner on behalfof the United States:

WASHINGTON, JULY 19, 1861. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE ADJUTANT-GENERAL

WASHINGTON, JULY 19, 1861

ADJUTANT-GENERAL:

I have agreed, and do agree, that the two Indian regiments named withinshall be accepted if the act of Congress shall admit it. Let there be nofurther question about it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MEMORANDA OF MILITARY POLICY SUGGESTED BY THE BULL RUN DEFEAT. JULY 23, 1861

1. Let the plan for making the blockade effective be pushed forward withall possible despatch. 

2. Let the volunteer forces at Fort Monroe and vicinity under GeneralButler be constantly drilled, disciplined, and instructed without more forthe present. 

3. Let Baltimore be held as now, with a gentle but firm and certain hand. 

4. Let the force now under Patterson or Banks be strengthened and madesecure in its position. 

5. Let the forces in Western Virginia act till further orders according toinstructions or orders from General McClellan. 

6. [Let] General Fremont push forward his organization and operationsin the West as rapidly as possible, giving rather special attention toMissouri. 

7. Let the forces late before Manassas, except the three-months men, be reorganized as rapidly as possible in their camps here and aboutArlington. 

8. Let the three-months forces who decline to enter the longer service bedischarged as rapidly as circumstances will permit. 

9. Let the new volunteer forces be brought forward as fast as possible, and especially into the camps on the two sides of the river here. 

When the foregoing shall be substantially attended to:

1. Let Manassas Junction (or some point on one or other of the railroadsnear it) and Strasburg be seized, and permanently held, with an openline from Washington to Manassas, and an open line from Harper's Ferry toStrasburg the military men to find the way of doing these. 

2. This done, a joint movement from Cairo on Memphis; and from Cincinnation East Tennessee. 

TO THE GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 24, 1861

THE GOVERNOR OF NEW JERSEY. 

SIR:--Together with the regiments of three years' volunteers which thegovernment already has in service in your State, enough to make eight inall, if tendered in a reasonable time, will be accepted, the new regimentsto be taken, as far as convenient, from the three months' men and officersjust discharged, and to be organized, equipped, and sent forward as fastas single regiments are ready, On the same terms as were those already inthe service from that State. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

[Indorsement. ]

This order is entered in the War Department, and the Governor of NewJersey is authorized to furnish the regiments with wagons and horses. 

S. CAMERON, Secretary of War. 

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 22dinstant; requesting a copy of the correspondence between this, governmentand foreign powers with reference to maritime right, I transmit a reportfrom the Secretary of State. 

A. LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON, July 25, 1861

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 15thinstant, requesting a copy of the correspondence between this governmentand foreign powers on the subject of the existing insurrection in theUnited States, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State. 

WASHINGTON, July 25, 1861. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY CHASE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, JULY 16, 1861

MR CHASE:--The bearer, Mr. ------, wants ------ in the custom house atBaltimore. If his recommendations are satisfactory, and I recollect themto have been so, the fact that he is urged by the Methodists should be inhis favor, as they complain of us some. 

LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 24thinstant, asking the grounds, reasons, and evidence upon which the policeCommissioners of Baltimore were arrested and are now detained as prisonersat Port McHenry, I have to state that it is judged to be incompatible withthe public interest at this time to furnish the information called for bythe resolution. 

A. LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON, JULY 27, 1861

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 19th instant requestinginformation concerning the quasi armistice alluded to in my message of the4th instant, I transmit a report from the Secretary of the Navy. 

A. LINCOLN. 

JULY 30, 1861

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the 23d instant requestinginformation concerning the imprisonment of Lieutenant John J. Worden(John L. Worden) of the United States navy, I transmit a report from theSecretary of the Navy. 

A. LINCOLN. 

July 30, 1861

ORDER TO UNITED STATES MARSHALS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , JULY 31, 1861

The Marshals of the United States in the vicinity of forts where politicalprisoners are held will supply decent lodging and sustenance for suchprisoners unless they shall prefer to provide in those respects forthemselves, in which case they will be allowed to do so by the commandingofficer in charge. 

Approved, and the Secretary of the State will transmit the order to theMarshals, to the Lieutenant-General, and the Secretary of the Interior. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of yesterday, requesting information regarding the imprisonment of loyal citizens of theUnited States by the forces now in rebellion against this government, I transmit a report from the Secretary of State, and the copy of atelegraphic despatch by which it was accompanied. 

A. LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON, August 2, 1861. 

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of your honorable body of date July 31, 1861, requesting the President to inform the Senate whether the Hon. JamesH. Lane, a member of that body from Kansas, has been appointed abrigadier-general in the army of the United States, and if so, whetherhe has accepted such appointment, I have the honor to transmit herewithcertain papers, numbered 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, which, taken together, explain themselves, and which contain all the information I possess uponthe questions propounded. 

It was my intention, as shown by my letter of June 20, 1861, to appointHon. James H. Lane, of Kansas, a brigadier-general of United Statesvolunteers in anticipation of the act of Congress, since passed, forraising such volunteers; and I have no further knowledge upon the subject, except as derived from the papers herewith enclosed. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 5, 1861

TO SECRETARY CAMERON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, AUGUST 7, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR

MY DEAR SIR:--The within paper, as you see, is by HON. John S. Phelpsand HON. Frank P. Blair, Jr. , both members of the present Congress fromMissouri. The object is to get up an efficient force of Missourians in thesouthwestern part of the State. It ought to be done, and Mr. Phelps oughtto have general superintendence of it. I see by a private report to mefrom the department that eighteen regiments are already accepted fromMissouri. Can it not be arranged that part of them (not yet organized, asI understand) may be taken from the locality mentioned and put under thecontrol of Mr. Phelps, and let him have discretion to accept them for ashorter term than three years--or the war--understanding, however, thathe will get them for the full term if he can? I hope this can be done, because Mr. Phelps is too zealous and efficient and understands his groundtoo well for us to lose his service. Of course provision for arming, equipping, etc. , must be made. Mr. Phelps is here, and wishes to carryhome with him authority for this matter. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN

PROCLAMATION OF A NATIONAL FAST-DAY, AUGUST 12, 1861. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A Proclamation. 

Whereas a joint committee of both houses of Congress has waited on thePresident of the United States and requested him to "recommend a day ofpublic humiliation, prayer, and fasting to be observed by the people ofthe United States with religious solemnities and the offering of ferventsupplications to Almighty God for the safety and welfare of these States, His blessings on their arms, and a speedy restoration of peace"; and

Whereas it is fit and becoming in all people at all times to acknowledgeand revere the supreme government of God, to bow in humble submission toHis chastisements, to confess and deplore their sins and transgressions inthe full conviction that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom, and to pray with all fervency and contrition for the pardon of their pastoffences and for a blessing upon their present and prospective action; and

Whereas when our own beloved country, once, by the blessing of God, united, prosperous, and happy, is now afflicted with faction and civilwar, it is peculiarly fit for us to recognize the hand of God in thisterrible visitation, and in sorrowful remembrance of our own faults andcrimes as a nation and as individuals to humble ourselves before Him andto pray for His mercy-to pray that we may be spared further punishment, though most justly deserved, that our arms may be blessed and madeeffectual for the re-establishment of order, law, and peace throughoutthe wide extent of our country, and that the inestimable boon of civil andreligious liberty, earned under His guidance and blessing by the laborsand sufferings of our fathers, may be restored in all its originalexcellence. 

Therefore I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do appointthe last Thursday in September next as a day of humiliation, prayer, andfasting for all the people of the nation. And I do earnestly recommend toall the people, and especially to all ministers and teachers of religionof all denominations and to all heads of families, to observe and keepthat day according to their several creeds and modes of worship in allhumility and with all religious solemnity, to the end that the unitedprayer of the nation may ascend to the Throne of Grace and bring downplentiful blessings upon our country. 

 In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to [SEAL. ] be affixed, this twelfth day of August, A. D. 1861, and of the independence of the United States of America the eighty-sixth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

 By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TO JAMES POLLOCK. 

WASHINGTON, AUGUST 15, 1861

HON. JAMES POLLOCK. 

MY DEAR SIR:--You must make a job for the bearer of this--make a job of itwith the collector and have it done. You can do it for me and you must. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR O. P. MORTON. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , AUGUST 15, 1861

GOVERNOR MORTON, Indiana: Start your four regiments to St. Louis at theearliest moment possible. Get such harness as may be necessary for yourrifled gums. Do not delay a single regiment, but hasten everything forwardas soon as any one regiment is ready. Have your three additional regimentsorganized at once. We shall endeavor to send you the arms this week. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FREMONT, WASHINGTON, August 15, 1861

TO MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:

Been answering your messages since day before yesterday. Do you receivethe answers? The War Department has notified all the governors youdesignate to forward all available force. So telegraphed you. Have youreceived these messages? Answer immediately. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION FORBIDDING INTERCOURSE WITH REBEL STATES, AUGUST 16, 1861. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas on the fifteenth day of April, eighteen hundred and sixty-one, the President of the United States, in view of an insurrection against thelaws, Constitution, and government of the United States which had brokenout within the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas, and in pursuance of the provisionsof the act entitled "An act to provide for calling forth the militiato execute the laws of the Union, suppress insurrections, and repelinvasions, and to repeal the act now in force for that purpose, " approvedFebruary twenty-eighth, seventeen hundred and ninety-five, did call forththe militia to suppress said insurrection, and to cause the laws of theUnion to be duly executed, and the insurgents have failed to disperseby the time directed by the President; and whereas such insurrectionhas since broken out and yet exists within the States of Virginia, NorthCarolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas; and whereas the insurgents in all thesaid States claim to act under the authority thereof, and such claim isnot disclaimed or repudiated by the persons exercising the functions ofgovernment in such State or States, or in the part or parts thereof inwhich such combinations exist, nor has such insurrection been suppressedby said States:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, inpursuance of an act of Congress approved July thirteen, eighteen hundredand sixty-one, do hereby declare that the inhabitants of the said Statesof Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida (exceptthe inhabitants of that part of the State of Virginia lying west of theAllegheny Mountains, and of such other parts of that State, and the otherStates hereinbefore named, as may maintain a loyal adhesion to the Unionand the Constitution, or may be time to time occupied and controlled byforces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of said insurgents), are in a state of insurrection against the United States, and that allcommercial intercourse between the same and the inhabitants thereof, withthe exceptions aforesaid, and the citizens of other States and other partsof the United States, is unlawful, and will remain unlawful until suchinsurrection shall cease or has been suppressed; that all goods andchattels, wares and merchandise, coming from any of said States, with theexceptions aforesaid, into other parts of the United States, without thespecial license and permission of the President, through the Secretaryof the Treasury, or proceeding to any of said States, with the exceptionsaforesaid, by land or water, together with the vessel or vehicleconveying the same, or conveying persons to or from said States, withsaid exceptions, will be forfeited to the United States; and that fromand after fifteen days from the issuing of this proclamation all ships andvessels belonging in whole or in part to any citizen or inhabitant of anyof said States, with said exceptions, found at sea, or in any port of theUnited States, will be forfeited to the United States; and I hereby enjoinupon all district attorneys, marshals, and officers of the revenue and ofthe military and naval forces of the United States to be vigilant inthe execution of said act, and in the enforcement of the penalties andforfeitures imposed or declared by it; leaving any party who may thinkhimself aggrieved thereby to his application to the Secretary of theTreasury for the remission of any penalty or forfeiture, which the saidSecretary is authorized by law to grant if, in his judgment, the specialcircumstances of any case shall require such remission. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, . .. . 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of Sate. 

TO SECRETARY CAMERON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 17, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Unless there be reason to the contrary, not known tome, make out a commission for Simon B. Buckner, of Kentucky, as abrigadier-general of volunteers. It is to be put into the hands of GeneralAnderson, and delivered to General Buckner or not, at the discretion ofGeneral Anderson. Of course it is to remain a secret unless and until thecommission is delivered. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN

Same day made. 

[Indorsement. ]

TO GOVERNOR MAGOFFIN, WASHINGTON, D. C. , AUGUST 24, 1861

To HIS EXCELLENCY B. MAGOFFIN, Governor of the State of Kentucky. 

SIR:--Your letter of the 19th instant, in which you urge the "removal fromthe limits of Kentucky of the military force now organized and in campwithin that State, " is received. 

I may not possess full and precisely accurate knowledge upon this subject;but I believe it is true that there is a military force in camp withinKentucky, acting by authority of the United States, which force is notvery large, and is not now being augmented. 

I also believe that some arms have been furnished to this force by theUnited States. 

I also believe this force consists exclusively of Kentuckians, havingtheir camp in the immediate vicinity of their own homes, and not assailingor menacing any of the good people of Kentucky. 

In all I have done in the premises I have acted upon the urgentsolicitation of many Kentuckians, and in accordance with what I believed, and still believe, to be the wish of a majority of all the Union-lovingpeople of Kentucky. 

While I have conversed on this subject with many eminent men of Kentucky, including a large majority of her members of Congress, I do not rememberthat any one of them, or any other person, except your Excellency and thebearers of your Excellency's letter, has urged me to remove the militaryforce from Kentucky or to disband it. One other very worthy citizen ofKentucky did solicit me to have the augmenting of the force suspended fora time. 

Taking all the means within my reach to form a judgment, I do not believeit is the popular wish of Kentucky that this force shall be removed beyondher limits; and, with this impression, I must respectfully decline to soremove it. 

I most cordially sympathize with your Excellency in the wish to preservethe peace of my own native State, Kentucky. It is with regret I search, and cannot find, in your not very short letter, any declaration orintimation that you entertain any desire for the preservation of theFederal Union. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL FREMONT. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , SEPTEMBER 2, 1861

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Two points in your proclamation of August 30 give me someanxiety. 

First. Should you shoot a man, according to the proclamation, theConfederates would very certainly shoot our best men in their hands inretaliation; and so, man for man, indefinitely. It is, therefore, my orderthat you allow no man to be shot under the proclamation without firsthaving my approbation or consent. 

Second. I think there is great danger that the closing paragraph, inrelation to the confiscation of property and the liberating slaves oftraitorous owners, will alarm our Southern Union friends and turn themagainst us; perhaps ruin our rather fair prospect for Kentucky. Allowme, therefore, to ask that you will, as of your own motion, modify thatparagraph so as to conform to the first and fourth sections of the act ofCongress entitled "An act to confiscate property used for insurrectionarypurposes, " approved August 6, 1861, and a copy of which act I herewithsend you. 

This letter is written in a spirit of caution, and not of censure. I sendit by special messenger, in order that it may certainly and speedily reachyou. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNORS

WASHBURN OF MAINE, FAIRBANKS OF VERMONT, BERRY OF NEW HAMPSHIRE, ANDREW OFMASSACHUSETTS, BUCKINGHAM OF CONNECTICUT, AND SPRAGUE OF RHODE ISLAND. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, September 11, 1861. 

General Butler proposes raising in New England six regiments, to berecruited and commanded by himself, and to go on special service. 

I shall be glad if you, as governor of ------, will answer by telegraph ifyou consent. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL FREMONT. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , SEPTEMBER 11, 1861

MAJOR-GENERAL JOHN C. FREMONT. 

SIR:-Yours of the 8th, in answer to mine of the 2d instant, is justreceived. Assuming that you, upon the ground, could better judge of thenecessities of your position than I could at this distance, on seeingyour proclamation of August 30 I perceived no general objection to it. Theparticular clause, however, in relation to the confiscation of propertyand the liberation of slaves appeared to me to be objectionable in itsnonconformity to the act of Congress passed the 6th of last August uponthe same subjects; and hence I wrote you, expressing my wish that thatclause should be modified accordingly. Your answer, just received, expresses the preference on your part that I should make an open order forthe modification, which I very cheerfully do. It is therefore ordered thatthe said clause of said proclamation be so modified, held, and construedas to conform to, and not to transcend, the provisions on the same subjectcontained in the act of Congress entitled "An act to confiscate propertyused for insurrectionary purposes, " approved August 6, 1861, and that saidact be published at length with this order. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO MRS. FREMONT. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 12, 1861

Mrs. GENERAL FREMONT. 

MY DEAR MADAM:--Your two notes of to-day are before me. I answered theletter you bore me from General Fremont on yesterday, and not hearing fromyou during the day, I sent the answer to him by mail. It is not exactlycorrect, as you say you were told by the elder Mr. Blair, to say that Isent Postmaster-General Blair to St. Louis to examine into that departmentand report. Postmaster-General Blair did go, with my approbation, to seeand converse with General Fremont as a friend. I do not feel authorized tofurnish you with copies of letters in my possession without the consent ofthe writers. No impression has been made on my mind against the honor orintegrity of General Fremont, and I now enter my protest against beingunderstood as acting in any hostility toward him. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JOSEPH HOLT, EXECUTIVE MANSION, SEPTEMBER 12, 1861

HON. JOSEPH HOLT. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours of this day in relation to the late proclamation ofGeneral Fremont is received yesterday I addressed a letter to him, bymail, on the same subject, and which is to be made public when he receivesit. I herewith send you a copy of that letter, which perhaps shows myposition as distinctly as any new one I could write. I will thank you notto make it public until General Fremont shall have had time to receive theoriginal. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL SCOTT

WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 16, 1861. 

DEAR SIR:--Since conversing with you I have concluded to request youto frame an order for recruiting North Carolinians at Fort Hatteras. Isuggest it to be so framed as for us to accept a smaller force--even acompany--if we cannot get a regiment or more. What is necessary to nowsay about officers you will judge. Governor Seward says he has a nephew(Clarence A. Seward, I believe) who would be willing to go and playcolonel and assist in raising the force. Still it is to be consideredwhether the North Carolinians will not prefer officers of their own. Ishould expect they would. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY CAMERON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 18, 1861

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. MY DEAR SIR:--To guard against misunderstanding, I think fit to say that the joint expedition of the army and navy agreedupon some time since, and in which General T. W. Sherman was and is tobear a conspicuous part, is in no wise to be abandoned, but must be readyto move by the 1st of, or very early in, October. Let all preparations goforward accordingly. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL FREMONT, WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER 12, 1861

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:

Governor Morton telegraphs as follows: "Colonel Lane, just arrived byspecial train, represents Owensborough, forty miles above Evansville, inpossession of secessionists. Green River is navigable. Owensborough mustbe seized. We want a gunboat sent up from Paducah for that purpose. " Sendup the gunboat if, in your discretion, you think it right. Perhaps you hadbetter order those in charge of the Ohio River to guard it vigilantly atall points. 

A. LINCOLN. 

To O. H. BROWNING. 

(Private and Confidential)

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON SEPTEMBER 22, 1861

HON. O. H. BROWNING. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 17th is just received; and coming from you, Iconfess it astonishes me. That you should object to my adhering to a lawwhich you had assisted in making and presenting to me less than a monthbefore is odd enough. But this is a very small part. General Fremont'sproclamation as to confiscation of property and the liberation of slavesis purely political and not within the range of military law or necessity. If a commanding general finds a necessity to seize the farm of a privateowner for a pasture, an encampment, or a fortification, he has the rightto do so, and to so hold it as long as the necessity lasts; and this iswithin military law, because within military necessity. But to say thefarm shall no longer belong to the owner, or his heirs forever, and thisas well when the farm is not needed for military purposes as when it is, is purely political, without the savor of military law about it. And thesame is true of slaves. If the general needs them, he can seize themand use them; but when the need is past, it is not for him to fix theirpermanent future condition. That must be settled according to laws madeby law-makers, and not by military proclamations. The proclamation in thepoint in question is simply "dictatorship. " It assumes that the generalmay do anything he pleases confiscate the lands and free the slaves ofloyal people, as well as of disloyal ones. And going the whole figure, I have no doubt, would be more popular with some thoughtless people thanthat which has been done, But I cannot assume this reckless position, norallow others to assume it on my responsibility. 

You speak of it as being the only means of saving the government. Onthe contrary, it is itself the surrender of the government. Can it bepretended that it is any longer the Government of the United States--anygovernment of constitution and laws wherein a general or a president maymake permanent rules of property by proclamation? I do not say Congressmight not with propriety pass a law on the point, just such as GeneralFremont proclaimed. 

I do not say I might not, as a member of Congress, vote for it. What Iobject to is, that I, as President, shall expressly or impliedly seize andexercise the permanent legislative functions of the government. 

So much as to principle. Now as to policy. No doubt the thing was popularin some quarters, and would have been more so if it had been a generaldeclaration of emancipation. The Kentucky Legislature would not budge tillthat proclamation was modified; and General Anderson telegraphed methat on the news of General Fremont having actually issued deeds ofmanumission, a whole company of our volunteers threw down their arms anddisbanded. I was so assured as to think it probable that the very armswe had furnished Kentucky would be turned against us. I think to loseKentucky is nearly the same as to lose the whole game. Kentucky gone, wecannot hold Missouri, nor, as I think, Maryland. These all against us, and the job on our hands is too large for us. We would as well consentto separation at once, including the surrender of this Capital. On thecontrary, if you will give up your restlessness for new positions, andback me manfully on the grounds upon which you and other kind friendsgave me the election and have approved in my public documents, we shallgo through triumphantly. You must not understand I took my course on theproclamation because of Kentucky. I took the same ground in a privateletter to General Fremont before I heard from Kentucky. 

You think I am inconsistent because I did not also forbid General Fremontto shoot men under the proclamation. I understand that part to be withinmilitary law, but I also think, and so privately wrote General Fremont, that it is impolitic in this, that our adversaries have the power, andwill certainly exercise it, to shoot as many of our men as we shoot oftheirs. I did not say this in the public letter, because it is a subject Iprefer not to discuss in the hearing of our enemies. 

There has been no thought of removing General Fremont on any groundconnected with his proclamation, and if there has been any wish for hisremoval on any ground, our mutual friend Sam. Glover can probably tell youwhat it was. I hope no real necessity for it exists on any ground. 

Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

MEMORANDUM FOR A PLAN OF CAMPAIGN

[OCTOBER 1?] 1861

On or about the 5th of October (the exact date to be determined hereafter)I wish a movement made to seize and hold a point on the railroadconnecting Virginia and Tennessee near the mountain-pass called CumberlandGap. That point is now guarded against us by Zollicoffer, with 6000 or8000 rebels at Barboursville Ky. , --say twenty-five miles from the Gap, toward Lexington. We have a force of 5000 or 6000 under General Thomas, at Camp Dick Robinson, about twenty-five miles from Lexington andseventy-five from Zollicoffer's camp, On the road between the two. Thereis not a railroad anywhere between Lexington and the point to be seized, and along the whole length of which the Union sentiment among the peoplelargely predominates. We have military possession of the railroad fromCincinnati to Lexington, and from Louisville to Lexington, and somehome guards, under General Crittenden, are on the latter line. We havepossession of the railroad from Louisville to Nashville, Tenn. , so faras Muldraugh's Hill, about forty miles, and the rebels have possession ofthat road all south of there. At the Hill we have a force of 8000, underGeneral Sherman, and about an equal force of rebels is a very shortdistance south, under General Buckner. 

We have a large force at Paducah, and a smaller at Port Holt, both on theKentucky side, with some at Bird's Point, Cairo, Mound City, Evansville, and New Albany, all on the other side, and all which, with the gunboats onthe river, are perhaps sufficient to guard the Ohio from Louisville to itsmouth. 

About supplies of troops, my general idea is that all from Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, and Kansas, not now elsewhere, beleft to Fremont. All from Indiana and Michigan, not now elsewhere, be sentto Anderson at Louisville. All from Ohio needed in western Virginia besent there, and any remainder be sent to Mitchell at Cincinnati, forAnderson. All east of the mountains be appropriated to McClellan and tothe coast. 

As to movements, my idea is that the one for the coast and that onCumberland Gap be simultaneous, and that in the meantime preparation, vigilant watching, and the defensive only be acted upon; this, however, not to apply to Fremont's operations in northern and middle Missouri. Thatbefore these movements Thomas and Sherman shall respectively watch butnot attack Zollicoffer and Buckner. That when the coast and Gap movementsshall be ready Sherman is merely to stand fast, while all at Cincinnatiand all at Louisville, with all on the line, concentrate rapidly atLexington, and thence to Thomas's camp, joining him, and the whole thenceupon the Gap. It is for the military men to decide whether they can find apass through the mountains at or near the Gap which cannot be defended bythe enemy with a greatly inferior force, and what is to be done in regardto this. 

The coast and Gap movements made, Generals McClellan and Fremont, intheir respective departments, will avail themselves of any advantages thediversions may present. 

[He was entirely unable to get this started, Sherman would have takenan active part if given him, the others were too busy getting lines ofcommunication guarded--and discovering many "critical" supply items thathad not been sent them. Also the commanding general did not like it. D. W. ]

TO THE SECRETARY OF STATE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 4, 1861

HONORABLE SECRETARY OF STATE. 

DEAR SIR:--Please see Mr. Walker, well vouched as a Union man andson-in-law of Governor Morehead, and pleading for his release. Iunderstand the Kentucky arrests were not made by special direction fromhere, and I am willing if you are that any of the parties may be releasedwhen James Guthrie and James Speed think they should be. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE VICEROY OF EGYPT. 

WASHINGTON, October 11, 1861. 

GREAT AND GOOD FRIEND:--I have received from Mr. Thayer, Consul-Generalof the United States at Alexandria, a full account of the liberal, enlightened, and energetic proceedings which, on his complaint, you haveadopted in bringing to speedy and condign punishment the parties, subjectsof your Highness in Upper Egypt, who were concerned in an act of criminalpersecution against Faris, an agent of certain Christian missionaries inUpper Egypt. I pray your Highness to be assured that these proceedings, at once so prompt and so just, will be regarded as a new and unmistakableproof equally of your Highness's friendship for the United States andof the firmness, integrity and wisdom, with which the government of yourHighness is conducted. Wishing you great prosperity and success, I am yourfriend, A. LINCOLN. 

HIS HIGHNESS MOHAMMED SAID PACHA, Viceroy of Egypt and its Dependencies, etc. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

ORDER AUTHORIZING SUSPENSION OF THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. 

October 14 1861

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL WINFIELD SCOTT:

The military line of the United States for the suppression of theinsurrection may be extended so far as Bangor, in Maine. You and anyofficer acting under your authority are hereby authorized to suspend thewrit of habeas corpus in any place between that place and the city ofWashington. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TO SECRETARY OF INTERIOR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 14, 1861

HON. SEC. OF INTERIOR. 

DEAR SIR:--How is this? I supposed I was appointing for register of willsa citizen of this District. Now the commission comes to me "Moses Kelly, of New Hampshire. " I do not like this. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TWO SONS WHO WANT TO WORK

TO MAJOR RAMSEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, October 17, 1861

MAJOR RAMSEY. 

MY DEAR SIR:--The lady bearer of this says she has two sons who want towork. Set them at it if possible. Wanting to work is so rare a want thatit should be encouraged. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL THOMAS W. SHERMAN. 

WASHINGTON, October 18, 1861. 

GENERAL THOMAS SHERMAN, Annapolis, Md. :

Your despatch of yesterday received and shown to General McClellan. I havepromised him not to direct his army here without his consent. I do notthink I shall come to Annapolis. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL CURTIS, WITH INCLOSURES. 

WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861

BRIGADIER-GENERAL S. R. CURTIS. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is a document--half letter, half order--which, wishing you to see, but not to make public, I send unsealed. Pleaseread it and then inclose it to the officer who may be in command of theDepartment of the West at the time it reaches him. I cannot now knowwhether Fremont or Hunter will then be in command. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861

BRIGADIER-GENERAL S. R. CURTIS. 

DEAR SIR:--On receipt of this, with the accompanying inclosures, you willtake safe, certain, and suitable measures to have the inclosure addressedto Major-General Fremont delivered to him with all reasonable despatch, subject to these conditions only: that if, when General Fremont shall bereached by the messenger--yourself or any one sent by you--he shall thenhave, in personal command, fought and won a battle, or shall then beactually in a battle, or shall then be in the immediate presence of theenemy in expectation of a battle, it is not to be delivered, but heldfor further orders. After, and not till after, the delivery to GeneralFremont, let the inclosure addressed to General Hunter be delivered tohim. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

(General Orders No. 18. ) HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861

Major-General Fremont, of the United States Army, the present commanderof the Western Department of the same, will, on the receipt of this order, call Major-General Hunter, of the United States Volunteers, to relieve himtemporarily in that command, when he (Major-General Fremont) will reportto general headquarters by letter for further orders. 

WINFIELD SCOTT. By command: E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General. 

WASHINGTON, October 24, 1861

TO THE COMMANDER OF THE DEPARTMENT OF THE WEST. 

SIR:--The command of the Department of the West having devolved upon you, I propose to offer you a few suggestions. Knowing how hazardous it isto bind down a distant commander in the field to specific lines andoperations, as so much always depends on a knowledge of localities andpassing events, it is intended, therefore, to leave a considerable marginfor the exercise of your judgment and discretion. 

The main rebel army (Price's) west of the Mississippi is believed to havepassed Dade County in full retreat upon northwestern Arkansas, leavingMissouri almost freed from the enemy, excepting in the southeast of theState. Assuming this basis of fact, it seems desirable, as you are notlikely to overtake Price, and are in danger of making too long a line fromyour own base of supplies and reinforcements, that you should give up thepursuit, halt your main army, divide it into two corps of observation, oneoccupying Sedalia and the other Rolla, the present termini of railroads;then recruit the condition of both corps by re-establishing and improvingtheir discipline and instructions, perfecting their clothing andequipments, and providing less uncomfortable quarters. Of course, bothrailroads must be guarded and kept open, judiciously employing just somuch force as is necessary for this. From these two points, Sedalia andRolla, and especially in judicious cooperation with Lane on the Kansasborder, it would be so easy to concentrate and repel any army of the enemyreturning on Missouri from the southwest, that it is not probable any suchattempt will be made before or during the approaching cold weather. Beforespring the people of Missouri will probably be in no favorable moodto renew for next year the troubles which have so much afflicted andimpoverished them during this. If you adopt this line of policy, and if, as I anticipate, you will see no enemy in great force approaching, youwill have a surplus of force which you can withdraw from these points anddirect to others as may be needed, the railroads furnishing ready meansof reinforcing these main points if occasion requires. Doubtless localuprisings will for a time continue to occur, but these can be met bydetachments and local forces of our own, and will ere long tire out ofthemselves. 

While, as stated in the beginning of the letter, a large discretion mustbe and is left with yourself, I feel sure that an indefinite pursuit ofPrice or an attempt by this long and circuitous route to reach Memphiswill be exhaustive beyond endurance, and will end in the loss of the wholeforce engaged in it. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER RETIRING GENERAL SCOTT AND APPOINTING

GENERAL McCLELLAN HIS SUCCESSOR. (General Orders, No. 94. )

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE

WASHINGTON, November 1, 1861

The following order from the President of the United States, announcingthe retirement from active command of the honored veteran Lieutenantgeneral Winfield Scott, will be read by the army with profound regret:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON. 

November 1, 1861

On the 1st day of November, A. D. 1861, upon his own application to thePresident of the United States, Brevet Lieutenant-General Winfield Scottis ordered to be placed, and hereby is placed, upon the list of retiredofficers of the army of the United States, without reduction in hiscurrent pay, subsistence, or allowances. 

The American people will hear with sadness and deep emotion that GeneralScott has withdrawn from the active control of the army, while thePresident and a unanimous Cabinet express their own and the nation'ssympathy in his personal affliction and their profound sense of theimportant public services rendered by him to his country during his longand brilliant career, among which will ever be gratefully distinguishedhis faithful devotion to the Constitution, the Union, and the flag whenassailed by parricidal rebellion. 

A. LINCOLN

The President is pleased to direct that Major general George B. McClellanassume the command of the army of the United States. The headquarters ofthe army will be established in the city of Washington. All communicationsintended for the commanding general will hereafter be addressed directto the adjutant-general. The duplicate returns, orders, and other papersheretofore sent to the assistant adjutant-general, headquarters of thearmy, will be discontinued. 

By order of the Secretary of War: L. THOMAS, Adjutant General. 

ORDER APPROVING THE PLAN OF GOVERNOR GAMBLE OF MISSOURI. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 5, 1861. 

The Governor of the State of Missouri, acting under the direction of theconvention of that State, proposes to the Government of the United Statesthat he will raise a military force to serve within the State as Statemilitia during the war there, to cooperate with the troops in theservice of the United States in repelling the invasion of the State andsuppressing rebellion therein; the said State militia to be embodiedand to be held in the camp and in the field, drilled, disciplined, andgoverned according to the Army Regulations and subject to the Articles ofWar; the said State militia not to be ordered out of the State except forthe immediate defense of the State of Missouri, but to co-operate with thetroops in the service of the United States in military operations withinthe State or necessary to its defense, and when officers of the Statemilitia act with officers in the service of the United States of the samegrade the officers of the United States service shall command the combinedforce; the State militia to be armed, equipped, clothed, subsisted, transported, and paid by the United States during such time as they shallbe actually engaged as an embodied military force in service in accordancewith regulations of the United States Army or general orders as issuedfrom time to time. 

In order that the Treasury of the United States may not be burdened withthe pay of unnecessary officers, the governor proposes that, althoughthe State law requires him to appoint upon the general staff anadjutant-general, a commissary-general, an inspector-general, aquartermaster-general, a paymaster-general, and a surgeon-general, eachwith the rank of colonel of cavalry, yet he proposes that theGovernment of the United States pay only the adjutant-general, thequartermaster-general, and inspector-general, their services beingnecessary in the relations which would exist between the State militia andthe United States. The governor further proposes that while he isallowed by the State law to appoint aides-de-camp to the governor at hisdiscretion, with the rank of colonel, three only shall be reported to theUnited States for payment. He also proposes that the State militiashall be commanded by a single major-general and by such number ofbrigadier-generals as shall allow one for a brigade of not less than fourregiments, and that no greater number of staff officers shall be appointedfor regimental, brigade, and division duties than as provided for in theact of Congress of the 22d July, 1861; and that, whatever be the rank ofsuch officers as fixed by the law of the State, the compensation that theyshall receive from the United States shall only be that which belongs tothe rank given by said act of Congress to officers in the United Statesservice performing the same duties. 

The field officers of a regiment in the State militia are one colonel, onelieutenant-colonel, and one major, and the company officers are a captain, a first lieutenant, and a second lieutenant. The governor proposes that, as the money to be disbursed is the money of the United States, such staffofficers in the service of the United States as may be necessary to actas disbursing officers for the State militia shall be assigned by the WarDepartment for that duty; or, if such cannot be spared from their presentduty, he will appoint such persons disbursing officers for the Statemilitia as the President of the United States may designate. Suchregulations as may be required, in the judgment of the President, toinsure regularity of returns and to protect the United States from anyfraudulent practices shall be observed and obeyed by all in office in theState militia. 

The above propositions are accepted on the part of the United States, andthe Secretary of War is directed to make the necessary orders upon theOrdnance, Quartermaster's, Commissary, Pay, and Medical departmentsto carry this agreement into effect. He will cause the necessarystaff officers in the United States service to be detailed for duty inconnection with the Missouri State militia, and will order them to makethe necessary provision in their respective offices for fulfilling thisagreement. All requisitions upon the different officers of the UnitedStates under this agreement to be made in substance in the same mode forthe Missouri State militia as similar requisitions are made for troops inthe service of the United States; and the Secretary of War will causeany additional regulations that may be necessary to insure regularityand economy in carrying this agreement into effect to be adopted andcommunicated to the Governor of Missouri for the government of theMissouri State militia. 

[Indorsement. ]

November 6, 1861. 

This plan approved, with the modification that the governor stipulatesthat when he commissions a major-general of militia it shall be the sameperson at the time in command of the United States Department of theWest; and in case the United States shall change such commander of thedepartment, he (the governor) will revoke the State commission given tothe person relieved and give one to the person substituted to the UnitedStates command of said department. 

A. LINCOLN. 

REPLY TO THE MINISTER FROM SWEDEN. 

November 8, 1861. 

SIR:--I receive with great pleasure a Minister from Sweden. That pleasureis enhanced by the information which preceded your arrival here, that hisMajesty, your sovereign, had selected you to fill the mission upon thegrounds of your derivation from an ancestral stock identified with themost glorious era of your country's noble history, and your own eminentsocial and political standing in Sweden. This country, sir, maintains, andmeans to maintain, the rights of human nature, and the capacity of men forself-government. The history of Sweden proves that this is the faith ofthe people of Sweden, and we know that it is the faith and practice oftheir respected sovereign. Rest assured, therefore, that we shall be foundalways just and paternal in our transactions with your government, andthat nothing will be omitted on my part to make your residence in thiscapital agreeable to yourself and satisfactory to your government. 

INDORSEMENT AUTHORIZING MARTIAL LAW IN SAINT LOUIS. 

St. Louis, November 20, 1861. (Received Nov. 20th. )

GENERAL McCLELLAN, For the President of the United States. 

No written authority is found here to declare and enforce martial law inthis department. Please send me such written authority and telegraph methat it has been sent by mail. 

H. W. HALLECK, Major-General. 

[Indorsement. ] November 21, 1861. 

If General McClellan and General Halleck deem it necessary to declare andmaintain martial law in Saint Louis, the same is hereby authorized. 

A. LINCOLN. 

OFFER TO COOPERATE AND GIVE SPECIAL LINE OF INFORMATION TO HORACE GREELEY

TO GOVERNOR WALKER. 

WASHINGTON, November 21, 1861

DEAR GOVERNOR:--I have thought over the interview which Mr. Gilmore hashad with Mr. Greeley, and the proposal that Greeley has made to Gilmore, namely, that he [Gilmore] shall communicate to him [Greeley] all that helearns from you of the inner workings of the administration, in returnfor his [Greeley's] giving such aid as he can to the new magazine, andallowing you [Walker] from time to time the use of his [Greeley's] columnswhen it is desirable to feel of, or forestall, public opinion on importantsubjects. The arrangement meets my unqualified approval, and I shallfurther it to the extent of my ability, by opening to you--as I donow--fully the policy of the Government, --its present views and futureintentions when formed, giving you permission to communicate them toGilmore for Greeley; and in case you go to Europe I will give thesethings direct to Gilmore. But all this must be on the express and explicitunderstanding that the fact of these communications coming from me shallbe absolutely confidential, --not to be disclosed by Greeley to his nearestfriend, or any of his subordinates. He will be, in effect, my mouthpiece, but I must not be known to be the speaker. 

I need not tell you that I have the highest confidence in Mr. Greeley. Heis a great power. Having him firmly behind me will be as helpful to me asan army of one hundred thousand men. 

This was to be most severely regretted, when Greeley became a traitorto the cause, editorialized for compromise and separation--and promotedMcClellan as Democratic candidate for the Presidency. 

That he has ever kicked the traces has been owing to his not being fullyinformed. Tell Gilmore to say to him that, if he ever objects to mypolicy, I shall be glad to have him state to me his views frankly andfully. I shall adopt his if I can. If I cannot, I will at least tell himwhy. He and I should stand together, and let no minor differences comebetween us; for we both seek one end, which is the saving of ourcountry. Now, Governor, this is a longer letter than I have written ina month, --longer than I would have written for any other man than HoraceGreeley. 

Your friend, truly, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --The sooner Gilmore sees Greeley the better, as you may before longthink it wise to ventilate our policy on the Trent affair. 

ORDER AUTHORIZING GENERAL HALLECK TO SUSPEND THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, DECEMBER 2, 1861. 

MAJOR-GENERAL H. W. HALLECK, Commanding in the Department of Missouri. 

GENERAL:--As an insurrection exists in the United States, and is in armsin the State of Missouri, you are hereby authorized and empowered tosuspend the writ of habeas corpus within the limits of the militarydivision under your command, and to exercise martial law as you find itnecessary in your discretion to secure the public safety and the authorityof the United States. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed at Washington, this second day of December, A. D. 1861. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON, December 3, 1861

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:--In the midstof unprecedented political troubles we have cause of great gratitude toGod for unusual good health and most abundant harvests. 

You will not be surprised to learn that in the peculiar exigencies of thetimes our intercourse with foreign nations has been attended with profoundsolicitude, chiefly turning upon our own domestic affairs. 

A disloyal portion of the American people have during the whole year beenengaged in an attempt to divide and destroy the Union. A nation whichendures factious domestic division is exposed to disrespect abroad, and one party, if not both, is sure sooner or later to invoke foreignintervention. 

Nations thus tempted to interfere are not always able to resist thecounsels of seeming expediency and ungenerous ambition, although measuresadopted under such influences seldom fail to be unfortunate and injuriousto those adopting them. 

The disloyal citizens of the United States who have offered the ruin ofour country in return for the aid and comfort which they have invokedabroad have received less patronage and encouragement than they probablyexpected. If it were just to suppose, as the insurgents have seemed toassume, that foreign nations in this case, discarding all moral, social, and treaty obligations, would act solely and selfishly for the most speedyrestoration of commerce, including especially the acquisition of cotton, those nations appear as yet not to have seen their way to their objectmore directly or clearly through the destruction than through thepreservation of the Union. If we could dare to believe that foreignnations are actuated by no higher principle than this, I am quite sure asound argument could be made to show them that they can reach their aimmore readily and easily by aiding to crush this rebellion than by givingencouragement to it. 

The principal lever relied on by the insurgents for exciting foreignnations to hostility against us, as already intimated, is theembarrassment of commerce. Those nations, however, not improbably sawfrom the first that it was the Union which made as well our foreign asour domestic commerce. They can scarcely have failed to perceive that theeffort for disunion produces the existing difficulty, and that one strongnation promises more durable peace and a more extensive, valuable, andreliable commerce than can the same nation broken into hostile fragments. 

It is not my purpose to review our discussions with foreign states, because, whatever might be their wishes or dispositions, the integrityof our country and the stability of our government mainly depend not uponthem, but on the loyalty, virtue, patriotism, and intelligence of theAmerican people. The correspondence itself, with the usual reservations, is herewith submitted. 

I venture to hope it will appear that we have practiced prudence andliberality toward foreign powers, averting causes of irritation and withfirmness maintaining our own rights and honor. 

Since, however, it is apparent that here, as in every other state, foreign dangers necessarily attend domestic difficulties, I recommend thatadequate and ample measures be adopted for maintaining the public defenseson every side. While under this general recommendation provision fordefending our seacoast line readily occurs to the mind, I also in the sameconnection ask the attention of Congress to our great lakes and rivers. It is believed that some fortifications and depots of arms and munitions, with harbor and navigation improvements, all at well-selected pointsupon these, would be of great importance to the national defense andpreservation I ask attention to the views of the Secretary of War, expressed in his report, upon the same general subject. 

I deem it of importance that the loyal regions of east Tennessee andwestern North Carolina should be connected with Kentucky and otherfaithful parts of the Union by rail-road. I therefore recommend, as amilitary measure, that Congress provide for the construction of suchrail-road as speedily as possible. Kentucky will no doubt co-operate, andthrough her Legislature make the most judicious selection of a line. Thenorthern terminus must connect with some existing railroad, and whetherthe route shall be from Lexington or Nicholasville to the Cumberland Gap, or from Lebanon to the Tennessee line, in the direction of Knoxville, oron some still different line, can easily be determined. Kentucky and theGeneral Government co-operating, the work can be completed in a very shorttime, and when done it will be not only of vast present usefulness butalso a valuable permanent improvement, worth its cost in all the future. 

Some treaties, designed chiefly for the interests of commerce, and havingno grave political importance, have been negotiated, and will be submittedto the Senate for their consideration. 

Although we have failed to induce some of the commercial powers to adopta desirable melioration of the rigor of maritime war, we have removed allobstructions from the way of this humane reform except such as are merelyof temporary and accidental occurrence. 

I invite your attention to the correspondence between her BritannicMajesty's minister accredited to this government and the Secretary ofState relative to the detention of the British ship Perthshire in Junelast by the United States steamer Massachusetts for a supposed breachof the blockade. As this detention was occasioned by an obviousmisapprehension of the facts, and as justice requires that we shouldcommit no belligerent act not founded in strict right as sanctioned bypublic law, I recommend that an appropriation be made to satisfy thereasonable demand of the owners of the vessel for her detention. 

I repeat the recommendation of my predecessor in his annual message toCongress in December last in regard to the disposition of the surpluswhich will probably remain after satisfying the claims of Americancitizens against China, pursuant to the awards of the commissioners underthe act of the 3d of March, 1859. If, however, it should not be deemedadvisable to carry that recommendation into effect, I would suggest thatauthority be given for investing the principal, or the proceeds of thesurplus referred to, in good securities, with a view to the satisfactionof such other just claims of our citizens against China as are notunlikely to arise hereafter in the course of our extensive trade with thatempire. 

By the act of the 5th of August last Congress authorized the President toinstruct the commanders of suitable vessels to defend themselves againstand to capture pirates. His authority has been exercised in a singleinstance only. For the more effectual protection of our extensive andvaluable commerce in the Eastern seas especially, it seems to me that itwould also be advisable to authorize the commanders of sailing vessels torecapture any prizes which pirates may make of United States vessels andtheir cargoes, and the consular courts now established by law in Easterncountries to adjudicate the cases in the event that this should not beobjected to by the local authorities. 

If any good reason exists why we should persevere longer in withholdingour recognition of the independence and sovereignty of Haiti and Liberia, I am unable to discern it. Unwilling, however, to inaugurate a novelpolicy in regard to them without the approbation of Congress, I submit foryour consideration the expediency of an appropriation for maintaininga charge d'affaires near each of those new States. It does not admit ofdoubt that important commercial advantages might be secured by favorabletreaties with them. 

The operations of the treasury during the period which has elapsed sinceyour adjournment have been conducted with signal success. The patriotismof the people has placed at the disposal of the government the large meansdemanded by the public exigencies. Much of the national loan has beentaken by citizens of the industrial classes, whose confidence in theircountry's faith and zeal for their country's deliverance from presentperil have induced them to contribute to the support of the governmentthe whole of their limited acquisitions. This fact imposes peculiarobligations to economy in disbursement and energy in action. 

The revenue from all sources, including loans, for the financial yearending on the 30th of June, 1861, was $86, 835, 900. 27, and the expendituresfor the same period, including payments on account of the public debt, were $84, 578, 834. 47, leaving a balance in the treasury on the 1st of Julyof $2, 257, 065. 80. For the first quarter of the financial year ending onthe 30th of September, 1861, the receipts from all sources, includingthe balance of the 1st of July, were $102, 532, 509. 27, and the expenses$98, 239733. 09, leaving a balance on the 1st of October, 1861, of$4, 292, 776. 18. 

Estimates for the remaining three quarters of the year and for thefinancial year 1863, together with his views of ways and means for meetingthe demands contemplated by them, will be submitted to Congress by theSecretary of the Treasury. It is gratifying to know that the expendituresmade necessary by the rebellion are not beyond the resources of theloyal people, and to believe that the same patriotism which has thus farsustained the government will continue to sustain it till peace and unionshall again bless the land. 

I respectfully refer to the report of the Secretary of War for informationrespecting the numerical strength of the army and for recommendationshaving in view an increase of its efficiency and the well-being of thevarious branches of the service intrusted to his care. It is gratifying toknow that the patriotism of the people has proved equal to the occasion, and that the number of troops tendered greatly exceeds the force whichCongress authorized me to call into the field. 

I refer with pleasure to those portions of his report which make allusionto the creditable degree of discipline already attained by our troops andto the excellent sanitary condition of the entire army. 

The recommendation of the Secretary for an organization of the militiaupon a uniform basis is a subject of vital importance to the future safetyof the country, and is commended to the serious attention of Congress. 

The large addition to the regular army, in connection with the defectionthat has so considerably diminished the number of its officers, givespeculiar importance to his recommendation for increasing the corps ofcadets to the greatest capacity of the Military Academy. 

By mere omission, I presume, Congress has failed to provide chaplains forhospitals occupied by volunteers. This subject was brought to my notice, and I was induced to draw up the form of a letter, one copy of which, properly addressed, has been delivered to each of the persons, and at thedates respectively named and stated in a schedule, containing also theform of the letter, marked A, and herewith transmitted. 

These gentlemen, I understand, entered upon the duties designated at thetimes respectively stated in the schedule, and have labored faithfullytherein ever since. I therefore recommend that they be compensated atthe same rate as chaplains in the army. I further suggest that generalprovision be made for chaplains to serve at hospitals, as well as withregiments. 

The report of the Secretary of the Navy presents in detail the operationsof that branch of the service, the activity and energy which havecharacterized its administration, and the results of measures to increaseits efficiency and power such have been the additions, by construction andpurchase, that it may almost be said a navy has been created and broughtinto service since our difficulties commenced. 

Besides blockading our extensive coast, squadrons larger than ever beforeassembled under our flag have been put afloat and performed deeds whichhave increased our naval renown. 

I would invite special attention to the recommendation of the Secretaryfor a more perfect organization of the navy by introducing additionalgrades in the service. 

The present organization is defective and unsatisfactory, and thesuggestions submitted by the department will, it is believed, if adopted, obviate the difficulties alluded to, promote harmony, and increase theefficiency of the navy. 

There are three vacancies on the bench of the Supreme Court--two bythe decease of Justices Daniel and McLean and one by the resignation ofJustice Campbell. I have so far forborne making nominations to fill thesevacancies for reasons which I will now state. Two of the outgoing judgesresided within the States now overrun by revolt, so that if successorswere appointed in the same localities they could not now serve upon theircircuits; and many of the most competent men there probably would not takethe personal hazard of accepting to serve, even here, upon the Supremebench. I have been unwilling to throw all the appointments north-ward, thus disabling myself from doing justice to the South on the return ofpeace; although I may remark that to transfer to the North one which hasheretofore been in the South would not, with reference to territory andpopulation, be unjust. 

During the long and brilliant judicial career of Judge McLean his circuitgrew into an empire-altogether too large for any one judge to give thecourts therein more than a nominal attendance--rising in population from1, 470, 018 in 1830 to 6, 151, 405 in 1860. 

Besides this, the country generally has outgrown our present judicialsystem. If uniformity was at all intended, the system requires that allthe States shall be accommodated with circuit courts, attended by Supremejudges, while, in fact, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, Kansas, Florida, Texas, California, and Oregon have never had any such courts. Nor can thiswell be remedied without a change in the system, because the adding ofjudges to the Supreme Court, enough for the accommodation of all partsof the country with circuit courts, would create a court altogether toonumerous for a judicial body of any sort. And the evil, if it be one, willincrease as new States come into the Union. Circuit courts are useful orthey are not useful. If useful, no State should be denied them; ifnot useful, no State should have them. Let them be provided for all orabolished as to all. 

Three modifications occur to me, either of which, I think, would bean improvement upon our present system. Let the Supreme Court be ofconvenient number in every event; then, first, let the whole country bedivided into circuits of convenient size, the Supreme judges to serve in anumber of them corresponding to their own number, and independent circuitjudges be provided for all the rest; or, secondly, let the Supreme judgesbe relieved from circuit duties and circuit judges provided for all thecircuits; or, thirdly, dispense with circuit courts altogether, leavingthe judicial functions wholly to the district courts and an independentSupreme Court. 

I respectfully recommend to the consideration of Congress the presentcondition of the statute laws, with the hope that Congress will be ableto find an easy remedy for many of the inconveniences and evils whichconstantly embarrass those engaged in the practical administration ofthem. Since the Organization of the government, Congress has enacted some5000 acts and joint resolutions, which fill more than 6000 closely printedpages and are scattered through many volumes. Many of these acts have beendrawn in haste and without sufficient caution, so that their provisionsare often obscure in themselves or in conflict with each other, orat least so doubtful as to render it very difficult for even thebest-informed persons to ascertain precisely what the statute law reallyis. 

It seems to me very important that the statute laws should be made asplain and intelligible as possible, and be reduced to as small a compassas may consist with the fullness and precision of the will of theLegislature and the perspicuity of its language. This well done would, Ithink, greatly facilitate the labors of those whose duty it is to assistin the administration of the laws, and would be a lasting benefit to thepeople, by placing before them in a more accessible and intelligible formthe laws which so deeply concern their interests and their duties. 

I am informed by some whose opinions I respect that all the acts ofCongress now in force and of a permanent and general nature might berevised and rewritten so as to be embraced in one volume (or at most twovolumes) of ordinary and convenient size; and I respectfully recommend toCongress to consider of the subject, and if my suggestion be approvedto devise such plan as to their wisdom shall seem most proper for theattainment of the end proposed. 

One of the unavoidable consequences of the present insurrection isthe entire suppression in many places of all the ordinary means ofadministering civil justice by the officers and in the forms of existinglaw. This is the case, in whole or in part, in all the insurgent States;and as our armies advance upon and take possession of parts of thoseStates the practical evil becomes more apparent. There are no courtsor officers to whom the citizens of other States may apply for theenforcement of their lawful claims against citizens of the insurgentStates, and there is a vast amount of debt constituting such claims. Some have estimated it as high as $200, 000, 000, due in large part frominsurgents in open rebellion to loyal citizens who are even now makinggreat sacrifices in the discharge of their patriotic duty to support thegovernment. 

Under these circumstances I have been urgently solicited to establish, bymilitary power, courts to administer summary justice in such cases. Ihave thus far declined to do it, not because I had any doubt that the endproposed--the collection of the debts--was just and right in itself, butbecause I have been unwilling to go beyond the pressure of necessity inthe unusual exercise of power. But the powers of Congress, I suppose, areequal to the anomalous occasion, and therefore I refer the whole matter toCongress, with the hope that a plan maybe devised for the administrationof justice in all such parts of the insurgent States and Territories asmay be under the control of this government, whether by a voluntary returnto allegiance and order or by the power of our arms; this, however, notto be a permanent institution, but a temporary substitute, and to cease assoon as the ordinary courts can be reestablished in peace. 

It is important that some more convenient means should be provided, ifpossible, for the adjustment of claims against the government, especiallyin view of their increased number by reason of the war. It is as much theduty of government to render prompt justice against itself in favor ofcitizens as it is to administer the same between private individuals. Theinvestigation and adjudication of claims in their nature belong tothe judicial department. Besides, it is apparent that the attention ofCongress will be more than usually engaged for some time to come withgreat national questions. It was intended by the organization of theCourt of Claims mainly to remove this branch of business from the halls ofCongress; but, while the court has proved to be an effective and valuablemeans of investigation, it in great degree fails to effect the object ofits creation for want of power to make its judgments final. 

Fully aware of the delicacy, not to say the danger of the subject, I commend to your careful consideration whether this power of makingjudgments final may not properly be given to the court, reserving theright of appeal on questions of law to the Supreme Court, with such otherprovisions as experience may have shown to be necessary. 

I ask attention to the report of the Postmaster general, the followingbeing a summary statement of the condition of the department:

The revenue from all sources during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1861, including the annual permanent appropriation of $700, 000 for thetransportation of "free mail matter, " was $9, 049, 296. 40, being about 2 percent. Less than the revenue for 1860. 

The expenditures were $13, 606, 759. 11, showing a decrease of more than8 per cent. As compared with those of the previous year and leavingan excess of expenditure over the revenue for the last fiscal year of$4, 557, 462. 71. 

The gross revenue for the year ending June 30, 1863, is estimated atan increase of 4 per cent. On that of 1861, making $8, 683, 000, to whichshould be added the earnings of the department in carrying free matter, viz. , $700, 000, making $9, 383, 000. 

The total expenditures for 1863 are estimated at $12, 528, 000, leaving anestimated deficiency of $3, 145, 000 to be supplied from the treasury inaddition to the permanent appropriation. 

The present insurrection shows, I think, that the extension of thisDistrict across the Potomac River at the time of establishing the capitalhere was eminently wise, and consequently that the relinquishment ofthat portion of it which lies within the State of Virginia was unwise anddangerous. I submit for your consideration the expediency of regainingthat part of the District and the restoration of the original boundariesthereof through negotiations with the State of Virginia. 

The report of the Secretary of the Interior, with the accompanyingdocuments, exhibits the condition of the several branches of the publicbusiness pertaining to that department. The depressing influences of theinsurrection have been specially felt in the operations of the Patent andGeneral Land Offices. The cash receipts from the sales of public landsduring the past year have exceeded the expenses of our land system onlyabout $200, 000. The sales have been entirely suspended in the SouthernStates, while the interruptions to the business of the country and thediversion of large numbers of men from labor to military service haveobstructed settlements in the new States and Territories of the Northwest. 

The receipts of the Patent Office have declined in nine months about$100, 000. 00 rendering a large reduction of the force employed necessary tomake it self-sustaining. 

The demands upon the Pension Office will be largely increased bythe insurrection. Numerous applications for pensions, based upon thecasualties of the existing war, have already been made. There is reason tobelieve that many who are now upon the pension rolls and in receipt of thebounty of the government are in the ranks of the insurgent army orgiving them aid and comfort. The Secretary of the Interior has directeda suspension of the payment of the pensions of such persons upon proofof their disloyalty. I recommend that Congress authorize that officer tocause the names of such persons to be stricken from the pension rolls. 

The relations of the government with the Indian tribes have been greatlydisturbed by the insurrection, especially in the southern superintendencyand in that of New Mexico. The Indian country south of Kansas is in thepossession of insurgents from Texas and Arkansas. The agents of the UnitedStates appointed since the 4th of March for this superintendency have beenunable to reach their posts, while the most of those who were in officebefore that time have espoused the insurrectionary cause, and assumeto exercise the powers of agents by virtue of commissions from theinsurrectionists. It has been stated in the public press that a portion ofthose Indians have been organized as a military force and are attachedto the army of the insurgents. Although the government has no officialinformation upon this subject, letters have been written to theCommissioner of Indian Affairs by several prominent chiefs givingassurance of their loyalty to the United States and expressing a wish forthe presence of Federal troops to protect them. It is believed that uponthe repossession of the country by the Federal forces the Indians willreadily cease all hostile demonstrations and resume their former relationsto the government. 

Agriculture, confessedly the largest interest of the nation, has nota department nor a bureau, but a clerkship only, assigned to it inthe government. While it is fortunate that this great interest is soindependent in its nature as not to have demanded and extorted more fromthe government, I respectfully ask Congress to consider whether somethingmore cannot be given voluntarily with general advantage. 

Annual reports exhibiting the condition of our agriculture, commerce, andmanufactures would present a fund of information of great practical valueto the country. While I make no suggestion as to details, I venture theopinion that an agricultural and statistical bureau might profitably beorganized. 

The execution of the laws for the suppression of the African slave tradehas been confided to the Department of the Interior. It is a subject ofgratulation that the efforts which have been made for the suppression ofthis inhuman traffic have been recently attended with unusual success. Five vessels being fitted out for the slave trade have been seized andcondemned. Two mates of vessels engaged in the trade and one person inequipping a vessel as a slaver have been convicted and subjected to thepenalty of fine and imprisonment, and one captain, taken with a cargo ofAfricans on board his vessel, has been convicted of the highest grade ofoffense under our laws, the punishment of which is death. 

The Territories of Colorado, Dakota, and Nevada, created by the lastCongress, have been organized, and civil administration has beeninaugurated therein under auspices especially gratifying when it isconsidered that the leaven of treason was found existing in some of thesenew countries when the Federal officers arrived there. 

The abundant natural resources of these Territories, with the security andprotection afforded by organized government, will doubtless invite to thema large immigration when peace shall restore the business of the countryto its accustomed channels. I submit the resolutions of the Legislatureof Colorado, which evidence the patriotic spirit of the people of theTerritory. So far the authority of the United States has been upheld inall the Territories, as it is hoped it will be in the future. I commendtheir interests and defense to the enlightened and generous care ofCongress. 

I recommend to the favorable consideration of Congress the interests ofthe District of Columbia. The insurrection has been the cause ofmuch suffering and sacrifice to its inhabitants, and as they have norepresentative in Congress that body should not overlook their just claimsupon the government. 

At your late session a joint resolution was adopted authorizing thePresident to take measures for facilitating a proper representation ofthe industrial interests of the United States at the exhibition of theindustry of all nations to be holden at London in the year 1862. I regretto say I have been unable to give personal attention to this subject--asubject at once so interesting in itself and so extensively and intimatelyconnected with the material prosperity of the world. Through theSecretaries of State and of the Interior a plan or system has been devisedand partly matured, and which will be laid before you. 

Under and by virtue of the act of Congress entitled "An act to confiscateproperty used for insurrectionary purposes, " approved August 6, 1861, thelegal claims of certain persons to the labor and service of certain otherpersons have become forfeited, and numbers of the latter thus liberatedare already dependent on the United States, and must be provided for insome way. Besides this, it is not impossible that some of the Stateswill pass similar enactments for their own benefit respectively, and byoperation of which persons of the same class will be thrown upon them fordisposal. In such case I recommend that Congress provide for acceptingsuch persons from such States, according to some mode of valuation, inlieu, pro tanto, of direct taxes, or upon some other plan to be agreed onwith such States respectively; that such persons, on such acceptance bythe General Government, be at once deemed free, and that in any eventsteps be taken for colonizing both classes (or the one first mentioned ifthe other shall not be brought into existence) at some place or places ina climate congenial to them. It might be well to consider, too, whetherthe free colored people already in the United States could not, so far asindividuals may desire, be included in such colonization. 

To carry out the plan of colonization may involve the acquiring ofterritory, and also the appropriation of money beyond that to be expendedin the territorial acquisition. Having practised the acquisition ofterritory for nearly sixty years, the question of constitutional power todo so is no longer an open one with us. The power was questioned at firstby Mr. Jefferson, who, however, in the purchase of Louisiana, yieldedhis scruples on the plea of great expediency. If it be said that the onlylegitimate object of acquiring territory is to furnish homes for whitemen, this measure effects that object, for emigration of colored menleaves additional room for white men remaining or coming here. Mr. Jefferson, however, placed the importance of procuring Louisiana more onpolitical and commercial grounds than on providing room for population. 

On this whole proposition, including the appropriation of money withthe acquisition of territory, does not the expediency amount to absolutenecessity--that without which the government itself cannot be perpetuated?

The war continues. In considering the policy to be adopted for suppressingthe insurrection I have been anxious and careful that the inevitableconflict for this purpose shall not degenerate into a violent andremorseless revolutionary struggle. I have therefore in every case thoughtit proper to keep the integrity of the Union prominent as the primaryobject of the contest on our part, leaving all questions which are notof vital military importance to the more deliberate action of theLegislature. 

In the exercise of my best discretion I have adhered to the blockadeof the ports held by the insurgents, instead of putting in force byproclamation the law of Congress enacted at the late session for closingthose ports. 

So also, obeying the dictates of prudence, as well as the obligationsof law, instead of transcending I have adhered to the act of Congress toconfiscate property used for insurrectionary purposes. If a new law uponthe same subject shall be proposed, its propriety will be duly considered. The Union must be preserved, and hence all indispensable means must beemployed. We should not be in haste to determine that radical andextreme measures, which may reach the loyal as well as the disloyal, areindispensable. 

The inaugural address at the beginning of the Administration and themessage to Congress at the late special session were both mainlydevoted to topics domestic controversy out of which the insurrection andconsequent war have sprung. Nothing now occurs to add or subtract to orfrom the principles or general purposes stated and expressed in thosedocuments. 

The last ray of hope for preserving the Union peaceably expired at theassault upon Fort Sumter, and a general review of what has occurred sincemay not be unprofitable. What was painfully uncertain then is much betterdefined and more distinct now, and the progress of events is plainly inthe right direction. The insurgents confidently claimed a strong supportfrom north of Mason and Dixon's line, and the friends of the Union werenot free from apprehension on the point. This, however, was soon settleddefinitely, and on the right side. South of the line noble little Delawareled off right from the first. Maryland was made to seem against the Union. Our soldiers were assaulted, bridges were burned, and railroads torn upwithin her limits, and we were many days at one time without the abilityto bring a single regiment over her soil to the capital. Now her bridgesand railroads are repaired and open to the government; she already givesseven regiments to the cause of the Union, and none to the enemy; andher people, at a regular election, have sustained the Union by a largermajority and a larger aggregate vote than they ever before gave to anycandidate or any question. Kentucky, too, for some time in doubt, is nowdecidedly and, I think, unchangeably ranged on the side of the Union. Missouri is comparatively quiet, and, I believe, can, not again be overrunby the insurrectionists. These three States of Maryland, Kentucky, andMissouri, neither of which would promise a single soldier at first, havenow an aggregate of not less than forty thousand in the field for theUnion, while of their citizens certainly not more than a third of thatnumber, and they of doubtful whereabouts and doubtful existence, are inarms against us. After a somewhat bloody struggle of months, winter closeson the Union people of western Virginia, leaving them masters of their owncountry. 

An insurgent force of about fifteen hundred, for months dominatingthe narrow peninsular region constituting the counties of Accomac andNorthampton, and known as Eastern Shore of Virginia, together with somecontiguous parts of Maryland, have laid down their arms, and the peoplethere have renewed their allegiance to and accepted the protection of theold flag. This leaves no armed insurrectionist north of the Potomac oreast of the Chesapeake. 

Also we have obtained a footing at each of the isolated points on thesouthern coast of Hatteras, Port Royal, Tybee Island (near Savannah), and Ship Island; and we likewise have some general accounts of popularmovements in behalf of the Union in North Carolina and Tennessee. 

These things demonstrate that the cause of the Union is advancing steadilyand certainly southward. 

Since your last adjournment Lieutenant-General Scott has retired from thehead of the army. During his long life the nation has not been unmindfulof his merit; yet on calling to mind how faithfully, ably, and brilliantlyhe has served the country, from a time far back in our history, when fewof the now living had been born, and thenceforward continually, Icannot but think we are still his debtors. I submit, therefore, for yourconsideration what further mark of recognition is due to him, and toourselves as a grateful people. 

With the retirement of General Scott came the Executive duty ofappointing in his stead a general-in-chief of the army. It is a fortunatecircumstance that neither in council nor country was there, so far as Iknow, any difference of opinion as to the proper person to be selected. The retiring chief repeatedly expressed his judgment in favor of GeneralMcClellan for the position, and in this the nation seemed to give aunanimous concurrence. The designation of General McClellan is thereforein considerable degree the selection of the country as well as of theExecutive, and hence there is better reason to hope there will be givenhim the confidence and cordial support thus by fair implication promised, and without which he cannot with so full efficiency serve the country. 

It has been said that one bad general is better than two good ones, andthe saying is true if taken to mean no more than that an army is betterdirected by a single mind, though inferior, than by two superior ones atvariance and cross-purposes with each other. 

And the same is true in all joint operations wherein those engaged canhave none but a common end in view and can differ only as to the choiceof means. In a storm at sea no one on hoard can wish the ship to sink, andyet not unfrequently all go down together because too many will direct andno single mind can be allowed to control. 

It continues to develop that the insurrection is largely, if notexclusively, a war upon the first principle of popular government--therights of the people. Conclusive evidence of this is found in the mostgrave and maturely considered public documents, as well as in the generaltone of the insurgents. In those documents we find the abridgment of theexisting right of suffrage and the denial to the people of all right toparticipate in the selection of public officers except the legislativeboldly advocated, with labored arguments to prove that large control ofthe people in government is the source of all political evil. Monarchyitself is sometimes hinted at as a possible refuge from the power of thepeople. 

In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omitraising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism. Itis not needed nor fitting here that a general argument should be madein favor of popular institutions, but there is one point, with itsconnections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a briefattention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing with, ifnot above, labor in the structure of government. It is assumed that laboris available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unlesssomebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him tolabor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capitalshall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent, orbuy them and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded sofar, it is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborersor what we call slaves. And further, it is assumed that whoever is once ahired laborer is fixed in that condition for life. 

Now there is no such relation between capital and labor as assumed, nor isthere any such thing as a free man being fixed for life in the conditionof a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferencesfrom them are groundless. 

Labor is prior to and independent of capital. Capital is only the fruit oflabor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Laboris the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protection as any otherrights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably always will be, arelation between labor and capital producing mutual benefits. The error isin assuming that the whole labor of community exists within that relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and with theircapital hire or buy another few to labor for them. A large majority belongto neither class--neither work for others nor have others working forthem. In most of the Southern States a majority of the whole people ofall colors are neither slaves nor masters, while in the Northern a largemajority are neither hirers nor hired. Men, with their families--wives, sons, and daughters, --work for themselves on their farms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product to themselves, and asking nofavors of capital on the one hand nor of hired laborers or slaves on theother. It is not forgotten that a considerable number of persons mingletheir own labor with capital; that is, they labor with their own hands andalso buy or hire others to labor for them; but this is only a mixed andnot a distinct class. No principle stated is disturbed by the existence ofthis mixed class. 

Again, as has already been said, there is not of necessity any such thingas the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Manyindependent men everywhere in these States a few years back in their liveswere hired laborers. The prudent, penniless beginner in the world laborsfor wages awhile, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or land forhimself, then labors on his own account another while, and at lengthhires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generousand prosperous system which opens the way to all, gives hope to all, andconsequent energy and progress and improvement of condition to all. No menliving are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up from poverty;none less inclined to take or touch aught which they have not honestlyearned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power which theyalready possess, and which if surrendered will surely be used to close thedoor of advancement against such as they and to fix new disabilities andburdens upon them till all of liberty shall be lost. 

From the first taking of our national census to the last are seventyyears, and we find our population at the end of the period eight times asgreat as it was at the beginning. The increase of those other things whichmen deem desirable has been even greater. We thus have at one view whatthe popular principle, applied to government through the machinery ofthe States and the Union, has produced in a given time, and also what iffirmly maintained it promises for the future. There are already amongus those who if the Union be preserved will live to see it contain200, 000, 000. The struggle of to-day is not altogether for to-day; it isfor a vast future also. With a reliance on Providence all the more firmand earnest, let us proceed in the great task which events have devolvedupon us. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON, December 20, 1861. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I transmit to Congress a letter from the secretary of the executivecommittee of the commission appointed to represent the interests of thoseAmerican citizens who may desire to become exhibitors at the industrialexhibition to be held in London in 1862, and a memorial of thatcommission, with a report of the executive committee thereof and copiesof circulars announcing the decisions of Her Majesty's commissioners inLondon, giving directions to be observed in regard to articles intendedfor exhibition, and also of circular forms of application, demands forspace, approvals, etc. , according to the rules prescribed by the Britishcommissioners. 

As these papers fully set forth the requirements necessary to enable thosecitizens of the United States who may wish to become exhibitors to availthemselves of the privileges of the exhibition, I commend them to yourearly consideration, especially in view of the near approach of the timewhen the exhibition will begin. 

A. LINCOLN. 

LETTER OF REPRIMAND TO GENERAL HUNTER

TO GENERAL HUNTER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, Dec. 31, 1861

MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 23d is received, and I am constrained to say itis difficult to answer so ugly a letter in good temper. I am, as youintimate, losing much of the great confidence I placed in you, not fromany act or omission of yours touching the public service, up to the timeyou were sent to Leavenworth, but from the flood of grumbling despatchesand letters I have seen from you since. I knew you were being orderedto Leavenworth at the time it was done; and I aver that with as tender aregard for your honor and your sensibilities as I had for my own, it neveroccurred to me that you were being "humiliated, insulted, and disgraced";nor have I, up to this day, heard an intimation that you have beenwronged, coming from any one but yourself. No one has blamed you for theretrograde movement from Springfield, nor for the information you gaveGeneral Cameron; and this you could readily understand, if it were notfor your unwarranted assumption that the ordering you to Leavenworth mustnecessarily have been done as a punishment for some fault. I thought then, and think yet, the position assigned to you is as responsible, and ashonorable, as that assigned to Buell--I know that General McClellanexpected more important results from it. My impression is that at thetime you were assigned to the new Western Department, it had not beendetermined to replace General Sherman in Kentucky; but of this I am notcertain, because the idea that a command in Kentucky was very desirable, and one in the farther West undesirable, had never occurred to me. Youconstantly speak of being placed in command of only 3000. Now, tell me, isthis not mere impatience? Have you not known all the while that you are tocommand four or five times that many. 

I have been, and am sincerely your friend; and if, as such, I dare to makea suggestion, I would say you are adopting the best possible way to ruinyourself. "Act well your part, there all the honor lies. " He who doessomething at the head of one regiment, will eclipse him who does nothingat the head of a hundred. 

Your friend, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HALLECK. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 31, 1861

GENERAL H. W. HALLECK, St. Louis, Missouri:

General McClellan is sick. Are General Buell and yourself in concert? Whenhe moves on Bowling Green, what hinders it being reinforced from Columbus?A simultaneous movement by you on Columbus might prevent it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

[Similar despatch to Buell same date. ]

1862

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL. 

WASHINGTON CITY, January 1, 1862

BRIGADIER-GENERAL BUELL, Louisville:

General McClellan should not yet be disturbed with business. I think youbetter get in concert with General Halleck at once. I write you to-night. I also telegraph and write Halleck. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, January 1, 1862

DEAR GENERAL HALLECK:

General McClellan is not dangerously ill, as I hope, but would better notbe disturbed with business. I am very anxious that, in case of GeneralBuell's moving toward Nashville, the enemy shall not be greatlyreinforced, and I think there is danger he will be from Columbus. It seemsto me that a real or feigned attack upon Columbus from up the river atthe same time would either prevent this or compensate for it by throwingColumbus into our hands. I wrote General Buell a letter similar to this, meaning that he and you shall communicate and act in concert, unless it beyour judgment and his that there is no necessity for it. You and he willunderstand much better than I how to do it. Please do not lose time inthis matter. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE PEOPLE OF MARYLAND, In view of the recent declaration of the people of Maryland of theiradhesion to the Union, so distinctly made in their recent election, the President directs that all the prisoners who having heretoforebeen arrested in that State are now detained in military custody bythe President's authority, be released from their imprisonment on thefollowing conditions, namely: that if they were holding any civil ormilitary offices when arrested, the terms of which have expired, theyshall not resume or reclaim such office; and secondly, all personsavailing themselves of this proclamation shall engage by oath or parole ofhonor to maintain the Union and the Constitution of the United States, andin no way to aid or abet by arms, counsel, conversation, or informationof any kind the existing insurrection against the Government of the UnitedStates. 

To guard against misapprehension it is proper to state that thisproclamation does not apply to prisoners of war. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON, January 2, 1862

To THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

I transmit to Congress a copy of a letter to the Secretary of Statefrom James R. Partridge, secretary to the executive committee to the inexhibition to be held in London in the course present year, and a copyof the correspond which it refers, relative to a vessel for the of takingsuch articles as persons in this country may wish to exhibit on thatoccasion. As it appears no naval vessel can be spared for the purpose, Irecommend that authority be given to charter a suitable merchant vessel, in order that facilities similar to those afforded by the governmentexhibition of 1851 may also be extended to citizens of the United Stateswho may desire to contribute to the exhibition of this year. 

A. LINCOLN

MESSAGES OF DISAPPOINTMENT WITH HIS GENERALS

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL. 

WASHINGTON, January 4, 1862. 

GENERAL BUELL:

Have arms gone forward for East Tennessee? Please tell me the progress andcondition of the movement in that direction. Answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 6, 1862. 

BRIGADIER-GENERAL BUELL. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your despatch of yesterday has been received, and itdisappoints and distresses me. I have shown it to General McClellan, whosays he will write you to-day. I am not competent to criticize your views, and therefore what I offer is in justification of myself. Of the two, Iwould rather have a point on the railroad south of Cumberland Gapthan Nashville. First, because it cuts a great artery of the enemy'scommunication, which Nashville does not; and secondly, because it is inthe midst of loyal people who would rally around it, while Nashville isnot. Again, I cannot see why the movement on East Tennessee would not bea diversion in your favor rather than a disadvantage, assuming that amovement toward Nashville is the main object. But my distress is that ourfriends in East Tennessee are being hanged and driven to despair, and evennow, I fear, are thinking of taking rebel arms for the sake of personalprotection. In this we lose the most valuable stake we have in the South. My despatch, to which yours is an answer, was sent with the knowledge ofSenator Johnson and Representative Maynard of East Tennessee, and theywill be upon me to know the answer, which I cannot safely show them. Theywould despair, possibly resign to go and save their families somehow, or die with them. I do not intend this to be an order in any sense, butmerely, as intimated before, to show you the grounds of my anxiety. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUELL. 

WASHINGTON, January 7, 1862. 

BRIGADIER-GENERAL D. C. BUELL, Louisville:

Please name as early a day as you safely can on or before which you canbe ready to move southward in concert with Major-General Halleck. Delay isruining us, and it is indispensable for me to have something definite. Isend a like despatch to Major-General Halleck. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON, January 10, 1862

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I transmit to Congress a translation of an instruction to the minister ofhis Majesty the Emperor of Austria accredited to this government, and acopy of a note to that minister from the Secretary of State relative tothe questions involved in the taking from the British steamer Trent ofcertain citizens of the United States by order of Captain Wilkes of theUnited States Navy. This correspondence may be considered as a sequel tothat previously communicated to Congress relating to the same subject. 

A. LINCOLN. 

INDORSEMENT ON LETTER FROM GENERAL HALLECK, JANUARY 10, 1862. 

HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE MISSOURI ST. Louis, January 6, 1862. 

To His EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT:

In reply to your Excellency's letter of the 1st instant, I have to statethat on receiving your telegram I immediately communicated with GeneralBuell and have since sent him all the information I could obtain of theenemy's movements about Columbus and Camp Beauregard. No considerableforce has been sent from those places to Bowling Green. They have about22, 000 men at Columbus, and the place is strongly fortified. I have atCairo, Port Holt, and Paducah only about 15, 000, which, after leavingguards at these places, would give me but little over 10, 000 men withwhich to assist General Buell. It would be madness to attempt anythingserious with such a force, and I cannot at the present time withdraw anyfrom Missouri without risking the loss of this State. The troops recentlyraised in other States of this department have, without my knowledge, beensent to Kentucky and Kansas. 

I am satisfied that the authorities at Washington do not appreciate thedifficulties with which we have to contend here. The operations of Lane, Jennison, and others have so enraged the people of Missouri that it isestimated that there is a majority of 80, 000 against the government. Weare virtually in an enemy's country. Price and others have a considerablearmy in the southwest, against which I am operating with all my availableforce. 

This city and most of the middle and northern counties areinsurrectionary, --burning bridges, destroying telegraph lines, etc. , --andcan be kept down only by the presence of troops. A large portion of theforeign troops organized by General Fremont are unreliable; indeed, manyof them are already mutinous. They have been tampered with by politicians, and made to believe that if they get up a mutiny and demand Fremont'sreturn the government will be forced to restore him to duty here. Itis believed that some high officers are in the plot I have already beenobliged to disarm several of these organizations, and I am daily expectingmore serious outbreaks. Another grave difficulty is the want of propergeneral officers to command the troops and enforce order and discipline, and especially to protect public property from robbery and plunder. Some of the brigadier-generals assigned to this department are entirelyignorant of their duties and unfit for any command. I assure you, Mr. President, it is very difficult to accomplish much with such means. I amin the condition of a carpenter who is required to build a bridge witha dull axe, a broken saw, and rotten timber. It is true that I have somevery good green timber, which will answer the purpose as soon as I can getit into shape and season it a little. 

I know nothing of General Buell's intended operations, never havingreceived any information in regard to the general plan of campaign. Ifit be intended that his column shall move on Bowling Green while anothermoves from Cairo or Paducah on Columbus or Camp Beauregard, it will be arepetition of the same strategic error which produced the disaster of BullRun. To operate on exterior lines against an enemy occupying a centralposition will fail, as it always has failed, in ninety-nine cases out of ahundred. It is condemned by every military authority I have ever read. 

General Buell's army and the forces at Paducah occupy precisely the sameposition in relation to each other and to the enemy as did the armies ofMcDowell and Patterson before the battle of Bull Run. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, H. W. HALLECK, Major-General

[Indorsement]

The within is a copy of a letter just received from General Halleck. It isexceedingly discouraging. As everywhere else, nothing can be done. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR ANDREW. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 11, 1862

GOVERNOR JOHN A. ANDREW, Boston:

I will be greatly obliged if you will arrange; somehow with General Butlerto officer his two un-officered regiments. 

A. LINCOLN

TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 13, 1861

BRIGADIER-GENERAL BUELL. 

MY DEAR SIR--Your despatch of yesterday is received, in which you say, "Ireceived your letter and General McClellan's, and will at once devote myefforts to your views and his. " In the midst of my many cares I have notseen, nor asked to see, General McClellan's letter to you. For my ownviews, I have not offered and do not now offer them as orders; and while Iam glad to have them respectfully considered, I would blame you to followthem contrary to your own clear judgment, unless I should put them in theform of orders. As to General McClellan's views, you understand your dutyin regard to them better than I do. 

With this preliminary I state my general idea of this war to be, thatwe have the greater numbers and the enemy has the greater facility ofconcentrating forces upon points of collision; that we must fail unless wecan find some way of making our advantage an overmatch for his; and thatthis can only be done by menacing him with superior forces at differentpoints at the same time, so that we can safely attack one or both if hemakes no change; and if he weakens one to strengthen the other, forbear toattack the strengthened one, but seize and hold the weakened one, gainingso much. 

To illustrate: Suppose last summer, when Winchester ran away to reinforceManassas, we had forborne to attack Manassas, but had seized and heldWinchester. I mention this to illustrate and not to criticise. I did notlose confidence in McDowell, and I think less harshly of Patterson thansome others seem to. .. . Applying the principle to your case, my idea isthat Halleck shall menace Columbus and "down river" generally, while youmenace Bowling Green and East Tennessee. If the enemy shall concentrateat Bowling Green, do not retire from his front, yet do not fight him thereeither, but seize Columbus and East Tennessee, one or both, left exposedby the concentration at Bowling Green. It is a matter of no small anxietyto me, and which I am sure you will not overlook, that the East Tennesseeline is so long and over so bad a road. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

(Indorsement. )

Having to-day written General Buell a letter, it occurs to me to sendGeneral Halleck a copy of it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 1, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK. 

MY DEAR SIR:--The Germans are true and patriotic and so far as they havegot cross in Missouri it is upon mistake and misunderstanding. Without aknowledge of its contents, Governor Koerner, of Illinois, will hand youthis letter. He is an educated and talented German gentleman, as true aman as lives. With his assistance you can set everything right withthe Germans. .. . My clear judgment is that, with reference to the Germanelement in your command, you should have Governor Koerner with you; and ifagreeable to you and him, I will make him a brigadier-general, so thathe can afford to give his time. He does not wish to command in the field, though he has more military knowledge than some who do. If he goesinto the place, he will simply be an efficient, zealous, and unselfishassistant to you. I say all this upon intimate personal acquaintance withGovernor Koerner. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON, January 17, 1862

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I transmit to Congress a translation of an instruction to the minister ofhis Majesty the King of Prussia accredited to this government, and a copyof a note to that minister from the Secretary of State relating to thecapture and detention of certain citizens of the United States, passengerson board the British steamer Trent, by order of Captain Wilkes of theUnited States Navy. 

A. LINCOLN

TO GENERAL McCLELLAN. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON. 

January 20, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. McCLELLAN, Commanding Armies of the United States:

You or any officer you may designate will in your discretion suspend thewrit of habeas corpus so far as may relate to Major Chase, lately of theEngineer Corps of the Army of the United States, now alleged to be guiltyof treasonable practices against this government. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

PRESIDENT'S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO. 1

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 27, 1862. 

Ordered, That the 22d day of February, 1862, be the day for a generalmovement of the land and the naval forces of the United States against theinsurgent forces. 

That especially the army at and about Fortress Monroe, the Army ofthe Potomac, the Army of Western Virginia, the army near Munfordville, Kentucky, the army and flotilla at Cairo, and a naval force in the Gulf ofMexico, be ready for a movement on that day. 

That all other forces, both land and naval, with their respectivecommanders, obey existing orders for the time, and be ready to obeyadditional orders when duly given. 

That the heads of departments, and especially the Secretaries of War andof the Navy, with all their subordinates, and the General-in-chief, withall other commanders and subordinates of land and naval forces, willseverally be held to their strict and full responsibilities for the promptexecution of this order. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY STANTON, EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, January 31, 1862

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--It is my wish that the expedition commonly called the"Lane Expedition" shall be, as much as has been promised at theadjutant-general's office, under the supervision of General McClellan, andnot any more. I have not intended, and do not now intend, that it shall bea great, exhausting affair, but a snug, sober column of 10, 000 or 15, 000. General Lane has been told by me many times that he is under the commandof General Hunter, and assented to it as often as told. It was thedistinct agreement between him and me, when I appointed him, that he wasto be under Hunter. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL WAR ORDER NO. 1. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 31, 1862. 

Ordered, That all the disposable force of the Army of the Potomac, after providing safely for the defence of Washington, be formed into anexpedition for the immediate object of seizing and occupying a point uponthe railroad southwestward of what is known as Manassas Junction, alldetails to be in the discretion of the commander-in-chief, and theexpedition to move before or on the 22d day of February next. 

A. LINCOLN. 

OPPOSITION TO McCLELLAN'S PLANS

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN, EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 3, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MCCLELLAN. 

DEAR SIR--You and I have distinct and different plans for a movementof the Army of the Potomac--yours to be down the Chesapeake, up theRappahannock to Urbana, and across land to the terminus of the railroad onthe York River; mine to move directly to a point on the railroad southwestof Manassas. 

If you will give me satisfactory answers to the following questions, Ishall gladly yield my plan to yours. 

First. Does not your plan involve a greatly larger expenditure of time andmoney than mine?

Second. Wherein is a victory more certain by your plan than mine?

Third. Wherein is a victory more valuable by your plan than mine?

Fourth. In fact, would it not be less valuable in this, that it wouldbreak no great line of the enemy's communications, while mine would?

Fifth. In case of disaster, would not a retreat be more difficult by yourplan than mine?

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

Memorandum accompanying Letter of President Lincoln to General McClellan, dated February 3, 1862. 

First. Suppose the enemy should attack us in force before we reach theOccoquan, what?

Second. Suppose the enemy in force shall dispute the crossing of theOccoquan, what? In view of this, might it not be safest for us to crossthe Occoquan at Coichester, rather than at the village of Occoquan? Thiswould cost the enemy two miles of travel to meet us, but would, on thecontrary, leave us two miles farther from our ultimate destination. 

Third. Suppose we reach Maple Valley without an attack, will we not beattacked there in force by the enemy marching by the several roads fromManassas; and if so, what?

TO WM. H. HERNDON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 3, 1862. 

DEAR WILLIAM:--Yours of January 30th just received. Do just as you sayabout the money matter. 

As you well know, I have not time to write a letter of respectable length. God bless you, says

Your friend, A. LINCOLN. 

RESPITE FOR NATHANIEL GORDON

February 4, 1862

A. LINCOLN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, To all to whom these Presents shall come, Greeting:

Whereas it appears that at a term of the Circuit Court of the UnitedStates of America for the Southern District of New York held in the monthof November, A. D. 1861, Nathaniel Gordon was indicted and convicted forbeing engaged in the slave trade, and was by the said court sentenced tobe put to death by hanging by the neck, on Friday the 7th day of February, AD. 1862:

And whereas a large number of respectable citizens have earnestly besoughtme to commute the said sentence of the said Nathaniel Gordon to a term ofimprisonment for life, which application I have felt it to be my duty torefuse:

And whereas it has seemed to me probable that the unsuccessful applicationmade for the commutation of his sentence may have prevented the saidNathaniel Gordon from making the necessary preparation for the awfulchange which awaits him;

Now, therefore, be it known, that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States of America, have granted and do hereby grant unto him, thesaid Nathaniel Gordon, a respite of the above recited sentence, untilFriday the twenty-first day of February, A. D. 1862, between the hours oftwelve o'clock at noon and three o'clock in the afternoon of the said day, when the said sentence shall be executed. 

In granting this respite, it becomes my painful duty to admonish theprisoner that, relinquishing all expectation of pardon by human authority, he refer himself alone to the mercy of the common God and Father of allmen. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto signed my name and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington, this fourth day of February, A. D. 1862, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-sixth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. 

WASHINGTON CITY, February 4. 1862

To THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

The third section of the "Act further to promote the efficiency of theNavy, " approved December 21, 1862, provides:

"That the President of the United States, by and with the advice andconsent of the Senate, shall have the authority to detail from the retiredlist of the navy for the command of squadrons and single ships suchofficers as he may believe that the good of the service requires to bethus placed in command; and such officers may, if upon the recommendationof the President of the United States they shall receive a vote of thanksof Congress for their services and gallantry in action against an enemy, be restored to the active list, and not otherwise. "

In conformity with this law, Captain Samuel F. Du Pont, of the navy, wasnominated to the Senate for continuance as the flag-officer in command ofthe squadron which recently rendered such important service to the Unionin the expedition to the coast of South Carolina. 

Believing that no occasion could arise which would more fully correspondwith the intention of the law, or be more pregnant with happy influence asan example, I cordially recommend that Captain Samuel F. Du Pont receive avote of thanks of Congress for his services and gallantry displayed in thecapture of Forts Walker and Beauregard, commanding the entrance of PortRoyal Harbor, on the 7th of November, 1861. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERALS D. HUNTER AND J. H. LANE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, FEBRUARY 4, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER AND BRIGADIER-GENERAL LANE, Leavenworth, Kansas:

My wish has been and is to avail the government of the services of bothGeneral Hunter and General Lane, and, so far as possible, to personallyoblige both. General Hunter is the senior officer, and must command whenthey serve together; though in so far as he can consistently with thepublic service and his own honor oblige General Lane, he will also obligeme. If they cannot come to an amicable understanding, General Lane mustreport to General Hunter for duty, according to the rules, or decline theservice. 

A. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 1, RELATING TO POLITICAL PRISONERS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, February 14, 1862. 

The breaking out of a formidable insurrection based on a conflict ofpolitical ideas, being an event without precedent in the United States, was necessarily attended by great confusion and perplexity of the publicmind. Disloyalty before unsuspected suddenly became bold, and treasonastonished the world by bringing at once into the field military forcessuperior in number to the standing army of the United States. 

Every department of the government was paralyzed by treason. Defectionappeared in the Senate, in the House of Representatives, in the Cabinet, in the Federal courts; ministers and consuls returned from foreigncountries to enter the insurrectionary councils of land or naval forces;commanding and other officers of the army and in the navy betrayed ourcouncils or deserted their posts for commands in the insurgent forces. Treason was flagrant in the revenue and in the post-office service, aswell as in the Territorial governments and in the Indian reserves. 

Not only governors, judges, legislators, and ministerial officers inthe States, but even whole States rushed one after another with apparentunanimity into rebellion. The capital was besieged and its connection withall the States cut off. Even in the portions of the country which weremost loyal, political combinations and secret societies were formedfurthering the work of disunion, while, from motives of disloyalty orcupidity or from excited passions or perverted sympathies, individualswere found furnishing men, money, and materials of war and supplies to theinsurgents' military and naval forces. Armies, ships, fortifications, navy yards, arsenals, military posts, and garrisons one after another werebetrayed or abandoned to the insurgents. 

Congress had not anticipated, and so had not provided for, the emergency. The municipal authorities were powerless and inactive. The judicialmachinery seemed as if it had been designed, not to sustain thegovernment, but to embarrass and betray it. 

Foreign intervention, openly invited and industriously instigated by theabettors of the insurrection, became imminent, and has only been preventedby the practice of strict and impartial justice, with the most perfectmoderation, in our intercourse with nations. 

The public mind was alarmed and apprehensive, though fortunately notdistracted or disheartened. It seemed to be doubtful whether the FederalGovernment, which one year before had been thought a model worthy ofuniversal acceptance, had indeed the ability to defend and maintainitself. 

Some reverses, which, perhaps, were unavoidable, suffered by newly leviedand inefficient forces, discouraged the loyal and gave new hopes to theinsurgents. Voluntary enlistments seemed about to cease and desertionscommenced. Parties speculated upon the question whether conscription hadnot become necessary to fill up the armies of the United States. 

In this emergency the President felt it his duty to employ with energy theextraordinary powers which the Constitution confides to him in cases ofinsurrection. He called into the field such military and naval forces, unauthorized by the existing laws, as seemed necessary. He directedmeasures to prevent the use of the post-office for treasonablecorrespondence. He subjected passengers to and from foreign countries tonew passport regulations, and he instituted a blockade, suspended thewrit of habeas corpus in various places, and caused persons who wererepresented to him as being or about to engage in disloyal and treasonablepractices to be arrested by special civil as well as military agenciesand detained in military custody when necessary to prevent them and deterothers from such practices. Examinations of such cases were instituted, and some of the persons so arrested have been discharged from time to timeunder circumstances or upon conditions compatible, as was thought, withthe public safety. 

Meantime a favorable change of public opinion has occurred. The linebetween loyalty and disloyalty is plainly defined. The whole structureof the government is firm and stable. Apprehension of public danger andfacilities for treasonable practices have diminished with the passionswhich prompted heedless persons to adopt them. The insurrection isbelieved to have culminated and to be declining. 

The President, in view of these facts, and anxious to favor a return tothe normal course of the administration as far as regard for the publicwelfare will allow, directs that all political prisoners or stateprisoners now held in military custody be released on their subscribingto a parole engaging them to render no aid or comfort to the enemies inhostility to the United States. 

The Secretary of War will, however, in his discretion, except from theeffect of this order any persons detained as spies in the service of theinsurgents, or others whose release at the present moment may be deemedincompatible with the public safety. 

To all persons who shall be so released, and who shall keep their parole, the President grants an amnesty for any past offences of treason ordisloyalty which they may have comminuted. 

Extraordinary arrests will hereafter be made under the direction of themilitary authorities alone. 

By order of the President EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. WASHINGTON CITY, February 15, 1862

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES:

The third section of the "Act further to promote the efficiency of theNavy, " approved December 21, 1861, provides

"That the President of the United States, by and with the advice andconsent of the Senate, shall have the authority to detail from the retiredlist of the navy for the command of squadrons and single ships suchofficers as he may believe that the good of the service requires to bethus placed in command; and such officers may, if upon the recommendationof the President of the United States they shall receive a vote of thanksof Congress for their services and gallantry in action against an enemy, be restored to the active list, and not otherwise. "

In conformity with this law, Captain Louis M. Goldsborough, of the navy, was nominated to the Senate for continuance as the flag-officer in commandof the North Atlantic Blockading Squadron, which recently rendered suchimportant service to the Union in the expedition to the coast of NorthCarolina. 

Believing that no occasion could arise which would more fully correspondwith the intention of the law or be more pregnant with happy influenceas an example, I cordially recommend that Captain Louis M. Goldsboroughreceive a vote of thanks of Congress for his services and gallantrydisplayed in the combined attack of the forces commanded by him andBrigadier-General Burnside in the capture of Roanoke Island and thedestruction of rebel gunboats On the 7th, 8th, and 10th of February, 1862. 

A. LINCOLN. 

FIRST WRITTEN NOTICE OF GRANT

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 16, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, St. Louis, Missouri:

You have Fort Donelson safe, unless Grant shall be overwhelmed fromoutside; to prevent which latter will, I think, require all the vigilance, energy, and skill of yourself and Buell, acting in full co-operation. Columbus will not get at Grant, but the force from Bowling Green will. They hold the railroad from Bowling Green to within a few miles of FortDonelson, with the bridge at Clarksville undisturbed. It is unsafe torely that they will not dare to expose Nashville to Buell. A small part oftheir force can retire slowly toward Nashville, breaking up the railroadas they go, and keep Buell out of that city twenty days. MeanwhileNashville will be abundantly defended by forces from all South and perhapsfrom hers at Manassas. Could not a cavalry force from General Thomas onthe upper Cumberland dash across, almost unresisted, and cut the railroadat or near Knoxville, Tennessee? In the midst of a bombardment at FortDonelson, why could not a gunboat run up and destroy the bridge atClarksville? Our success or failure at Fort Donelson is vastly important, and I beg you to put your soul in the effort. I send a copy of this toBuell. 

A. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 2. --IN RELATION TO STATE PRISONERS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, FEBRUARY 27, 1862

It is ordered:

First. That a special commission of two persons, one of military rank andthe other in civil life, be appointed to examine the cases of the stateprisoners remaining in the military custody of the United States, and todetermine whether in view of the public Safety and the existing rebellionthey should be discharged, or remain in military custody, or be remittedto the civil tribunals for trial. 

Second. That Major-General John A. Dix, commanding in Baltimore, and theHON. Edwards Pierrepont, of New York, be, and they are hereby, appointedcommissioners for the purpose above mentioned; and they are authorized toexamine, hear, and determine the cases aforesaid ex parte and in a summarymanner, at such times and places as in their discretion they may appoint, and make full report to the War Department. 

By order of the President EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

ORDER RELATING TO COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE. 

Considering that the existing circumstances of the country allow a partialrestoration of commercial intercourse between the inhabitants of thoseparts of the United States heretofore declared to be in insurrectionand the citizens of the loyal States of the Union, and exercising theauthority and discretion confided to me by the act of Congress, approvedJuly 13, 1861, entitled "An act further to provide for the collection ofduties on imports, and for other purposes, " I hereby license and permitsuch commercial intercourse in all cases within the rules and regulationswhich have been or may be prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury forconducting and carrying on the same on the inland waters and ways of theUnited States. 

WASHINGTON, February 28, 1862. 

A. LINCOLN. 

SPEECH TO THE PERUVIAN MINISTER, WASHINGTON, D. C. , MARCH 4, 1862

The United States have no enmities, animosities, or rivalries, and nointerests which conflict with the welfare, safety, and rights or interestsof any other nation. Their own prosperity, happiness, and aggrandizementare sought most safely and advantageously through the preservation notonly of peace on their own part, but peace among all other nations. Butwhile the United States are thus a friend to all other nations, they donot seek to conceal the fact that they cherish especial sentiments offriendship for, and sympathies with, those who, like themselves, havefounded their institutions on the principle of the equal rights of men;and such nations being more prominently neighbors of the United States, the latter are co-operating with them in establishing civilization andculture on the American continent. Such being the general principles whichgovern the United States in their foreign relations, you may be assured, sir, that in all things this government will deal justly, frankly, and, ifit be possible, even liberally with Peru, whose liberal sentiments towardus you have so kindly expressed. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS RECOMMENDING COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION. 

March 6, 1862

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:--I recommendthe adoption of a joint resolution by your honorable bodies which shall besubstantially as follows:

"Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State whichmay adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniaryaid, to be used by such State, in its discretion, to compensate for theinconveniences, public and private, produced by such change of system. "

If the proposition contained in the resolution does not meet the approvalof Congress and the country, there is the end; but if it does command suchapproval, I deem it of importance that the States and people immediatelyinterested should be at once distinctly notified of the fact, so thatthey may begin to consider whether to accept or reject it. The FederalGovernment would find its highest interest in such a measure, as one ofthe most efficient means of self-preservation. The leaders of the existinginsurrection entertain the hope that this government will ultimately beforced to acknowledge the independence of some part of the disaffectedregion, and that all the slave States north of such part will then say, "The Union for which we have struggled being already gone, we nowchoose to go with the Southern section. " To deprive them of this hopesubstantially ends the rebellion, and the initiation of emancipationcompletely deprives them of it as to all the States initiating it. Thepoint is not that all the States tolerating slavery would very soon, if atall, initiate emancipation; but that, while the offer is equally made toall, the more northern shall by such initiation make it certain to themore southern that in no event will the former ever join the latter intheir proposed confederacy. I say "initiation" because, in my judgment, gradual and not sudden emancipation is better for all. In the merefinancial or pecuniary view, any member of Congress with the census tablesand treasury reports before him can readily see for himself how very soonthe current expenditures of this war would purchase, at fair valuation, all the slaves in any named State. Such a proposition on the part of theGeneral Government sets up no claim of a right by Federal authority tointerfere with slavery within State limits, referring, as it does, theabsolute control of the subject in each case to the State and its peopleimmediately interested. It is proposed as a matter of perfectly freechoice with them. 

In the annual message last December, I thought fit to say, "The Union mustbe preserved, and hence all indispensable means must be employed. " I saidthis not hastily, but deliberately. War has been made and continues to bean indispensable means to this end. A practical reacknowledgment of thenational authority would render the war unnecessary, and it would at oncecease. If, however, resistance continues, the war must also continue; andit is impossible to foresee all the incidents which may attend and all theruin which may follow it. Such as may seem indispensable or may obviouslypromise great efficiency toward ending the struggle must and will come. 

The proposition now made (though an offer only), I hope it may be esteemedno offense to ask whether the pecuniary consideration tendered would notbe of more value to the States and private persons concerned than are theinstitution and property in it in the present aspect of affairs. 

While it is true that the adoption of the proposed resolution wouldbe merely initiatory, and not within itself a practical measure, it isrecommended in the hope that it would soon lead to important practicalresults. In full view of my great responsibility to my God and to mycountry, I earnestly beg the attention of Congress and the people to thesubject. 

A. LINCOLN. 

INDORSEMENT ON LETTER FROM GOVERNOR YATES. 

STATE OF ILLINOIS, EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENT, SPRINGFIELD, ILL. , March 1, 1862

HON. EDWIN M. STANTON, SECRETARY OF WAR, Washington, D. C. 

SIR:--The government at my special request a few months since contractedfor fourteen batteries of the James rifled gun, 6-pounder calibre, and alimited quantity of the James projectiles, weighing about fourteen poundseach. The reports showing the superiority of this gun and projectile, bothas regards range, accuracy, and execution, for field service over that ofall others at the battle of Fort Donelson, leads me to request that therebe furnished to the State of Illinois in the shortest time practicableseven batteries of 12-pounder calibre James rifled guns, with carriages, harness, implements, etc. , complete and ready for field service, togetherwith the following fixed ammunition to each gun, viz. , 225 shells, 225canister, and 50 solid projectiles, weighing about 24 pounds each, andalso 200 shells, 100 canister, and 100 solid projectiles for each of theguns of the fourteen batteries named above, weighing about 14 pounds each, all to be of the James model. 

Very respectfully, RICHARD YATES, Governor of Illinois. 

[Indorsement. ]

March 8, 1862. 

The within is from the Governor of Illinois. I understand the sevenadditional batteries now sought are to be 6-gun batteries, and the objectis to mix them with the fourteen batteries they already have so as to makeeach battery consist of four 6-pounders and two 12-pounders. I shall bevery glad to have the requisition filled if it can be without detriment tothe service. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PRESIDENT'S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO. 2. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON

March 8, 1862. 

Ordered: 1. That the major-general commanding the Army of the Potomacproceed forthwith to organize that part of the said army destined to enterupon active operations (including the reserve, but excluding the troops tobe left in the fortifications about Washington) into four army corps, tobe commanded according to seniority of rank, as follows:

First Corps to consist of four divisions, and to be commanded byMajor-General I. McDowell. Second Corps to consist of three divisions, andto be commanded by Brigadier-General E. V. Sumner. Third Corps to consistof three divisions, and to be commanded by Brigadier-General S. P. Heintzelman. Fourth Corps to consist of three divisions, and to becommanded by Brigadier-General E. D. Keyes. 

2. That the divisions now commanded by the officers above assigned tothe commands of army corps shall be embraced in and form part of theirrespective corps. 

3. The forces left for the defense of Washington will be placed in commandof Brigadier-General James S. Wadsworth, who shall also be militarygovernor of the District of Columbia. 

4. That this order be executed with such promptness and dispatch as notto delay the commencement of the operations already directed to beunderwritten by the Army of the Potomac. 

5. A fifth army corps, to be commanded by Major general N. P. Banks, will be formed from his own and General Shields's (late General Lander's)divisions. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PRESIDENT'S GENERAL WAR ORDER NO. 3. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, MARCH 8, 1862

Ordered: That no change of the base of operations of the Army of thePotomac shall be made without leaving in and about Washington such a forceas in the opinion of the general-in-chief and the commanders of all thearmy corps shall leave said city entirely secure. 

That no more than two army corps (about 50, 000 troops) of said Army ofthe Potomac shall be moved en route for a new base of operations until thenavigation of the Potomac from Washington to the Chesapeake Bay shallbe freed from enemy's batteries and other obstructions, or until thePresident shall hereafter give express permission. 

That any movements as aforesaid en route for a new base of operationswhich may be ordered by the general-in-chief, and which may be intended tomove upon the Chesapeake Bay, shall begin to move upon the bay as earlyas the 18th day of March instant, and the general-in-chief shall beresponsible that it so move as early as that day. 

Ordered, That the army and navy co-operate in an immediate effort tocapture the enemy's batteries upon the Potomac between Washington and theChesapeake Bay. 

A. LINCOLN

INTERVIEW BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND SOME BORDER SLAVE STATE

REPRESENTATIVES, BY HON. J. W. CRISFIELD. 

MEMORANDUM

"DEAR SIR:--I called, at the request of the President, to ask you to cometo the White House tomorrow morning, at nine o'clock, and bring such ofyour colleagues as are in town. "

WASHINGTON, March 10, 1862. 

Yesterday, on my return from church, I found Mr. Postmaster-General Blairin my room, writing the above note, which he immediately suspended, andverbally communicated the President's invitation, and stated that thePresident's purpose was to have some conversation with the delegations ofKentucky, Missouri, Maryland, Virginia, and Delaware, in explanation ofhis message of the 6th instant. 

This morning these delegations, or such of them as were in town, assembledat the White House at the appointed time, and after some little delay wereadmitted to an audience. Mr. Leary and myself were the only members fromMaryland present, and, I think, were the only members of the delegation atthat time in the city. I know that Mr. Pearoe, of the Senate, and Messrs. Webster and Calvert, of the House, were absent. 

After the usual salutations, and we were seated, the President said, insubstance, that he had invited us to meet him to have some conversationwith us in explanation of his message of the 6th; that since he had sentit in several of the gentlemen then present had visited him, but hadavoided any allusion to the message, and he therefore inferred that theimport of the message had been misunderstood, and was regarded as inimicalto the interests we represented; and he had resolved he would talk withus, and disabuse our minds of that erroneous opinion. 

The President then disclaimed any intent to injure the interests or woundthe sensibilities of the slave States. On the contrary, his purpose was toprotect the one and respect the other; that we were engaged in a terrible, wasting, and tedious war; immense armies were in the field, and mustcontinue in the field as long as the war lasts; that these armies must, of necessity, be brought into contact with slaves in the States werepresented and in other States as they advanced; that slaves would cometo the camps, and continual irritation was kept up; that he was constantlyannoyed by conflicting and antagonistic complaints: on the one side acertain class complained if the slave was not protected by the army;persons were frequently found who, participating in these views, actedin a way unfriendly to the slaveholder; on the other hand, slaveholderscomplained that their rights were interfered with, their slaves inducedto abscond and protected within the lines; these complaints were numerous, loud and deep; were a serious annoyance to him and embarrassing to theprogress of the war; that it kept alive a spirit hostile to the governmentin the States we represented; strengthened the hopes of the Confederatesthat at some day the border States would unite with them, and thus tendto prolong the war; and he was of opinion, if this resolution should beadopted by Congress and accepted by our States, these causes of irritationand these hopes would be removed, and more would be accomplished towardshortening the war than could be hoped from the greatest victory achievedby Union armies; that he made this proposition in good faith, and desiredit to be accepted, if at all, voluntarily, and in the same patrioticspirit in which it was made; that emancipation was a subject exclusivelyunder the control of the States, and must be adopted or rejected by eachfor itself; that he did not claim nor had this government any right tocoerce them for that purpose; that such was no part of his purpose inmaking this proposition, and he wished it to be clearly understood; thathe did not expect us there to be prepared to give him an answer, but hehoped we would take the subject into serious consideration, conferwith one another, and then take such course as we felt our duty and theinterests of our constituents required of us. 

Mr. Noell, of Missouri, said that in his State slavery was not considereda permanent institution; that natural causes were there in operation whichwould at no distant day extinguish it, and he did not think that thisproposition was necessary for that; and, besides that, he and hisfriends felt solicitous as to the message on account of the differentconstructions which the resolution and message had received. The New YorkTribune was for it, and understood it to mean that we must accept gradualemancipation according to the plan suggested, or get something worse. 

The President replied that he must not be expected to quarrel with the NewYork Tribune before the right time; he hoped never to have to do it; hewould not anticipate events. In respect to emancipation in Missouri, hesaid that what had been observed by Mr. Noell was probably true, but theoperation of these natural causes had not prevented the irritating conductto which he had referred, or destroyed the hopes of the Confederates thatMissouri would at some time merge herself alongside of them, which, in hisjudgment, the passage of this resolution by Congress and its acceptance byMissouri would accomplish. 

Mr. Crisfield, of Maryland, asked what would be the effect of the refusalof the State to accept this proposal, and he desired to know if thePresident looked to any policy beyond the acceptance or rejection of thisscheme. 

The President replied that he had no designs beyond the actions of theStates on this particular subject. He should lament their refusal toaccept it, but he had no designs beyond their refusal of it. 

Mr. Menzies, of Kentucky, inquired if the President thought there wasany power except in the States themselves to carry out his scheme ofemancipation. 

The President replied that he thought there could not be. He then wentoff into a course of remarks not qualifying the foregoing declaration normaterial to be repeated to a just understanding of his meaning. 

Mr. Crisfield said he did not think the people of Maryland looked uponslavery as a permanent institution; and he did not know that they wouldbe very reluctant to give it up if provision was made to meet the loss andthey could be rid of the race; but they did not like to be coercedinto emancipation, either by the direct action of the government or byindirection, as through the emancipation of slaves in this District, orthe confiscation of Southern property as now threatened; and he thoughtbefore they would consent to consider this proposition they would requireto be informed on these points. The President replied that, unless he wasexpelled by the act of God or the Confederate armies he should occupythat house for three years; and as long as he remained there Maryland hadnothing to fear either for her institutions or her interests on the pointsreferred to. 

Mr. Crisfield immediately added: "Mr. President, if what you now say couldbe heard by the people of Maryland, they would consider your propositionwith a much better feeling than I fear without it they will be inclined todo. "

The President: "That [meaning a publication of what he said] will notdo; it would force me into a quarrel before the proper time "; and, again intimating, as he had before done, that a quarrel with the "Greeleyfaction" was impending, he said he did not wish to encounter it before theproper time, nor at all if it could be avoided. 

[The Greely faction wanted an immediate Emancipation Proclamation. D. W. ]

Governor Wickliffe, of Kentucky, then asked him respecting theconstitutionality of his scheme. 

The President replied: "As you may suppose, I have considered that;and the proposition now submitted does not encounter any constitutionaldifficulty. It proposes simply to co-operate with any State by giving suchState pecuniary aid"; and he thought that the resolution, as proposed byhim, would be considered rather as the expression of a sentiment than asinvolving any constitutional question. 

Mr. Hall, of Missouri, thought that if this proposition was adopted at allit should be by the votes of the free States, and come as a propositionfrom them to the slave States, affording them an inducement to put asidethis subject of discord; that it ought not to be expected that membersrepresenting slaveholding constituencies should declare at once, and inadvance of any proposition to them, for the emancipation of slavery. 

The President said he saw and felt the force of the objection; it was afearful responsibility, and every gentleman must do as he thought best;that he did not know how this scheme was received by the members from thefree States; some of them had spoken to him and received it kindly; butfor the most part they were as reserved and chary as we had been, and hecould not tell how they would vote. And in reply to some expression of Mr. Hall as to his own opinion regarding slavery, he said he did not pretendto disguise his anti-slavery feeling; that he thought it was wrong, andshould continue to think so; but that was not the question we had to dealwith now. Slavery existed, and that, too, as well by the act of the Northas of the South; and in any scheme to get rid of it the North as well asthe South was morally bound to do its full and equal share. He thought theinstitution wrong and ought never to have existed; but yet he recognizedthe rights of property which had grown out of it, and would respect thoserights as fully as similar rights in any other property; that property canexist and does legally exist. He thought such a law wrong, but the rightsof property resulting must be respected; he would get rid of the odiouslaw, not by violating the rights, but by encouraging the proposition andoffering inducements to give it up. 

Here the interview, so far as this subject is concerned, terminated byMr. Crittenden's assuring the President that, whatever might be our finalaction, we all thought him solely moved by a high patriotism and sinceredevotion to the happiness and glory of his country; and with thatconviction we should consider respectfully the important suggestions hehad made. 

After some conversation on the current war news, we retired, andI immediately proceeded to my room and wrote out this paper. J. W. CRISFIELD. 

We were present at the interview described in the foregoing paper ofMr. Crisfield, and we certify that the substance of what passed on theoccasion is in this paper faithfully and fully given. 

J. W. MENZIES, J. J. CRITTENDEN, R. MALLORY. 

March 10, 1862. 

PRESIDENT'S SPECIAL WAR ORDER NO. 3. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 11, 1862. 

Major-General McClellan having personally taken the field at the head ofthe Army of the Potomac, until otherwise ordered he is relieved from thecommand of the other military departments, he retaining command of theDepartment of the Potomac. 

Ordered further, That the departments now under the respective commands ofGenerals Halleck and Hunter, together with so much of that under GeneralBuell as lies west of a north and south line indefinitely drawn throughKnoxville, Tenn. , be consolidated and designated the Department of theMississippi, and that until otherwise ordered Major General Halleck havecommand of said department. 

Ordered also, That the country west of the Department of the Potomac andeast of the Department of the Mississippi be a military department, tobe called the Mountain Department, and that the same be commanded byMajor-General Fremont. 

That all the commanders of departments, after the receipt of this order bythem, respectively report severally and directly to the Secretary of War, and that prompt, full, and frequent reports will be expected of all andeach of them. 

A. LINCOLN. 

FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GENERAL MCCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, March 13, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. MCCLELLAN:

The President, having considered the plan of operations agreed upon byyourself and the commanders of army corps, makes no objection to the samebut gives the following directions as to its execution:

1. Leave such force at Manassas Junction as shall make it entirely certainthat the enemy shall no repossess himself of that position and line ofcommunication. 

2. Leave Washington entirely secure. 

3. Move the remainder of the force down the Potomac, choosing a new baseat Fortress Monroe or anywhere between here and there, or, at all events, move such remainder of the army at once in pursuit of the enemy by someroute. 

EDWARD M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

SPEECH TO A PARTY OF MASSACHUSETTS GENTLEMAN

WASHINGTON, MARCH 13, 1862

I thank you, Mr. Train, for your kindness in presenting me with this trulyelegant and highly creditable specimen of the handiwork of the mechanicsof your State of Massachusetts, and I beg of you to express my heartythanks to the donors. It displays a perfection of workmanship which Ireally wish I had time to acknowledge in more fitting words, and I mightthen follow your idea that it is suggestive, for it is evidently expectedthat a good deal of whipping is to be done. But as we meet here sociallylet us not think only of whipping rebels, or of those who seem to thinkonly of whipping negroes, but of those pleasant days, which it is to behoped are in store for us, when seated behind a good pair of horses we cancrack our whips and drive through a peaceful, happy, and prosperous land. With this idea, gentlemen, I must leave you for my business duties. [Itwas likely a Buggy-Whip D. W. ]

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON CITY, March 20, 1862. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

The third section of the "Act further to promote the efficiency of theNavy, " approved December 21, 1861, provides:

"That the President of the United States, by and with the advice andconsent of the Senate, shall have the authority to detail from the retiredlist of the navy for the command of squadrons and single ships suchofficers as he may believe the good of the service requires to be thusplaced in command; and such officers may, if upon the recommendation ofthe President of the United States they shall receive a vote of thanks cfCongress for their services and gallantry in action against an enemy, berestored to the active list, and not otherwise. "

In conformity with this law, Captain Samuel F. Du Pont, of the navy, wasnominated to the Senate for continuance as the flag-officer in command ofthe squadron which recently rendered such important service to the Unionin the expedition to the coasts of South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida. 

Believing that no occasion could arise which would more fully correspondwith the intention of the law or be more pregnant with happy influence asan example, I cordially recommend that Captain Samuel F. Du Pont receive avote of thanks of Congress for his service and gallantry displayed in thecapture since the 21st December, 1861, of various ports on the coasts ofGeorgia and Florida, particularly Brunswick, Cumberland Island and Sound, Amelia Island, the towns of St. Mary's, St. Augustine, and Jacksonvilleand Fernandina. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, MARCH 31, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN. 

MY DEAR SIR:-This morning I felt constrained to order Blenker's divisionto Fremont, and I write this to assure you I did so with great pain, understanding that you would wish it otherwise. If you could know thefull pressure of the case, I am confident that you would justify it, evenbeyond a mere acknowledgment that the commander-in-chief may order what hepleases. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

GIFT OF SOME RABBITS

TO MICHAEL CROCK. 360 N. Fourth St. , Philadelphia. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 2, 1862. 

MY DEAR SIR:-Allow me to thank you in behalf of my little son for yourpresent of white rabbits. He is very much pleased with them. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

INSTRUCTION TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 3, 1862. 

The Secretary of War will order that one or the other of the corps ofGeneral McDowell and General Sumner remain in front of Washington untilfurther orders from the department, to operate at or in the direction ofManassas Junction, or otherwise, as occasion may require; that the otherCorps not so ordered to remain go forward to General McClellan as speedilyas possible; that General McClellan commence his forward movements fromhis new base at once, and that such incidental modifications as theforegoing may render proper be also made. A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, April 6, 1862. 

GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN:

Yours of 11 A. M. Today received. Secretary of War informs me that theforwarding of transportation, ammunition, and Woodbury's brigade, underyour orders, is not, and will not be, interfered with. You now haveover one hundred thousand troops with you, independent of General Wool'scommand. I think you better break the enemy's line from Yorktown toWarwick River at once. This will probably use time as advantageously asyou can. 

A. LINCOLN, President

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, April 9, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN. 

MY DEAR SIR+--Your despatches, complaining that you are not properlysustained, while they do not offend me, do pain me very much. 

Blenker's division was withdrawn from you before you left here, and youknew the pressure under which I did it, and, as I thought, acquiesced init certainly not without reluctance. 

After you left I ascertained that less than 20, 000 unorganized men, without a single field battery, were all you designed to be left for thedefense of Washington and Manassas Junction, and part of this even to goto General Hooker's old position; General Banks's corps, once designed forManassas Junction, was divided and tied up on the line of Winchester andStrasburg, and could not leave it without again exposing the upper Potomacand the Baltimore and Ohio Railroad. This presented (or would present whenMcDowell and Sumner should be gone) a great temptation to the enemy toturn back from the Rappahannock and sack Washington. My explicit orderthat Washington should, by the judgment of all the Commanders of corps, beleft entirely secure, had been neglected. It was precisely this that droveme to detain McDowell. 

I do not forget that I was satisfied with your arrangement to leave Banksat Manassas Junction; but when that arrangement was broken up and nothingsubstituted for it, of course I was not satisfied. I was constrained tosubstitute something for it myself. 

And now allow me to ask, do you really think I should permit the line fromRichmond via Manaasas Junction to this city to be entirely open, exceptwhat resistance could be presented by less than 20, 000 unorganized troops?This is a question which the country will not allow me to evade. 

There is a curious mystery about the number of the troops now with you. When I telegraphed you on the 6th, saying you had over 100, 000 with you, Ihad just obtained from the Secretary of War a statement, taken as he saidfrom your own returns, making 108, 000 then with you and en route to you. You now say you will have but 85, 000 when all enroute to you shall havereached you. How can this discrepancy of 23, 000 be accounted for?

As to General Wool's command, I understand it is doing for you preciselywhat a like number of your own would have to do if that command was away. I suppose the whole force which has gone forward to you is with you bythis time; and if so, I think it is the precise time for you to strike ablow. By delay the enemy will relatively gain upon you--that is, hewill gain faster by fortifications and reinforcements than you can byreinforcements alone. 

And once more let me tell you it is indispensable to you that you strike ablow. I am powerless to help this. You will do me the justice to rememberI always insisted that going down the bay in search of a field, insteadof fighting at or near Manassas, was only shifting and not surmountinga difficulty; that we would find the same enemy and the same or equalentrenchments at either place. The country will not fail to note--isnoting now--that the present hesitation to move upon an entrenched enemyis but the story of Manassas repeated. 

I beg to assure you that I have never written you or spoken to you ingreater kindness of feeling than now, nor with a fuller purpose to sustainyou, so far as in my most anxious judgment I consistently can; but youmust act. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 9, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Saint Louis, Mo. : If the rigor of the confinementof Magoffin (Governor of Kentucky) at Alton is endangering his life, ormaterially impairing his health, I wish it mitigated as far as it can beconsistently with his safe detention. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Please send above, by order of the President. JOHN HAY. 

PROCLAMATION RECOMMENDING THANKSGIVING FOR VICTORIES, APRIL 10, 1862. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation

It has pleased Almighty God to vouchsafe signal victories to the land andnaval forces engaged in suppressing, an internal rebellion, and at thesame time to avert from our country the dangers of foreign interventionand invasion. 

It is therefore recommended to the people of the United States that attheir next weekly assemblages in their accustomed places of public worshipwhich shall occur after notice of this proclamation shall have beenreceived, they especially acknowledge and render thanks to our HeavenlyFather for these inestimable blessings, that they then and there implorespiritual consolation in behalf of all who have been brought intoaffliction by the casualties and calamities of sedition and civil war, andthat they reverently invoke the divine guidance for our national counsels, to the end that they may speedily result in the restoration of peace, harmony, and unity throughout our borders and hasten the establishment offraternal relations among all the countries of the earth. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this tenth day of April, A. D. 1862, and ofthe independence of the United States the eighty-sixth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

ABOLISHING SLAVERY IN WASHINGTON, D. C. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. April 16, 1862. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The actentitled "An act for the relief of certain persons held to service orlabor in the District of Columbia" has this day been approved and signed. 

I have never doubted the constitutional authority of Congress to abolishslavery in this District, and I have ever desired to see the nationalcapital freed from the institution in some satisfactory way. Hence therehas never been in my mind any question on the subject except the one ofexpediency, arising in view of all the circumstances. If there be matterswithin and about this act which might have taken a course or shape moresatisfactory to my judgment, I do not attempt to specify them. I amgratified that the two principles of compensation and colonization areboth recognized and practically applied in the act. 

In the matter of compensation, it is provided that claims may be presentedwithin ninety days from the passage of the act, "but not thereafter"; andthere is no saving for minors, femmes covert, insane or absent persons. Ipresume this is an omission by mere oversight, and I recommend that it besupplied by an amendatory or supplemental act. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, April 21, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your despatch of the 19th was received that day. Fredericksburg isevacuated and the bridges destroyed by the enemy, and a small part ofMcDowell's command occupies this side of the Rappahannock, opposite thetown. He purposes moving his whole force to that point. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO POSTMASTER-GENERAL

A. LINCOLN. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 24, 1862. 

Hon. POSTMASTER-GENERAL. 

MY DEAR SIR:--The member of Congress from the district including Tiffin, O. , calls on me about the postmaster at that place. I believe I turnedover a despatch to you from some persons there, asking a suspension, soas for them to be heard, or something of the sort. If nothing, or nothingamounting to anything, has been done, I think the suspension might now besuspended, and the commission go forward. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, April 29, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Would it derange or embarrass your operations if I were to appoint CaptainCharles Griffin a brigadier-general of volunteers? Please answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE, MAY 1, 1862. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate [of April 22] in relation toBrigadier-General Stone, I have the honor to state that he was arrestedand imprisoned under my general authority, and upon evidence which whetherhe be guilty or innocent, required, as appears to me, such proceedings tobe had against him for the public safety. I deem it incompatible with thepublic interest, as also, perhaps, unjust to General Stone, to make a moreparticular statement of the evidence. 

He has not been tried because, in the state of military operations at thetime of his arrest and since, the officers to constitute a court martialand for witnesses could not be withdrawn from duty without serious injuryto the service. He will be allowed a trial without any unnecessary delay;the charges and specifications will be furnished him in due season, andevery facility for his defense will be afforded him by the War Department. 

A. LINCOLN, WASHINGTON, MAY 1, 1862

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, MAY 1, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your call for Parrott guns from Washington alarms me, chiefly because itargues indefinite procrastination. Is anything to be done?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, MAY 1, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Pittsburgh Landing, Tennessee:

I am pressed by the Missouri members of Congress to give General Schofieldindependent command in Missouri. They insist that for want of this theirlocal troubles gradually grow worse. I have forborne, so far, for fear ofinterfering with and embarrassing your operations. Please answer tellingme whether anything, and what, I can do for them without injuriouslyinterfering with you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO EVANGELICAL LUTHERANS, MAY 6, 1862

GENTLEMEN:--I welcome here the representatives of the EvangelicalLutherans of the United States. I accept with gratitude their assurancesof the sympathy and support of that enlightened, influential, and loyalclass of my fellow citizens in an important crisis which involves, in myjudgment, not only the civil and religious liberties of our own dear land, but in a large degree the civil and religious liberties of mankind in manycountries and through many ages. You well know, gentlemen, and the worldknows, how reluctantly I accepted this issue of battle forced upon me onmy advent to this place by the internal enemies of our country. You allknow, the world knows, the forces and the resources the public agents havebrought into employment to sustain a government against which there hasbeen brought not one complaint of real injury committed against societyat home or abroad. You all may recollect that in taking up the sword thusforced into our hands this government appealed to the prayers of the piousand the good, and declared that it placed its whole dependence on thefavor of God. I now humbly and reverently, in your presence, reiterate theacknowledgment of that dependence, not doubting that, if it shall pleasethe Divine Being who determines the destinies of nations, this shallremain a united people, and that they will, humbly seeking the divineguidance, make their prolonged national existence a source of new benefitsto themselves and their successors, and to all classes and conditions ofmankind. 

TELEGRAM TO FLAG-OFFICER L. M. GOLDSBOROUGH. 

FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, MAY 7, 1862

FLAG-OFFICER GOLDSBOROUGH. 

SIR:--Major-General McClellan telegraphs that he has ascertained by areconnaissance that the battery at Jamestown has been abandoned, and heagain requests that gunboats may be sent up the James River. 

If you have tolerable confidence that you can successfully contend withthe Merrimac without the help of the Galena and two accompanying gunboats, send the Galena and two gunboats up the James River at once. Please reportyour action on this to me at once. I shall be found either at GeneralWool's headquarters or on board the Miami. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

FURTHER REPRIMAND OF McCLELLAN

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, May 9, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

MY DEAR SIR:--I have just assisted the Secretary of War in framing part ofa despatch to you relating to army corps, which despatch, of course, willhave reached you long before this will. I wish to say a few words to youprivately on this subject. I ordered the army corps organization not onlyon the unanimous opinion of the twelve generals whom you had selected andassigned as generals of divisions, but also on the unanimous opinion ofevery military man I could get an opinion from, and every modern militarybook, yourself only excepted. Of course, I did not on my own judgmentpretend to understand the subject. I now think it indispensable for you toknow how your struggle against it is received in quarters which we cannotentirely disregard. It is looked upon as merely an effort to pamper one ortwo pets, and to persecute and degrade their supposed rivals. I have hadno word from Sumner, Heintzleman, or Keyes the commanders of these corpsare, of course, the three highest officers with you; but I am constantlytold that you have no consultation or communication with them; that youconsult and communicate with nobody but General Fitz John Porter, andperhaps General Franklin. I do not say these complaints are true or just;but at all events, it is proper you should know of their existence. Do thecommanders of corps disobey your orders in anything?

When you relieved General Hamilton of his command the other day, youthereby lost the confidence of at least one of your best friends in theSenate. And here let me say, not as applicable to you personally, thatSenators and Representatives speak of me in their places without question, and that officers of the army must cease addressing insulting letters tothem for taking no greater liberty with them. 

But to return. Are you strong enough--are you strong enough even with myhelp--to set your foot upon the necks of Sumner, Heintzelman, and Keyesall at once? This is a practical and very serious question to you?

The success of your army and the cause of the country are the same, and, of course, I only desire the good of the cause. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO FLAG-OFFICER L. M. GOLDSBOROUGH, FORT MONROE, VIRGINIA, May 10, 1862

FLAG-OFFICER GOLDSBOROUGH. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I send you this copy of your report of yesterday for thepurpose of saying to you in writing that you are quite right in supposingthe movement made by you and therein reported was made in accordance withmy wishes verbally expressed to you in advance. I avail myself of theoccasion to thank you for your courtesy and all your conduct, so far asknown to me, during my brief visit here. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION RAISING THE BLOCKADE OF CERTAIN PORTS. 

May 12, 1862. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas, by my proclamation of the 19th of April, one thousand eighthundred and sixty-one, it was declared that the ports of certain States, including those of Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina, PortRoyal, in the State of South Carolina, and New Orleans, in the State ofLouisiana, were, for reasons therein set forth, intended to be placedunder blockade; and whereas the said ports of Beaufort, Port Royal, andNew Orleans have since been blockaded; but as the blockade of the sameports may now be safely relaxed with advantage to the interests ofcommerce:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States, pursuant to the authority in me vested by the fifth sectionof the act of Congress approved on the 13th of July last, entitled "An actfurther to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and forother purposes, " do hereby declare that the blockade of the said ports ofBeaufort, Port Royal, and New Orleans shall so far cease and determine, from and after the first day of June next, that commercial intercoursewith those ports, except as to persons, things, and information contrabandof war, may from that time be carried on, subject to the laws of theUnited States, and to the limitations and in pursuance of the regulationswhich are prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury in his order of thisdate, which is appended to this proclamation. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this twelfth day of May, in the year ofour Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the independenceof the United States the eighty-sixth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

VOLUME SIX

CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION

By Abraham Lincoln

Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley

THE WRITINGS OF A. LINCOLN, Volume Six, 1862-1863

1862

RECOMMENDATION OF NAVAL OFFICERS

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 14, 1862. 

TO SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

The third section of the "Act further to promote the efficiency of theNavy, " approved 21st of December, 1861, provides:

"That the President of the United States by and with the advice andconsent of the Senate, shall have the authority to detail from the retiredlist of the navy for the command of squadrons and single ships suchofficers as he may believe that the good of the service requires to bethus placed in command; and such officers may, if upon the recommendationof the President of the United States they shall receive a vote of thanksof Congress for their services and gallantry in action against an enemy, be restored to the active list, and not otherwise. "

In conformity with this law, Captain David G. Farragut was nominated tothe Senate for continuance as the flag-officer in command of the squadronwhich recently rendered such important service to the Union by hissuccessful operations on the lower Mississippi and capture of New Orleans. 

Believing that no occasion could arise which would more fully correspondwith the intention of the law or be more pregnant with happy influence asan example, I cordially recommend that Captain D. G. Farragut receive avote of thanks of Congress for his services and gallantry displayed in thecapture since 21st December, 1861, of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, cityof New Orleans, and the destruction of various rebel gunboats, rams, etc. .. .. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I submit herewith a list of naval officers who commanded vesselsengaged in the recent brilliant operations of the squadron commanded byFlag-officer Farragut which led to the capture of Forts Jackson and St. Philip, city of New Orleans, and the destruction of rebel gunboats, rams, etc. , in April 1862. For their services and gallantry on those occasions Icordially recommend that they should, by name, receive a vote of thanks ofCongress:

LIST:

 Captain Theodorus Bailey. Captain Henry W. Morris. Captain Thomas T. Craven. Commander Henry H. Bell. Commander Samuel Phillips Lee. Commander Samuel Swartwout. Commander Melancton Smith. Commander Charles Stewart Boggs Commander John De Camp Commander James Alden. Commander David D. Porter. Commander Richard Wainwright. Commander William B. Renshaw. Lieutenant Commanding Abram D. Harrell. Lieutenant Commanding Edward Donaldson. Lieutenant Commanding George H. Preble. Lieutenant Commanding Edward T. Nichols. Lieutenant Commanding Jonathan M. Wainwright. Lieutenant Commanding John Guest. Lieutenant Commanding Charles H. B. Caldwell. Lieutenant Commanding Napoleon B. Harrison. Lieutenant Commanding Albert N. Smith. Lieutenant Commanding Pierce Crosby. Lieutenant Commanding George M. Ransom. Lieutenant Commanding Watson Smith. Lieutenant Commanding John H. Russell. Lieutenant Commanding Walter W. Queen. Lieutenant Commanding K. Randolph Breese. Acting Lieutenant Commanding Sellin E. Woolworth. Acting Lieutenant Commanding Charles H. Baldwin. 

A. LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 14, 1862

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON CITY, May 15, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN, Cumberland, Virginia:

Your long despatch of yesterday is just received. I will answer more fullysoon. Will say now that all your despatches to the Secretary of War havebeen promptly shown to me. Have done and shall do all I could and can tosustain you. Hoped that the opening of James River and putting Wool andBurnside in communication, with an open road to Richmond, or to you, hadeffected something in that direction. I am still unwilling to take all ourforce off the direct line between Richmond and here. 

A. LINCOLN. 

SPEECH TO THE 12TH INDIANA REGIMENT, MAY [15?] 1862

SOLDIERS, OF THE TWELFTH INDIANA REGIMENT:

It has not been customary heretofore, nor will it be hereafter, for meto say something to every regiment passing in review. It occurs toofrequently for me to have speeches ready on all occasions. As you havepaid such a mark of respect to the chief magistrate, it appears that Ishould say a word or two in reply. Your colonel has thought fit, on hisown account and in your name, to say that you are satisfied with themanner in which I have performed my part in the difficulties which havesurrounded the nation. For your kind expressions I am extremely grateful, but on the other hand I assure you that the nation is more indebted toyou, and such as you, than to me. It is upon the brave hearts and strongarms of the people of the country that our reliance has been placed insupport of free government and free institutions. 

For the part which you and the brave army of which you are a part have, under Providence, performed in this great struggle, I tender more thanksespecially to this regiment, which has been the subject of good report. The thanks of the nation will follow you, and may God's blessing rest uponyou now and forever. I hope that upon your return to your homes you willfind your friends and loved ones well and happy. I bid you farewell. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL. 

WASHINGTON, May 16, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McDOWELL:

What is the strength of your force now actually with you?

A. LINCOLN. 

MEMORANDUM OF PROPOSED ADDITIONS TO INSTRUCTIONS OF ABOVE DATE

TO GENERAL McDOWELL, AND GENERAL MEIGS'S INDORSEMENT THEREON. 

May 17, 1862. You will retain the separate command of the forces takenwith you; but while co-operating with General McClellan you will obey hisorders, except that you are to judge, and are not to allow your force tobe disposed otherwise than so as to give the greatest protection to thiscapital which may be possible from that distance. 

[Indorsement. ]

TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR:

The President having shown this to me, I suggested that it is dangerous todirect a subordinate not to obey the orders of his superior in any case, and that to give instructions to General McClellan to this same end andfurnish General McDowell with a copy thereof would effect the objectdesired by the President. He desired me to say that the sketch ofinstructions to General McClellan herewith he thought made this additionunnecessary. 

Respectfully, M. C. M. 

MILITARY EMANCIPATION

INDORSEMENT RELATING TO GENERAL DAVID HUNTER'S ORDER OF MILITARYEMANCIPATION, MAY 17, 1862

No commanding general shall do such a thing upon my responsibility withoutconsulting me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GENERAL McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, May 18, 1862. 

GENERAL: Your despatch to the President, asking reinforcements, has beenreceived and carefully considered. 

The President is not willing to uncover the capital entirely; and it isbelieved that, even if this were prudent, it would require more time toeffect a junction between your army and that of the Rappahannock bythe way of the Potomac and York rivers than by a land march. In order, therefore, to increase the strength of the attack upon Richmond at theearliest moment, General McDowell has been ordered to march upon that cityby the shortest route. He is ordered, keeping himself always in positionto save the capital from all possible attack, so to operate as to put hisleft wing in communication with your right wing, and you are instructedto co-operate so as to establish this communication as soon as possible byextending your right-wing to the north of Richmond. 

It is believed that this communication can be safely established eithernorth or south of the Pamunkey River. 

In any event, you will be able to prevent the main body of the enemy'sforces from leaving Richmond and falling in overwhelming force uponGeneral McDowell. He will move with between thirty-five and forty thousandmen. 

A copy of the instructions to General McDowell are with this. The specifictask assigned to his command has been to provide against any danger to thecapital of the nation. 

At your earnest call for reinforcements, he is sent forward to co-operatein the reduction of Richmond, but charged, in attempting this, not touncover the city of Washington; and you will give no order, either beforeor after your junction, which can put him out of position to coverthis city. You and he will communicate with each other by telegraph orotherwise as frequently as may be necessary for efficient cooperation. When General McDowell is in position on your right, his supplies must bedrawn from West Point, and you will instruct your staff-officers to beprepared to supply him by that route. 

The President desires that General McDowell retain the command of theDepartment of the Rappahannock and of the forces with which he movesforward. 

By order of the President: EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. McCLELLAN, Commanding Army of the Potomac, beforeRichmond. 

PROCLAMATION REVOKING GENERAL HUNTER'S ORDER OF MILITARY EMANCIPATION, MAY 19, 1862. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation

Whereas there appears in the public prints what purports to be aproclamation of Major general Hunter, in the words and figures following, to wit:

(General Orders No. 11) HEADQUARTERS DEPARTMENT OF THE SOUTH, HILTON HEAD, PORT ROYAL, S. C. , May 9, 1862. 

"The three States of Georgia, Florida, and South Carolina, comprising themilitary department of the South, having deliberately declared themselvesno longer under the protection of the United States of America, andhaving taken up arms against the said United States, it became a militarynecessity to declare martial law. This was accordingly done on the25th day of April, 1862. Slavery and martial law in a free country arealtogether incompatible. The persons in these three States: GeorgiaFlorida, and South Carolina--heretofore held as slaves are thereforedeclared forever free. 

"By command of Major-General D. Hunter: "(Official. )ED. W. SMITH, "ActingAssistant Adjutant-General. "

And whereas the same is producing some excitement and misunderstanding:therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, proclaim and declarethat the Government of the United States, had no knowledge, information, or belief of an intention on the part of General Hunter to issue such aproclamation; nor has it yet any authentic information that the documentis genuine. And further, that neither General Hunter nor any othercommander or person has been authorized by the Government of the UnitedStates to make a proclamation declaring the slaves of any State free; andthat the supposed proclamation now in question, whether genuine or false, is altogether void so far as respects such a declaration. 

I further make known that whether it be competent for me, ascommander-in-chief of the army and navy, to declare the slaves of anyState or States free, and whether, at any time, in any case, it shall havebecome a necessity indispensable to the maintenance of the government toexercise such supposed power, are questions which under my responsibilityI reserve to myself, and which I cannot feel justified in leaving to thedecision of commanders in the field. 

These are totally different questions from those of police regulations inarmies and camps. 

On the sixth day of March last, by special message, I recommended toCongress the adoption of a joint resolution, to be substantially asfollows:

Resolved, That the United States ought to co-operate with any State whichmay adopt gradual abolishment of slavery, giving to such State pecuniaryaid, to be used by such State, in its discretion, to compensate for theinconvenience, public and private, produced by such change of system. 

The resolution in the language above quoted was adopted by largemajorities in both branches of Congress, and now stands an authentic, definite, and solemn proposal of the nation to the States and peoplemost immediately interested in the subject-matter. To the people of thoseStates I now earnestly appeal. I do not argue--I beseech you to makearguments for yourselves. You cannot, if you would, be blind to the signsof the times. I beg of you a calm and enlarged consideration of them, ranging, if it may be, far above personal and partisan politics. Thisproposal makes common cause for a common object, casting no reproachesupon any. It acts not the Pharisee. The change it contemplates would comegently as the dews of heaven, not rending or wrecking anything. Will younot embrace it? So much good has not been done, by one effort, in all pasttime, as in the providence of God it is now your high privilege to do. Maythe vast future not have to lament that you have neglected it. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this nineteenth day of May, in the year ofour Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of the independenceof the United States the eighty-sixth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. E. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, May 21, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

I have just been waited on by a large committee who present a petitionsigned by twenty-three senators and eighty-four representatives asking meto restore General Hamilton to his division. I wish to do this, and yet Ido not wish to be understood as rebuking you. Please answer at once. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON CITY, May 22, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your long despatch of yesterday just received. You will have just suchcontrol of General McDowell and his forces as you therein indicate. McDowell can reach you by land sooner than he could get aboard of boats, if the boats were ready at Fredericksburg, unless his march shall beresisted, in which case the force resisting him will certainly not beconfronting you at Richmond. By land he can reach you in five days afterstarting, whereas by water he would not reach you in two weeks, judging bypast experience. Franklin's single division did not reach you in ten daysafter I ordered it. 

A. LINCOLN, President United States. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, May 24, 1862. 4 PM. 

MAJOR-GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN:

In consequence of General Banks's critical position, I have been compelledto suspend General McDowell's movements to join you. The enemy are makinga desperate push upon Harper's Ferry, and we are trying to throw GeneralFremont's force and part of General McDowell's in their rear. 

A. LINCOLN, President. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN

WASHINGTON May 24, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. McCLELLAN:

I left General McDowell's camp at dark last evening. Shields's command isthere, but it is so worn that he cannot move before Monday morning, the26th. We have so thinned our line to get troops for other places that itwas broken yesterday at Front Royal, with a probable loss to us of oneregiment infantry, two Companies cavalry, putting General Banks in someperil. 

The enemy's forces under General Anderson now opposing General McDowell'sadvance have as their line of supply and retreat the road to Richmond. 

If, in conjunction with McDowell's movement against Anderson, youcould send a force from your right to cut off the enemy's supplies fromRichmond, preserve the railroad bridges across the two forks of thePamunkey, and intercept the enemy's retreat, you will prevent the armynow opposed to you from receiving an accession of numbers of nearly 15, 000men; and if you succeed in saving the bridges you will secure a line ofrailroad for supplies in addition to the one you now have. Can you notdo this almost as well as not while you are building the Chickahominybridges? McDowell and Shields both say they can, and positively will, moveMonday morning. I wish you to move cautiously and safely. 

You will have command of McDowell, after he joins you, precisely as youindicated in your long despatch to us of the 21st. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL RUFUS SAXTON. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May, 24 1862. 2 P. M. 

GENERAL SAXTON:

Geary reports Jackson with 20, 000 moving from Ashby's Gap by the LittleRiver turnpike, through Aldie, toward Centreville. This he says isreliable. He is also informed of large forces south of him. We knowa force of some 15, 000 broke up Saturday night from in front ofFredericksburg and went we know not where. Please inform us, if possible, what has become of the force which pursued Banks yesterday; also any otherinformation you have. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL D. S. MILES. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 24, 1862. 1. 30 P. M. 

COLONEL MILES, Harper's Ferry, Virginia

Could you not send scouts from Winchester who would tell whether enemy arenorth of Banks, moving on Winchester? What is the latest you have?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. C. FREMONT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 24, 1862. 4 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT, Franklin:

You are authorized to purchase the 400 horses, or take them wherever orhowever you can get them. The exposed condition of General Banks makeshis immediate relief a point of paramount importance. You are thereforedirected by the President to move against Jackson at Harrisonburg andoperate against the enemy in such way as to relieve Banks. This movementmust be made immediately. You will acknowledge the receipt of this order, and specify the hour it is received by you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. C. FREMONT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 24, 1862. 7. 15 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT, Franklin, Virginia:

Many thanks for the promptness with which you have answered that you willexecute the order. Much--perhaps all--depends upon the celerity with whichyou can execute it. Put the utmost speed into it. Do not lose a minute. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 24, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, near Corinth, Mississippi:

Several despatches from Assistant Secretary Scott and one from GovernorMorton asking reinforcements for you have been received. I beg you to beassured we do the best we can. I mean to cast no blame where I tell youeach of our commanders along our line from Richmond to Corinth supposeshimself to be confronted by numbers superior to his own. Under thispressure We thinned the line on the upper Potomac, until yesterday it wasbroken with heavy loss to us, and General Banks put in great peril, out ofwhich he is not yet extricated, and may be actually captured. We need mento repair this breach, and have them not at hand. My dear General, I feeljustified to rely very much on you. I believe you and the brave officersand men with you can and will get the victory at Corinth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 24, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McDOWELL, Fredricksburg:

General Fremont has been ordered by telegraph to move from Franklin onHarrisonburg to relieve General Banks, and capture or destroy Jackson'sand Ewell's forces. You are instructed, laying aside for the presentthe movement on Richmond, to put 20, 000 men in motion at once for theShenandoah, moving on the line or in advance of the line of the ManassasGap railroad. Your object will be to capture the forces of Jackson andEwell, either in co-operation with General Fremont, or, in case wantof supplies or of transportation, interferes with his movements, it isbelieved that the force which you move will be sufficient to accomplishthis object alone. The information thus far received here makes itprobable that if the enemy operate actively against General Banks, youwill not be able to count upon much assistance from him, but may even haveto release him. Reports received this moment are that Banks is fightingwith Ewell eight miles from Winchester. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McDOWELL. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , May 24, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL I. McDOWELL:

I am highly gratified by your alacrity in obeying my order. The change wasas painful to me as it can possibly be to you or to any one. Everythingnow depends upon the celerity and vigor of your movement. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. W. GEARY. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 25, 1862 1. 45 P. M. 

GENERAL GEARY, White Plains:

Please give us your best present impression as to the number of theenemy's forces north of Strasburg and Front Royal. Are the forces stillmoving north through the gap at Front Royal and between you and there?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, May 25, 1862. 2 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

The enemy is moving north in sufficient force to drive General Banksbefore him--precisely in what force we cannot tell. He is also threateningLeesburg and Geary, on the Manassas Gap railroad, from both north andsouth--in precisely what force we cannot tell. I think the movement is ageneral and concerted one, such as would not be if he was acting upon thepurpose of a very desperate defense of Richmond. I think the time is nearwhen you must either attack Richmond or give up the job and come to thedefense of Washington. Let me hear from you instantly. 

A. LINCOLN, President. 

ORDER TAKING MILITARY POSSESSION OF RAILROADS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 25, 1862. 

Ordered: By virtue of the authority vested by act of Congress, thePresident takes military possession of all the railroads in the UnitedStates from and after this date until further order, and directs that therespective railroad companies, their officers and servants, shallhold themselves in readiness for the transportation of such troops andmunitions of war as may be ordered by the military authorities, to theexclusion of all other business. 

By order of the Secretary of War. 

M. C. MEIGS

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY CHASE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 25, 1862. 

SECRETARY CHASE, Fredericksburg, Virginia:

It now appears that Banks got safely into Winchester last night, and isthis morning retreating on Harper's Ferry. This justifies the inferencethat he is pressed by numbers superior to his own. I think it notimprobable that Ewell, Jackson, and Johnson are pouring through the gapthey made day before yesterday at Front Royal, making a dash northward. Itwill be a very valuable and very honorable service for General McDowellto cut them off. I hope he will put all possible energy and speed into theeffort. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL R. SAXTON. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 25, 1862. 

GENERAL SAXTON, Harper's Ferry:

If Banks reaches Martinsburg, is he any the better for it? Will not theenemy cut him from thence to Harper's Ferry? Have you sent anything tomeet him and assist him at Martinsburg? This is an inquiry, not an order. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL R. SAXTON. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 25, 1862. 6. 30 P. M. 

GENERAL SAXTON, Harper's Ferry:

One good six-gun battery, complete in its men and appointments, is now onits way to you from Baltimore. Eleven other guns, of different sorts, are on their way to you from here. Hope they will all reach you beforemorning. As you have but 2500 men at Harper's Ferry, where are the restwhich were in that vicinity and which we have sent forward? Have any ofthem been cut off?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL R. SAXTON. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 25, 1862. 

GENERAL SAXTON, Harper's Ferry:

I fear you have mistaken me. I did not mean to question the correctness ofyour conduct; on the contrary! I approve what you have done. As the 2500reported by you seemed small to me, I feared some had got to Banks andbeen cut off with him. Please tell me the exact number you now have inhand. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

[Sent in cipher. ]

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , May 25, 1862. 8. 30 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your despatch received. General Banks was at Strasburg, with about 6, 000men, Shields having been taken from him to swell a column for McDowellto aid you at Richmond, and the rest of his force scattered at variousplaces. On the 23d a rebel force of 7000 to 10, 000 fell upon one regimentand two companies guarding the bridge at Front Royal, destroying itentirely; crossed the Shenandoah, and on the 24th (yesterday) pushed toget north of Banks, on the road to Winchester. Banks ran a race with them, beating them into Winchester yesterday evening. This morning a battleensued between the two forces, in which Banks was beaten back into fullretreat toward Martinsburg, and probably is broken up into a total rout. Geary, on the Manassas Gap railroad, just now reports that Jackson isnow near Front Royal, With 10, 000, following up and supporting, as Iunderstand, the forces now pursuing Banks, also that another force of10, 000 is near Orleans, following on in the same direction. Stripped here, as we are here, it will be all we can do to prevent them crossing thePotomac at Harper's Ferry or above. We have about 20, 000 of McDowell'sforce moving back to the vicinity of Front Royal, and General Fremont, whowas at Franklin, is moving to Harrisonburg; both these movements intendedto get in the enemy's rear. 

One more of McDowell's brigades is ordered through here to Harper's Ferry;the rest of his force remains for the present at Fredericksburg. We aresending such regiments and dribs from here and Baltimore as we can spareto Harper's Ferry, supplying their places in some sort by calling inmilitia from the adjacent States. We also have eighteen cannon on theroad to Harper's Ferry, of which arm there is not a single one yet at thatpoint. This is now our situation. 

If McDowell's force was now beyond our reach, we should be utterlyhelpless. Apprehension of something like this, and no unwillingness tosustain you, has always been my reason for withholding McDowell's forcefrom you. Please understand this, and do the best you can with the forceyou have. 

A. LINCOLN. 

HISTORY OF CONSPIRACY OF REBELLION

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

MAY 16, 1862

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

The insurrection which is yet existing in the United States and aims atthe overthrow of the Federal Constitution and the Union, was clandestinelyprepared during the Winter of 1860 and 1861, and assumed an openorganization in the form of a treasonable provisional government atMontgomery, in Alabama on the 18th day of February, 1861. On the 12th dayof April, 1861, the insurgents committed the flagrant act of civil war bythe bombardment and the capture of Fort Sumter, Which cut off the hope ofimmediate conciliation. Immediately afterward all the roads and avenues tothis city were obstructed, and the capital was put into the condition ofa siege. The mails in every direction were stopped and the lines oftelegraph cut off by the insurgents, and military and naval forces whichhad been called out by the government for the defense of Washington wereprevented from reaching the city by organized and combined treasonableresistance in the State of Maryland. There was no adequate and effectiveorganization for the public defense. Congress had indefinitely adjourned. There was no time to convene them. It became necessary for me to choosewhether, using only the existing means, agencies, and processes whichCongress had provided, I should let the government fall at once intoruin or whether, availing myself of the broader powers conferred by theConstitution in cases of insurrection, I would make an effort to save it, with all its blessings, for the present age and for posterity. 

I thereupon summoned my constitutional advisers, the heads of all thedepartments, to meet on Sunday, the 20th day of April, 1861, at theoffice of the Navy Department, and then and there, with their unanimousconcurrence, I directed that an armed revenue cutter should proceed tosea to afford protection to the commercial marine, and especially theCalifornia treasure ships then on their way to this coast. I also directedthe commandant of the navy-yard at Boston to purchase or charter and armas quickly as possible five steamships for purposes of public defense. Idirected the commandant of the navy-yard at Philadelphia to purchaseor charter and arm an equal number for the same purpose. I directed thecommandant at New York to purchase or charter and arm an equal number. Idirected Commander Gillis to purchase or charter and arm and put to seatwo other vessels. Similar directions were given to Commodore Dupont, with a view to the opening of passages by water to and from the capital. I directed the several officers to take the advice and obtain the aid andefficient services, in the matter, of his Excellency Edwin D. Morgan, the Governor of New York, or in his absence George D. Morgan, William M. Evarts, R. M. Blatchford, and Moses H. Grinnell, who were by my directionsespecially empowered by the Secretary of the Navy to act for hisdepartment in that crisis in matters pertaining to the forwarding oftroops and supplies for the public defense. 

The several departments of the government at that time contained so largea number of disloyal persons that it would have been impossible to providesafely through official agents only for the performance of the dutiesthus confided to citizens favorably known for their ability, loyalty, andpatriotism. 

The several orders issued upon these occurrences were transmitted byprivate messengers, who pursued a circuitous way to the seaboard cities, inland across the States of Pennsylvania and Ohio and the northern lakes. I believe by these and other similar measures taken in that crisis, someof which were without any authority of law, the government was saved fromoverthrow. I am not aware that a dollar of the public funds thus confidedwithout authority of law to unofficial persons was either lost or wasted, although apprehensions of such misdirection occurred to me as objectionsto those extraordinary proceedings, and were necessarily overruled. 

I recall these transactions now because my attention has been directed toa resolution which was passed by the House of Representatives on the 30thday of last month, which is in these words:

"Resolved, That Simon Cameron, late Secretary of War by investingAlexander Cummings with the control of large sums of the public moneyand authority to purchase military supplies without restriction, withoutrequiring from him any guaranty for the faithful performance of hisduties, when the services of competent public officers were available, andby involving the government in a vast number of contracts with persons notlegitimately engaged in the business pertaining to the subject-matter ofsuch contracts, especially in the purchase of arms for future delivery, has adopted a policy highly injurious to the public service, and deservesthe censure of the House. "

Congress will see that I should be wanting equally in candor and injustice if I should leave the censure expressed in this resolution to restexclusively or chiefly upon Mr. Cameron. The same sentiment is unanimouslyentertained by the heads of department who participated in the proceedingswhich the House of Representatives have censured. It is due to Mr. Cameronto say that although he fully approved the proceedings they were not movednor suggested by himself, and that not only the President, but all theother heads of departments, were at least equally responsible with him forwhatever error, wrong, or fault was committed in the premises. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, May 26, 1862. 12. 40

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

We have General Banks's official report. He has saved his army andbaggage, and has made a safe retreat to the river, and is probably safe atWilliamsport. He reports the attacking force at 15, 000. 

A. LINCOLN, President. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 26, 1862. 1 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McDOWELL, Falmouth, Virginia:

Despatches from Geary just received have been sent you. Should notthe remainder of your forces, except sufficient to hold the point atFredericksburg, move this way--to Manassas Junction or Alexandria?As commander of this department, should you not be here? I ask thesequestions. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, May 26, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. McCLELLAN:

Can you not cut the Alula Creek railroad? Also, what impression have youas to intrenched works for you to contend with in front of Richmond? Canyou get near enough to throw shells into the city?

A. LINCOLN, President. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. C. FREMONT. 

May 27. 1862. 9. 58 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:

I see that you are at Moorefield. You were expressly ordered to march toHarrisonburg. What does this mean?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GOVERNOR ANDREW. 

WASHINGTON, May 27, 1862. 

GOVERNOR ANDREW, Boston:

The President directs that the militia be relieved, and the enlistmentsmade for three years, or during the war. This, I think, will practicallynot be longer than for a year. The latest intelligence from General Banksstates that he has saved nearly his whole command with small loss. 

Concentrations of our force have been made, which it is hoped will capturethe enemy. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

TELEGRAM FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GENERAL J. C. FREMONT, WASHINGTON, May 28, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT, Moorefield

The President directs you to halt at Moorefield and await orders, unlessyou hear of the enemy being in the general direction of Rodney, in whichcase you will move upon him. Acknowledge the receipt of this order, andthe hour it is received. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL. 

WASHINGTON, May 28, 1862. 

GENERAL McDOWELL, Manassas Junction:

General McClellan at 6. 30 P. M. Yesterday telegraphed that Fitz-JohnPorter's division had fought and driven 13, 000 of the enemy, under GeneralBranch, from Hanover Court-House, and was driving them from a stand theyhad made on the railroad at the time the messenger left. Two hours laterhe telegraphed that Stoneman had captured an engine and six cars onthe Virginia Central, which he at once sent to communicate with Porter. Nothing further from McClellan. 

If Porter effects a lodgment on both railroads near Hanover Court-House, consider whether your forces in front of Fredericksburg should not pushthrough and join him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, May 28, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

What of F. J. Porter's expedition? Please answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL. 

WASHINGTON. May 28, 1862. 4 P. M. 

GENERAL McDOWELL, Manassas Junction:

You say General Geary's scouts report that they find no enemy this side ofthe Blue Ridge. Neither do I. Have they been to the Blue Ridge looking forthem. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL. 

WASHINGTON, May 28, 1862. 5. 40 P. M. 

GENERAL McDOWELL, Manassas Junction:

I think the evidence now preponderates that Ewell and Jackson are stillabout Winchester. Assuming this, it is for you a question of legs. Put inall the speed you can. I have told Fremont as much, and directed him todrive at them as fast as possible. By the way, I suppose you know Fremonthas got up to Moorefield, instead of going into Harrisonburg. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN

WASHINGTON May 28, 1862. 8. 40 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

I am very glad of General F. J. Porter's victory. Still, if it was atotal rout of the enemy, I am puzzled to know why the Richmond andFredericksburg railroad was not seized again, as you say you have all therailroads but the Richmond and Fredericksburg. I am puzzled to see how, lacking that, you can have any, except the scrap from Richmond toWest Point. The scrap of the Virginia Central from Richmond to HanoverJunction, without more, is simply nothing. That the whole of the enemy isconcentrating on Richmond, I think cannot be certainly known to you orme. Saxton, at Harper's Ferry informs us that large forces, supposed to beJackson's and Ewells, forced his advance from Charlestown today. GeneralKing telegraphs us from Fredericksburg that contrabands give certaininformation that 15, 000 left Hanover Junction Monday morning to reinforceJackson. I am painfully impressed with the importance of the strugglebefore you, and shall aid you all I can consistently with my view of dueregard to all points. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GENERAL FREMONT. 

WASHINGTON, May 28, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL JOHN C. FREMONT, Moorefield:

The order to remain at Moorefield was based on the supposition that itwould find you there. 

Upon subsequent information that the enemy were still operating in thevicinity of Winchester and Martinsburg, you were directed to move againstthe enemy. 

The President now again directs you to move against the enemy withoutdelay. Please acknowledge the receipt of this, and the time received. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MARCY. 

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1862. 10 A. M. 

GENERAL R. B. MARCY, McClellan's Headquarters:

Yours just received. I think it cannot be certainly known whether theforce which fought General Porter is the same which recently confrontedMcDowell. Another item of evidence bearing on it is that General Branchcommanded against Porter, while it was General Anderson who was in frontof McDowell. He and McDowell were in correspondence about prisoners. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , May 29, 1862. 10. 30 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

I think we shall be able within three days to tell you certainly whetherany considerable force of the enemy--Jackson or any one else--is movingon to Harper's Ferry or vicinity. Take this expected development into yourcalculations. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL N. P. BANKS. 

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BANKS, Williamsport, Maryland:

General McDowell's advance should, and probably will, be at or nearFront Royal at twelve (noon) tomorrow. General Fremont will be at or nearStrasburg as soon. Please watch the enemy closely, and follow and harassand detain him if he attempts to retire. I mean this for General Saxton'sforce as well as that immediately with you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FREMONT

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1862. 12 M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT, Moorefield, Virginia:

General McDowell's advance, if not checked by the enemy, should, andprobably will, be at Front Royal by twelve (noon) to-morrow. His force, when up, will be about 20, 000. Please have your force at Strasburg, or, ifthe route you are moving on does not lead to that point, as near Strasburgas the enemy may be by the same time. Your despatch No. 30 received andsatisfactory. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL. 

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McDOWELL, Manassas Junction:

General Fremont's force should, and probably will, be at or near Strasburgby twelve (noon) tomorrow. Try to have your force, or the advance of it, at Front Royal as soon. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MARCY. 

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1862. 1. 20 P. M. 

GENERAL R. B. MARCY:

Your despatch as to the South Anna and Ashland being seized by our forcesthis morning is received. Understanding these points to be on the Richmondand Fredericksburg railroad, I heartily congratulate the country, andthank General McClellan and his army for their seizure. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL. 

WASHINGTON, May 30, 1862. 10 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McDOWELL, Manassas Junction:

I somewhat apprehend that Fremont's force, in its present condition, maynot be quite strong enough in case it comes in collision with the enemy. For this additional reason I wish you to push forward your column asrapidly as possible. Tell me what number your force reaching Front Royalwill amount to. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL N. P. BANKS. 

WASHINGTON, May 30, 1862. 10. 15 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BANKS, Williamsport, Maryland, via Harper's Ferry:

If the enemy in force is in or about Martinsburg, Charlestown, andWinchester, Or any or all of them, he may come in collision with Fremont, in which case I am anxious that your force, with you and at Harper'sFerry, should so operate as to assist Fremont if possible; the same ifthe enemy should engage McDowell. This was the meaning of my despatchyesterday. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL. 

WASHINGTON, May 30, 1862. 12. 40. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McDOWELL, Rectortown:

Your despatch of to-day received and is satisfactory. Fremont hasnominally 22, 000, really about 17, 000. Blenker's division is part of it. Ihave a despatch from Fremont this morning, not telling me where he is; buthe says:

"Scouts and men from Winchester represent Jackson's force variously at30, 000 to 60, 000. With him Generals Ewell and Longstreet. "

The high figures erroneous, of course. Do you know where Longstreet is?Corinth is evacuated and occupied by us. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FREMONT. 

WASHINGTON, May 30, 1862. 2. 30 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT, Moorefield, Virginia:

Yours, saying you will reach Strasburg or vicinity at 5 P. M. Saturday, hasbeen received and sent to General McDowell, and he directed to act in viewof it. You must be up to the time you promised, if possible. 

Corinth was evacuated last night, and is occupied by our troops to-day;the enemy gone south to Okolotia, on the railroad to Mobile. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL. 

WAR DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON CITY, May 30, 1862. 9. 30 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McDOWELL, Rectortown, Va. :

I send you a despatch just received from Saxton at Harper's Ferry: "Therebels are in line of battle in front of our lines. They have nine piecesof artillery, and in position, and cavalry. I shelled the woods in whichthey were, and they in return threw a large number of shells into thelines and tents from which I moved last night to take up a strongerposition. I expect a great deal from the battery on the mountain, havingthree 9 inch Dahlgren bearing directly on the enemy's approaches. Theenemy appeared this morning and then retired, with the intention ofdrawing us on. I shall act on the defensive, as my position is a strongone. In a skirmish which took place this afternoon I lost one horse, Theenemy lost two men killed and seven wounded. 

"R. SAXTON, Brigadier General. "

It seems the game is before you. Have sent a copy to General Fremont. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, May 31, 1862. 10. 20 PM. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

A circle whose circumference shall pass through Harper's Ferry, FrontRoyal, and Strasburg, and whose center shall be a little northeast ofWinchester, almost certainly has within it this morning the forces ofJackson, Ewell, and Edward Johnson. Quite certainly they were within ittwo days ago. Some part of their forces attacked Harper's Ferry atdark last evening, and are still in sight this morning. Shields, withMcDowell's advance, retook Front Royal at 11 A. M. Yesterday, with adozen of our own prisoners taken there a week ago, 150 of the enemy, twolocomotives, and eleven cars, some other property and stores, and savedthe bridge. 

General Fremont, from the direction of Moorefield, promises to be at ornear Strasburg at 5 P. M. To-day. General Banks at Williamsport, with hisold force and his new force at Harper's Ferry, is directed to co-operate. Shields at Front Royal reports a rumor of still an additional force of theenemy, supposed to be Anderson's, having entered the valley of Virginia. This last may or may not be true. Corinth is certainly in the hands ofGeneral Halleck. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM FROM SECRETARY STANTON

TO GENERAL G. A. McCALL, WASHINGTON, May 31, 1562. 

GENERAL McCALL:

The President directs me to say to you that there can be nothing tojustify a panic at Fredericksburg. He expects you to maintain yourposition there as becomes a soldier and a general. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , June 1, 1862. 9. 30. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

You are probably engaged with the enemy. I suppose he made the attack. Stand well on your guard, hold all your ground, or yield any only inch byinch and in good order. This morning we merge General Wool's departmentinto yours, giving you command of the whole, and sending General Dix toPort Monroe and General Wool to Fort McHenry. We also send General Sigelto report to you for duty. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, June 3, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

With these continuous rains I am very anxious about the Chickahominy soclose in your rear and crossing your line of communication. Please look toit. 

A. LINCOLN, President. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL I. McDOWELL. 

WASHINGTON, June 3, 1862. 6. 15 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McDOWELL, Front Royal, Virginia:

Anxious to know whether Shields can head or flank Jackson. Please tellabout where Shields and Jackson, respectively, are at the time thisreaches you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WASHINGTON, June 4, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth:

Your despatch of to-day to Secretary of War received. Thanks for the goodnews it brings. 

Have you anything from Memphis or other parts of the Mississippi River?Please answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

[cipher. ]

WASHINGTON, June 4, 1862. 

HON. ANDREW JOHNSON, Nashville, Tennessee:

Do you really wish to have control of the question of releasing rebelprisoners so far as they may be Tennesseeans? If you do, please tell usso. Your answer not to be made public. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

[Cipher. ]

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 7, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your despatch about Chattanooga and Dalton was duly received and sent toGeneral Halleck. I have just received the following answer from him:

We have Fort Pillow, Randolph, and Memphis. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WASHINGTON, June 8, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth, Mississippi:

We are changing one of the departmental lines, so as to give you allof Kentucky and Tennessee. In your movement upon Chattanooga I think itprobable that you include some combination of the force near CumberlandGap under General Morgan. 

Do you?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL N. P. BANKS. 

WASHINGTON, June 9, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BANKS, Winchester:

We are arranging a general plan for the valley of the Shenandoah, and inaccordance with this you will move your main force to the Shenandoah at oropposite Front Royal as soon as possible. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. C. FREMONT. 

WASHINGTON, June 9, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:

Halt at Harrisonburg, pursuing Jackson no farther. Get your force well inhand and stand on the defensive, guarding against a movement of the enemyeither back toward Strasburg or toward Franklin, and await further orders, which will soon be sent you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

[Cipher. ]

WASHINGTON, June 9, 1862. 

HON. ANDREW JOHNSON, Nashville, 'Tennessee:

Your despatch about seizing seventy rebels to exchange for a likenumber of Union men was duly received. I certainly do not disapprove theproposition. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL J. C. FREMONT. WASHINGTON, June 12, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:

Accounts, which we do not credit, represent that Jackson is largelyreinforced and turning upon you. Get your forces well in hand and keep uswell and frequently advised; and if you find yourself really pressed by asuperior force of the enemy, fall back cautiously toward or to Winchester, and we will have in due time Banks in position to sustain you. Do notfall back upon Harrisonburg unless upon tolerably clear necessity. Weunderstand Jackson is on the other side of the Shenandoah from you, andhence cannot in any event press you into any necessity of a precipitatewithdrawal. 

A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --Yours, preferring Mount Jackson to Harrisonburg, is just received. On this point use your discretion, remembering that our object is to givesuch protection as you can to western Virginia. Many thanks to yourself, officers, and men for the gallant battle of last Sunday. A. L. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 13, 1862. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I herewithtransmit a memorial addressed and presented to me in behalf of the Stateof New York in favor of enlarging the locks of the Erie and Oswego Canal. While I have not given nor have leisure to give the subject a carefulexamination, its great importance is obvious and unquestionable. The largeamount of valuable statistical information which is collated and presentedin the memorial will greatly facilitate the mature consideration of thesubject, which I respectfully ask for it at your hands. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL J. C. FREMONT. 

WASHINGTON; June 13. 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:

We cannot afford to keep your force and Banks's and McDowell's engagedin keeping Jackson south of Strasburg and Front Royal. You fought Jacksonalone and worsted him. He can have no substantial reinforcements so longas a battle is pending at Richmond. Surely you and Banks in supportingdistance are capable of keeping him from returning to Winchester. But ifSigel be sent forward to you, and McDowell (as he must) be put to otherwork, Jackson will break through at Front Royal again. He is already onthe right side of the Shenandoah to do it, and on the wrong side of it toattack you. The orders already sent you and Banks place you and him in theproper positions for the work assigned you. Jackson cannot move his wholeforce on either of you before the other can learn of it and go to hisassistance. He cannot divide his force, sending part against each of you, because he will be too weak for either. Please do as I directed in theorder of the 8th and my despatch of yesterday, the 12th, and neither younor Banks will be overwhelmed by Jackson. By proper scout lookouts, andbeacons of smoke by day and fires by night you can always have timelynotice of the enemy's approach. I know not as to you, but by some this hasbeen too much neglected. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL J. C. FREMONT

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , June 15, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT:

MY DEAR SIR:--Your letter of the 12th by Colonel Zagonyi is just received. In answer to the principal part of it, I repeat the substance of an orderof the 8th and one or two telegraphic despatches sent you since. 

We have no definite power of sending reinforcements; so that we arecompelled rather to consider the proper disposal of the forces we havethan of those we could wish to have. We may be able to send you some dribsby degrees, but I do not believe we can do more. As you alone beat Jacksonlast Sunday, I argue that you are stronger than he is to-day, unless hehas been reinforced; and that he cannot have been materially reinforced, because such reinforcement could only have come from Richmond, and heis much more likely to go to Richmond than Richmond is to come to him. Neither is very likely. I think Jackson's game--his assigned work--now isto magnify the accounts of his numbers and reports of his movements, andthus by constant alarms keep three or four times as many of our troopsaway from Richmond as his own force amounts to. Thus he helps his friendsat Richmond three or four times as much as if he were there. Our game isnot to allow this. Accordingly, by the order of the 8th, I directed youto halt at Harrisonburg, rest your force, and get it well in hand, theobjects being to guard against Jackson's returning by the same route tothe upper Potomac over which you have just driven him out, and at the sametime give some protection against a raid into West Virginia. 

Already I have given you discretion to occupy Mount Jackson instead, if, on full consideration, you think best. I do not believe Jackson willattack you, but certainly he cannot attack you by surprise; and if hecomes upon you in superior force, you have but to notify us, fall backcautiously, and Banks will join you in due time. But while we know notwhether Jackson will move at all, or by what route, we cannot safely putyou and Banks both on the Strasburg line, and leave no force on the FrontRoyal line--the very line upon which he prosecuted his late raid. The truepolicy is to place one of you on one line and the other on the other insuch positions that you can unite once you actually find Jackson movingupon it. And this is precisely what we are doing. This protects thatpart of our frontier, so to speak, and liberates McDowell to go to theassistance of McClellan. I have arranged this, and am very unwilling tohave it deranged. While you have only asked for Sigel, I have spoken onlyof Banks, and this because Sigel's force is now the principal part ofBank's force. 

About transferring General Schenck's commands, the purchase of supplies, and the promotion and appointment of officers, mentioned in your letter, Iwill consult with the Secretary of War to-morrow. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL J. C. FREMONT. 

WASHINGTON, June 16, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL FREMONT, Mount Jackson, Virginia:

Your despatch of yesterday, reminding me of a supposed understandingthat I would furnish you a corps of 35, 000 men, and asking of me the"fulfilment of this understanding, " is received. I am ready to come to afair settlement of accounts with you on the fulfilment of understandings. 

Early in March last, when I assigned you to the command of the MountainDepartment, I did tell you I would give you all the force I could, andthat I hoped to make it reach 35, 000. You at the same time told me thatwithin a reasonable time you would seize the railroad at or east ofKnoxville, Tenn. , if you could. There was then in the department a forcesupposed to be 25, 000, the exact number as well known to you as to me. After looking about two or three days, you called and distinctly toldme that if I would add the Blenker division to the force already in thedepartment, you would undertake the job. The Blenker division contained10, 000, and at the expense of great dissatisfaction to General McClellanI took it from his army and gave it to you. My promise was literallyfulfilled. I have given you all I could, and I have given you very nearly, if not quite, 35, 000. 

Now for yours. On the 23d of May, largely over two months afterward, youwere at Franklin, Va. , not within 300 miles of Knoxville, nor within 80miles of any part of the railroad east of it, and not moving forward, buttelegraphing here that you could not move for lack of everything. Now, do not misunderstand me. I do not say you have not done all you could. Ipresume you met unexpected difficulties; and I beg you to believe that assurely as you have done your best, so have I. I have not the power now tofill up your Corps to 35, 000. I am not demanding of you to do the work of35, 000. I am only asking of you to stand cautiously on the defensive, getyour force in order, and give such protection as you can to the valley ofthe Shenandoah and to western Virginia. 

Have you received the orders, and will you act upon them?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL C. SCHURZ. 

WASHINGTON, June 16, 1862

BRIGADIER-GENERAL SCHURZ, Mount Jackson, Virginia:

Your long letter is received. The information you give is valuable. Yousay it is fortunate that Fremont did not intercept Jackson; that Jacksonhad the superior force, and would have overwhelmed him. If this is so, howhappened it that Fremont fairly fought and routed him on the 8th? Or isthe account that he did fight and rout him false and fabricated? BothGeneral Fremont and you speak of Jackson having beaten Shields. By ouraccounts he did not beat Shields. He had no engagement with Shields. Hedid meet and drive back with disaster about 2000 of Shields's advance tillthey were met by an additional brigade of Shields's, when Jackson himselfturned and retreated. Shields himself and more than half his force werenot nearer than twenty miles to any of it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WASHINGTON, June 18, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth, Mississippi:

It would be of both interest and value to us here to know how theexpedition toward East Tennessee is progressing, if in your judgment youcan give us the information with safety. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 18, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Yours of to-day, making it probable that Jackson has been reinforced byabout 10, 000 from Richmond, is corroborated by a despatch from GeneralKing at Fredericksburg, saying a Frenchman, just arrived from Richmond byway of Gordonsville, met 10, 000 to 15, 000 passing through the latter placeto join Jackson. 

If this is true, it is as good as a reinforcement to you of an equalforce. I could better dispose of things if I could know about what day youcan attack Richmond, and would be glad to be informed, if you think youcan inform me with safety. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, JUNE 19, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Yours of last night just received, and for which I thank you. 

If large reinforcements are going from Richmond to Jackson, it proves oneof two things: either they are very strong at Richmond, or do not mean todefend the place desperately. 

On reflection, I do not see how reinforcements from Richmond to Jacksoncould be in Gordonsville, as reported by the Frenchman and your deserters. Have not all been sent to deceive?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, June 20, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

In regard to the contemplated execution of Captains Spriggs and Triplettthe government has no information whatever, but will inquire and adviseyou. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON CITY, June 20, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

We have this morning sent you a despatch of General Sigel corroborative ofthe proposition that Jackson is being reinforced from Richmond. Thismay be reality, and yet may only be contrivance for deception, and todetermine which is perplexing. If we knew it was not true, we could sendyou some more force; but as the case stands we do not think we safely can. Still, we will watch the signs and do so if possible. 

In regard to a contemplated execution of Captains Spriggs and Triplett thegovernment has no information whatever, but will inquire and advise you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, June 21 1862 6 PM. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. McCLELLAN:

Your despatch of yesterday (2 P. M. ) was received this morning. If itwould not divert too much of your time and attention from the army underyour immediate command, I would be glad to have your views as to thepresent state of military affairs throughout the whole country, as you sayyou would be glad to give them. I would rather it should be by letter thanby telegraph, because of the better chance of secrecy. As to the numbersand positions of the troops not under your command in Virginia andelsewhere, even if I could do it with accuracy, which I cannot, I wouldrather not transmit either by telegraph or by letter, because of thechances of its reaching the enemy. I would be very glad to talk with you, but you cannot leave your camp, and I cannot well leave here. 

A. LINCOLN, President

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL N. P. BANKS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 22, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL BANKS, Middletown:

I am very glad you are looking well to the west for a movement of theenemy in that direction. You know my anxiety on that point. 

All was quiet at General McClellan's headquarters at two o'clock to-day. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TREATY WITH MEXICO

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. 

WASHINGTON, June 23, 1862. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

On the 7th day of December, 1861, I submitted to the Senate the project ofa treaty between the United States and Mexico which had been proposed tome by Mr. Corwin, our minister to Mexico, and respectfully requested theadvice of the Senate thereupon. 

On the 25th day of February last a resolution was adopted by the Senate tothe effect:

"That it is not advisable to negotiate a treaty that will require theUnited States to assume any portion of the principal or interest of thedebt of Mexico, or that will require the concurrence of European powers. "

This resolution having been duly communicated to me, notice thereof wasimmediately given by the Secretary of State to Mr. Corwin, and he wasinformed that he was to consider his instructions upon the subjectreferred to modified by this resolution and would govern his courseaccordingly. That despatch failed to reach Mr. Corwin, by reason of thedisturbed condition of Mexico, until a very recent date, Mr. Corwin beingwithout instructions, or thus practically left without instructions, tonegotiate further with Mexico. 

In view of the very important events Occurring there, he has thought thatthe interests of the United States would be promoted by the conclusionof two treaties which should provide for a loan to that republic. He hastherefore signed such treaties, and they having been duly ratified by theGovernment of Mexico, he has transmitted them to me for my consideration. The action of the Senate is of course conclusive against an acceptanceof the treaties On my part. I have, nevertheless, thought it just to ourexcellent minister in Mexico and respectful to the Government of thatrepublic to lay the treaties before the Senate, together with thecorrespondence which has occurred in relation to them. In performing thisduty I have only to add that the importance of the subject thus submittedto the Senate, can not be over estimated, and I shall cheerfully receiveand consider with the highest respect any further advice the Senate maythink proper to give upon the subject. 

A. LINCOLN. 

VETO OF A CURRENCY BILL

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE, JUNE 23, 1862. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

The bill which has passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, entitled "An act to repeal that part of an act of Congress which prohibitsthe circulation of bank-notes of a less denomination than five dollars inthe District of Columbia, " has received my attentive consideration, andI now return it to the Senate, in which it originated, with the followingobjections:

1. The bill proposes to repeal the existing legislation prohibiting thecirculation of bank-notes of a less denomination than five dollars withinthe District of Columbia, without permitting the issuing of such bills bybanks not now legally authorized to issue them. In my judgment, it willbe found impracticable, in the present condition of the currency, to makesuch a discrimination. The banks have generally suspended specie payments, and a legal sanction given to the circulation of the irredeemable notesof one class of them will almost certainly be so extended, in practicaloperation, as to include those of all classes, whether authorized orunauthorized. If this view be correct, the currency of the District, should this act become a law, will certainly and greatly deteriorate, tothe serious injury of honest trade and honest labor. 

2. This bill seems to contemplate no end which cannot be otherwisemore certainly and beneficially attained. During the existing war it ispeculiarly the duty of the National Government to secure to the peoplea sound circulating medium. This duty has been, under existingcircumstances, satisfactorily performed, in part at least, by authorizingthe issue of United States notes, receivable for all government duesexcept customs, and made a legal tender for all debts, public and private, except interest on public debt. The object of the bill submitted tome--namely, that of providing a small note currency during the presentsuspension--can be fully accomplished by authorizing the issue, as partof any new emission of United States notes made necessary by thecircumstances of the country, of notes of a similar character, but ofless denomination than five dollars. Such an issue would answer all thebeneficial purposes of the bill, would save a considerable amount to thetreasury in interest, would greatly facilitate payments to soldiers andother creditors of small sums, and would furnish; to the people a currencyas safe as their own government. 

Entertaining these objections to the bill, I feel myself constrained towithhold from it my approval and return it for the further considerationand action of Congress. 

A. LINCOLN

SPEECH AT JERSEY CITY, JUNE 24, 1862. 

When birds and animals are looked at through a fog, they are seen todisadvantage, and so it might be with you if I were to attempt to tellyou why I went to see General Scott. I can only say that my visit to WestPoint did not have the importance which has been attached to it; but itconcerned matters that you understand quite as well as if I were to tellyou all about them. Now, I can only remark that it had nothing whateverto do with making or unmaking any general in the country. The Secretary ofWar, you know, holds a pretty tight rein on the press, so that they shallnot tell more than they ought to; and I 'm afraid that if I blab too much, he might draw a tight rein on me. 

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, June 26, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your three despatches of yesterday in relation to the affair, ending withthe statement that you completely succeeded in making your point, are verygratifying. 

The later one of 6. 15 P. M. , suggesting the probability of yourbeing overwhelmed by two hundred thousand, and talking of where theresponsibility will belong, pains me very much. I give you all I can, andact on the presumption that you will do the best you can with what youhave, while you continue, ungenerously I think, to assume that I couldgive you more if I would. I have omitted, and shall omit, no opportunityto send you reinforcements whenever I possibly can. 

A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. General Pope thinks if you fall back it would be much better towardsYork River than towards the James. As Pope now has charge of the capital, please confer with him through the telegraph. 

ORDER CONSTITUTING THE ARMY OF VIRGINIA. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 26, 1862. 

Ordered: 1st. The forces under Major-Generals Fremont, Banks, andMcDowell, including the troops now under Brigadier-General Sturgis atWashington, shall be consolidated and form one army, to be called the Armyof Virginia. 

2d. The command of the Army of Virginia is specially assigned toMajor-General John Pope, as commanding general. The troops of the MountainDepartment, heretofore under command of General Fremont, shall constitutethe First Army Corps, under the command of General Fremont; the troops ofthe Shenandoah Department, now under General Banks, shall constitute theSecond Army Corps, and be commanded by him; the troops under the commandof General McDowell, except those within the fortifications and city ofWashington, shall form the Third Army Corps, and be under his command. 

3d. The Army of Virginia shall operate in such manner as, while protectingwestern Virginia and the national capital from danger or insult, it shallin the speediest manner attack and overcome the rebel forces under Jacksonand Ewell, threaten the enemy in the direction of Charlottesville, andrender the most effective aid to relieve General McClellan and captureRichmond. 

4th. When the Army of the Potomac and the Army of Virginia shall be inposition to communicate and directly co-operate at or before Richmond, thechief command, while so operating together, shall be governed, as in likecases, by the Rules and Articles of War. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 28, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK:

The enemy have concentrated in such force at Richmond as to render itabsolutely necessary, in the opinion of the President, for you immediatelyto detach 25, 000 of your force and forward it by the nearest and quickestroute by way of Baltimore and Washington to Richmond. It is believedthat the quickest route would be by way of Columbus, Ky. , and up the OhioRiver. But in detaching your force the President directs that it be donein such a way as to enable you to hold your ground and not interfere withthe movement against Chattanooga and East Tennessee. This condition beingobserved, the forces to be detached and the routes they are to be sent areleft to your own judgment. 

The direction to send these forces immediately is rendered imperative bya serious reverse suffered by General McClellan before Richmond yesterday, the full extent of which is not yet known. 

You will acknowledge the receipt of this despatch, stating the day andhour it is received, and inform me what your action will be, so that wemay take measures to aid in river and railroad transportation. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

TELEGRAMS TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE. 

WASHINGTON, June 28, 1862. 

GENERAL BURNSIDE:

I think you had better go, with any reinforcements you can spare, toGeneral McClellan. 

A. LINCOLN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, June, 28, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Newbern:

We have intelligence that General McClellan has been attacked in largeforce and compelled to fall back toward the James River. We are notadvised of his exact condition, but the President directs that you shallsend him all the reinforcements from your command to the James River thatyou can safely do without abandoning your own position. Let it be infantryentirely, as he said yesterday that he had cavalry enough. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, June 28, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Save your army, at all events. Will send reinforcements as fast as we can. Of course they cannot reach you to-day, to-morrow, or next day. I have notsaid you were ungenerous for saying you needed reinforcements. I thoughtyou were ungenerous in assuming that I did not send them as fast as Icould. I feel any misfortune to you and your army quite as keenly as youfeel it yourself. If you have had a drawn battle, or a repulse, it isthe price we pay for the enemy not being in Washington. We protectedWashington, and the enemy concentrated on you. Had we stripped Washington, he would have been upon us before the troops could have gotten to you. Less than a week ago you notified us that reinforcements were leavingRichmond to come in front of us. It is the nature of the case, and neitheryou nor the government is to blame. Please tell at once the presentcondition and aspect of things. 

A. LINCOLN

TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 28, 1862

HON. W. H. SEWARD. 

MY DEAR SIR:--My view of the present condition of the war is about asfollows:

The evacuation of Corinth and our delay by the flood in the Chickahominyhave enabled the enemy to concentrate too much force in Richmondfor McClellan to successfully attack. In fact there soon will be nosubstantial rebel force anywhere else. But if we send all the force fromhere to McClellan, the enemy will, before we can know of it, send a forcefrom Richmond and take Washington. Or if a large part of the western armybe brought here to McClellan, they will let us have Richmond, and retakeTennessee, Kentucky, Missouri, etc. What should be done is to hold whatwe have in the West, open the Mississippi, and take Chattanooga and EastTennessee without more. A reasonable force should in every event bekept about Washington for its protection. Then let the country give us ahundred thousand new troops in the shortest possible time, which, added toMcClellan directly or indirectly, will take Richmond without endangeringany other place which we now hold, and will substantially end the war. I expect to maintain this contest until successful, or till I die, or amconquered, or my term expires, or Congress or the country forsake me; andI would publicly appeal to the country for this new force were it not thatI fear a general panic and stampede would follow, so hard it is to have athing understood as it really is. I think the new force should be all, ornearly all, infantry, principally because such can be raised most cheaplyand quickly. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. A. DIX. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 28, 1862. 

GENERAL DIX:

Communication with McClellan by White House is cut off. Strain every nerveto open communication with him by James River, or any other way you can. Report to me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO FLAG-OFFICER L. M. GOLDSBOROUGH. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 28, 1862. 

FLAG-OFFICER GOLDS BOROUGH, Fort Monroe:

Enemy has cut McClellan's communication with White House, and is drivingStoneman back on that point. Do what you can for him with gunboats at ornear that place. McClellan's main force is between the Chickahominy andthe James. Also do what you can to communicate with him and support himthere. 

A. LINCOLN

To GOVERNOR MORTON. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. June 28, 1862. 

GOVERNOR O. P. MORTON, Indianapolis, Ind:

Your despatch of to-day is just received. I have no recollection of eitherJohn R. Cravens or Cyrus M. Allen having been named to me for appointmentunder the tax law. The latter particularly has been my friend, and I amsorry to learn that he is not yours. No appointment has been or will bemade by me for the purpose of stabbing you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 29, 1862. 6 P. M. 

HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Astor House, New York:

Not much more than when you left. Fulton of Baltimore American is now withus. He left White House at 11 A. M. Yesterday. He conversed fully with apaymaster who was with Porter's force during the fight of Friday and fellback to nearer McClellan's quarters just a little sooner than Porter did, seeing the whole of it; stayed on the Richmond side of the Chickahominyover night, and left for White House at 5 A. M. Saturday. He says Porterretired in perfect order under protection of the guns arranged for thepurpose, under orders and not from necessity; and with all other of ourforces, except what was left on purpose to go to White House, was safelyin pontoons over the Chickahominy before morning, and that there was heavyfiring on the Richmond side, begun at 5 and ceased at 7 A. M. Saturday. Onthe whole, I think we have had the better of it up to that point of time. What has happened since we still know not, as we have no communicationwith General McClellan. A despatch from Colonel Ingalls shows that hethinks McClellan is fighting with the enemy at Richmond to-day, and willbe to-morrow. We have no means of knowing upon what Colonel Ingalls foundshis opinion. Confirmed about saving all property. Not a single unwoundedstraggler came back to White House from the field, and the number ofwounded reaching there up to 11 A. M. Saturday was not large. 

A. LINCOLN. 

To what the President has above stated I will only add one or two pointsthat may be satisfactory for you to know. 

First. All the sick and wounded were safely removed

Second. A despatch from Burnside shows that he is from White House; not aman left behind in condition to afford efficient support, and is probablydoing so. 

Third. The despatch from Colonel Ingalls impresses me with the convictionthat the movement was made by General McClellan to concentrate onRichmond, and was successful to the latest point of which we have anyinformation. 

Fourth. Mr. Fulton says that on Friday night, between twelve and oneo'clock, General McClellan telegraphed Commodore Goldsborough that theresult of the movement was satisfactory to him. 

Fifth. From these and the facts stated by the President, my inference isthat General McClellan will probably be in Richmond within two days. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

[Unfortunately McClellan did not do any of the things he was ordered, andthat it was very likely possible to do. It is still some mystery what hewas doing all these days other than hiding in the woods and staying out ofcommunication so he would not receive any more uncomfortable orders. Thiswas another place where the North was close to wining the war and did not. D. W. ]

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY SEWARD. WAR DEPARTMENT, June 30, 1862. 

HON. WM. H. SEWARD, New York:

We are yet without communication with General McClellan, and this absenceof news is our point of anxiety. Up to the latest point to which we areposted he effected everything in such exact accordance with his plan, contingently announced to us before the battle began, that we feeljustified to hope that he has not failed since. He had a severe engagementin getting the part of his army on this side of the Chickahominy over tothe other side, in which the enemy lost certainly as much as we did. Weare not dissatisfied with this, only that the loss of enemies does notcompensate for the loss of friends. The enemy cannot come below WhiteHouse; certainly is not there now, and probably has abandoned the wholeline. Dix's pickets are at New Kent Court-House. 

A. LINCOLN. 

CALL FOR TROOPS. NEW YORK, June 30, 1862. 

TO THE GOVERNORS OF THE SEVERAL STATES:

The capture of New Orleans, Norfolk, and Corinth by the national forceshas enabled the insurgents to concentrate a large force at and aboutRichmond, which place we must take with the least possible delay; in fact, there will soon be no formidable insurgent force except at Richmond. With so large an army there, the enemy can threaten us on the Potomac andelsewhere. Until we have re-established the national authority, all theseplaces must be held, and we must keep a respectable force in front ofWASHINGTON. But this, from the diminished strength of our army by sicknessand casualties, renders an addition to it necessary in order to close thestruggle which has been prosecuted for the last three months with energyand success. Rather than hazard the misapprehension of our militarycondition and of groundless alarm by a call for troops by proclamation, Ihave deemed it best to address you in this form. To accomplish the objectstated we require without delay 150, 000 men, including those recentlycalled for by the Secretary of War. Thus reinforced our gallant army willbe enabled to realize the hopes and expectations of the government and thepeople. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. A. DIX. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, June 30, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe:

Is it not probable that the enemy has abandoned the line between WhiteHouse and McClellan's rear? He could have but little object to maintainit, and nothing to subsist upon. Would not Stoneman better move up andsee about it? I think a telegraphic communication can at once be opened toWhite House from Williamsburg. The wires must be up still. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAMS TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, JUNE 30, 1862. 3 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth:

Your telegram of this date just received. The Chattanooga expeditionmust not on any account be given up. The President regards that and themovement against East Tennessee as one of the most important movementsof the war, and its occupation nearly as important as the capture ofRichmond. He is not pleased with the tardiness of the movement towardChattanooga, and directs that no force be sent here if you cannot do itwithout breaking up the operations against that point and East Tennessee. Infantry only are needed; our cavalry and artillery are strong enough. The first reports from Richmond were more discouraging than the truthwarranted. If the advantage is not on our side, it is balanced. GeneralMcClellan has moved his whole force on the line of the James River, andis supported there by our gunboats; but he must be largely strengthenedbefore advancing, and hence the call on you, which I am glad you answeredso promptly. Let me know to what point on the river you will send yourforces, so as to provide immediately for transportation. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 30, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth, Mississippi:

Would be very glad of 25, 000 infantry; no artillery or cavalry; but pleasedo not send a man if it endangers any place you deem important to hold, or if it forces you to give up or weaken or delay the expedition againstChattanooga. To take and hold the railroad at or east of Cleveland, inEast Tennessee, I think fully as important as the taking and holding ofRichmond. 

A. LINCOLN. 

CALL FOR 300, 000 VOLUNTEERS, JULY 1, 1862. 

June 28, 1861. 

The undersigned, governors of States of the Union, impressed with thebelief that the citizens of the States which they respectively representare of one accord in the hearty desire that the recent successes of theFederal arms may be followed up by measures which must insure the speedyrestoration of the Union, and believing that, in view of the presentstate of the important military movements now in progress, and the reducedcondition of our effective forces in the field, resulting from the usualand unavoidable casualties in the service, the time has arrived for promptand vigorous measures to be adopted by the people in support of the greatinterests committed to your charge, respectfully request, if it meets withyour entire approval, that you at once call upon the several Statesfor such number of men as may be required to fill up all militaryorganizations now in the field, and add to the armies heretofore organizedsuch additional number of men as may, in your judgment, be necessary togarrison and hold all the numerous cities and military positions thathave been captured by our armies, and to speedily crush the rebellion thatstill exists in several of the Southern States, thus practically restoringto the civilized world our great and good government. All believe that thedecisive moment is near at hand, and to that end the people of the UnitedStates are desirous to aid promptly in furnishing all reinforcements thatyou may deem needful to sustain our government. 

 ISRAEL WASHBURN, JR. , Governor of Maine. H. S. BERRY, Governor of New Hampshire. FREDERICK HOLBROOK, Governor of Vermont. WILLIAM A. BUCKINGHAM, Governor of Connecticut. E. D. MORGAN, Governor of New York. CHARLES S. OLDEN, Governor of New Jersey. A. G. CURTIN, Governor of Pennsylvania. A. W. BRADFORD, Governor of Maryland. F. H. PIERPOINT, Governor of Virginia. AUSTIN BLAIR, Governor of Michigan. J. B. TEMPLE, President Military Board of Kentucky. ANDREW JOHNSON, Governor of Tennessee. H. R. GAMBLE, Governor of Missouri. O. P. MORTON, Governor of Indiana. DAVID TODD, Governor of Ohio. ALEXANDER RAMSEY, Governor of Minnesota. RICHARD YATES, Governor of Illinois. EDWARD SALOMON, Governor of Wisconsin. 

THE PRESIDENT

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 1, 1862

GENTLEMEN:--Fully concurring in the wisdom of the views expressed to mein so patriotic a manner by you, in the communication of the twenty-eighthday of June, I have decided to call into the service an additional forceof 300, 000 men. I suggest and recommend that the troops should be chieflyof infantry. The quota of your State would be ------. I trust thatthey may be enrolled without delay, so as to bring this unnecessary andinjurious civil war to a speedy and satisfactory conclusion. An orderfixing the quotas of the respective States will be issued by the WarDepartment to-morrow. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION CONCERNING TAXES IN REBELLIOUS STATES, JULY 1, 1862. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas in and by the second section of an act of Congress passed on the7th day of June, A. D. 1862, entitled "An act for the collection of directtaxes in insurrectionary districts within the United States, and for otherpurposes, " it is made the duty of the President to declare, on or beforethe first day of July then next following, by his proclamation, in whatStates and parts of States insurrection exists:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States of America, do hereby declare and proclaim that theStates of South Carolina, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Mississippi, Arkansas, Tennessee, North Carolina, and the State ofVirginia except the following counties-Hancock, Brooke, Ohio, Marshall, Wetzel, Marion, Monongalia, Preston, Taylor, Pleasants, Tyler, Ritchie, Doddridge, Harrison, Wood, Jackson, Wirt, Roane, Calhoun, Gilmer, Barbour, Tucker, Lewis, Braxton, Upsbur, Randolph, Mason, Putnam, Kanawha, Clay, Nicholas, Cabell, Wayne, Boone, Logan, Wyoming, Webster, Fayette, andRaleigh-are now in insurrection and rebellion, and by reason thereof thecivil authority of the United States is obstructed so that the provisionsof the "Act to provide increased revenue from imports, to pay the intereston the public debt, and for other purposes, " approved August 5, 1861, cannot be peaceably executed; and that the taxes legally chargeable upon realestate under the act last aforesaid lying within the States and partsof States as aforesaid, together with a penalty of 50 per centum of saidtaxes, shall be a lien upon the tracts or lots of the same, severallycharged, till paid. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: F. W. SEWARD, Acting Secretary of State. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, JULY 1, 1862. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

I most cordially recommend that Captain Andrew H. Foote, of the UnitedStates Navy, receive a vote of thanks of Congress for his eminent servicesin Organizing the flotilla on the western Waters, and for his gallantry atFort Henry, Fort Donelson, Island Number Ten, and at various other places, whilst in command of the naval forces, embracing a period of nearly tenmonths. 

A. LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. July 1, 1862

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, JULY 1, 1862. 3. 30 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. McCLELLAN:

It is impossible to reinforce you for your present emergency. If we had amillion of men, We could not get them to you in time. We have not the mento send. If you are not strong enough to face the enemy, you must find aplace of security, and wait, rest, and repair. Maintain your ground ifyou can, but save the army at all events, even if you fall back to FortMonroe. We still have strength enough in the country, and will bring itout. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 2, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your despatch of Tuesday morning induces me to hope your army is havingsome rest. In this hope allow me to reason with you a moment. When you askfor 50, 000 men to be promptly sent you, you surely labor under some grossmistake of fact. Recently you sent papers showing your disposal of forcesmade last spring for the defense of WASHINGTON, and advising a return tothat plan. I find it included in and about WASHINGTON 75, 000 men. Now, please be assured I have not men enough to fill that very plan by 15, 000. All of Fremont's in the valley, all of Banks's, all of McDowell's not withyou, and all in WASHINGTON, taken together, do not exceed, if they reach, 60, 000. With Wool and Dix added to those mentioned, I have not, outside ofyour army, 75, 000 men east of the mountains. Thus the idea of sending you50, 000, or any other considerable force, promptly, is simply absurd. If, in your frequent mention of responsibility, you have the impression thatI blame you for not doing more than you can, please be relieved ofsuch impression. I only beg that in like manner you will not askimpossibilities of me. If you think you are not strong enough to takeRichmond just now, I do not ask you to try just now. Save the army, material and personal, and I will strengthen it for the offensive againas fast as I can. The governors of eighteen States offer me a new levy of300, 000, which I accept. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. July 2, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth, Mississippi:

Your several despatches of yesterday to Secretary of War and myselfreceived. I did say, and now repeat, I would be exceedingly glad for somereinforcements from you. Still do not send a man if in your judgment itwill endanger any point you deem important to hold, or will force you togive up or weaken or delay the Chattanooga expedition. 

Please tell me could you not make me a flying visit for consultationwithout endangering the Service in your department. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 2, 1862. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

I herewith return to your honorable body, in which it originated, anact entitled "An act to provide for additional medical officers of thevolunteer service, " without my approval. 

My reason for so doing is that I have approved an act of the same titlepassed by Congress after the passage of the one first mentioned for theexpress purpose of correcting errors in and superseding the same, as I aminformed. 

A. LINCOLN. 

CIRCULAR LETTER TO THE GOVERNORS. 

(Private and Confidential. )

WAR DEPARTMENT, July 3, 1862. 10. 30 A. M. 

GOVERNOR WASHBURN, Maine [and other governors] I should not want the halfof 300, 000 new troops if I could have them now. If I had 50, 000 additionaltroops here now, I believe I could substantially close the war in twoweeks. But time is everything, and if I get 50, 000 new men in a month, Ishall have lost 20, 000 old ones during the same month, having gained only30, 000, with the difference between old and new troops still against me. The quicker you send, the fewer you will have to send. Time is everything. Please act in view of this. The enemy having given up Corinth, it is notwonderful that he is thereby enabled to check us for a time at Richmond. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON, D. C. , JULY 3, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. McCLELLAN:

Yours of 5. 30 yesterday is just received. I am satisfied that yourself, officers, and men have done the best you could. All accounts say betterfighting was never done. Ten thousand thanks for it. 

On the 28th we sent General Burnside an order to send all the force hecould spare to you. We then learned that you had requested him to go toGoldsborough; upon which we said to him our order was intended for yourbenefit, and we did not wish to be in conflict with your views. 

We hope you will have help from him soon. Today we have ordered GeneralHunter to send you all he can spare. At last advices General Halleckthinks he cannot send reinforcements without endangering all he hasgained. 

A. LINCOLN, President

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , July 4, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

I understand your position as stated in your letter and by General Marcy. To reinforce you so as to enable you to resume the offensive within amonth, or even six weeks, is impossible. In addition to that arrived andnow arriving from the Potomac (about 10, 000 men, I suppose), and about10, 000 I hope you will have from Burnside very soon, and about 5000 fromHunter a little later, I do not see how I can send you another man withina month. Under these circumstances the defensive for the present must beyour only care. Save the army first, where you are, if you can; secondly, by removal, if you must. You, on the ground, must be the judge as to whichyou will attempt, and of the means for effecting it. I but give it as myopinion that with the aid of the gunboats and the reinforcements mentionedabove you can hold your present position--provided, and so long as, you can keep the James River open below you. If you are not tolerablyconfident you can keep the James River open, you had better remove as soonas possible. I do not remember that you have expressed any apprehension asto the danger of having your communication cut on the river below you, yetI do not suppose it can have escaped your attention. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --If at any time you feel able to take the offensive, you are notrestrained from doing so. A. L. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, July 4, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth, Mississippi:

You do not know how much you would oblige us if, without abandoning any ofyour positions or plans, you could promptly send us even 10, 000 infantry. Can you not? Some part of the Corinth army is certainly fighting McClellanin front of Richmond. Prisoners are in our hands from the late Corintharmy. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. A. DIX. 

WASHINGTON CITY, July 4, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe:

Send forward the despatch to Colonel Hawkins and this also. Our order andGeneral McClellan's to General Burnside being the same, of course we wishit executed as promptly as possible. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, July 5, 1862. 9 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GEORGE B. McCLELLAN:

A thousand thanks for the relief your two despatches of 12 and 1 P. M. Yesterday gave me. Be assured the heroism and skill of yourself andofficers and men is, and forever will be, appreciated. 

If you can hold your present position, we shall have the enemy yet. 

A. LINCOLN

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , July 6, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth, Mississippi. 

MY DEAR SIR:--This introduces Governor William Sprague, of Rhode Island. He is now Governor for the third time, and senator-elect of the UnitedStates. 

I know the object of his visit to you. He has my cheerful consent to go, but not my direction. He wishes to get you and part of your force, one orboth, to come here. You already know I should be exceedingly glad ofthis if, in your judgment, it could be without endangering positions andoperations in the southwest; and I now repeat what I have more than oncesaid by telegraph: "Do not come or send a man if, in your judgment, itwill endanger any point you deem important to hold, or endangers or delaysthe Chattanooga expedition. "

Still, please give my friend, Governor Sprague, a full and fair hearing. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

MEMORANDUM OF AN INTERVIEW BETWEEN THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL McCLELLAN

AND OTHER OFFICERS DURING A VISIT TO THE ARMY OF THE POTOMAC AT HARRISON'SLANDING, VIRGINIA. 

July 9, 1862. 

THE PRESIDENT: What amount of force have you now?

GENERAL McCLELLAN: About 80, 000, can't vary much, certainly 75, 000. 

THE PRESIDENT:[to the corps commanders] What is the whole amount of yourcorps with you now. 

 GENERAL SUMNER: About 15, 000. GENERAL HEINTZELMAN: 15, 000 for duty. GENERAL KEYES: About 12, 500. GENERAL PORTER: About 23, 000--fully 20, 000 fit for duty. GENERAL FRANKLIN: About 15, 000. 

THE PRESIDENT: What is likely to be your condition as to health in thiscamp?

GENERAL McCLELLAN: Better than in any encampment since landing at FortressMonroe. 

PRESIDENT LINCOLN:[to the corps commanders] In your present encampmentwhat is the present and prospective condition as to health?

GENERAL SUMNER: As good as any part of Western Virginia. 

GENERAL HEINTZELMAN: Excellent for health, and present health improving. 

GENERAL KEYES: A little improved, but think camp is getting worse. 

GENERAL PORTER: Very good. 

GENERAL FRANKLIN: Not good. 

THE PRESIDENT: Where is the enemy now?

GENERAL McCLELLAN: From four to five miles from us on all the roads--Ithink nearly the whole army--both Hills, Longstreet, Jackson, Magruder, Huger. 

THE PRESIDENT: [to the corps commanders] Where and in what condition doyou believe the enemy to be now?

GENERAL SUMNER: I think they have retired from our front; were verymuch damaged, especially in their best troops, in the late actions, fromsuperiority of arms. 

GENERAL HEINTZELMAN: Don't think they are in force in our vicinity. 

GENERAL KEYES: Think he has withdrawn, and think preparing to go toWASHINGTON. 

GENERAL PORTER: Believe he is mainly near Richmond. He feels he dare notattack us here. 

GENERAL FRANKLIN: I learn he has withdrawn from our front and think thatis probable. 

THE PRESIDENT: [to the corps commanders] What is the aggregate of yourkilled, wounded, and missing from the attack on the 26th ultimo till now?

 GENERAL SUMNER: 1175. GENERAL HEINTZELMAN: Not large 745. GENERAL KEYES: Less than 500. GENERAL PORTER: Over 5000. GENERAL FRANKLIN: Not over 3000. 

THE PRESIDENT: If you desired could you remove the army safely?

GENERAL McCLELLAN: It would be a delicate and very difficult matter. 

THE PRESIDENT: [to the corps commanders] If it were desired to get thearmy away, could it be safely effected?

GENERAL SUMNER: I think we could, but I think we give up the cause if wedo. 

GENERAL HEINTZELMAN: Perhaps we could, but I think it would be ruinous tothe country. 

GENERAL KEYES: I think it could if done quickly. 

GENERAL PORTER: Impossible--move the army and ruin the country. 

GENERAL FRANKLIN: I think we could, and that we had better--thinkRappahannock the true line. 

THE PRESIDENT: [to the corps commanders] Is the army secure in its presentposition?

 GENERAL SUMNER: Perfectly so, in my judgment. GENERAL HEINTZELMAN: I think it is safe. GENERAL KEYES: With help of General B. [Burnside] can hold position. GENERAL PORTER: Perfectly so. Not only, but we are ready to begin moving forward. GENERAL FRANKLIN: Unless river can be closed it is. 

ORDER MAKING HALLECK GENERAL-IN-CHIEF. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 11, 1862. 

Ordered, That Major-General Henry W. Halleck be assigned to command thewhole land forces of the United States, as general-in-chief, and that herepair to this capital so soon as he can with safety to the positions andoperations within the department now under his charge. 

A. LINCOLN

ORDER CONCERNING THE SOUTHWEST BRANCH OF THE PACIFIC RAILROAD. 

Whereas, in the judgment of the President, the public safety does requirethat the railroad line called and known as the Southwest Branch of thePacific Railroad in the State of Missouri be repaired, extended, andcompleted from Rolla to Lebanon, in the direction to Springfield, in thesaid State, the same being necessary to the successful and economicalconduct of the war and to the maintenance of the authority of thegovernment in the Southwest:

Therefore, under and in virtue of the act of Congress entitled "An actto authorize the President of the United States in certain cases to takepossession of railroad and telegraph lines, and for other purposes, "approved January 31, 1862, it is ordered, That the portion of the saidrailroad line which reaches from Rolla to Lebanon be repaired, extended, and completed, so as to be made available for the military uses of thegovernment, as speedily as may be. And, inasmuch as upon the part of thesaid line from Rolla to the stream called Little Piney a considerableportion of the necessary work has already been done by the railroadcompany, and the road to this extent may be completed at comparativelysmall cost, it is ordered that the said line from Rolla to and acrossLittle Piney be first completed, and as soon as possible. 

The Secretary of War is charged with the execution of this order. Andto facilitate the speedy execution of the work, he is directed, at hisdiscretion, to take possession and control of the whole or such part ofthe said railroad line, and the whole or such part of the rolling stock, offices, shops, buildings, and all their appendages and appurtenances, ashe may judge necessary or convenient for the early completion of the roadfrom Rolla to Lebanon. 

Done at the city of WASHINGTON, July 11, 1862. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON, D C. , July 11, 1862

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I recommend that the thanks of Congress be given to the following officersof the United States Navy:

Captain James L. Lardner, for meritorious conduct at the battle of PortRoyal and distinguished services on the coast of the United States againstthe enemy. 

Captain Charles Henry Davis, for distinguished services in conflict withthe enemy at Fort Pillow, at Memphis, and for successful operations atother points in the waters of the Mississippi River. 

Commander John A. Dahlgren, for distinguished services in the line of hisprofession, improvements in ordnance, and zealous and efficient labors inthe ordnance branch of the service. 

Commander Stephen C. Rowan, for distinguished services in the waters ofNorth Carolina, and particularly in the capture of Newbern, being in chiefcommand of the naval forces. 

Commander David D. Porter, for distinguished services in the conceptionand preparation of the means used for the capture of the forts belowNew Orleans, and for highly meritorious conduct in the management of themortar flotilla during the bombardment of Forts Jackson and St. Philip. 

Captain Silas H. Stringharn, now on the retired list, for distinguishedservices in the capture of Forts Hatteras and Clark. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. WAR DEPARTMENT, July 11, 1862. 

HON. ANDREW JOHNSON. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of yesterday is received. Do you not, my good friend, perceive that what you ask is simply to put you in command in the West?I do not suppose you desire this. You only wish to control in your ownlocalities; but this you must know may derange all other posts. Canyou not, and will you not, have a full conference with General Halleck?Telegraph him, and meet him at such place as he and you can agree upon. Itelegraph him to meet you and confer fully with you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. WAR DEPARTMENT, July 11, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth:

Governor Johnson, at Nashville, is in great trouble and anxiety about araid into Kentucky. The governor is a true and valuable man--indispensableto us in Tennessee. Will you please get in communication with him, and have a full conference with him before you leave for here? I havetelegraphed him on the subject. 

A. LINCOLN. 

APPEAL TO BORDER-STATES IN FAVOR OF COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION. 

July 12, 1862. 

GENTLEMEN:--After the adjournment of Congress now very near, I shall haveno opportunity of seeing you for several months. Believing that you ofthe border States hold more power for good than any other equal number ofmembers, I feel it a duty which I cannot justifiably waive to make thisappeal to you. I intend no reproach or complaint when I assure youthat, in my opinion, if you all had voted for the resolution in thegradual-emancipation message of last March, the war would now besubstantially ended. And the plan therein proposed is yet one of the mostpotent and swift means of ending it. Let the States which are in rebellionsee definitely and certainly that in no event will the States yourepresent ever join their proposed confederacy, and they cannot muchlonger maintain the contest. But you cannot divest them of their hopeto ultimately have you with them so long as you show a determination toperpetuate the institution within your own States. Beat them at elections, as you have overwhelmingly done, and, nothing daunted, they still claimyou as their own. You and I know what the lever of their power is. Breakthat lever before their faces, and they can shake you no more forever. Most of you have treated me with kindness and consideration and I trustyou will not now think I improperly touch what is exclusively your own, when, for the sake of the whole country, I ask, Can you, for your States, do better than to take the course I urge? Discarding punctilio and maximsadapted to more manageable times, and looking only to the unprecedentedlystern facts of our case, can you do better in any possible event? Youprefer that the constitutional relation of the States to the nation shallbe practically restored without disturbance of the institution; and ifthis were done, my whole duty in this respect, under the Constitutionand my oath of office, would be performed. But it is not done, and weare trying to accomplish it by war. The incidents of the war cannot beavoided. If the war continues long, as it must if the object be not soonerattained, the institution in your States will be extinguished by merefriction and abrasion--by the mere incidents of the war. It will be gone, and you will have nothing valuable in lieu of it. Much of its value isgone already. How much better for you and for your people to take the stepwhich at once shortens the war and secures substantial compensation forthat which is sure to be wholly lost in any other event! How much betterto thus save the money which else we sink forever in war! How much betterto do it while we can, lest the war ere long render us pecuniarily unableto do it! How much better for you as seller, and the nation as buyer, tosell out and buy out that without which the war could never have been, than to sink both the thing to be sold and the price of it in cuttingone another's throats! I do not speak of emancipation at once, but ofa decision at once to emancipate gradually. Room in South America forcolonization can be obtained cheaply and in abundance, and when numbersshall be large enough to be company and encouragement for one another, thefreed people will not be so reluctant to go. 

I am pressed with a difficulty not yet mentioned--one which threatensdivision among those who, united, are none too strong. An instance of itis known to you. General Hunter is an honest man. He was, and I hope stillis, my friend. I valued him none the less for his agreeing with me in thegeneral wish that all men everywhere could be free. He proclaimed all menfree within certain States, and I repudiated the proclamation. He expectedmore good and less harm from the measure than I could believe wouldfollow. Yet, in repudiating it, I gave dissatisfaction, if not offence, tomany whose support the country cannot afford to lose. And this is notthe end of it. The pressure in this direction is still upon me, and isincreasing. By conceding what I now ask you can relieve me, and, muchmore, can relieve the country in this important point. 

Upon these considerations, I have again begged your attention to themessage of March last. Before leaving the Capital, consider and discuss itamong yourselves. You are patriots and statesmen, and as such I prayyou consider this proposition; and, at the least, commend it to theconsideration of your States and people. As you would perpetuate populargovernment for the best people in the world, I beseech you that you doin nowise omit this. Our common country is in great peril, demanding theloftiest views and boldest action to bring a speedy relief. Once relieved, its form of government is saved to the world; its beloved history andcherished memories are vindicated, and its happy future fully assuredand rendered inconceivably grand. To you, more than to any others, theprivilege is given to assure that happiness and swell that grandeur, andto link your own names therewith forever. 

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 13, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

MY DEAR SIR:--I am told that over 160, 000 men have gone into your armyon the Peninsula. When I was with you the other day we made out 86, 500remaining, leaving 73, 500 to be accounted for. I believe 23, 500 will coverall the killed, wounded, and missing in all your battles and skirmishes, leaving 50, 000 who have left otherwise. No more than 5000 of these havedied, leaving 45, 000 of your army still alive and not with it. I believehalf or two-thirds of them are fit for duty to-day. Have you any moreperfect knowledge of this than I have? If I am right, and you had thesemen with you, you could go into Richmond in the next three days. How canthey be got to you, and how can they be prevented from getting away insuch numbers for the future?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, July 13, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth, Mississippi:

They are having a stampede in Kentucky. Please look to it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. T. BOYLE. 

WASHINGTON, July 13, 1862. 

GENERAL J. T. BOYLE, Louisville, Kentucky:

Your several despatches received. You should call on General Halleck. Telegraph him at once. I have telegraphed him that you are in trouble. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. T. BOYLE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, July 13, 1862. 

GENERAL J. T. BOYLE, Louisville, Kentucky:

We cannot venture to order troops from General Buell. We know not whatcondition he is in. He maybe attacked himself. You must call on GeneralHalleck, who commands, and whose business it is to understand and care forthe whole field If you cannot telegraph to him, send a messenger to him. Adispatch has this moment come from Halleck at Tuscombia, Alabama. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ACT OF COMPENSATED EMANCIPATION

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

July 4, 1862. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

Herewith is the draft of the bill to compensate any State which mayabolish slavery within its limits, the passage of which, substantially aspresented, I respectfully and earnestly recommend. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assembled:--That whenever the President ofthe United States shall be satisfied that any State shall have lawfullyabolished slavery within and through-out such State, either immediatelyor gradually, it shall be the duty of the President, assisted by theSecretary of the Treasury, to prepare and deliver to each State an amountof six per cent. Interest-bearing bonds of the United States equal to theaggregate value at ------ dollars per head of all the slaves within suchState, as reported by the census of 1860; the whole amount for any oneState to be delivered at once if the abolishment be immediate, or in equalannual instalments if it be gradual, interest to begin running on eachbond at the time of delivery, and not before. 

And be it further enacted, That if any State, having so received any suchbonds, shall at any time afterwards by law reintroduce or tolerate slaverywithin its limits, contrary to the act of abolishment upon which suchbonds shall have been received, said bonds so received by said State shallat once be null and void, in whosesoever hands they may be, and such Stateshall refund to the United States all interest which may have been paid onsuch bonds. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, July 14, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Corinth, Mississippi:

I am very anxious--almost impatient--to have you here. Have due regard towhat you leave behind. When can you reach here?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, July 14, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

General Burnside's force is at Newport News, ready to move, on shortnotice, one way or the other, when ordered. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SOLOMON FOOT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 15, 1862. 

HON. SOLOMON FOOT, President pro tempore of the Senate. 

SIR:--Please inform the Senate that I shall be obliged if they willpostpone the adjournment at least one day beyond the time which Iunderstand to be now fixed for it. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

[The same message was addressed to Hon. Galusha A. Grow Speaker of theHouse of Representatives. ]

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. July 17, 1862. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I have inadvertently omitted so long to inform you that in March last Mr. Cornelius Vanderbilt, of New York, gratuitously presented to the UnitedStates the ocean steamer Vanderbilt, by many esteemed the finest merchantship in the world. She has ever since been and still is doing valuableservice to the government. For the patriotic act of making thismagnificent and valuable present to the country I recommend that somesuitable acknowledgment be made. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. July 17, 1862. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

Considering the bill for "An act to suppress insurrection, to punishtreason and rebellion, to seize and confiscate the property of rebels, andfor other purposes, " and the joint resolution explanatory of said act asbeing substantially one, I have approved and signed both. 

Before I was informed of the passage of the resolution I had prepared thedraft of a message stating objections to the bill becoming a law, a copyof which draft is herewith transmitted. 

A. LINCOLN. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I herewith return to your honorable body, in which it originated, the billfor an act entitled "An act to suppress treason and rebellion, to seizeand confiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes, " togetherwith my objections to its becoming a law. 

There is much in the bill to which I perceive no objection. It is whollyprospective, and touches neither person nor property of any loyal citizen, in which particulars it is just and proper. The first and second sectionsprovide for the conviction and punishment of persons Who shall be guiltyof treason and persons who shall "incite, set on foot, assist, or engagein any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the UnitedStates or the laws thereof, or shall give aid and comfort thereto, orshall engage in or give aid and comfort to any such existing rebellion orinsurrection. " By fair construction persons within these sections are notto be punished without regular trials in duly constituted courts, under the forms and all the substantial provisions of law and of theConstitution applicable to their several cases. To this I perceiveno objection, especially as such persons would be within the generalpardoning power and also the special provision for pardon and amnestycontained in this act. 

It is also provided that the slaves of persons convicted under thesesections shall be free. I think there is an unfortunate form of expressionrather than a substantial objection in this. It is startling to say thatCongress can free a slave within a State, and yet if it were said theownership of the slave had first been transferred to the nation and thatCongress had then liberated him the difficulty would at once vanish. Andthis is the real case. The traitor against the General Government forfeitshis slave at least as justly as he does any other property, and heforfeits both to the government against which be offends. The government, so far as there can be ownership, thus owns the forfeited slaves, and thequestion for Congress in regard to them is, "Shall they be made free orbe sold to new masters?" I perceive no objection to Congress deciding inadvance that they shall be free. To the high honor of Kentucky, as I aminformed, she is the owner of some slaves by escheat, and has sold none, but liberated all. I hope the same is true of some other States. Indeed, I do not believe it will be physically possible for the General Governmentto return persons so circumstanced to actual slavery. I believe therewould be physical resistance to it which could neither be turned asideby argument nor driven away by force. In this view I have no objection tothis feature of the bill. Another matter involved in these two sections, and running through other parts of the act, will be noticed hereafter. 

I perceive no objection to the third or fourth sections. 

So far as I wish to notice the fifth and sixth sections, they may beconsidered together. That the enforcement of these sections would do noinjustice to the persons embraced within them, is clear. That those whomake a causeless war should be compelled to pay the cost of it, is tooobviously just to be called in question. To give governmental protectionto the property of persons who have abandoned it, and gone on a crusade tooverthrow the same government, is absurd, if considered in the mere lightof justice. The severest justice may not always be the best policy. The principle of seizing and appropriating the property of the personsembraced within these sections is certainly not very objectionable, but ajustly discriminating application of it would be very difficult and, toa great extent, impossible. And would it not be wise to place a power ofremission somewhere, so that these persons may know they have something tolose by persisting and something to gain by desisting?

[A man without hope is a most dangerous man--he has nothing to lose!]

I am not sure whether such power of remission is or is not in sectionthirteen. Without any special act of Congress, I think our militarycommanders, when--in military phrase, "they are within the enemy'scountry, " should, in an orderly manner, seize and use whatever of real orpersonal property may be necessary or convenient for their commands; atthe same time preserving, in some way, the evidence of what they do. 

What I have said in regard to slaves, while commenting on the first andsecond sections, is applicable to the ninth, with the difference that noprovision is made in the whole act for determining whether a particularindividual slave does or does not fall within the classes defined inthat section. He is to be free upon certain conditions but whetherthose conditions do or do not pertain to him no mode of ascertaining isprovided. This could be easily supplied. 

To the tenth section I make no objection. The oath therein required seemsto be proper, and the remainder of the section is substantially identicalwith a law already existing. 

The eleventh section simply assumes to confer discretionary power uponthe executive. Without the law, I have no hesitation to go as far in thedirection indicated as I may at any time deem expedient. And I am readyto say now--I think it is proper for our military commanders to employ, aslaborers, as many persons of African descent as can be used to advantage. 

The twelfth and thirteenth sections are something better thanunobjectionable; and the fourteenth is entirely proper, if all other partsof the act shall stand. 

That to which I chiefly object pervades most parts of the act, but moredistinctly appears in the first, second, seventh, and eighth sections. It is the sum of those provisions which results in the divesting of titleforever. 

For the causes of treason and ingredients of treason, not amounting tothe full crime, it declares forfeiture extending beyond the lives of theguilty parties; whereas the Constitution of the United States declaresthat "no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood or forfeitureexcept during the life of the person attainted. " True, there is to beno formal attainder in this case; still, I think the greater punishmentcannot be constitutionally inflicted, in a different form, for the sameoffence. 

With great respect I am constrained to say I think this feature of the actis unconstitutional. It would not be difficult to modify it. 

I may remark that the provision of the Constitution, put in languageborrowed from Great Britain, applies only in this country, as Iunderstand, to real or landed estate. 

Again, this act in rem forfeits property for the ingredients of treasonwithout a conviction of the supposed criminal, or a personal hearing givenhim in any proceeding. That we may not touch property lying within ourreach, because we cannot give personal notice to an owner who is absentendeavoring to destroy the government, is certainly not satisfactory. Still, the owner may not be thus engaged; and I think a reasonable timeshould be provided for such parties to appear and have personal hearings. Similar provisions are not uncommon in connection with proceedings in rem. 

For the reasons stated, I return the bill to the House in which itoriginated. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , July 21, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

This is Monday. I hope to be able to tell you on Thursday what is to bedone with Burnside. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER IN REGARD TO BEHAVIOR OF ALIENS

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON, July 21, 1862. 

The following order has been received from the President of the UnitedStates:

Representations have been made to the President by the ministers ofvarious foreign powers in amity with the United States that subjects ofsuch powers have during the present insurrection been obliged or requiredby military authorities to take an oath of general or qualified allegianceto this government. It is the duty of all aliens residing in the UnitedStates to submit to and obey the laws and respect the authority ofthe government. For any proceeding or conduct inconsistent with thisobligation and subversive of that authority they may rightfully besubjected to military restraints when this may be necessary. But theycannot be required to take an oath of allegiance to this government, because it conflicts with the duty they owe to their own sovereigns. Allsuch obligations heretofore taken are therefore remitted and annulled. Military commanders will abstain from imposing similar obligations infuture, and will in lieu thereof adopt such other restraints of thecharacter indicated as they shall find necessary, convenient, andeffectual for the public safety. It is further directed that whenever anyorder shall be made affecting the personal liberty of an alien reports ofthe same and of the causes thereof shall be made to the War Department forthe consideration of the Department of State. 

By order of the Secretary of War:

L. THOMAS, Adjutant-General. 

ORDER AUTHORIZING EMPLOYMENT OF "CONTRABANDS. "

WAR DEPARTMENT, July 22, 1862. 

Ordered:

1. That military commanders within the States of Virginia, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, Texas, and Arkansas inan orderly manner seize and use any property, real or personal, which maybe necessary or convenient for their several commands as supplies or forother military purposes; and that while property may be destroyed forproper military objects, none shall be destroyed in wantonness or malice. 

2. That military and naval commanders shall employ as laborers withinand from said States so many persons of African descent as can beadvantageously used for military or naval purposes, giving them reasonablewages for their labor. 

3. That as to both property and persons of African descent accounts shallbe kept sufficiently accurate and in detail to show quantities and amountsand from whom both property and such persons shall have come, as a basisupon which compensation can be made in proper cases; and the severaldepartments of this government shall attend to and perform theirappropriate parts toward the execution of these orders. 

By order of the President: EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

WARNING TO REBEL SYMPATHIZERS

PROCLAMATION, JULY 25, 1862. 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

In pursuance of the sixth section of the act of Congress entitled "An actto suppress insurrection and to punish treason and rebellion, to seize andconfiscate property of rebels, and for other purposes, " approved July17, 1862, and which act and the joint resolution explanatory thereof areherewith published, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, dohereby proclaim to and warn all persons within the contemplation ofsaid sixth section to cease participating in, aiding, countenancing, orabetting the existing rebellion or any rebellion against the Government ofthe United States and to return to their proper allegiance to the UnitedStates, on pain of the forfeitures and seizures as within and by saidsixth section provided. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-fifth day of July, A. D. 1862, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-seventh. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

HOLD MY HAND WHILST THE ENEMY STABS ME

TO REVERDY JOHNSON. 

(Private. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 26, 1862. 

HON. REVERDY JOHNSON. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 16th is received. .. .. .. .. .. 

You are ready to say I apply to friends what is due only to enemies. Idistrust the wisdom if not the sincerity of friends who would hold myhands while my enemies stab me. This appeal of professed friends hasparalyzed me more in this struggle than any other one thing. You remembertelling me, the day after the Baltimore mob in April, 1861, that it wouldcrush all Union feeling in Maryland for me to attempt bringing troops overMaryland soil to Washington. I brought the troops notwithstanding, andyet there was Union feeling enough left to elect a Legislature thenext autumn, which in turn elected a very excellent Union United Statessenator! I am a patient man--always willing to forgive on the Christianterms of repentance, and also to give ample time for repentance. Still, I must save this government, if possible. What I cannot do, of course, Iwill not do; but it may as well be understood, once for all, that I shallnot surrender this game leaving any available card unplayed. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO CUTHBERT BULLITT. 

(Private. )

WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 28, 1862. 

CUTHBERT BULLITT, Esq. , New Orleans, Louisiana. 

SIR:--The copy of a letter addressed to yourself by Mr. Thomas J. Duranthas been shown to me. The writer appears to be an able, a dispassionate, and an entirely sincere man. The first part of the letter is devoted toan effort to show that the secession ordinance of Louisiana was adoptedagainst the will of a majority of the people. This is probably true, and in that fact may be found some instruction. Why did they allow theordinance to go into effect? Why did they not assert themselves? Why standpassive and allow themselves to be trodden down by minority? Why did theynot hold popular meetings and have a convention of their own to expressand enforce the true sentiment of the State? If preorganization wasagainst them then, why not do this now that the United States army ispresent to protect them? The paralysis--the dead palsy--of the governmentin this whole struggle is that this class of men will do nothing for thegovernment, nothing for themselves, except demanding that the governmentshall not strike its open enemies, lest they be struck by accident!

Mr. Durant complains that in various ways the relation of master and slaveis disturbed by the presence of our army, and he considers it particularlyvexatious that this, in part, is done under cover of an act of Congress, while constitutional guaranties are suspended on the plea of militarynecessity. The truth is, that what is done and omitted about slavesis done and omitted on the same military necessity. It is a militarynecessity to have men and money; and we can get neither in sufficientnumbers or amounts if we keep from or drive from our lines slaves comingto them. Mr. Durant cannot be ignorant of the pressure in this direction, nor of my efforts to hold it within bounds till he and such as he shallhave time to help themselves. 

I am not posted to speak understandingly on all the police regulationsof which Mr. Durant complains. If experience shows any one of them to bewrong, let them be set right. I think I can perceive in the freedomof trade which Mr. Durant urges that he would relieve both friends andenemies from the pressure of the blockade. By this he would serve theenemy more effectively than the enemy is able to serve himself. I do notsay or believe that to serve the enemy is the purpose, of Mr. Durant, or that he is conscious of any purpose other than national and patrioticones. Still, if there were a class of men who, having no choice of sidesin the contest, were anxious only to have quiet and comfort for themselveswhile it rages, and to fall in with the victorious side at the end of itwithout loss to themselves, their advice as to the mode of conductingthe contest would be precisely such as his is. He speaks of noduty--apparently thinks of none--resting upon Union men. He even thinks itinjurious to the Union cause that they should be restrained in trade andpassage without taking sides. They are to touch neither a sail nor a pump, but to be merely passengers--deadheads at that--to be carried snug and drythroughout the storm, and safely landed right side up. Nay, more: evena mutineer is to go untouched, lest these sacred passengers receive anaccidental wound. Of course the rebellion will never be suppressed inLouisiana if the professed Union men there will neither help to do it norpermit the government to do it without their help. Now, I think the trueremedy is very different from what is suggested by Mr. Durant. It does notlie in rounding the rough angles of the war, but in removing the necessityfor the war. The people of Louisiana who wish protection to person andproperty have but to reach forth their hands and take it. Let them in goodfaith reinaugurate the national authority, and set up a State governmentconforming thereto under the Constitution. They know how to do it and canhave the protection of the army while doing it. The army will be withdrawnso soon as such State government can dispense with its presence; and thepeople of the State can then, upon the old constitutional terms, governthemselves to their own liking. This is very simple and easy. 

If they will not do this--if they prefer to hazard all for the sakeof destroying the government--it is for them to consider whether it isprobable I will surrender the government to save them from losing all. Ifthey decline what I suggest, you scarcely need to ask what I will do. Whatwould you do in my position? Would you drop the war where it is? Or wouldyou prosecute it in future with elder-stalk squirts charged with rosewater? Would you deal lighter blows rather than heavier ones? Would yougive up the contest, leaving any available means unapplied? I am in noboastful mood. I shall not do more than I can, and I shall do all I can, to save the government, which is my sworn duty as well as my personalinclination. I shall do nothing in malice. What I deal with is too vastfor malicious dealing. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO LOYAL GOVERNORS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 28, 1862. 

GOVERNORS OF ALL LOYAL STATES:

It would be of great service here for us to know, as fully as you cantell, what progress is made and making in recruiting for old regimentsin your State. Also about what day the first regiments can move with you, what the second, what the third, and so on. This information is importantto us in making calculations. Please give it as promptly and accurately asyou call. 

A. LINCOLN. 

BROKEN EGGS CANNOT BE MENDED

EXTRACT FROM LETTER TO AUGUST BELMONT. 

July 31, 1862. 

Broken eggs cannot be mended; but Louisiana has nothing to do now but totake her place in the Union as it was, barring the already broken eggs. The sooner she does so, the smaller will be the amount of that which willbe past mending. This government cannot much longer play a game inwhich it stakes all, and its enemies stake nothing. Those enemies mustunderstand that they cannot experiment for ten years trying to destroy thegovernment, and if they fail, still come back into the Union unhurt. Ifthey expect in any contingency to ever have the Union as it was, I joinwith the writer in saying, "Now is the time. "

How much better it would have been for the writer to have gone at this, under the protection of the army at New Orleans, than to have sat down ina closet writing complaining letters northward!

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO COUNT GASPARIN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 4, 1863. 

TO COUNT A. DE GASPARIN. 

DEAR SIR--Your very acceptable letter, dated Orbe, Canton de Vaud, Switzerland, 18th of July, 1862, is received. The moral effect was theworst of the affair before Richmond, and that has run its course downward. We are now at a stand, and shall soon be rising again, as we hope. Ibelieve it is true that, in men and material, the enemy suffered more thanwe in that series of conflicts, while it is certain that he is less ableto bear it. 

With us every soldier is a man of character, and must be treated withmore consideration than is customary in Europe. Hence our great army, forslighter causes than could have prevailed there, has dwindled rapidly, bringing the necessity for a new call earlier than was anticipated. Weshall easily obtain the new levy, however. Be not alarmed if you shalllearn that we shall have resorted to a draft for part of this. It seemsstrange even to me, but it is true, that the government is now pressedto this course by a popular demand. Thousands who wish not to personallyenter the service are nevertheless anxious to pay and send substitutes, provided they can have assurance that unwilling persons, similarlysituated, will be compelled to do likewise. Besides this, volunteersmostly choose to enter newly forming regiments, while drafted men can besent to fill up the old ones, wherein man for man they are quite doubly asvaluable. 

You ask, "Why is it that the North with her great armies so often is foundwith inferiority of numbers face to face with the armies of the South?"While I painfully know the fact, a military man, which I am not, wouldbetter answer the question. The fact I know has not been overlooked, andI suppose the cause of its continuance lies mainly in the other factsthat the enemy holds the interior and we the exterior lines, and thatwe operate where the people convey information to the enemy, while heoperates where they convey none to us. 

I have received the volume and letter which you did me the honor ofaddressing to me, and for which please accept my sincere thanks. You aremuch admired in America for the ability of your writings, and muchloved for your generosity to us and your devotion to liberal principlesgenerally. 

You are quite right as to the importance to us, for its bearing uponEurope, that we should achieve military successes, and the same is truefor us at home as well as abroad. Yet it seems unreasonable that a seriesof successes, extending through half a year, and clearing more than100, 000 square miles of country, should help us so little, while a singlehalf-defeat should hurt us so much. But let us be patient. 

I am very happy to know that my course has not conflicted with yourjudgment of propriety and policy I can only say that I have acted upon mybest convictions, without selfishness or malice, and that by the help ofGod I shall continue to do so. 

Please be assured of my highest respect and esteem. 

A. LINCOLN. 

SPEECH AT A WAR MEETING, WASHINGTON, AUGUST 6, 1862

FELLOW CITIZENS: I believe there is no precedent for my appearing beforeyou on this occasion, but it is also true that there is no precedent foryour being here yourselves, and I offer in justification of myself andof you that, upon examination, I have found nothing in the Constitutionagainst it. I, however, have an impression that; there are youngergentlemen who will entertain you better and better address yourunderstanding than I will or could, and therefore I propose but to detainyou a moment longer. I am very little inclined on any occasion to sayanything unless I hope to produce some good by it. The only thing I thinkof just now not likely to be better said by some one else is a matter inwhich we have heard some other persons blamed for what I did myself Therehas been a very widespread attempt to have a quarrel between GeneralMcClellan and the Secretary of War Now, I occupy a position that enablesme to believe that these two gentlemen are not nearly so deep in thequarrel as some presuming to be their friends. General McClellan'sattitude is such that in the very selfishness of his nature he cannot butwish to be successful--and I hope he will--and the Secretary of War isprecisely in the same situation. If the military commanders in the fieldcannot be successful, not only the Secretary of War, but myself, for thetime being the master of both, cannot but be failures. I know GeneralMcClellan wishes to be successful, and I know he does not wish it any morethan the Secretary of War for him, and both of them together no morethan I wish it. Sometimes we have a dispute about how many men GeneralMcClellan has had, and those who would disparage him say he has had a verylarge number, and those who would disparage the Secretary of War insistthat General McClellan has had a very small number. The basis for this is, there is always a wide difference, and on this occasion perhaps a widerone, between the grand total on McClellan's rolls and the men actuallyfit for duty; and those who would disparage him talk of the grand total onpaper, and those who would disparage the Secretary of War talk of thoseat present fit for duty. General McClellan has sometimes asked for thingsthat the Secretary of War did not give him. General McClellan is not toblame for asking for what he wanted and needed, and the Secretary of Waris not to blame for not giving when he had none to give. And I say here, so far as I know, the Secretary of War has withheld no one thing at anytime in my power to give him. I have no accusation against him. I believehe is a brave and able man, and I stand here, as justice requires me todo, to take upon myself what has been charged on the Secretary of War aswithholding from him. I have talked longer than I expected to do, and nowI avail myself of my privilege of saying no more. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR ANDREW. August 12, 1862. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. 

GOVERNOR ANDREW, Boston, Mass. :

Your despatch saying "I can't get those regiments off because I can'tget quick work out of the V. S. Disbursing officer and the paymaster" isreceived. Please say to these gentlemen that if they do not work quickly Iwill make quick work with them. In the name of all that is reasonable, howlong does it take to pay a couple of regiments? We were never more in needof the arrival of regiments than now--even to-day. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR CURTIN. August 12, 1862. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

GOVERNOR CURTIN, Harrisburg, Penn. :

It is very important for some regiments to arrive here at once. What lackyou from us? What can we do to expedite matters? Answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL S. R. CURTIS. August 12, 1862. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS, St. Louis, Missouri:

Would the completion of the railroad some distance farther in thedirection of Springfield, Mo. , be of any military advantage to you? Pleaseanswer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ADDRESS ON COLONIZATION TO A DEPUTATION OF COLORED MEN. 

WASHINGTON, Thursday, August 14, 1862. 

This afternoon the President of the United States gave an audience to acommittee of colored men at the White House. They were introduced byRev. J. Mitchell, Commissioner of Emigration, E. M. Thomas, the chairman, remarked that they were there by invitation to hear what the Executive hadto say to them. 

Having all been seated, the President, after a few preliminaryobservations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated byCongress, and placed at his disposition, for the purpose of aiding thecolonization, in some country, of the people, or a portion of them, ofAfrican descent, thereby making it his duty, as it had for a long timebeen his inclination, to favor that cause. And why, he asked, should thepeople of your race be colonized, and where? Why should they leave thiscountry? This is, perhaps, the first question for proper consideration. You and we are different races. We have between us a broader differencethan exists between almost any other two races. Whether it is rightor wrong I need not discuss; but this physical difference is a greatdisadvantage to us both, as I think. Your race suffer very greatly, manyof them, by living among us, while ours suffer from your presence. In aword, we suffer on each side. If this is admitted, it affords a reason, atleast, why we should be separated. You here are free men, I suppose. 

[A voice--"Yes, sir!"]

Perhaps you have long been free, or all your lives. Your race aresuffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet far removed from beingplaced on an equality with the white race. You are cut off from many ofthe advantages which the other race enjoys. The aspiration of men is toenjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent nota single man of your race is made the equal of a single man of ours. Gowhere you are treated the best, and the ban is still upon you. I do notpropose to discuss this, but to present it as a fact, with which we haveto deal. I cannot alter it if I would. It is a fact about which we allthink and feel alike, I and you. We look to our condition. Owing to theexistence of the two races on this continent, I need not recount to youthe effects upon white men, growing out of the institution of slavery. 

I believe in its general evil effects on the white race. See our presentcondition--the country engaged in war--white men cutting one another'sthroats--none knowing how far it will extend--and then consider what weknow to be the truth: But for your race among us there could not be war, although many men engaged on either side do not care for you one way orthe other. Nevertheless I repeat, without the institution of slavery andthe colored race as a basis, the war could not have an existence. It isbetter for us both, therefore, to be separated. I know that there are freemen among you, who, even if they could better their condition, are not asmuch inclined to go out of the country as those who, being slaves, couldobtain their freedom on this condition. I suppose one of the principaldifficulties in the way of colonization is that the free colored mancannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it. You may believethat you can live in WASHINGTON, or elsewhere in the United States, theremainder of your life, as easily, perhaps more so, than you can in anyforeign Country; and hence you may come to the conclusion that you havenothing to do with the idea of going to a foreign country. 

This is (I speak in no unkind sense) an extremely selfish view of thecase. You ought to do something to help those who are not so fortunate asyourselves. There is an unwillingness on the part of our people, harshas it may be, for you free colored people to remain with us. Now, if youcould give a start to the white people, you would open a wide door formany to be made free. If we deal with those who are not free at thebeginning, and whose intellects are clouded by slavery, we have very poormaterial to start with. If intelligent colored men, such as are before me, would move in this matter, much might be accomplished. 

It is exceedingly important that we have men at the beginning capableof thinking as white men, and not those who have been systematicallyoppressed. There is much to encourage you. For the sake of your race youshould sacrifice something of your present comfort for the purpose ofbeing as grand in that respect as the white people. It is a cheeringthought throughout life that something can be done to ameliorate thecondition of those who have been subject to the hard usages of the world. It is difficult to make a man miserable while he feels he is worthy ofhimself and claims kindred to the great God who made him. In the AmericanRevolutionary war sacrifices were made by men engaged in it, but they werecheered by the future. General WASHINGTON himself endured greater physicalhardships than if he had remained a British subject, yet he was a happyman because he had engaged in benefiting his race, in doing something forthe children of his neighbors, having none of his own. 

The colony of Liberia has been in existence a long time. In a certainsense it is a success. The old President of Liberia, Roberts, has justbeen with me--the first time I ever saw him. He says they have within thebounds of that colony between three and four hundred thousand people, ormore than in some of our old States, such as Rhode Island or Delaware, or in some of our newer States, and less than in some of our larger ones. They are not all American colonists or their descendants. Something lessthan 12, 000 have been sent thither from this country. Many of the originalsettlers have died; yet, like people else-where, their offspring outnumberthose deceased. The question is, if the colored people are persuaded to goanywhere, why not there?

One reason for unwillingness to do so is that some of you would ratherremain within reach of the country of your nativity. I do not know howmuch attachment you may have toward our race. It does not strike me thatyou have the greatest reason to love them. But still you are attached tothem, at all events. 

The place I am thinking about for a colony is in Central America. It isnearer to us than Liberia not much more than one fourth as far as Liberia, and within seven days' run by steamers. Unlike Liberia, it is a great lineof travel--it is a highway. The country is a very excellent one for anypeople, and with great natural resources and advantages, and especiallybecause of the similarity of climate with your native soil, thus beingsuited to your physical condition. The particular place I have in view isto be a great highway from the Atlantic or Caribbean Sea to the PacificOcean, and this particular place has all the advantages for a colony. Onboth sides there are harbors--among the finest in the world. Again, thereis evidence of very rich coal-mines. A certain amount of coal is valuablein any country. Why I attach so much importance to coal is, it will affordan opportunity to the inhabitants for immediate employment till they getready to settle permanently in their homes. If you take colonists wherethere is no good landing, there is a bad show; and so where there isnothing to cultivate and of which to make a farm. But if something isstarted so that you can get your daily bread as soon as reach you there, it is a great advantage. Coal land is the best thing I know of with whichto commence an enterprise. To return--you have been talked to upon thissubject, and told that a speculation is intended by gentlemen who have aninterest in the country, including the coal-mines. We have been mistakenall our lives if we do not know whites, as well as blacks, look to theirself-interest. Unless among those deficient of intellect, everybodyyou trade with makes something. You meet with these things here andeverywhere. If such persons have what will be an advantage to them, the question is whether it cannot be made of advantage to you. You areintelligent, and know that success does not so much depend on externalhelp as on self-reliance. Much, therefore, depends upon yourselves. As tothe coal-mines, I think I see the means available for your self-reliance. I shall, if I get a sufficient number of you engaged, have provision madethat you shall not be wronged. If you will engage in the enterprise, I will spend some of the money intrusted to me. I am not sure you willsucceed. The government may lose the money; but we cannot succeed unlesswe try, and we think with care we can succeed. The political affairs inCentral America are not in quite as satisfactory a condition as I wish. There are contending factions in that quarter, but it is true all thefactions are agreed alike on the subject of colonization, and want it, andare more generous than we are here. 

To your colored race they have no objection I would endeavor to haveyou made the equals, and have the best assurance that you should be theequals, of the best. 

The practical thing I want to ascertain is whether I can get a number ofable-bodied men, with their wives and children, who are willing to go whenI present evidence of encouragement and protection. Could I get a hundredtolerably intelligent men, with their wives and children, and able to"cut their own fodder, " so to speak? Can I have fifty? If I could findtwenty-five able-bodied men, with a mixture of women and children--goodthings in the family relation, I think, --I could make a successfulcommencement. I want you to let me know whether this can be done or not. This is the practical part of my wish to see you. These are subjects ofvery great importance, worthy of a month's study, instead of a speechdelivered in an hour. I ask you, then, to consider seriously, notpertaining to yourselves merely, nor for your race and ours for thepresent time, but as one of the things, if successfully managed, the goodof mankind--not confined to the present generation, but as

 "From age to age descends the lay To millions yet to be, Till far its echoes roll away Into eternity. "

The above is merely given as the substance of the President's remarks. 

The chairman of the delegation briefly replied that they would hold aconsultation, and in a short time give an answer. 

The President said: Take your full time-no hurry at all. 

The delegation then withdrew. 

TELEGRAM TO OFFICER AT CAMP CHASE, OHIO. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 14, 1862. 

OFFICER in charge of Confederate prisoners at Camp Chase, Ohio:

It is believed that a Dr. J. J. Williams is a prisoner in your charge, andif so tell him his wife is here and allow him to telegraph to her. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO HIRAM BARNEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 16, 1862. 

HON. HIRAM BARNEY, New York:

Mrs. L. Has $1000 for the benefit of the hospitals and she will beobliged, and send the pay, if you will be so good as to select and sendher $200 worth of good lemons and $100 worth of good oranges. 

A. LINCOLN. 

NOTE OF INTRODUCTION. 

The Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenuewill please see Mr. Talcott, one of the best men there is, and, if anydifference, one they would like better than they do me. 

August 18, 1862

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO S. B. MOODY

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON August 18, 1862

S. B. MOODY, Springfield, Ill. :

Which do you prefer--commissary or quartermaster? If appointed it must bewithout conditions. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Operator please send above for President. JOHN HAY

TO Mrs. PRESTON. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 21, 1862. 

Mrs. MARGARET PRESTON, Lexington, Ky. :

Your despatch to Mrs. L. Received yesterday. She is not well. Owing toher early and strong friendship for you, I would gladly oblige you, but Icannot absolutely do it. If General Boyle and Hon. James Guthrie, oneor both, in their discretion see fit to give you the passes, this is myauthority to them for doing so. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE OR GENERAL PARKE. 

WASHINGTON, August 21. 

TO GENERAL BURNSIDE OR GENERAL PARKE:

What news about arrival of troops?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO G. P. WATSON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 21, 1862. 

GILLET F. WATSON, Williamsburg, Va. :

Your telegram in regard to the lunatic asylum has been received. Itis certainly a case of difficulty, but if you cannot remain, I cannotconceive who under my authority can. Remain as long as you safely can andprovide as well as you can for the poor inmates of the institution. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO HORACE GREELEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 22, 1862. 

HON. HORACE GREELEY. 

DEAR SIR:--I have just read yours of the 19th, addressed to myself throughthe New York Tribune. If there be in it any statements or assumptions offact which I may know to be erroneous, I do not now and here controvertthem. If there be in it any inferences which I may believe to be falselydrawn, I do not now and here argue against them. If there be perceptiblein it an impatient and dictatorial tone, I waive it in deference to an oldfriend, whose heart I have always supposed to be right. 

As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing, " as you say, I have not meant toleave any one in doubt. 

I would save the Union. I would save it the shortest way under theConstitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored, thenearer the Union will be, "the Union as it was. " If there be those whowould not save the Union unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there be those who would not save the Unionunless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree withthem. My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and isnot either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union withoutfreeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeingall the slaves, I would do it; and if I could do it by freeing some andleaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery andthe colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save this Union; andwhat I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to savethe Union. I shall do less whenever I shall believe what I am doing hurtsthe cause, and I shall do more whenever I shall believe doing more willhelp the cause. I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; andI shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. Ihave here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty, andI intend no modification of my oft expressed personal wish that all men, everywhere, could be free. 

Yours, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR YATES. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 13. 1862. 8 A. M. 

HON. R. YATES, Springfield, Ill. :

I am pained to hear that you reject the service of an officer we sentto assist in organizing and getting off troops. Pennsylvania and Indianaaccepted such officers kindly, and they now have more than twice as manynew troops in the field as all the other States together. If Illinoishad got forward as many troops as Indiana, Cumberland Gap would soon berelieved from its present peril. Please do not ruin us on punctilio. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR RAMSEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, August 27, 1862

GOVERNOR RAMSEY, St. Paul, Minnesota:

Yours received. Attend to the Indians. If the draft cannot proceed, ofcourse it will not proceed. Necessity knows no law. The government cannotextend the time. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON CITY, August 27, 1862 4 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN, Alexandria, Virginia:

What news from the front?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE. 

August 27, 1862 4. 30 p. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Falmouth, Virginia:

Do you hear anything from Pope?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE. 

August 28, 1862. 2. 40 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Falmouth, Virginia:

Any news from General Pope?

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL HAUPT. 

August 28, 1862. 2. 40 p. M. 

COLONEL HAUPT, Alexandria, Virginia:

Yours received. How do you learn that the rebel forces at Manassas arelarge and commanded by several of their best generals?

A. LINCOLN, TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 29, 1862. 2. 30 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Falmouth, Virginia:

Any further news? Does Colonel Devon mean that sound of firing washeard in direction of Warrenton, as stated, or in direction of WarrentonJunction?

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, August 29, 1862. 2. 30 p. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN

What news from direction of Manassas Junction? What generally?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, August 29, 1862. 4. 10 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN: Yours of to-day just received. I think your firstalternative--to wit, "to concentrate all our available forces to opencommunication with Pope"--is the right one, but I wish not to control. That I now leave to General Halleck, aided by your counsels. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL HAUPT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 30, 1862. 10. 20 A. M. 

COLONEL HAUPT Alexandria, Virginia:

What news?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL HAUPT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, August 30, 1862. 3. 50 P. M. COLONEL HAUPT, Alexandria, Virginia

Please send me the latest news. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BANKS. 

August 30, 1862. 8. 35 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BANKS, Manassas Junction, Virginia:

Please tell me what news. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. T. BOYLE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, August 31, 1862. 

GENERAL BOYLE, Louisville, Kentucky:

What force, and what the numbers of it, which General Nelson had in theengagement near Richmond yesterday?

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 3, 1862. 

Ordered, That the general-in-chief, Major-General Halleck, immediatelycommence, and proceed with all possible despatch; to organize an army, for active operations, from all the material within and coming within hiscontrol, independent of the forces he may deem necessary for the defenseof Washington when such active army shall take the field. 

By order of the President:

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

[Indorsement. ]

Copy delivered to Major-General Halleck, September 3, 1862, at 10 p. M. 

E. D. TOWNSEND, Assistant-Adjutant General. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. G. WRIGHT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 7, 1862. 

GENERAL WRIGHT, Cincinnati, Ohio:

Do you know to any certainty where General Bragg is? May he not be inVirginia?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. T. BOYLE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 7, 1862. 

GENERAL BOYLE, Louisville, Kentucky:

Where is General Bragg? What do you know on the subject?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. E. WOOL. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

September 7, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Wool, Baltimore:

What about Harper's Ferry? Do you know anything about it? How certain isyour information about Bragg being in the valley of the Shenandoah?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B, McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON, September 8, 1862. 5 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN, Rockville, Maryland:

How does it look now?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. C. BUELL. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, September 8, 1862. 7. 20 P. M. 

GENERAL BUELL:

What degree of certainty have you that Bragg, with his command, is not nowin the valley of the Shenandoah, Virginia?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO T. WEBSTER. 

WASHINGTON, September 9, 1862. 

THOMAS WEBSTER, Philadelphia:

Your despatch received, and referred to General Halleck, who must controlthe questions presented. While I am not surprised at your anxiety, I donot think you are in any danger. If half our troops were in Philadelphia, the enemy could take it, because he would not fear to leave the other halfin his rear; but with the whole of them here, he dares not leave them inhis rear. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, September 10, 1862. 10. 15 AM. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN, Rockville, Maryland:

How does it look now?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR CURTIN. September 11, 1862. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , HIS EXCELLENCY ANDREW G. CURTIN, Governor of Pennsylvania, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. 

SIR:--The application made to me by your adjutant general for authorityto call out the militia of the State of Pennsylvania has received carefulconsideration. It is my anxious desire to afford, as far as possible, the means and power of the Federal Government to protect the Stateof Pennsylvania from invasion by the rebel forces; and since, in yourjudgment, the militia of the State are required, and have been called uponby you, to organize for home defense and protection, I sanction the callthat you have made, and will receive them into the service and pay ofthe United States to the extent they can be armed, equipped, and usefullyemployed. The arms and equipments now belonging to the General Governmentwill be needed for the troops called out for the national armies, so thatarms can only be furnished for the quota of militia furnished by the draftof nine months' men, heretofore ordered. But as arms may be supplied bythe militia under your call, these, with the 30, 000 in your arsenal, willprobably be sufficient for the purpose contemplated by your call. You willbe authorized to provide such equipments as may be required, accordingto the regulations of the United States service, which, upon being turnedover to the United States Quartermaster's Department, will be paid forat regulation prices, or the rates allowed by the department for sucharticles. Railroad transportation will also be paid for, as in othercases. Such general officers will be supplied as the exigencies of theservice will permit. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR CURTIN. 

WASHINGTON, September 11, 1862 12M

HON. ANDREW G. CURTIN:

Please tell me at once what is your latest news from or toward Hagerstown, or of the enemy's movement in any direction. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL C. B. McCLELLAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, SEPTEMBER 11, 1862. 6 PM

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

This is explanatory. If Porter, Heintzelman, and Sigel were sent you, itwould sweep everything from the other side of the river, because the newtroops have been distributed among them, as I understand. Porter reportshimself 21, 000 strong, which can only be by the addition of new troops. He is ordered tonight to join you as quickly as possible. I am for sendingyou all that can be spared, and I hope others can follow Porter very soon, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , SEPTEMBER 12, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN, Clarksburg, Maryland:

How does it look now?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR CURTIN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON D. C. , SEPTEMBER 12, 1862 10. 35 AM

HON. ANDREW G. CURTIN, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania:

Your despatch asking for 80, 000 disciplined troops to be sent toPennsylvania is received. Please consider we have not to exceed 80, 000disciplined troops, properly so called, this side of the mountains; andmost of them, with many of the new regiments, are now close in the rearof the enemy supposed to be invading Pennsylvania. Start half of them toHarrisburg, and the enemy will turn upon and beat the remaining half, andthen reach Harrisburg before the part going there, and beat it too whenit comes. The best possible security for Pennsylvania is putting thestrongest force possible in rear of the enemy. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. G. WRIGHT. 

MILITARY TELEGRAPH, WASHINGTON, September 12, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL WRIGHT, Cincinnati, Ohio:

I am being appealed to from Louisville against your withdrawing troopsfrom that place. While I cannot pretend to judge of the propriety of whatyou are doing, you would much oblige me by furnishing me a rational answerto make to the governor and others at Louisville. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. T. BOYLE. 

WASHINGTON, September 12, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BOYLE, Louisville, Kentucky:

Your despatch of last evening received. Where is the enemy which you dreadin Louisville? How near to you? What is General Gilbert's opinion? Withall possible respect for you, I must think General Wright's militaryopinion is the better. He is as much responsible for Louisville asfor Cincinnati. General Halleck telegraphed him on this very subjectyesterday, and I telegraph him now; but for us here to control himthere on the ground would be a babel of confusion which would be utterlyruinous. Where do you understand Buell to be, and what is he doing?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO A. HENRY. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C, September 12, 1862. 

HON. ALEXANDER HENRY, Philadelphia:

Yours of to-day received. General Halleck has made the best provision hecan for generals in Pennsylvania. Please do not be offended when I assureyou that in my confident belief Philadelphia is in no danger. GovernorCurtin has just telegraphed me: "I have advices that Jackson is crossingthe Potomac at Williamsport, and probably the whole rebel army will bedrawn from Maryland. " At all events, Philadelphia is more than 150 milesfrom Hagerstown, and could not be reached by the rebel army in ten days, if no hindrance was interposed. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , September 12, 1862. 5. 45 PM

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Governor Curtin telegraphs me:

"I have advices that Jackson is crossing the Potomac at Williamsport, andprobably the whole rebel army will be down from Maryland. "

Receiving nothing from Harper's Ferry or Martinsburg to-day, and positiveinformation from Wheeling that the line is cut, corroborates the idea thatthe enemy is crossing the Potomac. Please do not let him get off withoutbeing hurt. 

A. LINCOLN. 

 [But he did! D. W. ]

REPLY TO REQUEST THE PRESIDENT ISSUE A PROCLAMATION OF EMANCIPATION. 

A COMMITTEE FROM THE RELIGIOUS DENOMINATIONS OF CHICAGO, September 13, 1862. 

The subject presented in the memorial is one upon which I have thoughtmuch for weeks past, and I may even say for months. I am approached withthe most opposite opinions and advice, and that by religious men, who areequally certain that they represent the Divine will. I am sure that eitherthe one or the other class is mistaken in that belief, and perhaps in somerespects both. I hope it will not be irreverent for me to say that ifit is probable that God would reveal his will to others, on a point soconnected with my duty, it might be supposed he would reveal it directlyto me; for, unless I am more deceived in myself than I often am, it is myearnest desire to know the will of Providence in this matter. And if Ican learn what it is I will do it! These are not, however, the days ofmiracles, and I suppose it will be granted that I am not to expect adirect revelation. I must study the plain physical facts of the case, ascertain what is possible, and learn what appears to be wise and right. 

The subject is difficult, and good men do not agree. For instance, theother day, four gentlemen of standing and intelligence from New Yorkcalled as a delegation on business connected with the war; butbefore leaving two of them earnestly besought me to proclaim generalemancipation, upon which the other two at once attacked them. Youknow also that the last session of Congress had a decided majority ofantislavery men, yet they could not unite on this policy. And the same istrue of the religious people. Why, the rebel soldiers are praying with agreat deal more earnestness, I fear, than our own troops, and expectingGod to favor their side: for one of our soldiers who had been takenprisoner told Senator Wilson a few days since that he met nothing sodiscouraging as the evident sincerity of those he was among in theirprayers. But we will talk over the merits of the case. 

What good would a proclamation of emancipation from me do, especiallyas we are now situated? I do not want to issue a document that the wholeworld will see must necessarily be inoperative, like the Pope's bullagainst the comet! Would my word free the slaves, when I cannot evenenforce the Constitution in the rebel States? Is there a single court, ormagistrate or individual that would be influenced by it there? And whatreason is there to think it would have any greater effect upon theslaves than the late law of Congress, which I approved, and which offersprotection and freedom to the slaves of rebel masters who come within ourlines? Yet I cannot learn that that law has caused a single slave to comeover to us. And suppose they could be induced by a proclamation of freedomfrom me to throw themselves upon us, what should we do with them? How canwe feed and care for such a multitude? General Butler wrote me a few dayssince that he was issuing more rations to the slaves who have rushed tohim than to all the white troops under his command. They eat, and that isall; though it is true General Butler is feeding the whites also by thethousand; for it nearly amounts to a famine there. If, now, the pressureof the war should call off our forces from New Orleans to defend someother point, what is to prevent the masters from reducing the blacksto slavery again? for I am told that whenever the rebels take any blackprisoners, free or slave, they immediately auction them off. They did sowith those they took from a boat that was aground in the Tennessee Rivera few days ago. And then I am very ungenerously attacked for it! Forinstance, when, after the late battles at and near Bull Run, an expeditionwent out from Washington under a flag of truce to bury the dead and bringin the wounded, and the rebels seized the blacks who went along to help, and sent them into slavery, Horace Greeley said in his paper that thegovernment would probably do nothing about it. What could I do?

Now, then, tell me, if you please, what possible result of good wouldfollow the issuing of such a proclamation as you desire? Understand, Iraise no objections against it on legal or constitutional grounds; for, ascommander-in-chief of the army and navy, in time of war I suppose I havea right to take any measure which may best subdue the enemy; nor do Iurge objections of a moral nature, in view of possible consequences ofinsurrection and massacre at the South. I view this matter as a practicalwar measure, to be decided on according to the advantages or disadvantagesit may offer to the suppression of the rebellion. 

I admit that slavery is the root of the rebellion, or at least its sinequa non. The ambition of politicians may have instigated them to act, butthey would have been impotent without slavery as their instrument. I willalso concede that emancipation would help us in Europe, and convince themthat we are incited by something more than ambition. I grant, further, that it would help somewhat at the North, though not so much, I fear, asyou and those you represent imagine. Still, some additional strength wouldbe added in that way to the war, and then, unquestionably, it would weakenthe rebels by drawing off their laborers, which is of great importance;but I am not so sure we could do much with the blacks. If we were to armthem, I fear that in a few weeks the arms would be in the hands of therebels; and, indeed, thus far we have not had arms enough to equip ourwhite troops. I will mention another thing, though it meet only your scornand contempt. There are fifty thousand bayonets in the Union armies fromthe border slave States. It would be a serious matter if, in consequenceof a proclamation such as you desire, they should go over to the rebels. Ido not think they all would--not so many, indeed, as a year ago, or assix months ago--not so many to-day as yesterday. Every day increases theirUnion feeling. They are also getting their pride enlisted, and want tobeat the rebels. Let me say one thing more: I think you should admit thatwe already have an important principle to rally and unite the people, inthe fact that constitutional government is at stake. This is a fundamentalidea going down about as deep as anything. 

Do not misunderstand me because I have mentioned these objections. Theyindicate the difficulties that have thus far prevented my action in somesuch way as you desire. I have not decided against a proclamation ofliberty to the slaves, but hold the matter under advisement; and I canassure you that the subject is on my mind, by day and night, more than anyother. Whatever shall appear to be God's will, I will do. I trust thatin the freedom with which I have canvassed your views I have not in anyrespect injured your feelings. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. G. WRIGHT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 14, 1862. 

GENERAL WRIGHT, Cincinnati, Ohio:

Thanks for your despatch. Can you not pursue the retreating enemy, andrelieve Cumberland Gap?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, September 15, 1862. 2. 45 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your despatch of to-day received. God bless you, and all with you. Destroythe rebel army if possible. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. K. DUBOIS. WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 15, 1862. 3 P. M. 

HON. K. DUBOIS, Springfield, Illinois:

I now consider it safe to say that General McClellan has gained a greatvictory over the great rebel army in Maryland, between Fredericktown andHagerstown. He is now pursuing the flying foe. 

A. LINCOLN. 

[But not very fast--and he did not catch them! D. W. ]

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR CURTIN, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 16, 1862. Noon. 

GOVERNOR CURTIN, Harrisburg:

What do you hear from General McClellan's army? We have nothing from himto-day. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR MORTON. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 17, 1862. 

GOVERNOR O. P. MORTON, Indianapolis, Indiana:

I have received your despatch in regard to recommendations of GeneralWright. I have received no such despatch from him, at least not that I canremember. I refer yours for General Halleck's consideration. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL KETCHUM. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 20, 1862. 

GENERAL KETCHUM, Springfield, Illinois:

How many regiments are there in Illinois, ready for service but for wantof arms? How many arms have you there ready for distribution?

A. LINCOLN. 

PRELIMINARY EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, SEPTEMBER 22, 1862. 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States of America andCommander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, do hereby proclaim anddeclare that hereafter, as heretofore, the war will be prosecuted for theobject of practically restoring the constitutional relation between theUnited States and each of the States and the people thereof in whichStates that relation is or may be suspended or disturbed. 

That it is my purpose, upon the next meeting of Congress, to againrecommend the adoption of a practical measure tendering pecuniary aidto the free acceptance or rejection of all slave States, so called, thepeople whereof may not then be in rebellion against the United States, and which States may then have voluntarily adopted, or thereafter mayvoluntarily adopt, immediate or gradual abolishment of slavery withintheir respective limits; and that the effort to colonize persons ofAfrican descent with their consent upon this continent or elsewhere, withthe previously obtained consent of the governments existing there, will becontinued. 

That on the 1st day of January, A. D. 1863, all persons held as slaveswithin any State or designated part of a State the people whereofshall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of theUnited States, including the military and naval authority thereof, willrecognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act oracts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may makefor their actual freedom. 

That the Executive will on the 1st day of January aforesaid, byproclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in whichthe people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against theUnited States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall onthat day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United Statesby members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualifiedvoters of such State shall have participated shall, in the absence ofstrong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that suchState and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the UnitedStates. 

That attention is hereby called to an act of Congress entitled "An act tomake an additional article of war, " approved March 13, 1862, and which actis in the words and figure following:

"Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assembled, That hereafter the followingshall be promulgated as an additional article of war for the government ofthe Army of the United States and shall be obeyed and observed as such. 

"ART. All officers or persons in the military or naval service of theUnited States are prohibited from employing any of the forces under theirrespective commands for the purpose of returning fugitives from service orlabor who may have escaped from any person, to whom such service or laboris claimed to be due, and any officer who shall be found guilty by acourt-martial of violating this article shall be dismissed from theservice. 

"SEC. 2. And be it further enacted, That this act shall take effect fromand after its passage. "

Also to the ninth and tenth sections of an act entitled "An act tosuppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize andconfiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes, " approved July17, 1862, and which sections are in the words and figures following:

"SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That all slaves of persons who shallhereafter be engaged in rebellion against the Government of the UnitedStates, or who shall in any way give aid or comfort thereto, escapingfrom such persons and taking refuge within the lines of the army, and allslaves captured from such persons or deserted by them and coming underthe control of the Government of the United States, and all slaves of suchpersons found on (or) being within any place occupied by rebel forces andafterwards occupied by the forces of the United States, shall be deemedcaptives of war and shall be forever free of their servitude and not againheld as slaves. 

"SEC. 9. And be it further enacted, That no slave escaping into any State, Territory, or the District of Columbia from any other State shall bedelivered up or in any way impeded or hindered of his liberty, except forcrime, or some offence against the laws, unless the person claimingsaid fugitive shall first make oath that the person to whom the labor orservice of such fugitive is alleged to be due is his lawful owner, and hasnot borne arms against the United States in the present rebellion, norin any way given aid and comfort thereto; and no person engaged in themilitary or naval service of the United States shall, under any pretensewhatever, assume to decide on the validity of the claim of any person tothe service or labor of any other person, or surrender up any such personto the claimant, on pain of being dismissed from the service. "

And I do hereby enjoin upon and order all persons engaged in the militaryand naval service of the United States to observe, obey, and enforce, within their respective spheres of service, the act and sections aboverecited. 

And the Executive will in due time recommend that all citizens of theUnited States who shall have remained loyal thereto throughout therebellion shall (upon the restoration of the constitutional relationbetween the United States and their respective States and people, if thatrelation shall have been suspended or disturbed) be compensated for alllosses by acts of the United States, including the loss of slaves. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington, this twenty-second day of September, inthe year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, and of theindependence of the United States the eighty-seventh. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

PROCLAMATION SUSPENDING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, SEPTEMBER 24, 1862. 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A Proclamation

Whereas it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers, but also portions of the militia of the States by draft, in order tosuppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyalpersons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary processes of lawfrom hindering this measure, and from giving aid and comfort in variousways to the insurrection:

Now, therefore, be it ordered

First. That during the existing insurrection, and as a necessary measurefor suppressing the same, all rebels and insurgents, their aiders andabettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteerenlistments, resisting militia drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practiceaffording aid and comfort to rebels against the authority of theUnited States, shall be subject to martial law, and liable to trial andpunishment by courts-martial or military commissions. 

Second. That the writ of habeas corpus is suspended in respect to allpersons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion shallbe, imprisoned in any fort camp, arsenal, military prison or otherplace of confinement by any military authority or by the sentence of anycourt-martial or military commission. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of WASHINGTON, this twenty-fourth day of September. A. D. Eighteen hundred and sixty-two, and of the independence of the UnitedStates the eighty-seventh. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

REPLY TO SERENADE, SEPTEMBER 24, 1862. 

I appear before you to do little more than acknowledge the courtesy youpay me, and to thank you for it. I have not been distinctly informedwhy it is that on this occasion you appear to do me this honor, though Isuppose it is because of the proclamation. What I did, I did after avery full deliberation, and under a very heavy and solemn sense ofresponsibility. I can only trust in God I have made no mistake. I shallmake no attempt on this occasion to sustain what I have done or said byany comment. It is now for the country and the world to pass judgment and, maybe, take action upon it. 

I will say no more upon this subject. In my position I am environed withdifficulties. Yet they are scarcely so great as the difficulties of thosewho upon the battle-field are endeavoring to purchase with their blood andtheir lives the future happiness and prosperity of this country. Let usnever forget them. On the fourteenth and seventeenth days of this presentmonth there have been battles bravely, skillfully, and successfullyfought. We do not yet know the particulars. Let us be sure that, in givingpraise to certain individuals, we do no injustice to others. I only askyou, at the conclusion of these few remarks, to give three hearty cheersfor all good and brave officers and men who fought those successfulbattles. 

RECORD EXPLAINING THE DISMISSAL OF MAJOR JOHN J. KEY

FROM THE MILITARY SERVICE OF THE UNITED STATES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 26, 1862. 

MAJOR JOHN J. KEY:

I am informed that, in answer to the question, "Why was not the rebel armybagged immediately after the battle near Sharpsburg?" propounded to youby Major Levi C. Turner, Judge Advocate, etc. , you said: "That is not thegame. The object is, that neither army shall get much advantage of theother; that both shall be kept in the field till they are exhausted, whenwe will make a compromise and save slavery. "

I shall be very happy if you will, within twenty-four hours from thereceipt of this, prove to me by Major Turner that you did not, eitherliterally or in substance, make the answer stated. 

[Above delivered to Major Key at 10. 25 a. M. September 27th. ]

At about 11 o'clock A. M. , September 27, 1862, Major Key and Major Turnerappeared before me. Major Turner says:

"As I remember it, the conversation was: 'Why did we not bag them afterthe battle of Sharpsburg?' Major Key's reply was: 'That was not the game;that we should tire the rebels out and ourselves; that that was theonly way the Union could be preserved, we come together fraternally, andslavery be saved. '"

On cross-examination, Major Turner says he has frequently heard Major Keyconverse in regard to the present troubles, and never heard him uttera sentiment unfavorable to the maintenance of the Union. He has neveruttered anything which he, Major T. , would call disloyalty. The particularconversation detailed was a private one. 

 [Indorsement on the above. ]

In my view, it is wholly inadmissible for any gentleman holding a militarycommission from the United States to utter such sentiments as Major Key iswithin proved to have done. Therefore, let Major John J. Key be forthwithdismissed from the military service of the United States. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 

(Strictly private. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 28, 1862. 

HON. HANNIBAL HAMLIN. 

MY DEAR SIR: Your kind letter of the 25th is just received. It is known tosome that, while I hope something from the proclamation, my expectationsare not as sanguine as are those of some friends. The time for its effectsouthward has not come; but northward the effect should be instantaneous. It is six days old, and, while commendation in newspapers and bydistinguished individuals is all that a vain man could wish, the stockshave declined, and troops come forward more slowly than ever. This, lookedsoberly in the face, is not very satisfactory. We have fewer troops inthe field at the end of the six days than we had at the beginning--theattrition among the old outnumbering the addition by the new. The Northresponds to the proclamation sufficiently in breath; but breath alonekills no rebels. 

I wish I could write more cheerfully; nor do I thank you the less for thekindness of your letter. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL HALLECK. 

McCLELLAN'S HEADQUARTERS, October 3, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK:

General Stuart, of the rebel army, has sent in a few of our prisonersunder a flag of truce, paroled with terms to prevent their fighting theIndians, and evidently seeking to commit us to their right to paroleprisoners in that way. My inclination is to send the prisoners back witha definite notice that we will recognize no paroles given to our prisonersby the rebels as extending beyond a prohibition against fighting them, though I wish your opinion upon it, based both upon the general law andour cartel. I wish to avoid violations of the law and bad faith. Answer asquickly as possible, as the thing, if done at all, should be done at once. 

A. LINCOLN, President

REMARKS TO THE ARMY OF THE POTOMAC AT FREDERICK, MARYLAND, OCTOBER, 4, 1862. 

I am surrounded by soldiers and a little farther off by the citizens ofthis good City of Frederick. Nevertheless I can only say, as I did fiveminutes ago, it is not proper for me to make speeches in my presentposition. I return thanks to our soldiers for the good services they haverendered, the energy they have shown, the hardships they have endured, andthe blood they have shed for this Union of ours; and I also return thanks, not only to the soldiers, but to the good citizens of Frederick, and tothe good men, women, and children in this land of ours, for their devotionto this glorious cause; and I say this with no malice in my heart towardsthose who have done otherwise. May our children and children's children, for a thousand generations, continue to enjoy the benefits conferred uponus by a united country, and have cause yet to rejoice under these gloriousinstitutions, bequeathed to us by WASHINGTON and his compeers. Now, myfriends, soldiers and citizens, I can only say once more-farewell. 

TELEGRAM FROM GENERAL HALLECK

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. , WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 6, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

I am instructed to telegraph you as follows: The President directs thatyou cross the Potomac and give battle to the enemy, or drive him south. Your army must move now, while the roads are good. If you cross the riverbetween the enemy and Washington, and cover the latter by your operation, you can be reinforced by thirty thousand men. If you move up the valley ofthe Shenandoah, not more than twelve or fifteen thousand can be sent you. The President advises the interior line between Washington and the enemy, but does not order it. He is very desirous that your army move as soon aspossible. You will immediately report what line you adopt, and when youintend to cross the river; also to what point the reinforcements are tobe sent. It is necessary that the plan of your operations be positivelydetermined on, before orders are given for building bridges and repairingrailroads. I am directed to add that the Secretary of War and theGeneral-in-chief fully concur with the President in these directions. 

H. W. HALLECK, General-in-Chief. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCLELLAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 7, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN, Hdqs. Army of the Potomac:

You wish to see your family and I wish to oblige you. It might be leftto your own discretion; certainly so, if Mrs. M. Could meet you here atWashington. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO T. H. CLAY. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, October 8, 1862. 

THOMAS H. CLAY, Cincinnati, Ohio:

You cannot have reflected seriously when you ask that I shall orderGeneral Morgan's command to Kentucky as a favor because they have marchedfrom Cumberland Gap. The precedent established by it would evidently breakup the whole army. Buell's old troops, now in pursuit of Bragg, have donemore hard marching recently; and, in fact, if you include marching andfighting, there are scarcely any old troops east or west of the mountainsthat have not done as hard service. I sincerely wish war was an easierand pleasanter business than it is; but it does not admit of holidays. On Morgan's command, where it is now sent, as I understand, depends thequestion whether the enemy will get to the Ohio River in another place. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 8, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL GRANT:

I congratulate you and all concerned in your recent battles and victories. How does it all sum up? I especially regret the death of GeneralHackleman, and am very anxious to know the condition of General Oglesby, who is an intimate personal friend. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. T. BOYLE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, October 11, 1862. 4 P. M. 

GENERAL BOYLE, Louisville, Kentucky:

Please send any news you have from General Buell to-day. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. T. BOYLE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, October 12, 1862. 4. 10 P. M. 

GENERAL BOYLE, Louisville, Kentucky:

We are anxious to hear from General Buell's army. We have heard nothingsince day before yesterday. Have you anything?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL CURTIS. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 12, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS, Saint Louis, Missouri:

Would the completion of the railroad some distance further in thedirection of Springfield, Mo. , be of any military advantage to you? Pleaseanswer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 13, 1862. 

MY DEAR SIR--You remember my speaking to you of what I called yourover-cautiousness. Are you not over-cautious when you assume that youcannot do what the enemy is constantly doing? Should you not claim to beat least his equal in prowess, and act upon the claim?

As I understand, you telegraphed General Halleck that you cannot subsistyour army at Winchester unless the railroad from Harper's Ferry to thatpoint be put in working order. But the enemy does now subsist his armyat Winchester, at a distance nearly twice as great from railroadtransportation as you would have to do, without the railroad last named. He now wagons from Culpepper Court-House, which is just about twice as faras you would have to do from Harper's Ferry. He is certainly not morethan half as well provided with wagons as you are. I certainly should bepleased for you to have the advantage of the railroad from Harper's Perryto Winchester; but it wastes an the remainder of autumn to give it to you, and, in fact, ignores the question of time, which cannot and must not beignored. 

Again, one of the standard maxims of war, as you know, is "to operateupon the enemy's communications as much as possible, without exposing yourown. " You seem to act as if this applies against you, but cannot apply inyour favor. Change positions with the enemy, and think you not he wouldbreak your communication with Richmond within the next twenty-four hours?You dread his going into Pennsylvania. But if he does so in full force, hegives up his communications to you absolutely, and you have nothing to dobut to follow and ruin him; if he does so with less than full force, fallupon and beat what is left behind all the easier. 

Exclusive of the water line, you are now nearer to Richmond than the enemyis, by the route that you can and he must take. Why can you not reachthere before him, unless you admit that he is more than your equal on amarch? His route is the arc of a circle, while yours is the chord. Theroads are as good on yours as on his. 

You know I desired, but did not order, you to cross the Potomac belowinstead of above the Shenandoah and Blue Ridge. My idea was, that thiswould at once menace the enemy's communications, which I would seize ifhe would permit. If he should move northward, I would follow himclosely, holding his communications. If he should prevent our seizing hiscommunications, and move toward Richmond, I would press closely to him, fight him if a favorable opportunity should present, and at least try tobeat him to Richmond on the inside track. I say "try;" if we never try, we shall never succeed. If he makes a stand at Winchester, moving neithernorth or south, I would fight him there, on the idea that if we cannotbeat him when he bears the wastage of coming to us, we never can when webear the wastage of going to him. This proposition is a simple truth, and is too important to be lost sight of for a moment. In coming to ushe tenders us an advantage which we should not waive. We should not sooperate as to merely drive him away. As we must beat him somewhere or failfinally, we can do it, if at all, easier near to us than far away. If wecannot beat the enemy where he now is, we never can, he again being withinthe entrenchments of Richmond. 

[And, indeed, the enemy was let back into Richmond and it took another twoyears and thousands of dead for McClelland cowardice--if that was all thatit was. I still suspect, and I think the evidence is overwhelming that hewas, either secretly a supporter of the South, or, what is more likely, a politician readying for a different campaign: that of the Presidency ofthe United States. ]

Recurring to the idea of going to Richmond on the inside track, thefacility of supplying from the side away from the enemy is remarkable, asit were, by the different spokes of a wheel extending from the hub towardthe rim, and this whether you move directly by the chord or on the insidearc, hugging the Blue Ridge more closely. The chord line, as you see, carries you by Aldie, Hay Market, and Fredericksburg; and you see howturnpikes, railroads, and finally the Potomac, by Aquia Creek, meet you atall points from WASHINGTON; the same, only the lines lengthened a little, if you press closer to the Blue Ridge part of the way. 

The gaps through the Blue Ridge I understand to be about the followingdistances from Harper's Ferry, to wit: Vestal's, 5 miles; Gregory's, 13;Snicker's, 18; Ashby's, 28; Manassas, 38; Chester, 45; and Thornton's, 53. I should think it preferable to take the route nearest the enemy, disabling him to make an important move without your knowledge, andcompelling him to keep his forces together for dread of you. The gapswould enable you to attack if you should wish. For a great part of theway you would be practically between the enemy and both WASHINGTON andRichmond, enabling us to spare you the greatest number of troops fromhere. When at length running for Richmond ahead of him enables him tomove this way, if he does so, turn and attack him in rear. But I think heshould be engaged long before such a point is reached. It is all easyif our troops march as well as the enemy, and it is unmanly to say theycannot do it. This letter is in no sense an order. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR PIERPOINT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , October 16, 1862. 

GOVERNOR PIERPOINT, Wheeling, Virginia:

Your despatch of to-day received. I am very sorry to have offended you. Iappointed the collector, as I thought, on your written recommendation, andthe assessor also with your testimony of worthiness, although I know youpreferred a different man. I will examine to-morrow whether I am mistakenin this. 

A. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE ORDER ESTABLISHING A PROVISIONAL COURT IN LOUISIANA. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON CITY, October 20, 1862. 

The insurrection which has for some time prevailed in several of theStates of this Union, including Louisiana, having temporarily subvertedand swept away the civil institutions of that State, including thejudiciary and the judicial authorities of the Union, so that it hasbecome necessary to hold the State in military Occupation, and it beingindispensably necessary that there shall be some judicial tribunalexisting there capable of administering justice, I have therefore thoughtit proper to appoint, and I do hereby constitute, a provisional court, which shall be a court of record, for the State of Louisiana; and I dohereby appoint Charles A Peabody, of New York, to be a provisional judgeto hold said court, with authority to hear, try, and determine allcauses, civil and criminal, including causes in law, equity, revenue, andadmiralty, and particularly all such powers and jurisdiction as belongto the district and circuit courts of the United States, conforming hisproceedings so far as possible to the course of proceedings and practicewhich has been customary in the courts of the United States and Louisiana, his judgment to be final and conclusive. And I do hereby authorize andempower the said judge to make and establish such rules and regulationsas may be necessary for the exercise of his jurisdiction, and empower thesaid judge to appoint a prosecuting attorney, marshal, and clerk of thesaid court, who shall perform the functions of attorney, marshal, andclerk according to such proceedings and practice as before mentioned andsuch rules and regulations as may be made and established by said judge. These appointments are to continue during the pleasure of the President, not extending beyond the military occupation of the city of New Orleansor the restoration of the civil authority in that city and in the State ofLouisiana. These officers shall be paid, out of the contingent fund of theWar Department, compensation as follows:

The judge at the rate of $3500 per annum; the prosecuting attorney, including the fees, at the rate of $3000 per annum; the marshal, includingthe fees, at the rate of $3000 per annum; and the clerk, including thefees, at the rate of $2500 per annum; such compensations to be certifiedby the Secretary of War. A copy of this order, certified by the Secretaryof War and delivered to such judge, shall be deemed and held to be asufficient commission. 

A. LINCOLN, President of the United States. 

TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 21, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL U. S. GRANT:

The bearer of this, Thomas R. Smith, a citizen of Tennessee, goes to thatState seeking to have such of the people thereof as desire to avoid theunsatisfactory prospect before them, and to have peace again upon theold terms, under the Constitution of the United States, to manifestsuch desire by elections of members to the Congress of the United Statesparticularly, and perhaps a Legislature, State officers, and a UnitedStates senator friendly to their object. 

I shall be glad for you and each of you to aid him, and all others actingfor this object, as much as possible. In all available ways give thepeople a show to express their wishes at these elections. 

Follow law, and forms of law, as far as convenient, but at all events getthe expression of the largest number of the people possible. All see howsuch action will connect with and affect the proclamation of September22. Of course the men elected should be gentlemen of character, willingto swear support to the Constitution as of old, and known to be abovereasonable suspicion of duplicity. 

Yours very respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL JAMESON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 21, 1862. 

GENERAL JAMESON, Upper Stillwater, Me. :

How is your health now? Do you or not wish Lieut. R. P. Crawford to berestored to his office?

A. LINCOLN. 

GENERAL McCLELLAN'S TIRED HORSES

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, October 24 [25?], 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

I have just read your despatch about sore-tongued and fatigued horses. Will you pardon me for asking what the horses of your army have done sincethe battle of Antietam that fatigues anything?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, October 26, 1862. 11. 30am

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Yours, in reply to mine about horses, received. Of course you know thefacts better than I; still two considerations remain: Stuart's cavalryoutmarched ours, having certainly done more marked service on thePeninsula and everywhere since. Secondly, will not a movement of our armybe a relief to the cavalry, compelling the enemy to concentrate insteadof foraging in squads everywhere? But I am so rejoiced to learn fromyour despatch to General Halleck that you begin crossing the river thismorning. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL DIX. 

(Private and confidential. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON October 26, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe, Virginia:

Your despatch to Mr. Stanton, of which the enclosed is a copy, has beenhanded me by him. It would be dangerous for me now to begin construing andmaking specific applications of the proclamation. 

It is obvious to all that I therein intended to give time and opportunity. Also, it is seen I left myself at liberty to exempt parts of States. Without saying more, I shall be very glad if any Congressional districtwill, in good faith, do as your despatch contemplates. 

Could you give me the facts which prompted you to telegraph?

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 27, 1862, 12. 10

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Yours of yesterday received. Most certainly I intend no injustice to any, and if I have done any I deeply regret it. To be told, after more thanfive weeks' total inaction of the army, and during which period we havesent to the army every fresh horse we possibly could, amounting in thewhole to 7918, that the cavalry horses were too much fatigued to move, presents a very cheerless, almost hopeless, prospect for the future, and it may have forced something of impatience in my despatch. If notrecruited and rested then, when could they ever be? I suppose the river isrising, and I am glad to believe you are crossing. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 27, 1862. 3. 25pm

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your despatch of 3 P. M. To-day, in regard to filling up old regiments withdrafted men, is received, and the request therein shall be complied withas far as practicable. 

And now I ask a distinct answer to the question, Is it your purpose notto go into action again until the men now being drafted in the States areincorporated into the old regiments?

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 29, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLELLAN:

Your despatches of night before last, yesterday, and last night allreceived. I am much pleased with the movement of the army. When you getentirely across the river let me know. What do you know of the enemy?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR CURTIN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 30, 1862. 

GOVERNOR CURTIN, Harrisburg:

By some means I have not seen your despatch of the 27th about order No. 154until this moment. I now learn, what I knew nothing of before, that thehistory of the order is as follows:

When General McClellan telegraphed asking General Halleck to have theorder made, General Halleck went to the Secretary of War with it, statinghis approval of the plan. The Secretary assented and General Halleck wrotethe order. It was a military question, which the Secretary supposed theGeneral understood better than he. 

I wish I could see Governor Curtin. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, October 31, 1862. 

GOV. ANDREW JOHNSON, Nashville, Tenn. , via Louisville, Ky. :

Yours of the 29th received. I shall take it to General Halleck, but Ialready know it will be inconvenient to take General Morgan's command fromwhere it now is. I am glad to hear you speak hopefully of Tennessee. Isincerely hope Rosecrans may find it possible to do something for her. David Nelson, son of the M. C. Of your State, regrets his father's finaldefection, and asks me for a situation. Do you know him? Could he be ofservice to you or to Tennessee in any capacity in which I could send him?

A. LINCOLN. 

MEMORANDUM. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 1, 1862. 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: Captain Derrickson, with his company, has been forsome time keeping guard at my residence, now at the Soldiers' Retreat. Heand his company are very agreeable to me, and while it is deemed properfor any guard to remain, none would be more satisfactory than CaptainDerrickson and his company. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER RELIEVING GENERAL G. B. McCLELLAN

AND MAKING OTHER CHANGES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, November 5, 1862. 

By direction of the President, it is ordered that Major-General McClellanbe relieved from the command of the Army of the Potomac, and thatMajor-General Burnside take the command of that army. Also thatMajor-General Hunter take command of the corps in said army which is nowcommanded by General Burnside. That Major-General Fitz. John Porter berelieved from command of the corps he now commands in said army, and thatMajor-General Hooker take command of said corps. 

The general-in-chief is authorized, in [his] discretion, to issue an ordersubstantially as the above forthwith, or so soon as he may deem proper. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO M. F. ODELL. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, November 5, 1862. 

HON. M. F. ODELL, Brooklyn, New York:

You are re-elected. I wish to see you at once will you come? Pleaseanswer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL LOWE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 7, 1862. 

COL. W. W. LOWE, Fort Henry, Tennessee:

Yours of yesterday received. Governor Johnson, Mr. Ethridge, and othersare looking after the very thing you telegraphed about. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. POPE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 10, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL POPE, St. Paul, Minnesota:

Your despatch giving the names of 300 Indians condemned to death isreceived. Please forward as soon as possible the full and complete recordof their convictions; and if the record does not fully indicate the moreguilty and influential of the culprits, please have a careful statementmade on these points and forwarded to me. Send all by mail. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO COMMODORE FARRAGUT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 11, 1862. 

COMMODORE FARRAGUT:

DEAR SIR:--This will introduce Major-General Banks. He is in command ofa considerable land force for operating in the South, and I shall be gladfor you to co-Operate with him and give him such assistance as you canconsistently with your orders from the Navy Department. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER CONCERNING BLOCKADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 12, 1862. 

Ordered, First: that clearances issued by the Treasury Department forvessels or merchandise bound for the port of Norfolk, for the militarynecessities of the department, certified by the military commandant atFort Monroe, shall be allowed to enter said port. 

Second: that vessels and domestic produce from Norfolk, permitted bythe military commandant at Fort Monroe for the military purposes of hiscommand, shall on his permit be allowed to pass from said port to theirdestination in any port not blockaded by the United States. 

A. LINCOLN

ORDER CONCERNING THE CONFISCATION ACT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, November 13, 1862. 

Ordered, by the President of the United States, That the Attorney-Generalbe charged with the superintendence and direction of all proceedings to behad under the act of Congress of the 17th of July, 1862, entitled "An actto suppress insurrection, to punish treason and rebellion, to seize andconfiscate the property of rebels, and for other purposes, " in so faras may concern the seizure, prosecution, and condemnation of the estate, property, and effects of rebels and traitors, as mentioned and providedfor in the fifth, sixth, and seventh sections of the said act of Congress. And the Attorney-General is authorized and required to give to theattorneys and marshals of the United States such instructions anddirections as he may find needful and convenient touching all suchseizures, prosecutions, and condemnations, and, moreover, to authorize allsuch attorneys and marshals, whenever there may be reasonable ground tofear any forcible resistance to them in the discharge of their respectiveduties in this behalf, to call upon any military officer in command ofthe forces of the United States to give to them such aid, protection, and support as may be necessary to enable them safely and efficiently todischarge their respective duties; and all such commanding officers arerequired promptly to obey such call, and to render the necessary serviceas far as may be in their power consistently with their other duties. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: EDWARD BATES, Attorney-General

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, November 14, 1862. 

GOV. ANDREW JOHNSON, Nashville, Tennessee:

Your despatch of the 4th, about returning troops from western Virginia toTennessee, is just received, and I have been to General Halleck with it. He says an order has already been made by which those troops have alreadymoved, or soon will move, to Tennessee. 

A. LINCOLN. 

GENERAL ORDER RESPECTING THE OBSERVANCE OF THE SABBATH DAY

IN THE ARMY AND NAVY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 15, 1862. 

The President, Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy, desires andenjoins the orderly observance of the Sabbath by the officers and men inthe military and naval service. The importance for man and beast ofthe prescribed weekly rest, the sacred rights of Christian soldiers andsailors, a becoming deference to the best sentiment of a Christian people, and a due regard for the divine will demand that Sunday labor in the armyand navy be reduced to the measure of strict necessity. 

The discipline and character of the national forces should not suffer northe cause they defend be imperilled by the profanation of the day or nameof the Most High. "At this time of public distress, " adopting the words ofWashington in 1776, "men may find enough to do in the service of God andtheir country without abandoning themselves to vice and immorality. "The first general order issued by the Father of his Country after theDeclaration of Independence indicates the spirit in which our institutionswere founded and should ever be defended:

"The General hopes and trusts that every officer and man will endeavor tolive and act as becomes a Christian soldier defending the dearest rightsand liberties of his country. "

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BLAIR

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 17, 1862. 

HON. F. P. BLAIR:

Your brother says you are solicitous to be ordered to join GeneralMcLernand. I suppose you are ordered to Helena; this means that you areto form part of McLernand's expedition as it moves down the river; andGeneral McLernand is so informed. I will see General Halleck as to whetherthe additional force you mention can go with you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. A. DIX. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 18, 1861. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe:

Please give me your best opinion as to the number of the enemy now atRichmond and also at Petersburg. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR SHEPLEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 21, 1862. 

HON. G. F. SHEPLEY. 

DEAR SIR:--Dr. Kennedy, bearer of this, has some apprehension thatFederal officers not citizens of Louisiana may be set up as candidates forCongress in that State. In my view there could be no possible object insuch an election. We do not particularly need members of Congress fromthere to enable us to get along with legislation here. What we do want isthe conclusive evidence that respectable citizens of Louisiana are willingto be members of Congress and to swear support to the Constitution, andthat other respectable citizens there are willing to vote for them andsend them. To send a parcel of Northern men here as representatives, elected, as would be understood (and perhaps really so), at the point ofthe bayonet, would be disgusting and outrageous; and were I a member ofCongress here, I would vote against admitting any such man to a seat. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN, ORDER PROHIBITING THE EXPORT OF ARMS AND MUNITIONS OF WAR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 21, 1862. 

Ordered, That no arms, ammunition, or munitions of war be cleared orallowed to be exported from the United States until further orders. Thatany clearance for arms, ammunition, or munitions of war issued heretoforeby the Treasury Department be vacated, if the articles have not passedwithout the United States, and the articles stopped. That the Secretaryof War hold possession of the arms, etc. , recently seized by his order atRouse's Point, bound for Canada. 

A. LINCOLN. 

DELAYING TACTICS OF GENERALS

TO GENERAL N. P. BANKS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 22, 1862. 

MY DEAR GENERAL BANKS:--Early last week you left me in high hope with yourassurance that you would be off with your expedition at the end of thatweek, or early in this. It is now the end of this, and I have just beenoverwhelmed and confounded with the sight of a requisition made by youwhich, I am assured, cannot be filled and got off within an hour short oftwo months. I enclose you a copy of the requisition, in some hope thatit is not genuine--that you have never seen it. My dear General, thisexpanding and piling up of impedimenta has been, so far, almost our ruin, and will be our final ruin if it is not abandoned. If you had the articlesof this requisition upon the wharf, with the necessary animals to makethem of any use, and forage for the animals, you could not get vesselstogether in two weeks to carry the whole, to say nothing of your twentythousand men; and, having the vessels, you could not put the cargoesaboard in two weeks more. And, after all, where you are going you have nouse for them. When you parted with me you had no such ideas in your mind. I know you had not, or you could not have expected to be off so soon asyou said. You must get back to something like the plan you had then, oryour expedition is a failure before you start. You must be off beforeCongress meets. You would be better off anywhere, and especially whereyou are going, for not having a thousand wagons doing nothing but haulingforage to feed the animals that draw them, and taking at least twothousand men to care for the wagons and animals, who otherwise might betwo thousand good soldiers. Now, dear General, do not think this is anill-natured letter; it is the very reverse. The simple publication of thisrequisition would ruin you. 

Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN. 

TO CARL SCHURZ. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 24, 1862. 

GENERAL CARL SCHURZ. 

MY DEAR SIR--I have just received and read your letter of the 20th. Thepurport of it is that we lost the late elections and the administrationis failing because the war is unsuccessful, and that I must not flattermyself that I am not justly to blame for it. I certainly know that ifthe war fails the administration fails, and that I will be blamed forit, whether I deserve it or not. And I ought to be blamed if I could dobetter. You think I could do better; therefore you blame me already. I think I could not do better; therefore I blame you for blaming me. Iunderstand you now to be willing to accept the help of men who are notRepublicans, provided they have "heart in it. " Agreed. I want no others. But who is to be the judge of hearts, or of "heart in it"? If I mustdiscard my own judgment and take yours, I must also take that of othersand by the time I should reject all I should be advised to reject, Ishould have none left, Republicans or others not even yourself. For beassured, my dear sir, there are men who have "heart in it" that think youare performing your part as poorly as you think I am performing mine. Icertainly have been dissatisfied with the slowness of Buell and McClellan;but before I relieved them I had great fears I should not find successorsto them who would do better; and I am sorry to add that I have seen littlesince to relieve those fears. 

I do not see clearly the prospect of any more rapid movements. I fear weshall at last find out that the difficulty is in our case rather than inparticular generals. I wish to disparage no one certainly not thosewho sympathize with me; but I must say I need success more than I needsympathy, and that I have not seen the so much greater evidence of gettingsuccess from my sympathizers than from those who are denounced as thecontrary. It does seem to me that in the field the two classes have beenvery much alike in what they have done and what they have failed to do. In sealing their faith with their blood, Baker and Lyon and Bohien andRichardson, Republicans, did all that men could do; but did they anymore than Kearny and Stevens and Reno and Mansfield, none of whom wereRepublicans, and some at least of whom have been bitterly and repeatedlydenounced to me as secession sympathizers? I will not perform theungrateful task of comparing cases of failure. 

In answer to your question, "Has it not been publicly stated in thenewspapers, and apparently proved as a fact, that from the commencement ofthe war the enemy was continually supplied with information by some of theconfidential subordinates of as important an officer as Adjutant-GeneralThomas?" I must say "No, " as far as my knowledge extends. And I add thatif you can give any tangible evidence upon the subject, I will thank youto come to this city and do so. 

Very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 25, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Falmouth, Virginia:

If I should be in boat off Aquia Creek at dark tomorrow (Wednesday)evening, could you, without inconvenience, meet me and pass an hour or twowith me?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL BATES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 29, 1862. 

HON. ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Few things perplex me more than this question betweenGovernor Gamble and the War Department, as to whether the peculiar forceorganized by the former in Missouri are State troops or United Statestroops. Now, this is either an immaterial or a mischievous question. First, if no more is desired than to have it settled what name the forceis to be called by, it is immaterial. Secondly, if it is desired for morethan the fixing a name, it can only be to get a position from which todraw practical inferences; then it is mischievous. Instead of settling onedispute by deciding the question, I should merely furnish a nest-full ofeggs for hatching new disputes. I believe the force is not strictly either"State troops" or "United States troops. " It is of mixed character. Itherefore think it is safer, when a practical question arises, todecide that question directly, and not indirectly by deciding a generalabstraction supposed to include it, and also including a great deal more. Without dispute Governor Gamble appoints the officers of this force, andfills vacancies when they occur. The question now practically in disputeis: Can Governor Gamble make a vacancy by removing an officer or acceptinga resignation? Now, while it is proper that this question shall besettled, I do not perceive why either Governor Gamble or the governmenthere should care which way it is settled. I am perplexed with it onlybecause there seems to be pertinacity about it. It seems to me that itmight be either way without injury to the service; or that the offer ofthe Secretary of War to let Governor Gamble make vacancies, and he (theSecretary) to ratify the making of them, ought to be satisfactory. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL CURTIS. 

[Cipher. ]

WASHINGTON, November 30, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS, Saint Louis, Missouri:

Frank Blair wants Manter's Thirty-second, Curly's Twenty seventh, Boyd'sTwenty-fourth and the Ninth and Tenth Cavalry to go with him down theriver. I understand it is with you to decide whether he shall have themand if so, and if also it is consistent with the public service, you willoblige me a good deal by letting him have them. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ON EXECUTING 300 INDIANS

LETTER TO JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 1, 1862. 

JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL. 

SIR:--Three hundred Indians have been sentenced to death in Minnesota bya military commission, and execution only awaits my action. I wish yourlegal opinion whether if I should conclude to execute only a part of them, I must myself designate which, or could I leave the designation to someofficer on the ground?

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, DECEMBER 1, 1862. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES--Since yourlast annual assembling another year of health and bountiful harvestshas passed; and while it has not pleased the Almighty to bless us with areturn of peace, we can but press on, guided by the best light he givesus, trusting that in his own good time and wise way all will yet be well. 

The correspondence touching foreign affairs which has taken place duringthe last year is herewith submitted, in virtual compliance with a requestto that effect, made by the House of Representatives near the close of thelast session of Congress. 

If the condition of our relations with other nations is less gratifyingthan it has usually been at former periods, it is certainly moresatisfactory than a nation so unhappily distracted as we are mightreasonably have apprehended. In the month of June last there were somegrounds to expect that the maritime powers which, at the beginning ofour domestic difficulties, so unwisely and unnecessarily, as we think, recognized the insurgents as a belligerent, would soon recede from thatposition, which has proved only less injurious to themselves than toour own country. But the temporary reverses which afterward befell thenational arms, and which were exaggerated by our own disloyal citizensabroad, have hitherto delayed that act of simple justice. 

The civil war, which has so radically changed, for the moment, theoccupations and habits of the American people, has necessarily disturbedthe social condition, and affected very deeply the prosperity, of thenations with which we have carried on a commerce that has been steadilyincreasing throughout a period of half a century. It has, at the sametime, excited political ambitions and apprehensions which have produceda profound agitation throughout the civilized world. In this unusualagitation we have forborne from taking part in any controversy betweenforeign states, and between parties or factions in such states. We haveattempted no propagandism and acknowledged no revolution, but we have leftto every nation the exclusive conduct and management of its own affairs. Our struggle has been, of course, contemplated by foreign nationswith reference less to its own merits than to its supposed and oftenexaggerated effects and consequences resulting to those nationsthemselves, nevertheless, complaint on the part of this government, evenif it were just, would certainly be unwise. 

The treaty with Great Britain for the suppression of the slave trade hasbeen put into operation with a good prospect of complete success. It isan occasion of special pleasure to acknowledge that the execution of iton the part of her Majesty's government has been marked with a jealousrespect for the authority of the United States and the rights of theirmoral and loyal citizens. 

The convention with Hanover for the abolition of the state dues has beencarried into full effect under the act of Congress for that purpose. 

A blockade of 3000 miles of seacoast could not be established andvigorously enforced in a season of great commercial activity likethe present without committing occasional mistakes and inflictingunintentional injuries upon foreign nations and their subjects. 

A civil war occurring in a country where foreigners reside and carry ontrade under treaty stipulations is necessarily fruitful of complaintsof the violation of neutral rights. All such collisions tend to excitemisapprehensions, and possibly to produce mutual reclamations betweennations which have a common interest in preserving peace and friendship. In clear cases of these kinds I have so far as possible heard andredressed complaints which have been presented by friendly powers. Thereis still, however, a large and an augmenting number of doubtful casesupon which the government is unable to agree with the governments whoseprotection is demanded by the claimants. There are, moreover, many casesin which the United States or their citizens suffer wrongs from the navalor military authorities of foreign nations which the governments of thosestates are not at once prepared to redress. I have proposed to some of theforeign states thus interested mutual conventions to examine and adjustsuch complaints. This proposition has been made especially to GreatBritain, to France, to Spain, and to Prussia. In each case it has beenkindly received, but has not yet been formally adopted. 

I deem it my duty to recommend an appropriation in behalf of the owners ofthe Norwegian bark Admiral P. Tordenskiold, which vessel was in May, 1861, prevented by the commander of the blockading force off Charleston fromleaving that port with cargo, notwithstanding a similar privilege hadshortly before been granted to an English vessel. I have directed theSecretary of State to cause the papers in the case to be communicated tothe proper committees. 

Applications have been made to me by many free Americans of Africandescent to favor their emigration, with a view to such colonization aswas contemplated in recent acts of Congress, Other parties, at homeand abroad--some from interested motives, others upon patrioticconsiderations, and still others influenced by philanthropicsentiments--have suggested similar measures, while, on the other hand, several of the Spanish American republics have protested against thesending of such colonies to their respective territories. Under thesecircumstances I have declined to move any such colony to any state withoutfirst obtaining the consent of its government, with an agreement on itspart to receive and protect such emigrants in all the rights of freemen;and I have at the same time offered to the several states situated withinthe Tropics, or having colonies there, to negotiate with them, subject tothe advice and consent of the Senate, to favor the voluntary emigrationof persons of that class to their respective territories, upon conditionswhich shall be equal, just, and humane. Liberia and Haiti are as yet theonly countries to which colonists of African descent from here could gowith certainty of being received and adopted as citizens; and I regretto say such persons contemplating colonization do not seem so willing tomigrate to those countries as to some others, nor so willing as I thinktheir interest demands. I believe, however, opinion among them in thisrespect is improving, and that ere long there will be an augmented andconsiderable migration to both these countries from the United States. 

The new commercial treaty between the United States and the Sultan ofTurkey has been carried into execution. 

A commercial and consular treaty has been negotiated, subject to theSenate's consent, with Liberia, and a similar negotiation is now pendingwith the Republic of Haiti. A considerable improvement of the nationalcommerce is expected to result from these measures. 

Our relations with Great Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Russia, Prussia, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, Rome, and theother European states remain undisturbed. Very favorable relations alsocontinue to be maintained with Turkey, Morocco, China, and Japan. 

During the last year there has not only been no change of our previousrelations with the independent states of our own continent, but morefriendly sentiments than have heretofore existed are believed tobe entertained by these neighbors, whose safety and progress are sointimately connected with our own. This statement especially applies toMexico, Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Honduras, Peru, and Chile. 

The commission under the convention with the Republic of New Granadaclosed its session without having audited and passed upon all the claimswhich were submitted to it. A proposition is pending to revive theconvention, that it may be able to do more complete justice. The jointcommission between the United States and the Republic of Costa Rica hascompleted its labors and submitted its report. 

I have favored the project for connecting the United States with Europe byan Atlantic telegraph, and a similar project to extend the telegraph fromSan Francisco to connect by a Pacific telegraph with the line which isbeing extended across the Russian Empire. 

The Territories of the United States, with unimportant exceptions, haveremained undisturbed by the civil war; and they are exhibiting suchevidence of prosperity as justifies an expectation that some of them willsoon be in a condition to be organized as States and be constitutionallyadmitted into the Federal Union. 

The immense mineral resources of some of those Territories ought to bedeveloped as rapidly as possible. Every step in that direction would havea tendency to improve the revenues of the government and diminish theburdens of the people. It is worthy of your serious consideration whethersome extraordinary measures to promote that end cannot be adopted. Themeans which suggests itself as most likely to be effective is a scientificexploration of the mineral regions in those Territories with a view to thepublication of its results at home and in foreign countries--results whichcannot fail to be auspicious. 

The condition of the finances win claim your most diligent consideration. The vast expenditures incident to the military and naval operationsrequired for the suppression of the rebellion have hitherto been met witha promptitude and certainty unusual in similar circumstances, and thepublic credit has been fully maintained. The continuance of the war, however, and the increased disbursements made necessary by the augmentedforces now in the field demand your best reflections as to the best modesof providing the necessary revenue without injury to business and with theleast possible burdens upon labor. 

The suspension of specie payments by the banks soon after the commencementof your last session made large issues of United States notes unavoidable. In no other way could the payment of troops and the satisfaction of otherjust demands be so economically or so well provided for. The judiciouslegislation of Congress, securing the receivability of these notes forloans and internal duties and making them a legal tender for other debts, has made them an universal currency, and has satisfied, partially atleast, and for the time, the long-felt want of an uniform circulatingmedium, saving thereby to the people immense sums in discounts andexchanges. 

A return to specie payments, however, at the earliest period compatiblewith due regard to all interests concerned should ever be kept in view. Fluctuations in the value of currency are always injurious, and to reducethese fluctuations to the lowest possible point will always be aleading purpose in wise legislation. Convertibility, prompt and certainconvertibility, into coin is generally acknowledged to be the best andsurest safeguard against them; and it is extremely doubtful whether acirculation of United States notes payable in coin and sufficiently largefor the wants of the people can be permanently, usefully, and safelymaintained. 

Is there, then, any other mode in which the necessary provision for thepublic wants can be made and the great advantages of a safe and uniformcurrency secured?

I know of none which promises so certain results and is at the same timeso unobjectionable as the organization of banking associations, undera general act of Congress, well guarded in its provisions. To suchassociations the government might furnish circulating notes, on thesecurity of United States bonds deposited in the treasury. These notes, prepared under the supervision of proper officers, being uniform inappearance and security and convertible always into coin, would at onceprotect labor against the evils of a vicious currency and facilitatecommerce by cheap and safe exchanges. 

A moderate reservation from the interest on the bonds would compensatethe United States for the preparation and distribution of the notes anda general supervision of the system, and would lighten the burden ofthat part of the public debt employed as securities. The public credit, moreover, would be greatly improved and the negotiation of new loansgreatly facilitated by the steady market demand for government bonds whichthe adoption of the proposed system would create. 

It is an additional recommendation of the measure, of considerable weight, in my judgment, that it would reconcile as far as possible all existinginterests by the opportunity offered to existing institutions toreorganize under the act, substituting only the secured uniform nationalcirculation for the local and various circulation, secured and unsecured, now issued by them. 

The receipts into the treasury from all sources, including loans andbalance from the preceding year, for the fiscal year ending on the 30thJune, 1862, were $583, 885, 247. 06, of which sum $49, 056, 397. 62 were derivedfrom customs; $1, 795, 331. 73 from the direct tax; from public lands, $152, 203. 77; from miscellaneous sources, $931, 787. 64; from loans in allforms, $529, 692, 460. 50. The remainder, $2, 257, 065. 80, was the balance fromlast year. 

The disbursements during the same period were: For congressional, executive, and judicial purposes, $5, 939, 009. 29; for foreign intercourse, $1, 339, 710. 35; for miscellaneous expenses, including the mints, loans, post-office deficiencies, collection of revenue, and other like charges, $14, 129, 771. 50; for expenses under the Interior Department, $3, 102, 985. 52;under the War Department, $394, 368, 407. 36; under the Navy Department, $42, 674, 569. 69; for interest on public debt, $13, 190, 324. 45; and forpayment of public debt, including reimbursement of temporary loan andredemptions, $96, 096, 922. 09; making an aggregate of $570, 841, 700. 25, and leaving a balance in the treasury on the 1st day of July, 1862, of$13, 043, 546. 81. 

It should be observed that the sum of $96, 096, 922. 09, expended forreimbursements and redemption of public debt, being included also in theloans made, may be properly deducted both from receipts and expenditures, leaving the actual receipts for the year $487, 788, 324. 97, and theexpenditures $474, 744, 778. 16. 

Other information on the subject of the finances will be found in thereport of the Secretary of the Treasury, to whose statements and views Iinvite your most candid and considerate attention. 

The reports of the Secretaries of War and of the Navy are herewithtransmitted. These reports, though lengthy, are scarcely more than briefabstracts of the very numerous and extensive transactions and operationsconducted through those departments. Nor could I give a summary of themhere upon any principle which would admit of its being much shorter thanthe reports themselves. I therefore content myself with laying the reportsbefore you and asking your attention to them. 

It gives me pleasure to report a decided improvement in the financialcondition of the Post-Office Department as compared with several precedingyears. The receipts for the fiscal year 1861 amounted to $8, 349, 296. 40, which embraced the revenue from all the States of the Union for threequarters of that year. Notwithstanding the cessation of revenue from theso-called seceded States during the last fiscal year, the increase ofthe correspondence of the loyal States has been sufficient to produce arevenue during the same year of $8, 299, 820. 90, being only $50, 000 lessthan was derived from all the States of the Union during the previousyear. The expenditures show a still more favorable result. The amountexpended in 1861 was $13, 606, 759. 11. For the last year the amount has beenreduced to $11, 125, 364. 13, showing a decrease of about $2, 481, 000 in theexpenditures as compared with the preceding year, and about $3, 750, 000 ascompared with the fiscal year 1860. The deficiency in the departmentfor the previous year was $4, 551, 966. 98. For the last fiscal year it wasreduced to $2, 112, 814. 57. These favorable results are in part owing to thecessation of mail service in the insurrectionary States and in part to acareful review of all expenditures in that department in the interest ofeconomy. The efficiency of the postal service, it is believed, hasalso been much improved. The Postmaster-General has also opened acorrespondence through the Department of State with foreign governmentsproposing a convention of postal representatives for the purpose ofsimplifying the rates of foreign postage and to expedite the foreignmails. This proposition, equally important to our adopted citizens and tothe commercial interests of this country, has been favorably entertainedand agreed to by all the governments from whom replies have been received. 

I ask the attention of Congress to the suggestions of thePostmaster-General in his report respecting the further legislationrequired, in his opinion, for the benefit of the postal service. 

The Secretary of the Interior reports as follows in regard to the publiclands:

"The public lands have ceased to be a source of revenue. From the 1stJuly, 1861, to the 30th September, 1862, the entire cash receipts from thesale of lands were $137, 476. 2--a sum much less than the expenses of ourland system during the same period. The homestead law, which will takeeffect on the 1st of January next, offers such inducements to settlersthat sales for cash cannot be expected to an extent sufficient to meet theexpenses of the General Land Office and the cost of surveying and bringingthe land into market. "

The discrepancy between the sum here stated as arising from the sales ofthe public lands and the sum derived from the same source as reported fromthe Treasury Department arises, as I understand, from the fact that theperiods of time, though apparently were not really coincident at thebeginning point, the Treasury report including a considerable sum nowwhich had previously been reported from the Interior, sufficiently largeto greatly overreach the sum derived from the three months now reportedupon by the Interior and not by the Treasury. 

The Indian tribes upon our frontiers have during the past year manifesteda spirit of insubordination, and at several points have engaged in openhostilities against the white settlements in their vicinity. The tribesoccupying the Indian country south of Kansas renounced their allegiance tothe United States and entered into treaties with the insurgents. Thosewho remained loyal to the United States were driven from the country. Thechief of the Cherokees has visited this city for the purpose of restoringthe former relations of the tribe with the United States. He alleges thatthey were constrained by superior force to enter into treaties with theinsurgents, and that the United States neglected to furnish the protectionwhich their treaty stipulations required. 

In the month of August last the Sioux Indians in Minnesota attackedthe settlements in their vicinity with extreme ferocity, killingindiscriminately men, women, and children. This attack was whollyunexpected, and therefore no means of defense had been provided. It isestimated that not less than 800 persons were killed by the Indians, anda large amount of property was destroyed. How this outbreak was induced isnot definitely known, and suspicions, which may be unjust, need not tobe stated. Information was received by the Indian Bureau from differentsources about the time hostilities were commenced that a simultaneousattack was to be made upon white settlements by all the tribes betweenthe Mississippi River and the Rocky Mountains. The State of Minnesotahas suffered great injury from this Indian war. A large portion of herterritory has been depopulated, and a severe loss has been sustainedby the destruction of property. The people of that State manifest muchanxiety for the removal of the tribes beyond the limits of the State asa guaranty against future hostilities. The Commissioner of Indian Affairswill furnish full details. I submit for your especial considerationwhether our Indian system shall not be remodeled. Many wise and good menhave impressed me with the belief that this can be profitably done. 

I submit a statement of the proceedings of commissioners, which shows theprogress that has been made in the enterprise of constructing the PacificRailroad. And this suggests the earliest completion of this road, and alsothe favorable action of Congress upon the projects now pending before themfor enlarging the capacities of the great canals in New York and Illinois, as being of vital and rapidly increasing importance to the whole nation, and especially to the vast interior region hereinafter to be noticed atsome greater length. I purpose having prepared and laid before you at anearly day some interesting and valuable statistical information upon thissubject. The military and commercial importance of enlarging the Illinoisand Michigan Canal and improving the Illinois River is presented in thereport of Colonel Webster to the Secretary of War, and now transmitted toCongress. I respectfully ask attention to it. 

To carry out the provisions of the act of Congress of the 15th of Maylast, I have caused the Department of Agriculture of the United States tobe organized. 

The Commissioner informs me that within the period of a few months thisdepartment has established an extensive system of correspondence andexchanges, both at home and abroad, which promises to effect highlybeneficial results in the development of a correct knowledge of recentimprovements in agriculture, in the introduction of new products, and inthe collection of the agricultural statistics of the different States. 

Also, that it will soon be prepared to distribute largely seeds, cereals, plants, and cuttings, and has already published and liberally diffusedmuch valuable information in anticipation of a more elaborate report, which will in due time be furnished, embracing some valuable tests inchemical science now in progress in the laboratory. 

The creation of this department was for the more immediate benefit of alarge class of our most valuable citizens, and I trust that theliberal basis upon which it has been organized will not only meet yourapprobation, but that it will realize at no distant day all the fondestanticipations of its most sanguine friends and become the fruitful sourceof advantage to all our people. 

On the 22d day of September last a proclamation was issued by theExecutive, a copy of which is herewith submitted. 

In accordance with the purpose expressed in the second paragraph of thatpaper, I now respectfully recall your attention to what may be called"compensated emancipation. "

A nation may be said to consist of its territory, its people, and itslaws. The territory is the only part which is of certain durability. "One generation passeth away and another generation cometh, but the earthabideth forever. " It is of the first importance to duly consider andestimate this ever enduring part. That portion of the earth's surfacewhich is owned and inhabited by the people of the United States is welladapted to be the home of one national family, and it is not welladapted for two or more. Its vast extent and its variety of climate andproductions are of advantage in this age for one people, whatever theymight have been in former ages. Steam, telegraphs, and intelligence havebrought these to be an advantageous combination for one united people. 

In the inaugural address I briefly pointed out the total inadequacy ofdisunion as a remedy for the differences between the people of thetwo sections. I did so in language which I cannot improve, and which, therefore, I beg to repeat:

"One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought tobe extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to beextended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clauseof the Constitution and the laws for the suppression of the foreign slavetrade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in acommunity where the moral Sense of the people imperfectly supports the lawitself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligationin both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, cannot beperfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separationof the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectlysuppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in onesection, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would notbe surrendered at all by the other. 

"Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove ourrespective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall betweenthem. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence andbeyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our countrycannot do this. They cannot but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactoryafter separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friendscan make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliensthan laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you cannot fightalways; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, youcease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you. "

There is no line, straight or crooked, suitable for a national boundaryupon which to divide. Trace through, from east to west, upon the linebetween the free and slave country, and we shall find a little more thanone third of its length are rivers, easy to be crossed, and populated, or soon to be populated, thickly upon both sides; while nearly all itsremaining length are merely surveyors' lines, over which people may walkback and forth without any consciousness of their presence. No part ofthis line can be made any more difficult to pass by writing it down onpaper or parchment as a national boundary. The fact of separation, if itcomes, gives up on the part of the seceding section the fugitive-slaveclause along with all other constitutional obligations upon the sectionseceded from, while I should expect no treaty stipulation would ever bemade to take its place. 

But there is another difficulty. The great interior region bounded eastby the Alleghenies, north by the British dominions, west by the RockyMountains, and south by the line along which the culture of corn andcotton meets, and which includes part of Virginia, part of Tennessee, all of Kentucky, Ohio, Indiana, Michigan, Wisconsin, Illinois, Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, Minnesota, and the Territories of Dakota, Nebraska, and partof Colorado, already has above 10, 000, 000 people, and will have 50, 000, 000within fifty years if not prevented by any political folly or mistake. It contains more than one third of the country owned by the UnitedStates--certainly more than 1, 000, 000 square miles. Once half as populousas Massachusetts already is, it would have more than 75, 000, 000 people. Aglance at the map shows that, territorially speaking, it is the greatbody of the Republic. The other parts are but marginal borders to it, themagnificent region sloping west from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacificbeing the deepest and also the richest in undeveloped resources. In theproduction of provisions, grains, grasses, and all which proceed from themthis great interior region is naturally one of the most important in theworld. Ascertain from statistics the small proportion of the region whichhas yet been brought into cultivation, and also the large and rapidlyincreasing amount of products, and we shall be overwhelmed withthe magnitude of the prospect presented. And yet this region has noseacoast--touches no ocean anywhere. As part of one nation, its peoplenow find, and may forever find, their way to Europe by New York, to SouthAmerica and Africa by New Orleans, and to Asia by San Francisco; butseparate our common country into two nations, as designed by the presentrebellion, and every man of this great interior region is thereby cut offfrom some one or more of these outlets, not perhaps by a physical barrier, but by embarrassing and onerous trade regulations. 

And this is true, wherever a dividing or boundary line may be fixed. Placeit between the now free and slave country, or place it south of Kentuckyor north of Ohio, and still the truth remains that none south of it cantrade to any port or place north of it, and none north of it can trade toany port or place south of it, except upon terms dictated by a governmentforeign to them. These outlets, east, west, and south, are indispensableto the well-being of the people inhabiting and to inhabit this vastinterior region. Which of the three may be the best is no proper question. All are better than either, and all of right belong to that people and totheir successors forever. True to themselves, they will not ask where aline of separation shall be, but will vow rather that there shall be nosuch line. 

Nor are the marginal regions less interested in these communications toand through them to the great outside world. They, too, and each of them, must have access to this Egypt of the West without paying toll at thecrossing of any national boundary. 

Our national strife springs not from our permanent part; not from the landwe inhabit; not from our national homestead. There is no possible severingof this but would multiply and not mitigate evils among us. In all itsadaptations and aptitudes it demands union and abhors separation. In fact, it would ere long force reunion, however much of blood and treasure theseparation might have cost. 

Our strife pertains to ourselves--to the passing generations of men--andit can without convulsion be hushed forever with the passing of onegeneration. 

In this view I recommend the adoption of the following resolution andarticles amendatory to the Constitution of the United States:

Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United Statesof America, in Congress assembled, (two thirds of both Houses concurring), That the following articles be proposed to the Legislatures (orconventions) of the several States as amendments to the Constitution ofthe United States, all or any of which articles, when ratified by threefourths of the said Legislatures (or conventions), to be valid as part orparts of the said Constitution, viz. 

ART. --Every State wherein slavery now exists which shall abolish the sametherein at any time or times before the 1st day of January, A. D. 1900, shall receive compensation from the United States as follows, to wit:

The President of the United States shall deliver to every such State bondsof the United States bearing interest at the rate of -- per cent. Perannum to an amount equal to the aggregate sum of ------ for each slaveshown to have been therein by the Eighth Census of the United States, saidbonds to be delivered to such State by instalments or in one parcel atthe completion of the abolishment, accordingly as the same shall have beengradual or at one time within such State; and interest shall begin to runupon any such bond only from the proper time of its delivery as aforesaid. Any State having received bonds as aforesaid and afterwards reintroducingor tolerating slavery therein shall refund to the United States the bondsso received, or the value thereof, and all interest paid thereon. 

ART. --All slaves who shall have enjoyed actual freedom by the chances ofthe war at any time before the end of the rebellion shall be foreverfree; but all owners of such who shall not have been disloyal shall becompensated for them at the same rates as is provided for States adoptingabolishment of slavery, but in such way that no slave shall be twiceaccounted for. 

ART. --Congress may appropriate money and otherwise provide for colonizingfree colored persons with their own consent at any place or places withoutthe United States. 

I beg indulgence to discuss these proposed articles at some length. Without slavery the rebellion could never have existed; without slavery itcould not continue. 

Among the friends of the Union there is great diversity of sentiment andof policy in regard to slavery and the African race amongst us. Somewould perpetuate slavery; some would abolish it suddenly and withoutcompensation; some would abolish it gradually and with compensation; somewould remove the freed people from us, and some would retain them with us;and there are yet other minor diversities. Because of these diversities wewaste much strength in struggles among ourselves. By mutual concession weshould harmonize and act together. This would be compromise, but it wouldbe compromise among the friends and not with the enemies of the Union. These articles are intended to embody a plan of such mutual concessions. If the plan shall be adopted, it is assumed that emancipation will follow, at least in several of the States. 

As to the first article, the main points are, first, the emancipation;secondly, the length of time for consummating it (thirty-seven years);and, thirdly, the compensation. 

The emancipation will be unsatisfactory to the advocates of perpetualslavery, but the length of time should greatly mitigate theirdissatisfaction. The time spares both races from the evils of suddenderangement--in fact, from the necessity of any derangement--while mostof those whose habitual course of thought will be disturbed by the measurewill have passed away before its consummation. They will never see it. Another class will hail the prospect of emancipation, but will deprecatethe length of time. They will feel that it gives too little to the nowliving slaves. But it really gives them much. It saves them from thevagrant destitution which must largely attend immediate emancipation inlocalities where their numbers are very great, and it gives the inspiringassurance that their posterity shall be free forever. The plan leaves toeach State choosing to act under it to abolish slavery now or at the endof the century, or at any intermediate tune, or by degrees extendingover the whole or any part of the period, and it obliges no two States toproceed alike. It also provides for compensation, and generally themode of making it. This, it would seem, must further mitigate thedissatisfaction of those who favor perpetual slavery, and especially ofthose who are to receive the compensation. Doubtless some of those who areto pay and not to receive will object. Yet the measure is both just andeconomical. In a certain sense the liberation of slaves is the destructionof property--property acquired by descent or by purchase, the same as anyother property. It is no less true for having been often said that thepeople of the South are not more responsible for the original introductionof this property than are the people of the North; and when it isremembered how unhesitatingly we all use cotton and sugar and share theprofits of dealing in them, it may not be quite safe to say that the Southhas been more responsible than the North for its continuance. If, then, for a common object this property is to be sacrificed, is it not just thatit be done at a common charge?

And if with less money, or money more easily paid, we can preserve thebenefits of the Union by this means than we can by the war alone, is itnot also economical to do it? Let us consider it, then. Let us ascertainthe sum we have expended in the war Since compensated emancipationwas proposed last March, and consider whether if that measure had beenpromptly accepted by even some of the slave States the same sum would nothave done more to close the war than has been otherwise done. If so, the measure would save money, and in that view would be a prudent andeconomical measure. Certainly it is not so easy to pay something as it isto pay nothing, but it is easier to pay a large sum than it is to pay alarger one. And it is easier to pay any sum when we are able than it is topay it before we are able. The war requires large sums, and requiresthem at once. The aggregate sum necessary for compensated emancipation ofcourse would be large. But it would require no ready cash, nor the bondseven any faster than the emancipation progresses. This might not, andprobably would not, close before the end of the thirty-seven years. Atthat time we shall probably have a hundred millions of people to share theburden, instead of thirty-one millions as now. And not only so, but theincrease of our population may be expected to continue for a long timeafter that period as rapidly as before, because our territory will nothave become full. I do not state this inconsiderately. At the same ratioof increase which we have maintained, on an average, from our firstnational census, in 1790, until that of 1860, we should in 1900 have apopulation of 103, 208, 415. And why may we not continue that ratio farbeyond that period? Our abundant room, our broad national homestead, is our ample resource. Were our territory as limited as are the BritishIsles, very certainly our population could not expand as stated. Insteadof receiving the foreign born as now, we should be compelled to send partof the native born away. But such is not our condition. We have 2, 963, 000square miles. Europe has 3, 800, 000, with a population averaging 73 personsto the square mile. Why may not our country at some time average as many?Is it less fertile? Has it more waste surface by mountains, rivers, lakes, deserts, or other causes? Is it inferior to Europe in any naturaladvantage? If, then, we are at some time to be as populous as Europe, howsoon? As to when this may be, we can judge by the past and the present;as to when it will be, if ever, depends much on whether we maintain theUnion. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 

 [a page of tables of projected statistics]

These figures show that our country may be as populous as Europe now isat some point between 1920 and 1930, say about 1925--our territory, at 73persons to the square mile, being of capacity to contain 217, 186, 000. 

And we will reach this, too, if we do not ourselves relinquish the chanceby the folly and evils of disunion or by long and exhausting war springingfrom the only great element of national discord among us. While it cannotbe foreseen exactly how much one huge example of secession, breedinglesser ones indefinitely, would retard population, civilization, andprosperity, no one can doubt that the extent of it would be very great andinjurious. 

The proposed emancipation would shorten the war, perpetuate peace, insure this increase of population, and proportionately the wealth ofthe country. With these we should pay all the emancipation would cost, together with our other debt, easier than we should pay our other debtwithout it. If we had allowed our old national debt to run at six percent. Per annum, simple interest, from the end of our revolutionarystruggle until to-day, without paying anything on either principal orinterest, each man of us would owe less upon that debt now than each manowed upon it then; and this because our increase of men through thewhole period has been greater than six per cent. --has run faster than theinterest upon the debt. Thus time alone relieves a debtor nation, so longas its population increases faster than unpaid interest accumulates on itsdebt. 

This fact would be no excuse for delaying payment of what is justly due, but it shows the great importance of time in this connection--the greatadvantage of a policy by which we shall not have to pay until we number100, 000, 000 what by a different policy we would have to pay now, whenwe number but 31, 000, 000. In a word, it shows that a dollar will be muchharder to pay for the war than will be a dollar for emancipation on theproposed plan. And then the latter will cost no blood, no precious life. It will be a saving of both. 

As to the second article, I think it would be impracticable to returnto bondage the class of persons therein contemplated. Some of them, doubtless, in the property sense belong to loyal owners, and henceProvision is made in this article for compensating such. 

The third article relates to the future of the freed people. It does notoblige, but merely authorizes Congress to aid in colonizing such as mayconsent. This ought nut to be regarded as objectionable on the one hand oron the other, insomuch as it comes to nothing unless by the mutualconsent of the people to be deported and the American voters through theirrepresentatives in Congress. 

I cannot make it better known than it already is that I strongly favorcolonization; and yet I wish to say there is an objection urged againstfree colored persons remaining in the country which is largely imaginary, if not sometimes malicious. 

It is insisted that their presence would injure and displace white laborand white laborers. If there ever could be a proper time for mere catcharguments that time surely is not now. In times like the present menshould utter nothing for which they would not willingly be responsiblethrough time and in eternity. Is it true, then, that colored people candisplace any more white labor by being free than by remaining slaves?If they stay in their old places, they jostle no white laborers; if theyleave their old places, they leave them open to white laborers. Logically, there is neither more nor less of it. Emancipation, even withoutdeportation, would probably enhance the wages of white labor, and verysurely would not reduce them. Thus the customary amount of labor wouldstill have to be performed. The freed people would surely not do more thantheir old proportion of it, and very probably for a time would do less, leaving an increased part to white laborers, bringing their laborinto greater demand, and consequently enhancing the wages of it. Withdeportation, even to a limited extent, enhanced wages to white laboris mathematically certain. Labor is like any other commodity in themarket-increase the demand for it and you increase the price of it. Reducethe supply of black labor by colonizing the black laborer out of thecountry, and by precisely so much you increase the demand for and wages ofwhite labor. 

But it is dreaded that the freed people will swarm forth and cover thewhole land. Are they not already in the land? Will liberation make themany more numerous? Equally distributed among the whites of the wholecountry, and there would be but one colored to seven whites. Could theone in any way greatly disturb the seven? There are many communities nowhaving more than one free colored person to seven whites, and this withoutany apparent consciousness of evil from it. The District of Columbiaand the States of Maryland and Delaware are all in this condition. TheDistrict has more than one free colored to six whites, and yet in itsfrequent petitions to Congress I believe it has never presented thepresence of free colored persons as one of its grievances. But why shouldemancipation South send the free people North? People of any color seldomrun unless there be something to run from. Heretofore colored people tosome extent have fled North from bondage, and now, perhaps, from bothbondage and destitution. But if gradual emancipation and deportation beadopted, they will have neither to flee from. Their old masters will givethem wages at least until new laborers can be procured, and the freedmenin turn will gladly give their labor for the wages till new homes can befound for them in congenial climes and with people of their own blood andrace. This proposition can be trusted on the mutual interests involved. And in any event, cannot the North decide for itself whether to receivethem?

Again, as practice proves more than theory in any case, has there beenany irruption of colored people northward because of the abolishment ofslavery in this District last spring?

What I have said of the proportion of free colored persons to the whitesin the District is from the census of 1860, having no reference topersons called contrabands nor to those made free by the act of Congressabolishing slavery here. 

The plan consisting of these articles is recommended, not but that arestoration of the national authority would be accepted without itsadoption. 

Nor will the war nor proceedings under the proclamation of September 22, 1862, be stayed because of the recommendation of this plan. Its timelyadoption, I doubt not, would bring restoration, and thereby stay both. 

And notwithstanding this plan, the recommendation that Congress provideby law for compensating any State which may adopt emancipation before thisplan shall have been acted upon is hereby earnestly renewed. Such would beonly an advance part of the plan, and the same arguments apply to both. 

This plan is recommended as a means, not in exclusion of, but additionalto, all others for restoring and preserving the national authoritythroughout the Union. The subject is presented exclusively in itseconomical aspect. The plan would, I am confident, secure peace morespeedily and maintain it more permanently than can be done by force alone, while all it would cost, considering amounts and manner of payment andtimes of payment, would be easier paid than will be the additional cost ofthe war if we rely solely upon force. It is much, very much, that it wouldcost no blood at all. 

The plan is proposed as permanent constitutional law. It cannot becomesuch without the concurrence of, first, two thirds of Congress, andafterwards three fourths of the States. The requisite three fourths ofthe States will necessarily include seven of the slave States. Theirconcurrence, if obtained, will give assurance of their severally adoptingemancipation at no very distant day upon the new constitutional terms. This assurance would end the struggle now and save the Union forever. 

I do not forget the gravity which should characterize a paper addressed tothe Congress of the nation by the chief magistrate of the nation, nor doI forget that some of you are my seniors, nor that many of you have moreexperience than I in the conduct of public affairs. Yet I trust that inview of the great responsibility resting upon me you will perceive no wantof respect to yourselves in any undue earnestness I may seem to display. 

Is it doubted, then, that the plan I propose, if adopted, would shortenthe war, and thus lessen its expenditure of money and of blood? Isit doubted that it would restore the national authority and nationalprosperity and perpetuate both indefinitely? Is it doubted that wehere--Congress and executive--can secure its adoption? Will not the goodpeople respond to a united and earnest appeal from us? Can we, can they, by any other means so certainly or so speedily assure these vital objects?We can succeed only by concert. It is not "Can any of us imagine better?"but "Can we all do better?" Object whatsoever is possible, still thequestion recurs, "Can we do better?" The dogmas of the quiet pastare inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high withdifficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so wemust think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then weshall save our country. 

Fellow-citizens, we can not escape history. We of this Congress and thisadministration will be remembered in spite of ourselves. No personalsignificance or insignificance can spare one or another of us. The fierytrial through which we pass will light us down in honor or dishonor to thelatest generation. We say we are for the Union. The world will not forgetthat we say this. We know how to save the Union. The world knows wedo know how to save it. We, even we here, hold the power and bear theresponsibility. In giving freedom to the slave we assure freedom to thefree--honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall noblysave or meanly lose the last, best hope of earth. Other means may succeed;this could not fail. The way is plain, peaceful, generous, just--a waywhich if followed the world will forever applaud and God must foreverbless. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON, December 3, 1862. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

On the 3d of November, 1861, a collision took place off the coast of Cubabetween the United States war steamer San Jacinto and the French brigJules et Marie, resulting in serious damage to the latter. The obligationof this Government to make amends therefor could not be questioned if theinjury resulted from any fault On the part of the San Jacinto. With a viewto ascertain this, the subject was referred to a commission of the UnitedStates and French naval officers at New York, with a naval officer ofItaly as an arbiter. The conclusion arrived at was that the collision wasoccasioned by the failure of the San Jacinto seasonably to reverseher engine. It then became necessary to ascertain the amount ofindemnification due to the injured party. The United States consul-generalat Havana was consequently instructed to confer with the consul of Franceon this point, and they have determined that the sum of $9, 500 is anequitable allowance under the circumstances. 

I recommend an appropriation of this sum for the benefit of the owners ofthe Jules et Marie. 

A copy of the letter of Mr. Shufeldt, the consul-general of the UnitedStates at Havana, to the Secretary of State on the subject is herewithtransmitted. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO H. J. RAYMOND. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 7, 1862. 

Hon. H. J. RAYMOND, Times Office, New York:

Yours of November 25 reached me only yesterday. Thank you for it. I shallconsider and remember your suggestions. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO B. G. BROWN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON December 7, 1862. 

HON. B. GRATZ BROWN, Saint Louis, Missouri:

Yours of the 3d received yesterday. Have already done what I can in thepremises. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 8, 1862. GOVERNOR ANDREW JOHNSON, Nashville, Tenn. :

Jesse H. Strickland is here asking authority to raise a regiment ofTennesseeans. Would you advise that the authority be given him?

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. December 8, 1862. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In conformity to the law of July 16, 1862, I most cordially recommend, that Commander John L. Worden, United States Navy, receive a vote ofthanks of Congress for the eminent skill and gallantry exhibited by himin the late remarkable battle between the United States ironclad steamerMonitor, under his command, and the rebel ironclad steamer Merrimac, inMarch last. 

The thanks of Congress for his services on the occasion referred to weretendered by a resolution approved July 11, 1862, but the recommendation isnow specially made in order to comply with the requirements of the ninthsection of the act of July 16, 1862, which is in the following words, viz. :

"That any line officer of the navy or marine corps may be advanced onegrade if upon recommendation of the President by name he receives thethanks of Congress for highly distinguished conduct in conflict with theenemy or for extraordinary heroism in the line of his profession. "

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL S. R. CURTIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 10, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS, St. Louis, Missouri:

Please suspend, until further order, all proceeding on the order made byGeneral Schofield, on the twenty-eighth day of August last, for assessingand collecting from secessionists and Southern sympathizers the sum offive hundred thousand dollars, etc. , and in the meantime make out andsend me a statement of facts pertinent to the question, together with youropinion upon it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. K. DUBOIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 10, 1862. 

Hon. J. K. DuBois. 

MY DEAR SIR:--In the summer of 1859, when Mr. Freeman visited Springfield, Illinois, in relation to the McCallister and Stebbins bonds I promised himthat, upon certain conditions, I would ask members of the Legislature togive him a full and fair hearing of his case. I do not now remember, norhave I time to recall, exactly what the conditions were, nor whether theywere completely performed; but there can be in no case any harm [in] hishaving a full and fair hearing, and I sincerely wish it may be given him. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. 

December 11, 1862. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In compliance with your resolution of December 5, 1862, requesting thePresident "to furnish the Senate with all information in his possessiontouching the late Indian barbarities in the State of Minnesota, and alsothe evidence in his possession upon which some of the principal actorsand head men were tried and condemned to death, " I have the honor tostate that on receipt of said resolution, I transmitted the same to theSecretary of the Interior, accompanied by a note, a copy of which isherewith inclosed, marked A, and in response to which I received, throughthat department, a letter of the Commissioner of Indian Affairs, a copy ofwhich is herewith inclosed, marked B. 

I further state that on the eighth day of November last I received a longtelegraphic despatch from Major-General Pope, at St. Paul, Minnesota, simply announcing the names of the persons sentenced to be hanged. Iimmediately telegraphed to have transcripts of the records in all casesforwarded to me, which transcripts, however, did not reach me until twoor three days before the present meeting of Congress. Meantime I received, through telegraphic despatches and otherwise, appeals in behalf of thecondemned, appeals for their execution, and expressions of opinion as tothe proper policy in regard to them and to the Indians generally in thatvicinity, none of which, as I understand, falls within the scope of yourinquiry. After the arrival of the transcripts of records, but before I hadsufficient opportunity to examine them, I received a joint letter fromone of the senators and two of the representatives from Minnesota, whichcontains some statements of fact not found in the records of the trials, and for which reason I herewith transmit a copy, marked C. I also, forthe same reason, inclose a printed memorial of the citizens of St. Paul, addressed to me, and forwarded with the letter aforesaid. 

Anxious to not act with so much clemency as to encourage another outbreakon the one hand, nor with so much severity as to be real cruelty on theother, I caused a careful examination of the records of trials to be made, in view of first ordering the execution of such as had been proved guiltyof violating females. Contrary to my expectation, only two of this classwere found. I then directed a further examination and a classification ofall who were proven to have participated in massacres, as distinguishedfrom participation in battles. This class numbered forty, and includedthe two convicted of female violation. One of the number is stronglyrecommended, by the commission which tried them, for commutation to tenyears imprisonment I have ordered the other thirty-nine to be executed onFriday the 19th instant. The order was despatched from here on Monday, the8th instant, by a messenger to General Sibley, and a copy of which orderis herewith transmitted, marked D. 

An abstract of the evidence as to the forty is herewith inclosed, markedE. 

To avoid the immense amount of copying, I lay before the Senate theoriginal transcripts of the records of trials, as received by me. 

This is as full and complete a response to the resolution as it is in mypower to make. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

December 12, 1862. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I have in my possession three valuable swords, formerly the property ofGeneral David E. Twiggs, which I now place at the disposal of Congress. They are forwarded to me from New Orleans by Major-General Benjamin F. Butler. If they or any of them shall be by Congress disposed of in rewardor compliment of military service, I think General Butler is entitled tothe first consideration. A copy of the General's letter to me accompanyingthe swords is herewith transmitted. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO FERNANDO WOOD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON DECEMBER 12, 1862. 

HON. FERNANDO WOOD. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your letter of the 8th, with the accompanying note of samedate, was received yesterday. The most important paragraph in the letter, as I consider, is in these words:

"On the 25th of November last I was advised by an authority which I deemedlikely to be well informed, as well as reliable and truthful, that theSouthern States would send representatives to the next Congress, providedthat a full and general amnesty should permit them to do so. No guaranteeor terms were asked for other than the amnesty referred to. "

I strongly suspect your information will prove to be groundless;nevertheless, I thank you for communicating it to me. Understanding thephrase in the paragraph just quoted--"the Southern States would sendrepresentatives to the next Congress"--to be substantially the same asthat "the people of the Southern States would cease resistance, and wouldreinaugurate, submit to, and maintain the national authority within thelimits of such States, under the Constitution of the United States, " I saythat in such case the war would cease on the part of the United States;and that if within a reasonable time "a full and general amnesty" werenecessary to such end, it would not be withheld. 

I do not think it would be proper now to communicate this, formally orinformally, to the people of the Southern States. My belief is that theyalready know it; and when they choose, if ever, they can communicatewith me unequivocally. Nor do I think it proper now to suspend militaryoperations to try any experiment of negotiation. 

I should nevertheless receive with great pleasure the exact informationyou now have, and also such other as you may in any way obtain. Suchinformation might be more valuable before the 1st of January thanafterwards. 

While there is nothing in this letter which I shall dread to see inhistory, it is, perhaps, better for the present that its existence shouldnot become public. I therefore have to request that you will regard it asconfidential. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL CURTIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 14, 1862

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS, St. Louis, Missouri:

If my friend Dr. William Fithian, of Danville, Ill. , should call on YOU, please give him such facilities as you consistently can about recoveringthe remains of a step-son, and matters connected therewith. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. H. SIBLEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 16, 1862. 

BRIG. GEN. H. H. SIBLEY, Saint Paul, Minn. :

As you suggest, let the executions fixed for Friday the 19th instant bepostponed to, and be done on, Friday the 26th instant. 

A. LINCOLN. (Private. ) Operator please send this very carefully andaccurately. A. L. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL CURTIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 16, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS, Saint Louis, Missouri:

N. W. Watkins, of Jackson, Mo. , (who is half brother to Henry Clay), writes me that a colonel of ours has driven him from his home at Jackson. Will you please look into the case and restore the old man to his home ifthe public interest will admit?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , December 16, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Falmouth:

Your despatch about General Stahel is received. Please ascertain fromGeneral Sigel and his old corps whether Stahel or Schurz is preferableand telegraph the result, and I will act immediately. After all I shall begoverned by your preference. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL CURTIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 17, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS:

Could the civil authority be reintroduced into Missouri in lieu of themilitary to any extent, with advantage and safety?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 17, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE

George Patten says he was a classmate of yours and was in the sameregiment of artillery. Have you a place you would like to put him in? Andif so what is it?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR GAMBLE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 18, 1862. 

GOVERNOR GAMBLE, Saint Louis, MO. :

It is represented to me that the enrolled militia alone would now maintainlaw and order in all the counties of your State north of the MissouriRiver. If so all other forces there might be removed south of the river, or out of the State. Please post yourself and give me your opinion uponthe subject. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL CURTIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 19, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS, Saint Louis, Mo. :

Hon. W. A. Hall, member of Congress here, tells me, and Governor Gambletelegraphs me; that quiet can be maintained in all the counties north ofthe Missouri River by the enrolled militia. Confer with Governor Gambleand telegraph me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE. 

WASHINGTON, December 19, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE:

Come, of course, if in your own judgment it is safe to do so. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARIES SEWARD AND CHASE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 20, 1862. 

HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD AND HON. SALMON P. CHASE. 

GENTLEMEN:--You have respectively tendered me your resignations asSecretary of State and Secretary of the Treasury of the United States. Iam apprised of the circumstances which may render this course personallydesirable to each of you; but after most anxious consideration mydeliberate judgment is that the public interest does not admit of it. I therefore have to request that you will resume the duties of yourdepartments respectively. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR ANDREW. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 20, 1862. 

GOVERNOR ANDREW, Boston, Mass. :

Neither the Secretary of War nor I know anything except what you tell usabout the "published official document" you mention. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO T. J. HENDERSON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 20, 1862. 

HON. T. J. HENDERSON. 

DEAR SIR:-Your letter of the 8th to Hon. William Kellogg has just beenshown me. You can scarcely overestimate the pleasure it would give me tooblige you, but nothing is operating so ruinously upon us everywhere as"absenteeism. " It positively will not do for me to grant leaves of absencein cases not sufficient to procure them under the regular rules. 

It would astonish you to know the extent of the evil of "absenteeism. " Wescarcely have more than half the men we are paying on the spot for serviceanywhere. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

CONGRATULATIONS TO THE ARMY OF THE POTOMAC

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 22, 1862. 

TO THE ARMY OF THE POTOMAC:

I have just read your general's report of the battle of Fredericksburg. Although you were not successful, the attempt was not an error, nor thefailure other than accident. The courage with which you, in an open field, maintained the contest against an intrenched foe, and the consummate skilland success with which you crossed and recrossed the river in the face ofthe enemy, show that you possess all the qualities of a great army, which will yet give victory to the cause of the country and of populargovernment. 

Condoling with the mourners for the dead, and sympathizing withthe severely wounded, I congratulate you that the number of both iscomparatively so small. 

I tender to you, officers and soldiers, the thanks of the nation. 

A. LINCOLN. 

LETTER OF CONDOLENCE

TO MISS FANNY McCULLOUGH. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December, 23, 1862. 

DEAR FANNY:--It is with deep regret that I learn of the death of your kindand brave father, and especially that it is affecting your young heartbeyond what is common in such cases. In this sad world of ours sorrowcomes to all, and to the young it comes with bittered agony because ittakes them unawares. 

The older have learned ever to expect it. I am anxious to afford somealleviation of your present distress, perfect relief is not possible, except with time. You cannot now realize that you will ever feel better. Is not this so? And yet it is a mistake. You are sure to be happy again. To know this, which is certainly true, will make you some less miserablenow. I have had experience enough to know what I say, and you need only tobelieve it to feel better at once. The memory of your dear father, insteadof an agony, will yet be a sad, sweet feeling in your heart, of a purerand holier sort than you have known before. 

Please present my kind regards to your afflicted mother. 

Your sincere friend, A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY OF WAR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 26, 1862

HONORABLE SECRETARY OF WAR. 

Sir:--Two Ohio regiments and one Illinois regiment which were captured atHartsville have been paroled and are now at Columbus, Ohio. This bringsthe Ohio regiments substantially to their homes. I am strongly impressedwith the belief that the Illinois regiment better be sent to Illinois, where it will be recruited and put in good condition by the time they areexchanged so as to re-enter the service. They did not misbehave, as Iam satisfied, so that they should receive no treatment nor have anythingwithheld from them by way of punishment. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL CURTIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 27, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS, Saint Louis, Mo. :

Let the order in regard to Dr. McPheeters and family be suspended untilyou hear from me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR GAMBLE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, December 27, 1862. 

HIS EXCELLENCY GOVERNOR GAMBLE:

I do not wish to leave the country north of the Missouri to the care ofthe enrolled militia except upon the concurrent judgment of yourself andGeneral Curtis. His I have not yet obtained. Confer with him, and I shallbe glad to act when you and he agree. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , December 30, 1862. 3. 30 PM. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE:

I have good reason for saying you must not make a general movement of thearmy without letting me know. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 31, 1862. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe, Va. :

I hear not a word about the Congressional election of which you and Icorresponded. Time clearly up. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO H. J. RAYMOND. 

(Private. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 31, 1862. 

HON. H. J. RAYMOND:

The proclamation cannot be telegraphed to you until during the dayto-morrow. 

JNO. G. NICOLAY. 

[Same to Horace Greeley]

1863

EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION, JANUARY 1, 1863. 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas on the 22d day of September, A. D. 1862, a proclamation was issuedby the President of the United States, containing, among other things, thefollowing, to wit:

"That on the 1st day of January, A. D. , 1863, all persons held as slaveswithin any State or designated part of a State the people whereofshall then be in rebellion against the United States shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the executive government of theUnited States, including the military and naval authority thereof, willrecognize and maintain the freedom of such persons and will do no act oracts to repress such persons, or any of them, in any efforts they may makefor their actual freedom. 

"That the executive will on the 1st day of January aforesaid, byproclamation, designate the States and parts of States, if any, in whichthe people thereof, respectively, shall then be in rebellion against theUnited States; and the fact that any State or the people thereof shall onthat day be in good faith represented in the Congress of the United Statesby members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the qualifiedvoters of such States shall have participated shall, in the absence ofstrong countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that suchState and the people thereof are not then in rebellion against the UnitedStates. "

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, byvirtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief of the Army andNavy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion against theauthority and government of the United States, and as a fit and necessarywar measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 1st day ofJanuary, A. D. 1863, and in accordance with my purpose so to do, publiclyproclaimed for the full period of one hundred days from the first dayabove mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of Stateswherein the people thereof, respectively, are this day in rebellionagainst the United States the following, to wit:

Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana (except the parishes of St. Bernard, Plaquemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James, Ascension, Assumption, Terre Bonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, including the city of New Orleans), Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia (except theforty-eight counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties ofBerkeley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Anne, and Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth), and whichexcepted parts are for the present left precisely as if this proclamationwere not issued. 

And by virtue of the power and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order anddeclare that all persons held as slaves within said designated Statesand parts of States are, and henceforward shall be, free; and that theExecutive Government of the United States, including the military andnaval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of saidpersons. 

And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain fromall violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to themthat, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonablewages. 

And I further declare and make known that such persons of suitablecondition will be received into the armed service of the United States togarrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vesselsof all sorts in said service. 

And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warrantedby the Constitution upon military necessity, I invoke the consideratejudgment of mankind and the gracious favor of Almighty God. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this first day of January, A. D. 1863, andof the independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON January 1, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK. 

DEAR SIR:--General Burnside wishes to cross the Rappahannock with hisarmy, but his grand division commanders all oppose the movement. If insuch a difficulty as this you do not help, you fail me precisely in thepoint for which I sought your assistance You know what General Burnside'splan is, and it is my wish that you go with him to the ground, examine itas far as practicable, confer with the officers, getting their judgment, and ascertaining their temper--in a word, gather all the elements forforming a judgment of your own, and then tell General Burnside that youdo approve or that you do not approve his plan. Your military skill isuseless to me if you will not do this. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN

[Indorsement]

January 1, 1863 Withdrawn, because considered harsh by General Halleck. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS

WASHINGTON, January 2, 1863

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I submit to Congress the expediency of extending to other departmentsof the government the authority conferred on the President by the eighthsection of the act of the 8th of May, 1792, to appoint a person totemporarily discharge the duties of Secretary of State, Secretary of theTreasury, and Secretary of War, in case of the death, absence from theseat of government, or sickness of either of those officers. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL S. R. CURTIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON JANUARY 2, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of December 29 by the hand of Mr. Strong is justreceived. The day I telegraphed you suspending the order in relation toDr. McPheeters, he, with Mr. Bates, the Attorney-General, appeared beforeme and left with me a copy of the order mentioned. The doctor also showedme the Copy of an oath which he said he had taken, which is indeed verystrong and specific. He also verbally assured me that he had constantlyprayed in church for the President and government, as he had always donebefore the present war. In looking over the recitals in your order, I donot see that this matter of the prayer, as he states it, is negatived, nor that any violation of his oath is charged nor, in fact, that anythingspecific is alleged against him. The charges are all general: that he hasa rebel wife and rebel relations, that he sympathies with rebels, andthat he exercises rebel influence. Now, after talking with him, I tellyou frankly I believe he does sympathize with the rebels, but the questionremains whether such a man, of unquestioned good moral character, who hastaken such an oath as he has, and cannot even be charged with violatingit, and who can be charged with no other specific act or omission, can, with safety to the government, be exiled upon the suspicion of his secretsympathies. But I agree that this must be left to you, who are on thespot; and if, after all, you think the public good requires his removal, my suspension of the order is withdrawn, only with this qualification, that the time during the suspension is not to be counted against him. Ihave promised him this. But I must add that the United States Governmentmust not, as by this order, undertake to run the churches. When anindividual in a church or out of it becomes dangerous to the publicinterest, he must be checked; but let the churches, as such, take careof themselves. It will not do for the United States to appoint trustees, supervisors, or other agents for the churches. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --The committee composed of Messrs. Yeatman and Filley (Mr. Broadheadnot attending) has presented your letter and the memorial of sundrycitizens. On the whole subject embraced exercise your best judgment, with a sole view to the public interest, and I will not interfere withouthearing you. 

A. LINCOLN. , January 3, 1863. 

TO SECRETARY WELLES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 4, 1863. 

HON. GIDEON WELLES, Secretary of the Navy. 

DEAR SIR:--As many persons who come well recommended for loyalty andservice to the Union cause, and who are refugees from rebel oppression inthe State of Virginia, make application to me for authority and permissionto remove their families and property to protection within the Unionlines, by means of our armed gunboats on the Potomac River and ChesapeakeBay, you are hereby requested to hear and consider all such applications, and to grant such assistance to this class of persons as in your judgmenttheir merits may render proper, and as may in each case be consistent withthe perfect and complete efficiency of the naval service and with militaryexpediency. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL S. L CURTIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 5, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I am having a good deal of trouble with Missouri matters, and I now sit down to write you particularly about it. One class offriends believe in greater severity and another in greater leniency inregard to arrests, banishments, and assessments. As usual in such cases, each questions the other's motives. On the one hand, it is insisted thatGovernor Gamble's unionism, at most, is not better than a secondary springof action; that hunkerism and a wish for political influence standbefore Unionism with him. On the other hand, it is urged that arrests, banishments, and assessments are made more for private malice, revenge, and pecuniary interest than for the public good. This morning I was told, by a gentleman who I have no doubt believes what he says, that in onecase of assessments for $10, 000 the different persons who paid comparedreceipts, and found they had paid $30, 000. If this be true, the inferenceis that the collecting agents pocketed the odd $20, 000. And true or notin the instance, nothing but the sternest necessity can justify themaking and maintaining of a system so liable to such abuses. Doubtless thenecessity for the making of the system in Missouri did exist, and whetherit continues for the maintenance of it is now a practical and veryimportant question. Some days ago Governor Gamble telegraphed me, askingthat the assessments outside of St. Louis County might be suspended, asthey already have been within it, and this morning all the members ofCongress here from Missouri but one laid a paper before me asking the samething. Now, my belief is that Governor Gamble is an honest and true man, not less so than yourself; that you and he could confer together on thisand other Missouri questions with great advantage to the public; that eachknows something which the other does not; and that acting together youcould about double your stock of pertinent information. May I not hopethat you and he will attempt this? I could at once safely do (or you couldsafely do without me) whatever you and he agree upon. There is absolutelyno reason why you should not agree. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --I forgot to say that Hon. James S. Rollins, member of Congressfrom one of the Missouri districts, wishes that, upon his personalresponsibility, Rev. John M. Robinson, of Columbia, Missouri; James L. Matthews, of Boone County, Missouri; and James L. Stephens, also of BooneCounty, Missouri, may be allowed to return to their respective homes. Major Rollins leaves with me very strong papers from the neighbors ofthese men, whom he says he knows to be true men. He also says he has manyconstituents who he thinks are rightly exiled, but that he thinks thesethree should be allowed to return. Please look into the case, and obligeMajor Rollins if you consistently can. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

[Copy sent to Governor Gamble. ]

TO CALEB RUSSELL AND SALLIE A. FENTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 5, 1863. 

MY GOOD FRIENDS: The Honorable Senator Harlan has just placed in my handsyour letter of the 27th of December, which I have read with pleasure andgratitude. 

It is most cheering and encouraging for me to know that in the effortswhich I have made and am making for the restoration of a righteous peaceto our country, I am upheld and sustained by the good wishes and prayersof God's people. No one is more deeply than myself aware that without Hisfavor our highest wisdom is but as foolishness and that our most strenuousefforts would avail nothing in the shadow of His displeasure. 

I am conscious of no desire for my country's welfare that is not inconsonance with His will, and of no plan upon which we may not ask Hisblessing. It seems to me that if there be one subject upon which all goodmen may unitedly agree, it is imploring the gracious favor of the God ofNations upon the struggles our people are making for the preservation oftheir precious birthright of civil and religious liberty. 

Very truly your friend;

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL ROSECRANS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 5. 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS, Murfreesborough, Tenn. : Your despatchannouncing retreat of enemy has just reached here. God bless you and allwith you! Please tender to all, and accept for yourself, the nation'sgratitude for your and their skill, endurance, and dauntless courage. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 7, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL DIX, Fort Monroe, Va. :

Do Richmond papers of 6th say nothing about Vicksburg, or if anything, what?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON January 7, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK. 

MY DEAR SIR:--What think you of forming a reserve cavalry corps of, say, 6000 for the Army of the Potomac? Might not such a corps be constitutedfrom the cavalry of Sigel's and Slocum's corps, with scraps we could pickup here and there?

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO B. G. BROWN. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 7, 1863. 5. 30 P. M. 

HON. B. GRATZ BROWN, Jefferson City, Mo. :

Yours of to-day just received. The administration takes no part betweenits friends in Missouri, of whom I, at least, consider you one; and I havenever before had an intimation that appointees there were interfering, orwere inclined to interfere. 

A. LINCOLN. 

CORRESPONDENCE WITH GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE, JANUARY 8, 1863. 

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC January 5, 1863. 

HIS EXCELLENCY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

Since my return to the army I have become more than ever convinced thatthe general officers of this command are almost unanimously opposed toanother crossing of the river; but I am still of the opinion that thecrossing should be attempted, and I have accordingly issued orders to theengineers and artillery to prepare for it. There is much hazard in it, asthere always is in the majority of military movements, and I cannot beginthe movement without giving you notice of it, particularly as I know solittle of the effect that it may have upon other movements of distantarmies. 

The influence of your telegram the other day is still upon me, and hasimpressed me with the idea that there are many parts of the problem whichinfluence you that are not known to me. 

In order to relieve you from all embarrassment in my case, I inclose withthis my resignation of my commission as major-general of volunteers, whichyou can have accepted if my movement is not in accordance with the viewsof yourself and your military advisers. 

I have taken the liberty to write to you personally upon this subject, because it was necessary, as I learned from General Halleck, for you toapprove of my general plan, written at Warrenton, before I could commencethe movement; and I think it quite as necessary that you should know ofthe important movement I am about to make, particularly as it will have tobe made in opposition to the views of nearly all my general officers, andafter the receipt of a despatch from you informing me of the opinion ofsome of them who had visited you. 

In conversation with you on New Year's morning I was led to express someopinions which I afterward felt it my duty to place on paper, and toexpress them verbally to the gentleman of whom we were speaking, which Idid in your presence, after handing you the letter. You were not disposedthen, as I saw, to retain the letter, and I took it back, but I now returnit to you for record if you wish it. 

I beg leave to say that my resignation is not sent in in any spirit ofinsubordination, but, as I before said, simply to relieve you from anyembarrassment in changing commanders where lack of confidence may haverendered it necessary. 

The bearer of this will bring me any answer, or I should be glad to hearfrom you by telegraph in cipher. 

I have the honor to be, very respectfully, your obedient servant, A. E. BURNSIDE, Major-General, Commanding Army of the Potomac. 

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, January 7, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Commanding, etc. , Falmouth:

GENERAL:--Your communication of the 5th was delivered to me by youraide-de-camp at 12 M. To-day. 

In all my communications and interviews with you since you took commandof the Army of the Potomac I have advised a forward movement across theRappahannock. At our interview at Warrenton I urged that you should crossby the fords above Fredericksburg rather than to fall down to thatplace; and when I left you at Warrenton it was understood that at leasta considerable part of your army would cross by the fords, and I sorepresented to the President. It was this modification of the planproposed by you that I telegraphed you had received his approval. Whenthe attempt at Fredericksburg was abandoned, I advised you to renew theattempt at some other point, either in whole or in part, to turn theenemy's works, or to threaten their wings or communications; in otherwords, to keep the enemy occupied till a favorable opportunity offered tostrike a decisive blow. I particularly advised you to use your cavalryand light artillery upon his communications, and attempt to cut off hissupplies and engage him at an advantage. 

In all our interviews I have urged that our first object was, notRichmond, but the defeat or scattering of Lee's army, which threatenedWashington and the line of the upper Potomac. I now recur to these thingssimply to remind you of the general views which I have expressed, andwhich I still hold. 

The circumstances of the case, however, have somewhat changed since theearly part of November. The chances of an extended line of operationsare now, on account of the advanced season, much less than then. Butthe chances are still in our favor to meet and defeat the enemy on theRappahannock, if we can effect a crossing in a position where we can meetthe enemy on favorable or even equal terms. I therefore still advise amovement against him. The character of that movement, however, must dependupon circumstances which may change any day and almost any hour. If theenemy should concentrate his forces at the place you have selected for acrossing, make it a feint and try another place. Again, the circumstancesat the time may be such as to render an attempt to cross the entirearmy not advisable. In that case, theory suggests that, while the enemyconcentrates at that point, advantages can be gained by crossing smallerforces at other points to cut off his lines, destroy his communication, and capture his rear-guards, outposts, etc. The great object is to occupythe enemy to prevent his making large detachments or distant raids, and toinjure him all you can with the least injury to yourself. If this canbe best accomplished by feints of a general crossing and detached realcrossings, take that course; if by an actual general crossing, with feintson other points, adopt that course. There seem to me to be many reasonswhy a crossing at some point should be attempted. It will not do to keepyour large army inactive. As you yourself admit, it devolves on you todecide upon the time, place, and character of the crossing which youmay attempt. I can only advise that an attempt be made, and as early aspossible. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, H. W. HALLECK, General-in-Chief. 

[Indorsement. ]

January 8, 1863. 

GENERAL BURNSIDE:

I understand General Halleck has sent you a letter of which this is acopy. I approve this letter. I deplore the want of concurrence with youin opinion by your general officers, but I do not see the remedy. Becautious, and do not understand that the government or country is drivingyou. I do not yet see how I could profit by changing the command of theArmy of the Potomac; and if I did, I should not wish to do it by acceptingthe resignation of your commission. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 8, 1863. 

GOVERNOR JOHNSON, Nashville Tenn. :

A dispatch of yesterday from Nashville says the body of Captain Todd, ofthe Sixth Kentucky, was brought in to-day. 

Please tell me what was his Christian name, and whether he was in ourservice or that of the enemy. I shall also be glad to have your impressionas to the effect the late operations about Murfreesborough will have onthe prospects of Tennessee. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL S. R. CURTIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 10, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL CURTIS, St. Louis, MO. :

I understand there is considerable trouble with the slaves in Missouri. Please do your best to keep peace on the question for two or three weeks, by which time we hope to do something here toward settling the question inMissouri. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 10, 1863

GOVERNOR JOHNSON, Nashville, Tenn. :

Yours received. I presume the remains of Captain Todd are in the hands ofhis family and friends, and I wish to give no order on the subject; butI do wish your opinion of the effects of the late battles aboutMurfreesborough upon the prospects of Tennessee. 

A. LINCOLN. 

INSTRUCTION TO THE JUDGE-ADVOCATE-GENERAL. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, January 12, 1863. 

The Judge-Advocate-General is instructed to revise the proceedings of thecourt-martial in the case of Major-General Fitz-John Porter, and to reportfully upon any legal questions that may have arisen in them, and upon thebearing of the testimony in reference to the charges and specificationsexhibited against the accused, and upon which he was tried. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. JANUARY 14, 1863. 

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: The Secretary of State has submitted tome a resolution of the House of Representatives of the 5th instant, whichhas been delivered to him, and which is in the following words:

"Resolved, That the Secretary of State be requested to communicate to thisHouse, if not, in his judgment, incompatible with the public interest, why our Minister in New Granada has not presented his credentials tothe actual government of that country; also the reasons for whichSenor Murillo is not recognized by the United States as the diplomaticrepresentative of the Mosquera government of that country; also, what negotiations have been had, if any, with General Herran as therepresentative of Ospina's government in New Granada since it went intoexistence. "

On the 12th day of December, 1846, a treaty of amity, peace, and concordwas concluded between the United States of America and the Republic ofNew Granada, which is still in force. On the 7th day of December, 1847, General Pedro Alcantara Herran, who had been duly accredited, was receivedhere as the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of that, republic. On the 30th day of August, 1849, Senor Don Rafael Rivas wasreceived by this government as charge d'affaires of the same republic. Onthe 5th day of December, 1851, a consular convention was concluded betweenthat republic and the United States, which treaty was signed on behalf ofthe Republic of Granada by the same Senor Rivas. This treaty is still inforce. On the 27th of April, 1852, Senor Don Victoriano de Diego Paredeswas received as charge d'affaires of the Republic of New Granada. On the20th of June, 1855, General Pedro Alcantara Herran was again received asenvoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary, duly accredited by theRepublic of New Granada, and he has ever since remained, under the samecredentials, as the representative of that republic near the Government ofthe United States. On the 10th of September, 1857, a claims conventionwas concluded between the United States and the Republic of Granada. Thisconvention is still in force, and has in part been executed. In May, 1858, the constitution of the republic was remodelled; and the nation assumedthe political title of "The Granadian Confederacy. " This fact wasformally announced to this Government, but without any change intheir representative here. Previously to the 4th day of March, 1861, arevolutionary war against the Republic of New Granada, which had thusbeen recognized and treated with by the United States, broke out in NewGranada, assuming to set up a new government under the name of "UnitedStates of Colombia. " This war has had various vicissitudes, sometimesfavorable, sometimes adverse, to the revolutionary movements. Therevolutionary organization has hitherto been simply a militaryprovisionary power, and no definitive constitution of government hasyet been established in New Granada in place of that organized by theconstitution of 1858. The minister of the United States to the GranadianConfederacy, who was appointed on the 29th day of May, 1861, was directed, in view of the occupation of the capital by the revolutionary party and ofthe uncertainty of the civil war, not to present his credentials to eitherthe government of the Granadian Confederacy or to the provisional militarygovernment, but to conduct his affairs informally, as is customary in suchcases, and to report the progress of events and await the instructions ofthis Government. The advices which have been received from him have nothitherto, been sufficiently conclusive to determine me to recognize therevolutionary government. General Herran being here, with full authorityfrom the Government of New Canada, which has been so long recognizedby the United States, I have not received any representative from therevolutionary government, which has not yet been recognized, because sucha proceeding would be in itself an act of recognition. 

Official communications have been had on various incidental and occasionalquestions with General Herran as the minister plenipotentiary and envoyextraordinary of the Granadian Confederacy, but in no other character. Nodefinitive measure or proceeding has resulted from these communications, and a communication of them at present would not, in my judgment, becompatible with the public interest. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY OF WAR. 

WASHINGTON, January 15, 1863. 

SECRETARY OF WAR:

Please see Mr. Stafford, who wants to assist in raising colored troops inMissouri. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PRINTING MONEY

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

January 17, 1863. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I have signed the joint resolution to provide for the immediate paymentof the army and navy of the United States, passed by the House ofRepresentatives on the 14th and by the Senate on the 15th instant. 

The joint resolution is a simple authority, amounting, however, underexisting circumstances, to a direction, to the Secretary of the Treasuryto make an additional issue of $100, 000, 000 in United States notes, if somuch money is needed, for the payment of the army and navy. 

My approval is given in order that every possible facility may be affordedfor the prompt discharge of all arrears of pay due to our soldiers and oursailors. 

While giving this approval, however, I think it my duty to express mysincere regret that it has been found necessary to authorize so large anadditional issue of United States notes, when this circulation and thatof the suspended banks together have become already so redundant as toincrease prices beyond real values, thereby augmenting the cost of livingto the injury of labor, and the cost of supplies to the injury of thewhole country. 

It seems very plain that continued issues of United States notes withoutany check to the issues of suspended banks, and without adequate provisionfor the raising of money by loans and for funding the issues so as to keepthem within due limits, must soon produce disastrous consequences; andthis matter appears to me so important that I feel bound to avail myselfof this occasion to ask the special attention of Congress to it. 

That Congress has power to regulate the currency of the country can hardlyadmit of doubt, and that a judicious measure to prevent the deteriorationof this currency, by a seasonable taxation of bank circulation orotherwise, is needed seems equally clear. Independently of this generalconsideration, it would be unjust to the people at large to exempt banksenjoying the special privilege of circulation from their just proportionof the public burdens. 

In order to raise money by way of loans most easily and cheaply, it isclearly necessary to give every possible support to the public credit. Tothat end a uniform currency, in which taxes, subscriptions to loans, andall other ordinary public dues as well as all private dues may be paid, is almost if not quite indispensable. Such a currency can be furnishedby banking associations organized under a general act of Congress, assuggested in my message at the beginning of the present session. Thesecuring of this circulation by the pledge of United States bonds, astherein suggested, would still further facilitate loans, by increasing thepresent and causing a future demand for such bonds. 

In view of the actual financial embarrassments of the government, and ofthe greater embarrassment sure to come if the necessary means of reliefbe not afforded, I feel that I should not perform my duty by a simpleannouncement of my approval of the joint resolution, which proposes reliefonly by increased circulation, without expressing my earnest desire thatmeasures such in substance as those I have just referred to may receivethe early sanction of Congress. By such measures, in my opinion, willpayment be most certainly secured, not only to the army and navy, but toall honest creditors of the government, and satisfactory provision madefor future demands on the treasury. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE WORKING-MEN OF MANCHESTER, ENGLAND. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January, 1863. 

TO THE WORKING-MEN OF MANCHESTER:

I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of the address and resolutionswhich you sent me on the eve of the new year. When I came, on the 4th ofMarch, 1861, through a free and constitutional election to fireside inthe Government of the United States, the country was found at the verge ofcivil war. Whatever might have been the cause, or whosesoever the fault, one duty, paramount to all others, was before me, namely, to maintainand preserve at once the Constitution and the integrity of the FederalRepublic. A conscientious purpose to perform this duty is the key toall the measures of administration which have been and to all which willhereafter be pursued. Under our frame of government and my official oath, I could not depart from this purpose if I would. It is not always in thepower of governments to enlarge or restrict the scope of moral resultswhich follow the policies that they may deem it necessary for the publicsafety from time to time to adopt. 

I have understood well that the duty of self-preservation rests solelywith the American people; but I have at the same time been aware thatfavor or disfavor of foreign nations might have a material influencein enlarging or prolonging the struggle with disloyal men in which thecountry is engaged. A fair examination of history has served to authorizea belief that the past actions and influences of the United States weregenerally regarded as having been beneficial toward mankind. I have, therefore, reckoned upon the forbearance of nations. Circumstances--tosome of which you kindly allude--induce me especially to expect that ifjustice and good faith should be practised by the United States, theywould encounter no hostile influence on the part of Great Britain. It isnow a pleasant duty to acknowledge the demonstration you have given ofyour desire that a spirit of amity and peace toward this country mayprevail in the councils of your Queen, who is respected and esteemed inyour own country only more than she is by the kindred nation which has itshome on this side of the Atlantic. 

I know and deeply deplore the sufferings which the workingmen atManchester, and in all Europe, are called to endure in this crisis. It hasbeen often and studiously represented that the attempt to overthrow thisgovernment, which was built upon the foundation of human rights, and tosubstitute for it one which should rest exclusively on the basis of humanslavery, was likely to obtain the favor of Europe. Through the action ofour disloyal citizens, the working-men of Europe have been subjected tosevere trials, for the purpose of forcing their sanction to that attempt. Under the circumstance, I cannot but regard your decisive utterances uponthe question as an instance of sublime Christian heroism which has notbeen surpassed in any age or in any country. It is indeed an energetic andinspiring assurance of the inherent power of truth and of the ultimate anduniversal triumph of justice, humanity, and freedom. I do not doubt thatthe sentiments, you have expressed will be sustained by your great nation;and, on the other hand, I have no hesitation in assuring you that theywill excite admiration, esteem, and the most reciprocal feelings offriendship among the American people. 

I hail this interchange of sentiment, therefore, as an augury thatwhatever else may happen, whatever misfortune may befall your country ormy own, the peace and friendship which now exist between the two nationswill be, as it shall be my desire to make them, perpetual. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON, January 21, 1863. 

GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I submit herewith for your consideration the joint resolutions of thecorporate authorities of the city of Washington, adopted September a 7, 1862, and a memorial of the same under date of October 28, 1862, bothrelating to and urging the construction of certain railroads concentratingupon the city of Washington. 

In presenting this memorial and the joint resolutions to you, I am notprepared to say more than that the subject is one of great practicalimportance, and that I hope it will receive the attention of Congress. 

A. LINCOLN. 

FITZ-JOHN PORTER COURT-MARTIAL. 

INDORSEMENT ON THE PROCEEDINGS AND SENTENCE

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON, January 13, 1863. 

In compliance with the Sixty-fifth Article of War, these whole proceedingsare transmitted to the Secretary of War, to be laid before the Presidentof the United States. 

H. W. HALLECK, General-in-Chief. 

January 21, 1863. 

The foregoing proceedings, findings, and sentence in the foregoing caseof Major-General Fitz-John Porter are approved and confirmed, and it isordered that the said Fitz-John Porter be, and he hereby is, cashieredand dismissed from the service of the United States as a major-generalof volunteers, and as colonel and brevet brigadier-general in the regularservice of the United States, and forever disqualified from holding anyoffice of trust or profit under the Government of the United States. 

A. LINCOLN. 

FROM GENERAL HALLECK TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

HEADQUARTERS OF THE ARMY, WASHINGTON

January 21, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GRANT, Memphis. 

GENERAL:--The President has directed that so much of Arkansas as you maydesire to control be temporarily attached to your department. This willgive you control of both banks of the river. 

In your operations down the Mississippi you must not rely too confidentlyupon any direct co-operation of General Banks and the lower flotilla, asit is possible that they may not be able to pass or reduce Port Hudson. They, however, will do everything in their power to form a junction withyou at Vicksburg. If they should not be able to effect this, they willat least occupy a portion of the enemy's forces, and prevent them fromreinforcing Vicksburg. I hope, however, that they will do still better andbe able to join you. 

It may be proper to give you some explanation of the revocation of yourorder expelling all Jews from your department. The President has noobjection to your expelling traitors and Jew peddlers, which, I suppose, was the object of your order; but as it in terms proscribed an entirereligious class, some of whom are fighting in our ranks, the Presidentdeemed it necessary to revoke it. 

Very respectfully, your obedient servant, H. W. HALLECK, General-in-Chief. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 23, 1863

GENERAL BURNSIDE:

Will see you any moment when you come. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER RELIEVING GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE AND MAKING OTHER CHANGES. 

(General Orders No. 20. )

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERAL'S OFFICE, WASHINGTON, D. C. JANUARY 25, 1863. 

I. The President of the United States has directed:

1st. That Major-General A. E. Burnside, at his own request, be relievedfrom the command of the Army of the Potomac. 

2d. That Major-General E. V. Sumner, at his own request, be relieved fromduty in the Army of the Potomac. 

3d. That Major-General W. B. Franklin be relieved from duty in the Army ofthe Potomac. 

4th. That Major-General J. Hooker be assigned to the command of the Armyof the Potomac. 

II. The officers relieved as above will report in person to theadjutant-general of the army. 

By order of the Secretary of War: D. TOWNSEND, Assistant Adjutant-General

TO GENERAL J. HOOKER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 26, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER. 

GENERAL:--I have placed you at the head of the Army of the Potomac. Ofcourse I have done this upon what appear to me to be sufficient reasons, and yet I think it best for you to know that there are some things inregard to which I am not quite satisfied with you. I believe you to be abrave and skillful soldier, which of course I like. I also believe you donot mix politics with your profession, in which you are right. You haveconfidence in yourself, which is a valuable if not an indispensablequality. You are ambitious, which within reasonable bounds does goodrather than harm; but I think that during General Burnside's command ofthe army you have taken counsel of your ambition and thwarted him as muchas you could, in which you did a great wrong to the country and to a mostmeritorious and honorable brother officer. I have heard, in such a wayas to believe it, of your recently saying that both the army and thegovernment needed a dictator. Of course it was not for this, but in spiteof it, that I have given you the command. Only those generals who gainsuccesses can set up dictators. What I now ask of you is military success, and I will risk the dictatorship. The government will support you to theutmost of its ability, which is neither more nor less than it has doneand will do for all commanders. I much fear that the spirit that youhave aided to infuse into the army, of criticizing their commander andwithholding confidence from him, will now turn upon you. I shall assistyou as far as I can to put it down. Neither you nor Napoleon, if hewere alive again, could get any good out of an army while such a spiritprevails in it. And now beware of rashness. Beware of rashness, but withenergy and sleepless vigilance go forward and give us victories. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON CITY, January 28, 1863, TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In conformity to the law of July 16, 1862, I most cordially recommendthat Commander David D. Porter, United States Navy, acting rear-admiral, commanding the Mississippi Squadron, receive a vote of thanks of Congressfor the bravery and skill displayed in the attack on the post of Arkansas, which surrendered to the combined military and naval forces on the 10thinstant. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 28, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Lowell, Mass. :

Please come here immediately. Telegraph me about what time you willarrive. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 29, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL DIx, Fort Monroe, Va. :

Do Richmond papers have anything from Vicksburg?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THURLOW WEED. 

WASHINGTON, January 29, 1863. 

HON. THURLOW WEED. 

DEAR SIR:--Your valedictory to the patrons of the Albany Evening journalbrings me a good deal of uneasiness. What does it mean?

Truly Yours, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, January 30, 1863. 5. 45 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe, Va. :

What iron-clads, if any, have gone out of Hampton Roads within the lasttwo days?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , January 31, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe, Va. : Corcoran's and Pryor's battleterminated. Have you any news through Richmond papers or otherwise?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHENCK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , January 31, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md. :

I do not take jurisdiction of the pass question. Exercise your owndiscretion as to whether Judge Pettis shall have a pass. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE WORKING-MEN OF LONDON, ENGLAND. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 1, 1863. 

TO THE WORKING-MEN OF LONDON:

I have received the New Year's address which you have sent me, with asincere appreciation of the exalted and humane sentiments by which it wasinspired. 

As these sentiments are manifestly the enduring support of the freeinstitutions of England, so I am sure also that they constitute the onlyreliable basis for free institutions throughout the world. 

The resources, advantages, and powers of the American people arevery great, and they have consequently succeeded to equally greatresponsibilities. It seems to have devolved upon them to test whethera government established on the principles of human freedom can bemaintained against an effort to build one upon the exclusive foundation ofhuman bondage. They will rejoice with me in the new evidences which yourproceedings furnish that the magnanimity they are exhibiting is justlyestimated by the true friends of freedom and humanity in foreigncountries. 

Accept my best wishes for your individual welfare, and for the welfare andhappiness of the whole British people. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHENCK. [Cipher. ] WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 4, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md. :

I hear of some difficulty in the streets of Baltimore yesterday. What isthe amount of it?

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 12, 1863. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

On the 4th of September, 1862, Commander George Henry Preble, UnitedStates Navy, then senior officer in command of the naval force off theharbor of Mobile, was guilty of inexcusable neglect in permitting thearmed steamer Oreto in open daylight to run the blockade. For his omissionto perform his whole duty on that occasion, and the injury therebyinflicted on the service and the country, his name was stricken from thelist of naval officers and he was dismissed [from] the service. 

Since his dismissal earnest application has been made for his restorationto his former position by senators and naval officers, on the ground thathis fault was an error of judgment, and that the example in his case hasalready had its effect in preventing a repetition of similar neglect. 

I therefore on this application and representation, and in considerationof his previous fair record, do hereby nominate George Henry Preble tobe a commander in the navy from the 16th July, 1862, to take rank on theactive list next after Commander Edward Donaldson, and to fill a vacancyoccasioned by the death of Commander J. M. Wainwright. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 12, 1863. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

On the 24th August, 1861, Commander Roger Perry, United. States Navy, was dismissed from the service under a misapprehension in regard to hisloyalty to the Government, from the circumstance that several oathswere transmitted to him and the Navy Department failed to receive anyrecognition of them. After his dismissal, and upon his assurance thatthe oath failed to reach him and his readiness to execute it, he wasrecommissioned to his original position on the 4th September following. On the same day, 4th September, he was ordered to command the sloop of warVandalia; on the 22d this order was revoked and he was ordered to duty inthe Mississippi Squadron, and on the 23d January, 1862, was detached sick, and has since remained unemployed. The advisory board under the act of16th July, 1862, did not recommend him for further promotion. 

This last commission, having been issued during the recess of the Senate, expired at the end of the succeeding session, 17th July, 1862, from whichdate, not having been nominated to the Senate, he ceased to be a commanderin the navy. 

To correct the omission to nominate this officer to the Senate at its lastsession, I now nominate Commander Roger Perry to be a commander in thenavy from the 14th September, 1855, to take his relative position on thelist of commanders not recommended for further promotion. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 12, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Murfreesborough, Tenn. :

Your despatch about "river patrolling" received. I have called theSecretary of the Navy, Secretary of War, and General-in-Chief together, and submitted it to them, who promise to do their very best in the case. Icannot take it into my own hands without producing inextricable confusion. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SIMON CAMERON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 13, 1863. 

HON. SIMON CAMERON, Harrisburg, Pa. : General Clay is here and I supposethe matter we spoke of will have to be definitely settled now. Pleaseanswer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO ALEXANDER REED. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 22, 1863. 

REV. ALEXANDER REED. MY DEAR SIR:--Your note, by which you, as GeneralSuperintendent of the United States Christian Commission, invite me topreside at a meeting to be held this day at the hall of the House ofRepresentatives in this city, is received. 

While, for reasons which I deem sufficient, I must decline to preside, Icannot withhold my approval of the meeting and its worthy objects. 

Whatever shall be, sincerely and in God's name, devised for the good ofthe soldiers and seamen in their hard spheres of duty, can scarcely failto be blessed; and whatever shall tend to turn our thoughts from theunreasoning and uncharitable passions, prejudices, and jealousies incidentto a great national trouble such as ours, and to fix them on the vast andlong enduring consequences, for weal or for woe, which are to result fromthe struggle, and especially to strengthen our reliance on the SupremeBeing for the final triumph of the right, cannot but be well for us all. 

The birthday of Washington and the Christian Sabbath coinciding this year, and suggesting together the highest interests of this life and of that tocome, is most propitious for the meeting proposed. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO J. K. DUBOIS. 

[Cipher]

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. February 26, 1863. 

HON. J. K. DuBois, Springfield, Ill. : General Rosecrans respectfully urgesthe appointment of William P. Caslin as a brigadier-general, What say you?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 27, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

If it will be no detriment to the service I will be obliged for Capt. Henry A. Marchant, of Company I, Twenty-third Pennsylvania Volunteers, tocome here and remain four or five days. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION CONVENING THE SENATE, FEBRUARY 28, 1863

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A Proclamation. 

Whereas objects of interest to the United States require that the Senateshould be convened at 12 o'clock on the 4th of March next to receiveand act upon such communications as may be made to it on the part of theExecutive:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, haveconsidered it to be my duty to issue this my proclamation, declaring thatan extraordinary occasion requires the Senate of the United States toconvene for the transaction of business at the Capitol, in the city ofWashington, on the 4th day of March next, at 12 o'clock at noon on thatday, of which all who shall at that time be entitled to act as members ofthat body are hereby required to take notice. 

Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, at Washington, thetwenty eighth day of February A. D. 1863, and of the independence of theUnited States of America, the eighty-seventh. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary o f State. 

TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

WASHINGTON, March, 7, 1863. 

Mr. M. Is now with me on the question of the Honolulu Commissioner. Itpains me some that this tilt for the place of Colonel Baker's friendgrows so fierce, now that the Colonel is no longer alive to defend him. I presume, however, we shall have no rest from it. In self-defense I amdisposed to say, "Make a selection and send it to me. "

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR TOD, EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 9, 1863. 

GOVERNOR DAVID TOD, Columbus, Ohio:

I think your advice with that of others would be valuable in the selectionof provost-marshals for Ohio. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION RECALLING SOLDIERS TO THEIR REGIMENTS, MARCH 10, 1863

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

A Proclamation

In pursuance of the twenty-sixth section of the act of Congress entitled"An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces, and for otherpurposes, " approved on the 3d day of March, 1863, I, Abraham Lincoln, President and Commander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy of the UnitedStates, do hereby order and command that all soldiers enlisted or draftedin the service of the United States now absent from their regimentswithout leave shall forthwith return to their respective regiments. 

And I do hereby declare and proclaim that all soldiers now absent fromtheir respective regiments without leave who shall, on or before the firstday of April, 1863, report themselves at any rendezvous designated bythe general orders of the War Department No. 58, hereto annexed, may berestored to their respective regiments without punishment, except theforfeiture of pay and allowances during their absence; and all who do notreturn within the time above specified shall be arrested as deserters andpunished as the law provides; and

Whereas evil-disposed and disloyal persons at sundry places haveenticed and procured soldiers to desert and absent themselves from theirregiments, thereby weakening the strength of the armies and prolonging thewar, giving aid and comfort to the enemy, and cruelly exposing the gallantand faithful soldiers remaining in the ranks to increased hardships anddanger:

I do therefore call upon all patriotic and faithful citizens to oppose andresist the aforementioned dangerous and treasonable crimes, and to aidin restoring to their regiments all soldiers absent without leave, and toassist in the execution of the act of Congress "for enrolling and callingout the national forces, and for other purposes, " and to support theproper authorities in the prosecution and punishment of offenders againstsaid act and in suppressing the insurrection and rebellion. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand. Done at the city ofWashington, this tenth day of March, A. D. 1863, and of the independence ofthe United States the eighty-seventh. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 13, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

General Stahel wishes to be assigned to General Heintzelman and GeneralHeintzelman also desires it. I would like to oblige both if it would notinjure the service in your army, or incommode you. What say you?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

WASHINGTON, Match 15, 1863. 

I am very glad of your note saying "recent despatches from him are able, judicious, and loyal, " and that if I agree; we will leave him there. I amglad to agree, so long as the public interest does not seem to require hisremoval. 

TELEGRAM TO J. O. MORTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 16, 1863. 

HON. J. O. MORTON, Joliet, Ill. : William Chumasero is proposed forprovost-marshal of your district. What think you of it? I understand he isa good man. 

A. LINCOLN. 

GRANT'S EXCLUSION OF A NEWSPAPER REPORTER

REVOCATION OF SENTENCE OF T. W. KNOX. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 20, 1863. 

WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:--Whereas, it appears to my satisfaction that ThomasW. Knox, a correspondent of the New York Herald, has been by the sentenceof a court-martial excluded from the military department under commandof Major-General Grant, and also that General Thayer, president of thecourt-martial which rendered the sentence, and Major-General McClernand, in command of a corps of that department, and many other respectablepersons, are of opinion that Mr. Knox's offense was technical rather thanwilfully wrong, and that the sentence should be revoked: now, therefore, said sentence is hereby so far revoked as to allow Mr. Knox to return toGeneral Grant's headquarters, and to remain if General Grant shall givehis express assent, and to again leave the department if General Grantshall refuse such assent. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO BENJAMIN GRATZ. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 25, 1863. 

Mr. BENJAMIN GRATZ, Lexington, Ky. :

Show this to whom it may concern as your authority for allowing Mrs. Selbyto remain at your house, so long as you choose to be responsible for whatshe may do. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL ROSECRANS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 25, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Murfreesborough, Tenn. :

Your dispatches about General Davis and General Mitchell are received. General Davis' case is not particular, being simply one of a great manyrecommended and not nominated because they would transcend the numberallowed by law. General Mitchell (was) nominated and rejected by theSenate and I do not think it proper for me to renominate him without achange of circumstances such as the performance of additional service, oran expressed change of purpose on the part of at least some senators whoopposed him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL S. A. HURLBUT. 

WASHINGTON, March 25, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HURLBUT, Memphis:

What news have you? What from Vicksburg? What from Yazoo Pass? What fromLake Providence? What generally?

A. LINCOLN. 

QUESTION OF RAISING NEGRO TROOPS

TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

(Private. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON March 26, 1863. 

HON. ANDREW JOHNSON. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I am told you have at least thought of raising a negromilitary force. In my opinion the country now needs no specific thing somuch as some man of your ability and position to go to this work. When Ispeak of your position, I mean that of an eminent citizen of a slave Stateand himself a slaveholder. The colored population is the great availableand yet unavailed of force for restoring the Union. The bare sight offifty thousand armed and drilled black soldiers upon the banks of theMississippi would end the rebellion at once; and who doubts that wecan present that sight if we but take hold in earnest? If you have beenthinking of it, please do not dismiss the thought. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION APPOINTING A NATIONAL FAST-DAY. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

March 30, 1863. 

Whereas the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the supremeauthority and just government of Almighty God in all the affairs of menand of nations, has by a resolution requested the President to designateand set apart a day for national prayer and humiliation:

And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as men to own theirdependence upon the overruling power of God; to confess their sins andtransgressions in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuinerepentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublimetruth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, thatthose nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord:

And insomuch as we know that by His divine law nations, like individuals, are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we notjustly fear that the awful calamity of civil war which now desolates theland may be but a punishment inflicted upon us for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole people? Wehave been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have beenpreserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown innumbers, wealth, and power as no other nation has ever grown; but we haveforgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us inpeace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainlyimagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessingswere produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicatedwith unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel thenecessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the Godthat made us:

It behooves us, then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, toconfess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness:

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring inthe views, of the Senate, I do by this my proclamation designate andset apart Thursday, the 30th day of April, 1863, as a day of nationalhumiliation, fasting, and prayer. And I do hereby request all the peopleto abstain on that day from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to uniteat their several places of public worship and their respective homes inkeeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge ofthe religious duties proper to that solemn occasion. All this being donein sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope, authorized bythe divine teachings, that the united cry of the nation will be heard onhigh, and answered with blessings no less than the pardon of our nationalsins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering country to itsformer happy condition of unity and peace. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in theyear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of theindependence of the United States the eighty-seventh. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

LICENSE OF COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 31, 1863. 

Whereas by the act of Congress approved July 13, 1861, entitled "An act toprovide for the collection of duties on imports, and for other purposes, "all commercial intercourse between the inhabitants of such States asshould by proclamation be declared in insurrection against the UnitedStates and the citizens of the rest of the United States was prohibitedso long as such condition of hostility should continue, except as thesame shall be licensed and permitted by the President to be conducted andcarried on only in pursuance of rules and regulations prescribed by theSecretary of the Treasury; and:

Whereas it appears that a partial restoration of such intercourse betweenthe inhabitants of sundry places and sections heretofore declared ininsurrection in pursuance of said act and the citizens of the rest of theUnited States will favorably affect the public interests:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, exercising the authority and discretion confided to me by the said act ofCongress, do hereby license and permit such commercial intercourse betweenthe citizens of loyal States and the inhabitants of such insurrectionaryStates in the cases and under the restrictions described and expressed inthe regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury bearingeven date with these presents, or in such other regulations as he mayhereafter, with my approval, prescribe. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL D. HUNTER. 

(Private. ) EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C April 1, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I am glad to see the accounts of your colored force atJacksonville, Florida. I see the enemy are driving at them fiercely, as isto be expected. It is important to the enemy that such a force shall nottake shape and grow and thrive in the South, and in precisely the sameproportion it is important to us that it shall. Hence the utmost cautionand vigilance is necessary on our part. The enemy will make extra effortsto destroy them, and we should do the same to preserve and increase them. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION ABOUT COMMERCIAL INTERCOURSE, APRIL 2, 1863

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas, in pursuance of the act of Congress approved July 13, 1861, Idid, by proclamation dated August 16, 1861, declare that the inhabitantsof the States of Georgia, South Carolina, Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, and Florida(except the inhabitants of that part of Virginia lying west of theAlleghany Mountains, and of such other parts of that State and the otherStates hereinbefore named as might maintain a legal adhesion to the Unionand the Constitution or might be from time to time occupied and controlledby forces of the United States engaged in the dispersion of saidinsurgents) were in a state of insurrection against the United States, and that all commercial intercourse between the same and the inhabitantsthereof, with the exceptions aforesaid, and the citizens of other Statesand other parts of the United States was unlawful and would remainunlawful until such insurrection should cease or be suppressed, and thatall goods and chattels, wares and merchandise, coming from any of saidStates, with the exceptions aforesaid, into other parts of the UnitedStates without the license and permission of the President, through theSecretary of the Treasury, or proceeding to any of said States, withthe exceptions aforesaid, by land or water, together with the vessel orvehicle conveying the same to or from said States, with the exceptionsaforesaid, would be forfeited to the United States, and:

Whereas experience has shown that the exceptions made in and by saidproclamation embarrass the due enforcement of said act of July 13, 1861, and the proper regulation of the commercial intercourse authorized by saidact with the loyal citizens of said States:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, dohereby revoke the said exceptions, and declare that the inhabitants ofthe States of Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Tennessee, Alabama, Louisiana, Texas, Arkansas, Mississippi, Florida, and Virginia (except theforty-eight counties of Virginia designated as West Virginia, and exceptalso the ports of New Orleans, Key West; Port Royal, and Beaufort in NorthCarolina) are in a state of insurrection against the United States, andthat all commercial intercourse not licensed and conducted as providedin said act between the said States and the inhabitants thereof, with theexceptions aforesaid, and the citizens of other States and other partsof the United States is unlawful and will remain unlawful until suchinsurrection shall cease or has been suppressed and notice thereof hasbeen duly given by proclamation; and all cotton, tobacco, and otherproducts, and all other goods and chattels, wares and merchandise, comingfrom any of said States, with the exceptions aforesaid, into other partsof the United States, or proceeding to any of said States, with theexceptions aforesaid, without the license and permission of the President, through the Secretary of the Treasury, will together with the vessel orvehicle conveying the same, be forfeited to the United States. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this second day of April, A. D. 1863, andof the independence of the United States of America the eighty-seventh. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 3, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Our plan is to pass Saturday night on the boat, go over from Aquia Creekto your camp Sunday morning, remain with you till Tuesday morning, andthen return. Our party will probably not exceed six persons of all sorts. 

A. LINCOLN. 

OPINION ON HARBOR DEFENSE. 

April 4, 1863. 

On this general subject I respectfully refer Mr. ------__ to theSecretaries of War and Navy for conference and consultation. I have asingle idea of my own about harbor defense. It is a steam ram, built soas to sacrifice nearly all capacity for carrying to those of speed andstrength, so as to be able to split any vessel having hollow enough in herto carry supplies for a voyage of any distance. Such ram, of course, couldnot herself carry supplies for a voyage of considerable distance, and herbusiness would be to guard a particular harbor as a bulldog guards hismaster's door. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO THE SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 

HEADQUARTERS ARMY POTOMAC, April 9, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY:

Richmond Whig of the 8th has no telegraphic despatches from Charleston, but has the following as editorial:

"All thoughts are now centred upon Charleston. Official intelligence wasmade public early yesterday morning that the enemy's iron-clad fleethad attempted to cross the bar and failed, but later in the day it wasannounced that the gunboats and transports had succeeded in crossing andwere at anchor. Our iron-clads lay between the forts quietly awaiting theattack. Further intelligence is looked for with eager anxiety. The Yankeeshave made no secret of this vast preparation for an attack on Charleston, and we may well anticipate a desperate conflict. At last the hour of trialhas come for Charleston, the hour of deliverance or destruction, for noone believes the other alternative, surrender, possible. The heart of thewhole country yearns toward the beleaguered city with intense solicitude, yet with hopes amounting to confidence. Charleston knows what is expectedof her, and which is due to her fame, and to the relation she sustains tothe cause. The devoted, the heroic, the great-hearted Beauregard is there, and he, too, knows what is expected of him and will not disappoint thatexpectation. We predict a Saragossa defense, and that if Charleston istaken it will be only a heap of ruins. "

The rebel pickets are reported as calling over to our pickets today thatwe had taken some rebel fort. This is not very intelligible, and I thinkis entirely unreliable. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO OFFICER IN COMMAND AT NASHVILLE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 11, 1863. 

OFFICER IN COMMAND at Nashville, Tenn: Is there a soldier by the nameof John R. Minnick of Wynkoop's cavalry under sentence of death, by acourt-martial or military commission, in Nashville? And if so what was hisoffense, and when is he to be executed?

A. LINCOLN. 

If necessary let the execution be staid till I can be heard from again. 

A. LINCOLN. 

 [President Lincoln sent many telegrams similar in form to this one in order to avoid tiresome repetition the editor has omitted all those without especial interest. Hardly a day went by that there were not people in the White House begging mercy for a sentenced soldier. A mother one day, pleaded with Lincoln to remit the sentence of execution on her son. "Well, I don't think it will do him a bit of good" said Mr. Lincoln--"Pardoned. " D. W. ]

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON D. C. , April 12, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Your letter by the hand of General Butterfield is received, and will beconformed to. The thing you dispense with would have been ready by mid-dayto-morrow. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO ADMIRAL S. P. DUPONT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 13, 1863

ADMIRAL DUPONT:

Hold your position inside the bar near Charleston; or, if you shall haveleft it, return to it, and hold it until further orders. Do not allow theenemy to erect new batteries or defenses on Morris Island. If he has begunit, drive him out. I do not herein order you to renew the general attack. That is to depend on your own discretion or a further order. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL D. HUNTER AND ADMIRAL S. F. DUPONT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 54, 1863. 

GENERAL HUNTER AND ADMIRAL DUPONT:

This is intended to clear up an apparent inconsistency between the recentorder to continue operations before Charleston and the former one toremove to another point in a certain contingency. No censure upon you, oreither of you, is intended. We still hope that by cordial and judiciousco-operation you can take the batteries on Morris Island and Sullivan'sIsland and Fort Sumter. But whether you can or not, we wish thedemonstration kept up for a time, for a collateral and very importantobject. We wish the attempt to be a real one, though not a desperate one, if it affords any considerable chance of success. But if prosecuted as ademonstration only, this must not become public, or the whole effect willbe lost. Once again before Charleston, do not leave until further ordersfrom here. Of course this is not intended to force you to leave undulyexposed Hilton Head or other near points in your charge. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --Whoever receives this first, please send a copy to the otherimmediately. A. L. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL S. HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , April 15, 1863. 10. 15 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

It is now 10. 15 P. M. An hour ago I received your letter of this morning, and a few moments later your despatch of this evening. The latter gives meconsiderable uneasiness. The rain and mud of course were to be calculatedupon. General S. Is not moving rapidly enough to make the expedition cometo anything. He has now been out three days, two of which were unusuallyfair weather, and all three without hindrance from the enemy, and yethe is not twenty-five miles from where he started. To reach his point hestill has sixty to go, another river (the Rapidan) to cross, and will behindered by the enemy. By arithmetic, how many days will it take him todo it? I do not know that any better can be done, but I greatly fear it isanother failure already. Write me often. I am very anxious. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ON COLONIZATION ARRANGEMENTS

REPUDIATION OF AN AGREEMENT WITH BERNARD KOCK

APRIL 16, 1863. 

A. LINCOLN, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING:

Know ye that, whereas a paper bearing date the 3rd day of December last, purporting to be an agreement between the United States and one BernardKock for immigration of persons of African extraction to a dependencyof the Republic of Haiti, was signed by me on behalf of the party of thefirst part; but whereas the said instrument was and has since remainedincomplete in consequence of the seal of the United States not having beenthereunto affixed; and whereas I have been moved by considerations by medeemed sufficient to withhold my authority for affixing the said seal:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States, do hereby authorize the Secretary of State to cancel mysignature to the instrument aforesaid. 

Done at Washington, this sixteenth day of April, A. D. 1863. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

STATEHOOD FOR WEST VIRGINIA, APRIL 20, 1863. 

PROCLAMATION ADMITTING WEST VIRGINIA INTO THE UNION, BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas by the act of Congress approved the 31st day of December lastthe State of West Virginia was declared to be one of the United Statesof America, and was admitted into the Union on an equal footing with theoriginal States in all respects whatever, upon the condition that certainchanges should be duly made in the proposed constitution for that State;and

Whereas proof of a compliance with that condition, as required by thesecond section of the act aforesaid, has been submitted to me:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States, do hereby, in pursuance of the act of Congress aforesaid, declare and proclaim that the said act shall take effect and be in forcefrom and after sixty days from the date hereof. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this twentieth day of April, A. D. 1863, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-seventh. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, APRIL 23, 1863 10. 10am

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Murfreesborough, Tenn. :

Your despatch of the 21st received. I really cannot say that I haveheard any complaint of you. I have heard complaint of a police corps atNashville, but your name was not mentioned in connection with it, so faras I remember. It may be that by inference you are connected with it, butmy attention has never been drawn to it in that light. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , April 27, 1863. 3. 30 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

How does it look now?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR CURTIN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, April 28, 1863. 

HON. A. O. CURTIN, Harrisburg, Penn. :

I do not think the people of Pennsylvania should be uneasy about aninvasion. Doubtless a small force of the enemy is flourishing about inthe northern part of Virginia, on the "skewhorn" principle, on purpose todivert us in another quarter. I believe it is nothing more. We think wehave adequate force close after them. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO W. A. NEWELL. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 29, 1863. 

HON. W. A. NEWELL, Allentown, N. J. :

I have some trouble about provost-marshal in your first district. Please procure HON. Mr. Starr to come with you and see me, or come to anagreement with him and telegraph me the result. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR CURTIN, EXECUTIVE MANSION, MAY 1, 1863

GOVERNOR CURTIN, Harrisburg, Penn. :

The whole disposable force at Baltimore and else where in reach havealready been sent after the enemy which alarms you. The worst thing theenemy could do for himself would be to weaken himself before Hooker, andtherefore it is safe to believe he is not doing it; and the best thinghe could do for himself would be to get us so scared as to bring partof Hooker's force away, and that is just what he is trying to do. I willtelegraph you in the morning about calling out the militia. 

A. LINCOLN, TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR CURTIN

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MAY 2, 1863

GOVERNOR CURTIN, Harrisburg, Penn. :

General Halleck tells me he has a despatch from General Schenck thismorning, informing him that our forces have joined, and that the enemymenacing Pennsylvania will have to fight or run today. I hope I am notless anxious to do my duty to Pennsylvania than yourself, but I reallydo not yet see the justification for incurring the trouble and expense ofcalling out the militia. I shall keep watch, and try to do my duty. 

A. LINCOLN P. S. --Our forces are exactly between the enemy andPennsylvania. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. BUTTERFIELD. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 3, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTTERFIELD, Chief of Staff:

The President thanks you for your telegrams, and hopes you will keep himadvised as rapidly as any information reaches you. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

GENERALS LOST

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. BUTTERFIELD. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 3, 1863. 4. 35 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTTERFIELD:

Where is General Hooker? Where is Sedgwick Where is Stoneman?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 4, 1863. 3. 10 P M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

We have news here that the enemy has reoccupied heights aboveFredericksburg. Is that so?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 4, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, O. :

Our friend General Sigel claims that you owe him a letter. If you soremember please write him at once. He is here. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 6, 1863. 2. 25. P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

We have through General Dix the contents of Richmond papers of the 5th. General Dix's despatch in full is going to you by Captain Fox of the navy. The substance is General Lee's despatch of the 3d (Sunday), claimingthat he had beaten you and that you were then retreating across theRappahannock, distinctly stating that two of Longstreet's divisions foughtyou on Saturday, and that General [E. F. ] Paxton was killed, StonewallJackson severely wounded, and Generals Heth and A. P. Hill slightlywounded. The Richmond papers also stated, upon what authority notmentioned, that our cavalry have been at Ashland, Hanover Court-House, and other points, destroying several locomotives and a good deal of otherproperty, and all the railroad bridges to within five miles of Richmond. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 6, 1863. 12. 30 P. M. 

Just as I telegraphed you contents of Richmond papers showing that ourcavalry has not failed, I received General Butterfield's of 11 A. M. Yesterday. This, with the great rain of yesterday and last night securingyour right flank, I think puts a new face upon your case; but you must bethe judge. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL R. INGALLS. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 6, 1863 1. 45 PM

COLONEL INGALLS:

News has gone to General Hooker which may change his plans. Act in view ofsuch contingency. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL J. HOOKER. 

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, May 7, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER. 

MY DEAR SIR:--The recent movement of your army is ended without effectingits object, except, perhaps, some important breakings of the enemy'scommunications. What next? If possible, I would be very glad of anothermovement early enough to give us some benefit from the fact of the enemy'scommunication being broken; but neither for this reason nor any other doI wish anything done in desperation or rashness. An early movement wouldalso help to supersede the bad moral effect of there certain, which issaid to be considerably injurious. Have you already in your mind a planwholly or partially formed? If you have, prosecute it without interferencefrom me. If you have not, please inform me, so that I, incompetent as Imay be, can try and assist in the formation of some plan for the army. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

DRAFTING OF ALIENS

PROCLAMATION CONCERNING ALIENS, MAY 8, 1863. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation

Whereas the Congress of the United States, at its last session, enacted alaw entitled "An act for enrolling and calling out the national forces andfor other purposes, " which was approved on the 3d day of March last; and

Whereas it is recited in the said act that there now exists in the UnitedStates an insurrection and rebellion against the authority thereof, andit is, under the Constitution of the United States, the duty of thegovernment to suppress insurrection and rebellion, to guarantee toeach State a republican form of government, and to preserve the publictranquillity; and

Whereas for these high purposes a military force is indispensable, toraise and support which all persons Ought willingly to contribute; and

Whereas no service can be more praiseworthy and honorable than that whichis rendered for the maintenance of the Constitution and the Union, and theconsequent preservation of free government; and

Whereas, for the reasons thus recited, it was enacted by the said statutethat all able-bodied male citizens of the United States, and persons offoreign birth who shall have declared on oath their intention to becomecitizens under and in pursuance of the laws thereof, between the ages oftwenty and forty-five years (with certain exceptions not necessary to behere mentioned), are declared to constitute the national forces, and shallbe liable to perform military duty in the service of the United Stateswhen called out by the President for that purpose; and

Whereas it is claimed by and in behalf of persons of foreign birth withinthe ages specified in said act, who have heretofore declared on oath theirintentions to become citizens under and in pursuance of the laws of theUnited States, and who have not exercised the right of suffrage or anyother political franchise under the laws of the United States, or of anyof the States thereof, that they are not absolutely concluded by theiraforesaid declaration of intention from renouncing their purpose to becomecitizens, and that, on the contrary, such persons under treaties or thelaw of nations retain a right to renounce that purpose and to forego theprivileges of citizenship and residence within the United States under theobligations imposed by the aforesaid act of Congress:

Now, therefore, to avoid all misapprehensions concerning the liability ofpersons concerned to perform the service required by such enactment, andto give it full effect, I do hereby order and proclaim that no pleaof alienage will be received or allowed to exempt from the obligationsimposed by the aforesaid act of Congress any person of foreign birthwho shall have declared on oath his intention to become a citizen of theUnited States under the laws thereof, and who shall be found withinthe United States at any time during the continuance of the presentinsurrection and rebellion, at or after the expiration of the period ofsixty-five days from the date of this proclamation; nor shall any suchplea of alienage be allowed in favor of any such person who has so, as aforesaid, declared his intention to become a citizen of the UnitedStates, and shall have exercised at any time the right of suffrage, orany other political franchise, within the United States, under the lawsthereof, or under the laws of any of the several States. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, thiseighth day of May, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundredand sixty-three, and of the independence of the United States theeighty-seventh. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. May 8, 1863. 4 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

The news is here of the capture by our forces of Grand Gulf--a large andvery important thing. General Willich, an exchanged prisoner just fromRichmond, has talked with me this morning. He was there when our cavalrycut the roads in that vicinity. He says there was not a sound pair of legsin Richmond, and that our men, had they known it, could have safelygone in and burned everything and brought in Jeff Davis. We captured andparoled 300 or 400 men. He says as he came to City Point there was an armythree miles long (Longstreet's, he thought) moving toward Richmond. 

Muroy has captured a despatch of General Lee, in which he says his losswas fearful in his last battle with you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. A. DIX. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 9, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL DIX:

It is very important for Hooker to know exactly what damage is done tothe railroads at all points between Fredericksburg and Richmond. As yet wehave no word as to whether the crossings of the North and South Anna, orany of them, have been touched. There are four of these Crossings;that is, one on each road on each stream. You readily perceive why thisinformation is desired. I suppose Kilpatrick or Davis can tell. Pleaseascertain fully what was done, and what is the present condition, as nearas you can, and advise me at once. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

WASHINGTON, May 9, 1863

I believe Mr. L. Is a good man, but two things need to be remembered. 

1st. Mr. R. 's rival was a relative of Mr. L. 

2d. I hear of nobody calling Mr. R. A "Copperhead, " but Mr. L. However, let us watch. 

A. L. 

TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, MAY 11, 1863

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

DEAR SIR:--I have again concluded to relieve General Curtis. I see noother way to avoid the worst consequences there. I think of GeneralSchofield as his successor, but I do not wish to take the matter of asuccessor out of the hands of yourself and General Halleck. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, May 11, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL DIX:

Do the Richmond papers have anything about Grand Gulf or Vicksburg?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTTERFIELD. 

[Cipher. ]

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, May 11, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTTERFIELD:

About what distance is it from the observatory we stopped at last Thursdayto the line of enemies' works you ranged the glass upon for me?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR SEYMOUR

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 12, 1863. 

GOVERNOR SEYMOUR, Albany, N. Y. :

Dr. Swinburne and Mr. Gillett are here, having been refused, as they say, by the War Department, permission to go to the Army of the Potomac. Theynow appeal to me, saying you wish them to go. I suppose they have beenexcluded by a rule which experience has induced the department to deemproper; still they shall have leave to go, if you say you desire it. Please answer. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO A. G. HENRY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON May 13, 1863. 

Dr. A. G. HENRY, Metropolitan Hotel, New York:

Governor Chase's feelings were hurt by my action in his absence. Smith isremoved, but Governor Chase wishes to name his successor, and asks a dayor two to make the designation. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL J. HOOKER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. May 14, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER, Commanding. 

MY DEAR SIR:--When I wrote on the 7th, I had an impression that possiblyby an early movement you could get some advantage from the supposed factsthat the enemy's communications were disturbed and that he was somewhatderanged in position. That idea has now passed away, the enemy havingre-established his communications, regained his positions, and actuallyreceived reinforcements. It does not now appear probable to me thatyou can gain anything by an early renewal of the attempt to cross theRappahannock. I therefore shall not complain if you do no more for a timethan to keep the enemy at bay and out of other mischief by menaces andoccasional cavalry raids, if practicable, and to put your own army in goodcondition again. Still, if in your own clear judgment you can renew theattack successfully, I do not mean to restrain you. Bearing upon this lastpoint, I must tell you that I have some painful intimations that someof your corps and division commanders are not giving you their entireconfidence. This would be ruinous, if true, and you should therefore, first of all, ascertain the real facts beyond all possibility of doubt. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

FACTIONAL QUARRELS

TELEGRAM TO H. T. BLOW AND OTHERS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 15, 1863. 

HON. H. T. BLOW, C. D. DRAKE, AND OTHERS, St. Louis, Mo. :

Your despatch of to-day is just received. It is very painful to me thatyou in Missouri cannot or will not settle your factional quarrel amongyourselves. I have been tormented with it beyond endurance for monthsby both sides. Neither side pays the least respect to my appeals to yourreason. I am now compelled to take hold of the case. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO JAMES GUTHRIE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, May 16, 1863. 

HON. JAMES GUTHRIE, Louisville, Ky. :

Your despatch of to-day is received. I personally know nothing of ColonelChurchill, but months ago and more than once he has been represented to meas exerting a mischievous influence at Saint Louis, for which reason Iam unwilling to force his continuance there against the judgment of ourfriends on the ground; but if it will oblige you, he may come to andremain at Louisville upon taking the oath of allegiance, and your pledgefor his good behavior. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY OF WAR. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, May 16, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--The commander of the Department at St. Louis has orderedseveral persons south of our military lines, which order is notdisapproved by me. Yet at the special request of the HON. James GuthrieI have consented to one of the number, Samuel Churchill, remaining atLouisville, Ky. , upon condition of his taking the oath of allegiance andMr. Gutlirie's word of honor for his good behavior. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ORDERS SENDING C. L. VALLANDIGHAM BEYOND MILITARY LINES. 

[Cipher. ]

UNITED STATES MILITARY TELEGRAPH, May 10, 1863. By telegraph fromWashington, 9. 40 PM, 1863

TO MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Commanding Department of Ohio. 

SIR:--The President directs that without delay you send C. L. Vallandighamunder secure guard to the Headquarters of General Rosecrans, to be put byhim beyond our military lines; and in case of his return within our lines, he be arrested and kept in close custody for the term specified in hissentence. 

By order of the President: E. R. S. CANBY, Assistant Adjutant-General. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 20, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL A. B. BURNSIDE, Commanding Department of Ohio, Cincinnati, O. 

Your despatch of three o'clock this afternoon to the Secretary of War hasbeen received and shown to the President. He thinks the best dispositionto be made of Vallandigham is to put him beyond the lines, as directed inthe order transmitted to you last evening, and directs that you executethat order by sending him forward under secure guard without delay toGeneral Rosecrans. 

By order of the President: ED. R. S. CANBY, Brigadier-General

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

WASHINGTON, May 20, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS:

Yours of yesterday in regard to Colonel Haggard is received. I am anxiousthat you shall not misunderstand me. In no case have I intended to censureyou or to question your ability. In Colonel Haggard's case I meant no morethan to suggest that possibly you might have been mistaken in a point thatcould [be] corrected. I frequently make mistakes myself in the many thingsI am compelled to do hastily. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

WASHINGTON, May 21, 1863. 4. 40 PM. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS:

For certain reasons it is thought best for Rev. Dr. Jaquess not to comehere. 

Present my respects to him, and ask him to write me fully on the subjecthe has in contemplation. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL S. A. HURLBUT. 

WASHINGTON, May 22, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HURLBUT, Memphis, Tenn. :

We have news here in the Richmond newspapers of 20th and 21st, includinga despatch from General Joe Johnston himself, that on the 15th or 16th--alittle confusion as to the day--Grant beat Pemberton and [W. W. ] Loringnear Edwards Station, at the end of a nine hours' fight, driving Pembertonover the Big Black and cutting Loring off and driving him south to CrystalSprings, twenty-five miles below Jackson. Joe Johnston telegraphedall this, except about Loring, from his camp between Brownsville andLexington, on the 18th. Another despatch indicates that Grant was movingagainst Johnston on the 18th. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO ANSON STAGER. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 24, 1863. 10. 40

ANSON STAGER, Cleveland, O. :

Late last night Fuller telegraphed you, as you say, that "the Stars andStripes float over Vicksburg and the victory is complete. " Did he knowwhat he said, or did he say it without knowing it? Your despatch of thisafternoon throws doubt upon it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL HAGGARD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON. May 25, 1863. 

COLONEL HAGGARD, Nashville, Tenn. :

Your despatch to Green Adams has just been shown me. General Rosecransknows better than we can know here who should be in charge of the FifthCavalry. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 26, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, O. :

Your despatch about Campbell, Lyle, and others received and postponementordered by you approved. I will consider and telegraph you again in a fewdays. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHENCK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 27, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md. :

Let the execution of William B. Compton be respited or suspended tillfurther order from me, holding him in safe custody meanwhile. On receivingthis notify me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR BUCKINGHAM. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 27, 1863. 

GOVERNOR BUCKINGHAM, Hartford, Conn. :

The execution of Warren Whitemarch is hereby respited or suspendeduntil further order from me, he to be held in safe custody meanwhile. Onreceiving this notify me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, May 27, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Murfreesborough, Tenn. :

Have you anything from Grant? Where is Forrest's headquarters?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL SCHOFIELD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON May 27, 1863. 

GENERAL JOHN M. SCHOFIELD. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Having relieved General Curtis and assigned you to thecommand of the Department of the Missouri, I think it may be of someadvantage for me to state why I did it. I did not relieve General Curtisbecause of any full conviction that he had done wrong by commission oromission. I did it because of a conviction in my mind that the Unionmen of Missouri, constituting, when united, a vast majority of thewhole people, have entered into a pestilent factional quarrel amongthemselves--General Curtis, perhaps not of choice, being the head of onefaction and Governor Gamble that of the other. After months of labor toreconcile the difficulty, it seemed to grow worse and worse, until I feltit my duty to break it up somehow; and as I could not remove GovernorGamble, I had to remove General Curtis. Now that you are in the position, I wish you to undo nothing merely because General Curtis or GovernorGamble did it, but to exercise your own judgment, and do right for thepublic interest. Let your military measures be strong enough to repel theinvader and keep the peace, and not so strong as to unnecessarily harassand persecute the people. It is a difficult role, and so much greater willbe the honor if you perform it well. If both factions, or neither, shallabuse you, you will probably be about right. Beware of being assailed byone and praised by the other. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, May 27, 1863. 11 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Have you Richmond papers of this morning? If so, what news?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO ERASTUS CORNING. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 28, 1863. 

HON. ERASTUS CORNING, Albany, N. Y. :

The letter of yourself and others dated the 19th and inclosing theresolutions of a public meeting held at Albany on the 16th, was receivednight before last. I shall give the resolutions the consideration you ask, and shall try to find time and make a respectful response. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

WASHINGTON, May 28, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Murfreesborough, Tenn. . 

I would not push you to any rashness, but I am very anxious that you doyour utmost, short of rashness, to keep Bragg from getting off to helpJohnston against Grant. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1863. 

GOVERNOR ANDREW JOHNSON, Louisville, Ky. :

General Burnside has been frequently informed lately that the divisionunder General Getty cannot be spared. I am sorry to have to tell you this, but it is true, and cannot be helped. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. K. DUBOIS AND OTHERS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 29, 1863. 

MESSRS. JESSE K. DUBOIS, O. M. HATCH, JOHN WILLIAMS, JACOB BUNN, JOHNBUNN, GEORGE R. WEBER, WILLIAM YATES, S. M. CULLOM, CHARLES W. MATHENY, WILLIAM F. ELKIN, FRANCIS SPRINGER, B. A. WATSON, ELIPHALET HAWLEY, ANDJAMES CAMPBELL. 

GENTLEMEN:--Agree among yourselves upon any two of your own number--oneof whom to be quartermaster and the other to be commissary to serve atSpringfield, Illinois, and send me their names, and I will appoint them. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE. 

WASHINGTON, May 29, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, O. :

Your despatch of to-day received. When I shall wish to supersede you Iwill let you know. All the Cabinet regretted the necessity of arresting, for instance, Vallandigham, some perhaps doubting there was a realnecessity for it; but, being done, all were for seeing you through withit. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL LUDLOW. 

[Cipher. ]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 1, 1863. 

COLONEL LUDLOW, Fort Monroe:

Richardson and Brown, correspondents of the Tribune captured at Vicksburg, are detained at Richmond. Please ascertain why they are detained, and getthem off if you can. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 2, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

It is said that Philip Margraf, in your army, is under sentence to beshot on Friday the 5th instant as a deserter. If so please send me up therecord of his case at once. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 2, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GRANT, Vicksburg, via Memphis:

Are you in communication with General Banks? Is he coming toward youor going farther off? Is there or has there been anything to hinder hiscoming directly to you by water from Alexandria?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER. [Cipher. ] EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 4, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Let execution of sentences in the cases of Daily, Margraf, and Harringtonbe respited till further orders from me, they remaining in close custodymeanwhile. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTTERFIELD. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 4, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTTERFIELD:

The news you send me from the Richmond Sentinel of the 3d must be greatlyif not wholly incorrect. The Thursday mentioned was the 28th, and we havedespatches here directly from Vicksburg of the 28th, 29th, 30th, and 31st;and, while they speak of the siege progressing, they speak of no assaultor general fighting whatever, and in fact they so speak as to almostexclude the idea that there can have been any since Monday the 25th, whichwas not very heavy. Neither do they mention any demand made by Grantupon Pemberton for a surrender. They speak of our troops as being in goodhealth, condition, and spirits. Some of them do say that Banks has PortHudson invested. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 4, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I have received additional despatches, which, withformer ones, induce me to believe we should revoke or suspend the ordersuspending the Chicago Times; and if you concur in opinion, please have itdone. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE 5, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Yours of to-day was received an hour ago. So much of professional militaryskill is requisite to answer it that I have turned the task over toGeneral Halleck. He promises to perform it with his utmost care. I havebut one idea which I think worth suggesting to you, and that is, in caseyou find Lee coming to the north of the Rappahannock, I would by nomeans cross to the south of it. If he should leave a rear forceat Fredericksburg, tempting you to fall upon it, it would fight inentrenchments and have you at advantage, and so, man for man, worst you atthat point, While his main force would in some way be getting an advantageof you northward. In one word, I would not take any risk of beingentangled up on the river like an ox jumped half over a fence and liableto be torn by dogs front and rear without a fair chance to gore one way orto kick the other. 

If Lee would come to my side of the river I would keep on the same sideand fight him, or act on the defensive, according as might be my estimateof his strength relatively to my own. But these are mere suggestions, which I desire to be controlled by the judgment of yourself and GeneralHalleck. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. GRIMSLEY. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 6, 1863. 

Mrs. ELIZABETH J. GRIMSLEY, Springfield, Ill. :

Is your John ready to enter the naval school? If he is, telegraph me hisfull name. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX, WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 6, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe, Va. :

By noticing the news you send from the Richmond Dispatch of this morningyou will see one of the very latest despatches says they have nothingreliable from Vicksburg since Sunday. Now we here have a despatchfrom there Sunday and others of almost every day preceding since theinvestment, and while they show the siege progressing they do not show anygeneral fighting since the 21st and 22d. We have nothing from Port Hudsonlater than the 29th when things looked reasonably well for us. I havethought this might be of some interest to you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 8, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe:

We have despatches from Vicksburg of the 3d. Siege progressing. No generalfighting recently. All well. Nothing new from Port Hudson. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. JUNE 8, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Fort Monroe:

The substance of news sent of the fighting at Port Hudson on the 27th wehave had here three or four days, and I supposed you had it also, whenI said this morning, "No news from Port Hudson. " We knew that GeneralSherman was wounded, but we hoped not so dangerously as your despatchrepresents. We still have nothing of that Richmond newspaper story ofKirby Smith crossing and of Banks losing an arm. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO J. P. HALE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 9, 1863. 

HON. JOHN P. HALE, Dover, N. H. :

I believe that it was upon your recommendation that B. B. Bunker wasappointed attorney for Nevada Territory. I am pressed to remove him on theground that he does not attend to the office, nor in fact pass much timein the Territory. Do you wish to say anything on the subject?

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 9, 1863. 

MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia, Pa. :

Think you had better put "Tad's" pistol away. I had an ugly dream abouthim. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. June 9, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

I am told there are 50 incendiary shells here at the arsenal made to fitthe 100 pounder Parrott gun now with you. If this be true would you liketo have the shells sent to you?

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 10, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Your long despatch of to-day is just received. If left to me, I would notgo south of the Rappahannock upon Lee's moving north of it. If you hadRichmond invested to-day you would not be able to take it in twenty days;meanwhile your communications, and with them your army, would be ruined. I think Lee's army, and not Richmond, is your true objective point. If hecomes towards the upper Potomac, follow on his flank, and on the insidetrack, shortening your lines while he lengthens his. Fight him, too, whenopportunity offers. If he stay where he is, fret him and fret him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 11, 1863. 

MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia:

Your three despatches received. I am very well and am glad to know thatyou and "Tad" are so. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

[Cipher. ]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, JUNE 12, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

If you can show me a trial of the incendiary shells on Saturday night, Iwill try to join you at 5 P. M. That day Answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO ERASTUS CORNING AND OTHERS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 12, 1863. 

HON. ERASTUS CORNING AND OTHERS. 

GENTLEMEN:--Your letter of May 19, inclosing the resolutions of a publicmeeting held at Albany, New York, on the 16th of the same month, wasreceived several days ago. 

The resolutions, as I understand them, are resolvable into twopropositions--first, the expression of a purpose to sustain the causeof the Union, to secure peace through victory, and to support theadministration in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress therebellion; and, secondly, a declaration of censure upon the administrationfor supposed unconstitutional action, such as the making of militaryarrests. And from the two propositions a third is deduced, which is thatthe gentlemen composing the meeting are resolved on doing their partto maintain our common government and country, despite the folly orwickedness, as they may conceive, of any administration. This position iseminently patriotic, and as such I thank the meeting, and congratulate thenation for it. My own purpose is the same; so that the meeting and myselfhave a common object, and can have no difference, except in the choice ofmeans or measures for effecting that object. 

And here I ought to close this paper, and would close it, if there were noapprehension that more injurious consequences than any merely personalto myself might follow the censures systematically cast upon me for doingwhat, in my view of duty, I could not forbear. The resolutions promiseto support me in every constitutional and lawful measure to suppress therebellion; and I have not knowingly employed, nor shall knowingly employ, any other. But the meeting, by their resolutions, assert and argue thatcertain military arrests, and proceedings following them, for which I amultimately responsible, are unconstitutional. I think they are not. Theresolutions quote from the Constitution the definition of treason, andalso the limiting safeguards and guarantees therein provided for thecitizen on trial for treason, and on his being held to answer for capitalor otherwise infamous crimes, and in criminal prosecutions his right toa speedy and public trial by an impartial jury. They proceed toresolve "that these safeguards of the rights of the citizen against thepretensions of arbitrary power were intended more especially for hisprotection in times of civil commotion. " And, apparently to demonstratethe proposition, the resolutions proceed: "They were secured substantiallyto the English people after years of protracted civil war, and wereadopted into our Constitution at the close of the Revolution. " Would notthe demonstration have been better if it could have been truly said thatthese safeguards had been adopted and applied during the civil wars andduring our Revolution, instead of after the one and at the close of theother? I too am devotedly for them after civil war, and before Civil war, and at all times, "except when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, thepublic safety may require" their suspension. The resolutions proceed totell us that these safeguards "have stood the test of seventy-six yearsof trial under our republican system, under circumstances which show that, while they constitute the foundation of all free government, they are theelements of the enduring stability of the republic. " No one denies thatthey have so stood the test up to the beginning of the present rebellion, if we except a certain occurrence at New Orleans hereafter to bementioned; nor does any one question that they will stand the same testmuch longer after the rebellion closes. But these provisions of theConstitution have no application to the case we have in hand, becausethe arrests complained of were not made for treason--that is, not for thetreason defined in the Constitution, and upon the conviction of which thepunishment is death--nor yet were they made to hold persons to answerfor any capital or otherwise infamous crimes; nor were the proceedingsfollowing, in any constitutional or legal sense, "criminal prosecutions. "The arrests were made on totally different grounds, and the proceedingsfollowing accorded with the grounds of the arrests. Let us consider thereal case with which we are dealing, and apply to it the parts of theConstitution plainly made for such cases. 

Prior to my installation here it had been inculcated that any State hada lawful right to secede from the national Union, and that it would beexpedient to exercise the right whenever the devotees of the doctrineshould fail to elect a president to their own liking. I was electedcontrary to their liking; and accordingly, so far as it was legallypossible, they had taken seven States out of the Union, had seized manyof the United States forts, and had fired upon the United States flag, allbefore I was inaugurated, and, of course, before I had done any officialact whatever. The rebellion thus begun soon ran into the present civilwar; and, in certain respects, it began on very unequal terms between theparties. The insurgents had been preparing for it more than thirty years, while the government had taken no steps to resist them. The former hadcarefully considered all the means which could be turned to their account. It undoubtedly was a well-pondered reliance with them that in their ownunrestricted effort to destroy Union, Constitution and law, all together, the government would, in great degree, be restrained by the sameConstitution and law from arresting their progress. Their sympathizersinvaded all departments of the government and nearly all communitiesof the people. From this material, under cover of "liberty of speech, ""liberty of the press, " and "habeas corpus, " they hoped to keep on footamongst us a most efficient corps of spies, informers, suppliers, andaiders and abettors of their cause in a thousand ways. They knew thatin times such as they were inaugurating, by the Constitution itself the"habeas corpus" might be suspended; but they also knew they had friendswho would make a question as to who was to suspend it; meanwhile theirspies and others might remain at large to help on their cause. Or if, ashas happened, the Executive should suspend the writ without ruinous wasteof time, instances of arresting innocent persons might occur, as arealways likely to occur in such cases; and then a clamor could be raised inregard to this, which might be at least of some service to the insurgentcause. It needed no very keen perception to discover this part of theenemies program, so soon as by open hostilities their machinery was fairlyput in motion. Yet, thoroughly imbued with a reverence for the guaranteedrights of individuals, I was slow to adopt the strong measures which bydegrees I have been forced to regard as being within the exceptions of theConstitution, and as indispensable to the public safety. Nothing is betterknown to history than that courts of justice are utterly incompetent tosuch cases. Civil courts are organized chiefly for trials ofindividuals--or, at most, a few individuals acting in concert, and this inquiet times, and on charges of crimes well defined in the law. Even intimes of peace bands of horse-thieves and robbers frequently grow toonumerous and powerful for the ordinary courts of justice. But whatcomparison, in numbers have such bands ever borne to the insurgentsympathizers even in many of the loyal States? Again, a jury toofrequently has at least one member more ready to hang the panel than tohang the traitor. And yet again, he who dissuades one man fromvolunteering, or induces one soldier to desert, weakens the Union cause asmuch as he who kills a Union soldier in battle. Yet this dissuasion orinducement may be so conducted as to be no defined crime of which anycivil court would take cognizance. 

Ours is a case of rebellion--so called by the resolutions before me--infact, a clear, flagrant, and gigantic case of rebellion; and the provisionof the Constitution that "the privilege of the writ of habeas corpusshall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, thepublic safety may require it, " is the provision which specially appliesto our present case. This provision plainly attests the understandingof those who made the Constitution that ordinary courts of justice areinadequate to "cases of rebellion"--attests their purpose that, in suchcases, men may be held in custody whom the courts, acting on ordinaryrules, would discharge. Habeas corpus does not discharge men who areproved to be guilty of defined crime, and its suspension is allowed by theConstitution on purpose that men may be arrested and held who can notbe proved to be guilty of defined crime, "when, in cases of rebellion orinvasion, the public safety may require it. "

This is precisely our present case--a case of rebellion wherein the publicsafety does require the suspension--Indeed, arrests by process of courtsand arrests in cases of rebellion do not proceed altogether upon the samebasis. The former is directed at the small percentage of ordinary andcontinuous perpetration of crime, while the latter is directed at suddenand extensive uprisings against the government, which, at most, willsucceed or fail in no great length of time. In the latter case arrestsare made not so much for what has been done as for what probably would bedone. The latter is more for the preventive and less for the vindictivethan the former. In such cases the purposes of men are much more easilyunderstood than in cases of ordinary crime. The man who stands by andsays nothing when the peril of his government is discussed, cannot bemisunderstood. If not hindered, he is sure to help the enemy; much moreif he talks ambiguously--talks for his country with "buts, " and "ifs, "and "ands. " Of how little value the constitutional provision I have quotedwill be rendered if arrests shall never be made until defined crimes shallhave been committed, may be illustrated by a few notable examples: GeneralJohn C. Breckinridge, General Robert E. Lee, General Joseph E. Johnston, General John B. Magruder, General William B. Preston, General Simon B. Buckner, and Commodore Franklin Buchanan, now occupying the very highestplaces in the rebel war service, were all within the power of thegovernment since the rebellion began, and were nearly as well known tobe traitors then as now. Unquestionably if we had seized and had themthe insurgent cause would be much weaker. But no one of them had thencommitted any crime defined in the law. Every one of them, if arrested, would have been discharged on habeas corpus were the writ allowed tooperate. In view of these and similar cases, I think the time not unlikelyto come when I shall be blamed for having made too few arrests rather thantoo many. 

By the third resolution the meeting indicate their opinion that militaryarrests may be constitutional in localities where rebellion actuallyexists, but that such arrests are unconstitutional in localities whererebellion or insurrection does not actually exist. They insist that sucharrests shall not be made "outside of the lines of necessary militaryoccupation and the scenes of insurrection. " Inasmuch, however, as theConstitution itself makes no such distinction, I am unable to believe thatthere is any such constitutional distinction. I concede that the classof arrests complained of can be constitutional only when, in cases ofrebellion or invasion, the public safety may require them; and I insistthat in such cases--they are constitutional wherever the public safetydoes require them, as well in places to which they may prevent therebellion extending, as in those where it may be already prevailing; aswell where they may restrain mischievous interference with the raising andsupplying of armies to suppress the rebellion as where the rebellion mayactually be; as well where they may restrain the enticing men out ofthe army as where they would prevent mutiny in the army; equallyconstitutional at all places where they will conduce to the public safetyas against the dangers of rebellion or invasion. Take the particularcase mentioned by the meeting. It is asserted in substance that Mr. Vallandigham was, by a military commander, seized and tried "for no otherreason than words addressed to a public meeting in criticism of the courseof the administration, and in condemnation of the military orders of thegeneral. " Now, if there be no mistake about this, if this assertion is thetruth, and the whole truth, if there were no other reason for the arrest, then I concede that the arrest was wrong. But the arrest, as I understand, was made for a very different reason. Mr. Vallandigham avows his hostilityto the war on the part of the Union; and his arrest was made becausehe was laboring, with some effect, to prevent the raising of troops, toencourage desertions from the army, and to leave the rebellion without anadequate military force to suppress it. He was not arrested because hewas damaging the political prospects of the administration or the personalinterests of the commanding general, but because he was damaging the army, upon the existence and vigor of which the life of the nation depends. Hewas warring upon the military, and thus gave the military constitutionaljurisdiction to lay hands upon him. If Mr. Vallandigham was not damagingthe military power of the country, then his arrest was made on mistakeof fact, which I would be glad to correct on reasonably satisfactoryevidence. 

I understand the meeting whose resolutions I am considering to be in favorof suppressing the rebellion by military force--by armies. Long experiencehas shown that armies cannot be maintained unless desertion shall bepunished by the severe penalty of death. The case requires, and the lawand the Constitution sanction, this punishment. Must I shoot asimple-minded boy and not touch a hair of a wily agitator who induced himto desert. This is none the less injurious when effected by getting afather, or brother, or friend into a public meeting, and there workingupon his feelings till he is persuaded to write the soldier boy that he isfighting in a bad cause, for a wicked administration of a contemptiblegovernment, too weak to arrest and punish him if he shall desert. I thinkthat, in such a case, to silence the agitator and save the boy is not onlyconstitutional, but withal a great mercy. 

If I be wrong on this question of constitutional power, my error lies inbelieving that certain proceedings are constitutional when, in cases ofrebellion or invasion, the public safety requires them, which would notbe constitutional when, in absence of rebellion or invasion, the publicsafety does not require them: in other words, that the Constitution isnot in its application in all respects the same in cases of rebellion orinvasion involving the public safety as it is in times of profound peaceand public security. The Constitution itself makes the distinction, and Ican no more be persuaded that the government can constitutionally takeno strong measures in time of rebellion, because it can be shown thatthe same could not be lawfully taken in times of peace, than I can bepersuaded that a particular drug is not good medicine for a sick manbecause it can be shown to not be good food for a well one. Nor am I ableto appreciate the danger apprehended by the meeting, that the Americanpeople will by means of military arrests during the rebellion lose theright of public discussion, the liberty of speech and the press, the lawof evidence, trial by jury, and habeas corpus throughout the indefinitepeaceful future which I trust lies before them, any more than I am able tobelieve that a man could contract so strong an appetite for emetics duringtemporary illness as to persist in feeding upon them during the remainderof his healthful life. 

In giving the resolutions that earnest consideration which you request ofme, I cannot overlook the fact that the meeting speak as "Democrats. "Nor can I, with full respect for their known intelligence, and the fairlypresumed deliberation with which they prepared their resolutions, bepermitted to suppose that this occurred by accident, or in any way otherthan that they preferred to designate themselves "Democrats" rather than"American citizens. " In this time of national peril I would have preferredto meet you upon a level one step higher than any party platform, becauseI am sure that from such more elevated position we could do better battlefor the country we all love than we possibly can from those lower oneswhere, from the force of habit, the prejudices of the past, and selfishhopes of the future, we are sure to expend much of our ingenuity andstrength in finding fault with and aiming blows at each other. But sinceyou have denied me this I will yet be thankful for the country's sake thatnot all Democrats have done so. He on whose discretionary judgment Mr. Vallandigham was arrested and tried is a Democrat, having no old partyaffinity with me, and the judge who rejected the constitutional viewexpressed in these resolutions, by refusing to discharge Mr. Vallandighamon habeas corpus is a Democrat of better days than these, having receivedhis judicial mantle at the hands of President Jackson. And still more: ofall those Democrats who are nobly exposing their lives and shedding theirblood on the battle-field, I have learned that many approve the coursetaken with Mr. Vallandigham, while I have not heard of a single onecondemning it. I cannot assert that there are none such. And the nameof President Jackson recalls an instance of pertinent history. After thebattle of New Orleans, and while the fact that the treaty of peace hadbeen concluded was well known in the city, but before official knowledgeof it had arrived, General Jackson still maintained martial or militarylaw. Now that it could be said that the war was over, the clamor againstmartial law, which had existed from the first, grew more furious. Amongother things, a Mr. Louaillier published a denunciatory newspaper article. General Jackson arrested him. A lawyer by the name of Morel procured theUnited States Judge Hall to order a writ of habeas corpus to release Mr. Louaillier. General Jackson arrested both the lawyer and the judge. A Mr. Hollander ventured to say of some part of the matter that "it was a dirtytrick. " General Jackson arrested him. When the officer undertook to servethe writ of habeas corpus, General Jackson took it from him, and sent himaway with a copy. Holding the judge in custody a few days, the generalsent him beyond the limits of his encampment, and set him at liberty withan order to remain till the ratification of peace should be regularlyannounced, or until the British should have left the southern coast. A dayor two more elapsed, the ratification of the treaty of peace was regularlyannounced, and the judge and others were fully liberated. A few days more, and the judge called General Jackson into court and fined him $1000 forhaving arrested him and the others named. The General paid the fine, andthen the matter rested for nearly thirty years, when Congress refundedprincipal and interest. The late Senator Douglas, then in the Houseof Representatives, took a leading part in the debates, in which theconstitutional question was much discussed. I am not prepared to say whomthe journals would show to have voted for the measure. 

It may be remarked--first, that we had the same Constitution then as now;secondly, that we then had a case of invasion, and now we have a case ofrebellion; and, thirdly, that the permanent right of the people to publicdiscussion, the liberty of speech and of the press, the trial by jury, thelaw of evidence, and the habeas corpus suffered no detriment whateverby that conduct of General Jackson, or its subsequent approval by theAmerican Congress. 

And yet, let me say that, in my own discretion, I do not know whether Iwould have ordered the arrest of Mr. Vallandigham. While I cannot shiftthe responsibility from myself, I hold that, as a general rule, thecommander in the field is the better judge of the necessity in anyparticular case. Of course I must practice a general directory andrevisory power in the matter. 

One of the resolutions expresses the opinion of the meeting that arbitraryarrests will have the effect to divide and distract those who should beunited in suppressing the rebellion, and I am specifically called on todischarge Mr. Vallandigham. I regard this as, at least, a fair appeal tome on the expediency of exercising a constitutional power which I thinkexists. In response to such appeal I have to say, it gave me pain whenI learned that Mr. Vallandigham had been arrested (that is, I was painedthat there should have seemed to be a necessity for arresting him), andthat it will afford me great pleasure to discharge him so soon as I can byany means believe the public safety will not suffer by it. 

I further say that, as the war progresses, it appears to me, opinion andaction, which were in great confusion at first, take shape and fall intomore regular channels, so that the necessity for strong dealing with themgradually decreases. I have every reason to desire that it should ceasealtogether, and far from the least is my regard for the opinions andwishes of those who, like the meeting at Albany, declare their purposeto sustain the government in every constitutional and lawful measure tosuppress the rebellion. Still, I must continue to do so much as may seemto be required by the public safety. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, June 14, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

SIR:--Your note of this morning is received. You will co-operate by therevenue cutters under your direction with the navy in arresting rebeldepredations on American commerce and transportation and in capturingrebels engaged therein. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL TYLER. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 14, 1863. 

GENERAL TYLER, Martinsburg: Is Milroy invested so that he cannot fall backto Harper's Ferry?

A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO A "BESIEGED" GENERAL

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL TYLER. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 14, 1863. 

GENERAL TYLER, Martinsburg:

If you are besieged, how do you despatch me? Why did you not leave beforebeing besieged?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL KELLEY. 

WASHINGTON, June 14, 1863. 1. 27 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL KELLEY, Harper's Ferry:

Are the forces at Winchester and Martinsburg making any effort to get toyou?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 14, 1863. 3. 50 P. M. , MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

So far as we can make out here, the enemy have Muroy surrounded atWinchester, and Tyler at Martinsburg. If they could hold out a few days, could you help them? If the head of Lee's army is at Martinsburg and thetail of it on the plank-road between Fredericksburg and Chancellorsville, the animal must be very slim somewhere; could you not break him?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL R. C. SCHENCK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 14, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK:

Get General Milroy from Winchester to Harper's Ferry, if possible. He willbe "gobbled up" if he remains, if he is not already past salvation. 

A. LINCOLN, President, United States. 

NEEDS NEW TIRES ON HIS CARRIAGE

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 15, 1863. 

MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia, Pa. :

Tolerably well. Have not rode out much yet, but have at last got new tireson the carriage wheels and perhaps shall ride out soon. 

A. LINCOLN. 

CALL FOR 100, 000 MILITIA TO SERVE FOR SIX MONTHS, JUNE 15, 1863. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation

Whereas the armed insurrectionary combinations now existing in several ofthe States are threatening to make inroads into the States of Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Ohio, requiring immediately an additionalmilitary force for the service of the United States:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States andCommander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof and of the militia of theseveral States when called into actual service, do hereby call into theservice of the United States 100, 000 militia from the States following, namely:

From the State of Maryland, 10, 000; from the State of Pennsylvania, 50, 000; from the State of Ohio, 30, 000; from the State of West Virginia, 10, 000--to be mustered into the service of the United States forthwith andto serve for a period of six months from the date of such muster intosaid service, unless sooner discharged; to be mustered in as infantry, artillery, and cavalry, in proportions which will be made known throughthe War Department, which Department will also designate the severalplaces of rendezvous. These militia to be organized according to the rulesand regulations of the volunteer service and such orders as may hereafterbe issued. The States aforesaid will be respectively credited under theenrollment act for the militia services entered under this proclamation. In testimony whereof. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO P. KAPP AND OTHERS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 10, 1863

FREDERICK KAPP AND OTHERS, New York:

The Governor of New York promises to send us troops, and if he wishes theassistance of General Fremont and General Sigel, one or both, he can haveit. If he does not wish them it would but breed confusion for us to setthem to work independently of him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEAGHER. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 16, 1863. 

GENERAL T. FRANCIS MEAGHER, New York:

Your despatch received. Shall be very glad for you to raise 3000 Irishtroops if done by the consent of and in concert with Governor Seymour. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 16, 1863. 

MRS. LINCOLN, Philadelphia:

It is a matter of choice with yourself whether you come home. There isno reason why you should not, that did not exist when you went away. Asbearing on the question of your coming home, I do not think the raid intoPennsylvania amounts to anything at all. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL BLISS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 16, 1863. 

COL. WILLIAM S. BLISS, New York Hotel:

Your despatch asking whether I will accept "the Loyal Brigade of theNorth" is received. I never heard of that brigade by name and do not knowwhere it is; yet, presuming it is in New York, I say I will gladly acceptit, if tendered by and with the consent and approbation of the Governor ofthat State. Otherwise not. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, June 16, 1863. 10 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

To remove all misunderstanding, I now place you in the strict militaryrelation to General Halleck of a commander of one of the armies to thegeneral-in-chief of all the armies. I have not intended differently, butas it seems to be differently understood I shall direct him to give youorders and you to obey them. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

WAR DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON D. C. , June 17, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Mr. Eckert, superintendent in the telegraph office, assures me that he hassent and will send you everything that comes to the office. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO JOSHUA TEVIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 17, 1863. 

JOSHUA TEVIS, Esq. , U. S. Attorney, Frankfort, Ky. :

A Mr. Burkner is here shoving a record and asking to be discharged from asuit in San Francisco, as bail for one Thompson. Unless the recordshown me is defectively made out I think it can be successfully defendedagainst. Please examine the case carefully and, if you shall be of opinionit cannot be sustained, dismiss it and relieve me from all trouble aboutit. Please answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR TOD. 

[Cipher. ]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 18, 1863. 

GOVERNOR D. TOD, Columbus, O. :

Yours received. I deeply regret that you were not renominated, not thatI have aught against Mr. Brough. On the contrary, like yourself, I sayhurrah for him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DINGMAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 18, 1863. 

GENERAL A. DINGMAN, Belleville, C. W. :

Thanks for your offer of the Fifteenth Battalion. I do not thinkWashington is in danger. 

A. LINCOLN

TO B. B. MALHIOT AND OTHERS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 19, 1863. 

MESSRS. B. B. MALHIOT, BRADISH JOHNSON, AND THOMAS COTTMAN. 

GENTLEMEN:--Your letter, which follows, has been received and Considered. 

"The undersigned, a committee appointed by the planters of the State ofLouisiana, respectfully represent that they have been delegated to seek ofthe General Government a full recognition of all the rights of the Stateas they existed previous to the passage of an act of secession, upon theprinciple of the existence of the State constitution unimpaired, and nolegal act having transpired that could in any way deprive them of theadvantages conferred by that constitution. Under this constitution theState wishes to return to its full allegiance, in the enjoyment of allrights and privileges exercised by the other States under the FederalConstitution. With the view of accomplishing the desired object, wefurther request that your Excellency will, as commander-in-chief of thearmy of the United States, direct the Military Governor of Louisiana toorder an election, in conformity with the constitution and laws of theState, on the first Monday of November next, for all State and Federalofficers. 

"With high consideration and resect, we have the honor to subscribeourselves, "Your obedient servants, "E. E. MALHIOT. "BRADISH JOHNSON. "THOMAS COTTMAN. "

Since receiving the letter, reliable information has reached me that arespectable portion of the Louisiana people desire to amend their Stateconstitution, and contemplate holding a State convention for that object. This fact alone, as it seems to me, is a sufficient reason why the GeneralGovernment should not give the committal you seek to the existing Stateconstitution. I may add that, while I do not perceive how such committalcould facilitate our military operations in Louisiana, I really apprehendit might be so used as to embarrass them. 

As to an election to be held next November, there is abundant time withoutany order or proclamation from me just now. The people of Louisiana shallnot lack an opportunity for a fair election for both Federal and Stateofficers by want of anything within my power to give them. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL J. M. SCHOFIELD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON

June 22, 1863. 

GENERAL JOHN M. SCHOFIELD. MY DEAR SIR:--Your despatch, asking insubstance whether, in case Missouri shall adopt gradual emancipation, theGeneral Government will protect slave owners in that species of propertyduring the short time it shall be permitted by the State to exist withinit, has been received. Desirous as I am that emancipation shall be adoptedby Missouri, and believing as I do that gradual can be made better thanimmediate for both black and white, except when military necessity changesthe case, my impulse is to say that such protection would be given. Icannot know exactly what shape an act of emancipation may take. If theperiod from the initiation to the final end should be comparatively short, and the act should prevent persons being sold during that period into morelasting slavery, the whole would be easier. I do not wish to pledge theGeneral Government to the affirmative support of even temporary slaverybeyond what can be fairly claimed under the Constitution. I suppose, however, this is not desired, but that it is desired for the militaryforce of the United States, while in Missouri, to not be used insubverting the temporarily reserved legal rights in slaves during theprogress of emancipation. This I would desire also. I have very earnestlyurged the slave States to adopt emancipation; and it ought to be, and is, an object with me not to overthrow or thwart what any of them may in goodfaith do to that end. You are therefore authorized to act in the spiritof this letter in conjunction with what may appear to be the militarynecessities of your department. Although this letter will become public atsome time, it is not intended to be made so now. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. HOOKER. 

WASHINGTON, June 22, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

Operator at Leesburg just now says: "I heard very little firing this A. M. About daylight, but it seems to have stopped now. It was in about the samedirection as yesterday, but farther off. "

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY OF WAR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 23, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR:

You remember that Hon. W. D. Kelly and others are engaged in raising ortrying to raise some colored regiments in Philadelphia. The bearer ofthis, Wilton M. Huput, is a friend of Judge Kelly, as appears by theletter of the latter. He is a private in the 112th Penn. And has beendisappointed in a reasonable expectation of one of the smaller offices. He now wants to be a lieutenant in one of the colored regiments. If JudgeKelly will say in writing he wishes to so have him, I am willing for himto be discharged from his present position, and be so appointed. If youapprove, so indorse and let him carry the letter to Kelly. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MAJOR VAN VLIET. 

[Cipher. ]

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 23, 1863. 

MAJOR VAN VLIET, New York:

Have you any idea what the news is in the despatch of General Banks toGeneral Halleck?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL COUCH. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, June 24, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL COUCH, Harrisburg, Pa. :

Have you any reports of the enemy moving into Pennsylvania? And if any, what?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX. 

WASHINGTON, June 24, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, Yorktown, Va. :

We have a despatch from General Grant of the 19th. Don't think Kirby Smithtook Milliken's Bend since, allowing time to get the news to Joe Johnstonand from him to Richmond. But it is not absolutely impossible. Alsohave news from Banks to the 16th, I think. He had not run away then, northought of it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL PECK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 25, 1863. 

GENERAL PECK, Suffolk, Va. :

Colonel Derrom, of the Twenty-fifth New Jersey Volunteers, now musteredout, says there is a man in your hands under conviction for desertion, who formerly belonged to the above named regiment, and whose name isTempleton--Isaac F. Templeton, I believe. The Colonel and others appeal tome for him. Please telegraph to me what is the condition of the case, and if he has not been executed send me the record of the trial andconviction. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SLOCUM. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 25, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SLOCUM, Leesburg, Va. :

Was William Gruvier, Company A, Forty-sixth, Pennsylvania, one of the menexecuted as a deserter last Friday?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HOOKER. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 27, 1863. 8A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HOOKER:

It did not come from the newspapers, nor did I believe it, but I wished tobe entirely sure it was a falsehood. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 28, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, O. :

There is nothing going on in Kentucky on the subject of which youtelegraph, except an enrolment. Before anything is done beyond this, Iwill take care to understand the case better than I now do. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR BOYLE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 28, 1863. 

GOVERNOR J. T. BOYLE, Cincinnati, O. :

There is nothing going on in Kentucky on the subject of which youtelegraph, except an enrolment. Before anything is done beyond this, Iwill take care to understand the case better than I now do. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHENCK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 28, 1863. 

MAJOR GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md. :

Every place in the Naval school subject to my appointment is full, and Ihave one unredeemed promise of more than half a year's standing. 

A. LINCOLN. 

FURTHER DEMOCRATIC PARTY CRITICISM

TO M. BIRCHARD AND OTHERS. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 29, 1863. 

MESSRS. M. BIRCHARD, DAVID A. HOUK, et al:

GENTLEMEN:--The resolutions of the Ohio Democratic State convention, whichyou present me, together with your introductory and closing remarks, being in position and argument mainly the same as the resolutions of theDemocratic meeting at Albany, New York, I refer you to my response to thelatter as meeting most of the points in the former. 

This response you evidently used in preparing your remarks, and I desireno more than that it be used with accuracy. In a single reading of yourremarks, I only discovered one inaccuracy in matter, which I suppose youtook from that paper. It is where you say: "The undersigned are unable toagree with you in the opinion you have expressed that the Constitution isdifferent in time of insurrection or invasion from what it is in time ofpeace and public security. "

A recurrence to the paper will show you that I have not expressed theopinion you suppose. I expressed the opinion that the Constitution isdifferent in its application in cases of rebellion or invasion, involvingthe public safety, from what it is in times of profound peace andpublic security; and this opinion I adhere to, simply because, by theConstitution itself, things may be done in the one case which may not bedone in the other. 

I dislike to waste a word on a merely personal point, but I mustrespectfully assure you that you will find yourselves at fault shouldyou ever seek for evidence to prove your assumption that I "opposed indiscussions before the people the policy of the Mexican war. "

You say: "Expunge from the Constitution this limitation upon the powerof Congress to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and yet the otherguarantees of personal liberty would remain unchanged. " Doubtless, if thisclause of the Constitution, improperly called, as I think, a limitationupon the power of Congress, were expunged, the other guarantees wouldremain the same; but the question is not how those guarantees would standwith that clause out of the Constitution, but how they stand with thatclause remaining in it, in case of rebellion or invasion involving thepublic safety. If the liberty could be indulged of expunging that clause, letter and spirit, I really think the constitutional argument would bewith you. 

My general view on this question was stated in the Albany response, andhence I do not state it now. I only add that, as seems to me, thebenefit of the writ of habeas corpus is the great means through which theguarantees of personal liberty are conserved and made available inthe last resort; and corroborative of this view is the fact that Mr. Vallandigham, in the very case in question, under the advice of ablelawyers, saw not where else to go but to the habeas corpus. But by theConstitution the benefit of the writ of habeas corpus itself may besuspended when, in case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety mayrequire it. 

You ask, in substance, whether I really claim that I may override all theguaranteed rights of individuals, on the plea of conserving the publicsafety when I may choose to say the public safety requires it. Thisquestion, divested of the phraseology calculated to represent me asstruggling for an arbitrary personal prerogative, is either simply aquestion who shall decide, or an affirmation that nobody shall decide, what the public safety does require in cases of rebellion or invasion. 

The Constitution contemplates the question as likely to occur fordecision, but it does not expressly declare who is to decide it. Bynecessary implication, when rebellion or invasion comes, the decision isto be made from time to time; and I think the man whom, for the time, thepeople have, under the Constitution, made the commander-in-chief of theirarmy and navy, is the man who holds the power and bears the responsibilityof making it. If he uses the power justly, the same people will probablyjustify him; if he abuses it, he is in their hands to be dealt with by allthe modes they have reserved to themselves in the Constitution. 

The earnestness with which you insist that persons can only, in timesof rebellion, be lawfully dealt with in accordance with the rules forcriminal trials and punishments in times of peace, induces me to add aword to what I said on that point in the Albany response. 

You claim that men may, if they choose, embarrass those whose duty it isto combat a giant rebellion, and then be dealt with in turn only as ifthere were no rebellion. The Constitution itself rejects this view. Themilitary arrests and detentions which have been made, including those ofMr. Vallandigham, which are not different in principle from the others, have been for prevention, and not for punishment--as injunctions to stayinjury, as proceedings to keep the peace; and hence, like proceedingsin such cases and for like reasons, they have not been accompanied withindictments, or trials by juries, nor in a single case by any punishmentwhatever, beyond what is purely incidental to the prevention. The originalsentence of imprisonment in Mr. Vallandigham's case was to prevent injuryto the military service only, and the modification of it was made as aless disagreeable mode to him of securing the same prevention. 

I am unable to perceive an insult to Ohio in the case of Mr. Vallandigham. Quite surely nothing of the sort was or is intended. I was wholly unawarethat Mr. Vallandigham was, at the time of his arrest, a candidate for theDemocratic nomination for governor until so informed by your reading to methe resolutions of the convention. I am grateful to the State of Ohio formany things, especially for the brave soldiers and officers she has givenin the present national trial to the armies of the Union. 

You claim, as I understand, that according to my own position in theAlbany response, Mr. Vallandigham should be released; and this because, as you claim, he has not damaged the military service by discouragingenlistments, encouraging desertions, or otherwise; and that if he had, he should have been turned over to the civil authorities under the recentacts of Congress. I certainly do not know that Mr. Vallandigham hasspecifically and by direct language advised against enlistments and infavor of desertion and resistance to drafting. 

We all know that combinations, armed in some instances, to resist thearrest of deserters began several months ago; that more recently the likehas appeared in resistance to the enrolment preparatory to a draft; andthat quite a number of assassinations have occurred from the same animus. These had to be met by military force, and this again has led to bloodshedand death. And now, under a sense of responsibility more weighty andenduring than any which is merely official, I solemnly declare my beliefthat this hindrance of the military, including maiming and murder, isdue to the course in which Mr. Vallandigham has been engaged in a greaterdegree than to any other cause; and it is due to him personally in agreater degree than to any other one man. 

These things have been notorious, known to all, and of course known to Mr. Vallandigham. Perhaps I would not be wrong to say they originated withhis special friends and adherents. With perfect knowledge of them, he hasfrequently if not constantly made speeches in Congress and before popularassemblies; and if it can be shown that, with these things staring him inthe face he has ever uttered a word of rebuke or counsel against them, itwill be a fact greatly in his favor with me, and one of which as yet I amtotally ignorant. When it is known that the whole burden of his speecheshas been to stir up men against the prosecution of the war, and that inthe midst of resistance to it he has not been known in any instance tocounsel against such resistance, it is next to impossible to repel theinference that he has counseled directly in favor of it. 

With all this before their eyes, the convention you represent havenominated Mr. Vallandigham for governor of Ohio, and both they andyou have declared the purpose to sustain the national Union by allconstitutional means. But of course they and you in common reserve toyourselves to decide what are constitutional means; and, unlike the Albanymeeting, you omit to state or intimate that in your opinion an army is aconstitutional means of saving the Union against a rebellion, or even tointimate that you are conscious of an existing rebellion being in progresswith the avowed object of destroying that very Union. At the same timeyour nominee for governor, in whose behalf you appeal, is known to youand to the world to declare against the use of an army to suppress therebellion. Your own attitude, therefore, encourages desertion, resistanceto the draft, and the like, because it teaches those who incline to desertand to escape the draft to believe it is your purpose to protect them, andto hope that you will become strong enough to do so. 

After a short personal intercourse with you, gentlemen of the committee, I cannot say I think you desire this effect to follow your attitude; butI assure your that both friends and enemies of the Union look upon it inthis light. It is a substantial hope, and by consequence a real strengthto the enemy. If it is a false hope, and one which you would willinglydispel, I will make the way exceedingly easy. 

I send you duplicates of this letter in order that you, or a majority ofyou, may, if you choose, indorse your names upon one of them and return itthus indorsed to me with the understanding that those signing are therebycommitted to the following propositions and to nothing else:

1. That there is now a rebellion in the United States, the object andtendency of which is to destroy the National Union; and that, in youropinion, an army and navy are constitutional means for suppressing thatrebellion;

2. That no one of you will do anything which, in his own judgment, will tend to hinder the increase, or favor the decrease, or lessen theefficiency of the army or navy while engaged in the effort to suppressthat rebellion; and

3. That each of you will, in his sphere, do all he can to have theofficers, soldiers, and seamen of the army and navy, while engaged inthe effort to suppress the rebellion, paid, fed, clad, and otherwise wellprovided for and supported. 

And with the further understanding that upon receiving the letter andnames thus indorsed, I will cause them to be published, which publicationshall be, within itself, a revocation of the order in relation to Mr. Vallandigham. It will not escape observation that I consent to the releaseof Mr. Vallandigham upon terms not embracing any pledge from him or fromothers as to what he will or will not do. I do this because he is notpresent to speak for himself, or to authorize others to speak for him;and because I should expect that on his returning he would not put himselfpractically in antagonism with the position of his friends. But I do itchiefly because I thereby prevail on other influential gentlemen of Ohioto so define their position as to be of immense value to the army--thusmore than compensating for the consequences of any mistake in allowing Mr. Vallandigham to return; so that, on the whole, the public safety will nothave suffered by it. Still, in regard to Mr. Vallandigham and all others, I must hereafter, as heretofore, do so much as the public safety may seemto require. 

I have the honor to be respectfully yours, etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR PARKER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 30, 1863. 10. 55

GOVERNOR PARKER, Trenton, N. J. :

Your despatch of yesterday received. I really think the attitude of theenemy's army in Pennsylvania presents us the best opportunity we have hadsince the war began. I think you will not see the foe in New Jersey. I begyou to be assured that no one out of my position can know so well as ifhe were in it the difficulties and involvements of replacing GeneralMcClellan in command, and this aside from any imputations upon him. 

Please accept my sincere thanks for what you have done and are doing toget troops forward. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO A. K. McCLURE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, June 30, 1863. 

A. K. McCLURE, Philadelphia:

Do we gain anything by opening one leak to stop another? Do we gainanything by quieting one merely to open another, and probably a largerone?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL COUCH. [Cipher] WASHINGTON CITY, June 30, 1863. 3. 23P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL COUCH, Harrisburg, Pa. :

I judge by absence of news that the enemy is not crossing or pressing upto the Susquehanna. Please tell me what you know of his movements. 

A. LINCOLN

TO GENERAL D. HUNTER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 30, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER. 

MY DEAR GENERAL:--I have just received your letter of the 25th of June. 

I assure you, and you may feel authorized in stating, that the recentchange of commanders in the Department of the South was made for noreasons which convey any imputation upon your known energy, efficiency, and patriotism; but for causes which seemed sufficient, while they were inno degree incompatible with the respect and esteem in which I have alwaysheld you as a man and an officer. 

I cannot, by giving my consent to a publication of whose details I knownothing, assume the responsibility of whatever you may write. In thismatter your own sense of military propriety must be your guide, and theregulations of the service your rule of conduct. 

I am very truly your friend, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 3, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, Ohio:

Private Downey, of the Twentieth or Twenty-sixth Kentucky Infantry, is said to have been sentenced to be shot for desertion to-day. If so, respite the execution until I can see the record. 

A. LINCOLN. 

REASSURING SON IN COLLEGE

TELEGRAM TO ROBERT T, LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 3, 1863. 

ROBERT T. LINCOLN, Esq. , Cambridge, Mass. :

Don't be uneasy. Your mother very slightly hurt by her fall. 

A. L. 

Please send at once. 

ANNOUNCEMENT OF NEWS FROM GETTYSBURG. 

WASHINGTON, July 4, 10. 30 A. M. 

The President announces to the country that news from the Army of thePotomac, up to 10 P. M. Of the 3d, is such as to cover that army with thehighest honor, to promise a great success to the cause of the Union, andto claim the condolence of all for the many gallant fallen; and thatfor this he especially desires that on this day He whose will, notours, should ever be done be everywhere remembered and reverenced withprofoundest gratitude. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FRENCH. [Cipher] WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 5, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FRENCH, Fredericktown, Md. :

I see your despatch about destruction of pontoons. Cannot the enemy fordthe river?

A. LINCOLN. 

CONTINUED FAILURE TO PURSUE ENEMY

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

SOLDIERS' HOME, WASHINGTON, JULY 6 1863. 7 P. M. , MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK:

I left the telegraph office a good deal dissatisfied. You know I did notlike the phrase--in Orders, No. 68, I believe--"Drive the invaders fromour soil. " Since that, I see a despatch from General French, saying theenemy is crossing his wounded over the river in flats, without sayingwhy he does not stop it, or even intimating a thought that it ought tobe stopped. Still later, another despatch from General Pleasonton, bydirection of General Meade, to General French, stating that the main armyis halted because it is believed the rebels are concentrating "on theroad towards Hagerstown, beyond Fairfield, " and is not to move until it isascertained that the rebels intend to evacuate Cumberland Valley. 

These things appear to me to be connected with a purpose to coverBaltimore and Washington and to get the enemy across the river againwithout a further collision, and they do not appear connected with apurpose to prevent his crossing and to destroy him. I do fear the formerpurpose is acted upon and the latter rejected. 

If you are satisfied the latter purpose is entertained, and is judiciouslypursued, I am content. If you are not so satisfied, please look to it. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO A SERENADE, JULY 7, 1863. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I am very glad indeed to see you to-night, and yet Iwill not say I thank you for this call; but I do most sincerely thankAlmighty God for the occasion on which you have called. How long ago is itEighty-odd years since, on the Fourth of July, for the first time in thehistory of the world, a nation, by its representatives, assembled anddeclared as a self-evident truth "that all men are created equal. " Thatwas the birthday of the United States of America. Since then the Fourthof July has had several very peculiar recognitions. The two men mostdistinguished in the framing and support of the Declaration were ThomasJefferson and John Adams, the one having penned it, and the othersustained it the most forcibly in debate--the only two of the fifty-fivewho signed it and were elected Presidents of the United States. Preciselyfifty years after they put their hands to the paper, it pleasedAlmighty God to take both from this stage of action. This was indeed anextraordinary and remarkable event in our history. Another President, fiveyears after, was called from this stage of existence on the same day andmonth of the year; and now on this last Fourth of July just passed, whenwe have a gigantic rebellion, at the bottom of which is an effort tooverthrow the principle that all men were created equal, we have thesurrender of a most powerful position and army on that very day. And notonly so, but in the succession of battles in Pennsylvania, near to us, through three days, so rapidly fought that they might be called one greatbattle, on the first, second, and third of the month of July; and on thefourth the cohorts of those who opposed the Declaration that all men arecreated equal, "turned tail" and run. 

Gentlemen, this is a glorious theme, and the occasion for a speech, but Iam not prepared to make one worthy of the occasion. I would like to speakin terms of praise due to the many brave officers and soldiers who havefought in the cause of the Union and liberties of their country from thebeginning of the war. These are trying occasions, not only in success, but for the want of success. I dislike to mention the name of one singleofficer, lest I might do wrong to those I might forget. Recent eventsbring up glorious names, and particularly prominent ones; but these I willnot mention. Having said this much, I will now take the music. 

SURRENDER OF VICKSBURG TO GENERAL GRANT

TELEGRAM FROM GENERAL HALLECK TO GENERAL G. C. MEADE. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 7, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of the Potomac:

I have received from the President the following note, which Irespectfully communicate:

"We have certain information that Vicksburg surrendered to General Granton the Fourth of July. Now if General Meade can complete his work, sogloriously prosecuted this far, by the literal or substantial destructionof Lee's army, the rebellion will be over. 

"Yours truly, "A. LINCOLN. "

H. W. HALLECK. General-in-Chief. 

TELEGRAM FROM GENERAL HALLECK TO GENERAL G. C. MEADE. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 8, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Frederick, Md. :

There is reliable information that the enemy is crossing at Williamsport. The opportunity to attack his divided forces should not be lost. ThePresident is urgent and anxious that your army should move against him byforced marches. 

H. W. HALLECK, General-in-Chief

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL THOMAS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, July 8, 1863. 12. 30 P. M. 

GENERAL LORENZO THOMAS, Harrisburg, Pa. :

Your despatch of this morning to the Secretary of War is before me. Theforces you speak of will be of no imaginable service if they cannot goforward with a little more expedition. Lee is now passing the Potomacfaster than the forces you mention are passing Carlisle. Forces now beyondCarlisle to be joined by regiments still at Harrisburg, and the unitedforce again to join Pierce somewhere, and the whole to move down theCumberland Valley, will in my unprofessional opinion be quite as likely tocapture the "man in the moon" as any part of Lee's army. 

A. LINCOLN. 

NEWS OF GRANT'S CAPTURE OF VICKSBURG

TELEGRAM TO E. D. SMITH. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 8, 1863. 

E. DELAFIELD SMITH, New York:

Your kind despatch in behalf of self and friends is gratefully received. Capture of Vicksburg confirmed by despatch from General Grant himself. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO F. F. LOWE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 8, 1863. 

HON. F. F. LOWE, San Francisco, Cal. :

There is no doubt that General Meade, now commanding the Army of thePotomac, beat Lee at Gettysburg, Pa. , at the end of a three days' battle, and that the latter is now crossing the Potomac at Williamsport over theswollen stream and with poor means of crossing, and closely pressedby Meade. We also have despatches rendering it entirely certain thatVicksburg surrendered to General Grant on the glorious old 4th. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO L. SWETT AND P. F. LOWE. 

[Cipher. ]

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , July 9, 1863. 

HON. LEONARD SWETT, HON. F. F. LOWE, San Francisco, Cal. :

Consult together and do not have a riot, or great difficulty aboutdelivering possession. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. K. DUBOIS. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 11, 1863. 9 A. M. 

HON. J. K. DUBOIS, Springfield, Ill. :

It is certain that, after three days' fighting at Gettysburg, Lee withdrewand made for the Potomac, that he found the river so swollen as toprevent his crossing; that he is still this side, near Hagerstown andWilliamsport, preparing to defend himself; and that Meade is close uponhim, and preparing to attack him, heavy skirmishing having occurred nearlyall day yesterday. 

I am more than satisfied with what has happened north of the Potomac sofar, and am anxious and hopeful for what is to come. 

A. LINCOLN. 

 [Nothing came! Lee was allowed to escape again and the war went on for another two years. D. W. ]

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHENCK. 

[Cipher. ]

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, July 11, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md. :

How many rebel prisoners captured within Maryland and Pennsylvania havereached Baltimore within this month of July?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 13, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GRANT:

MY DEAR GENERAL:--I do not remember that you and I ever met personally. I write this now as a grateful acknowledgment of the almost inestimableservice you have done the Country. I write to say a word further. When youfirst reached the vicinity of Vicksburg, I thought you should do what youfinally did--march the troops across the neck, run the batteries with thetransports, and thus go below; and I never had any faith except a generalhope that you knew better than I, that the Yazoo Pass expedition and thelike could succeed. When you dropped below, and took Port Gibson, GrandGulf, and vicinity, I thought you should go down the river and joinGeneral Banks; and when you turned northward, east of the Big Black, Ifeared it was a mistake. I now wish to make the personal acknowledgmentthat you were right and I was wrong. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. M. SCHOFIELD. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, July 13, 1863. 

GENERAL SCHOFIELD. St. Louis, Mo. :

I regret to learn of the arrest of the Democrat editor. I fear this losesyou the middle position I desired you to occupy. I have not learned whichof the two letters I wrote you it was that the Democrat published, but Icare very little for the publication of any letter I have written. Pleasespare me the trouble this is likely to bring. 

A. LINCOLN. 

SON IN COLLEGE DOES NOT WRITE HIS PARENTS

TELEGRAM TO R. T. LINCOLN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON D. C. , July 14, 1863. 

ROBERT T. LINCOLN: New York, Fifth Avenue Hotel:

Why do I hear no more of you?

A. LINCOLN. 

INTIMATION OF ARMISTICE PROPOSALS

FROM JAMES R. GILMORE TO GOVERNOR VANCE OF NORTH CAROLINA, WITH THE PRESIDENT'S INDORSEMENT. 

PRESIDENT'S ROOM, WHITE HOUSE, WASHINGTON, July [15?] 1864. 

HIS EXCELLENCY ZEBULON B. VANCE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--My former business partner, Mr. Frederic Kidder, of Boston, has forwarded to me a letter he has recently received from his brother, Edward Kidder, of Wilmington, in which (Edward Kidder) says that he hashad an interview with you in which you expressed an anxiety for any peacecompatible with honor; that you regard slavery as already dead, and theestablishment of the Confederacy as hopeless; and that you should exertall your influence to bring about any reunion that would admit the Southon terms of perfect equality with the North. 

On receipt of this letter I lost no time in laying it before the Presidentof the United States, who expressed great gratification at hearing suchsentiments from you, one of the most influential and honored of theSouthern governors, and he desires me to say that he fully shares youranxiety for the restoration of peace between the States and for a reunionof all the States on the basis of the abolition of slavery--the bone weare fighting over--and the full reinstatement of every Confederate citizenin all the rights of citizenship in our common country. These pointsconceded, the President authorizes me to say that he will be glad toreceive overtures from any man, or body of men, who have authority tocontrol the armies of the Confederacy; and that he and the United StatesCongress will be found very liberal on all collateral points that may comeup in the settlement. 

His views on the collateral points that may naturally arise, the Presidentdesires me to say he will communicate to you through me if you shouldsuggest the personal interview that Mr. Edward Kidder recommends in hisletter to his brother. In that case you will please forward to me, throughMr. Kidder, your official permit, as Governor of North Carolina, to enterand leave the State, and to remain in it in safety during the pendencyof these negotiations, which, I suppose, should be conducted in entiresecrecy until they assume an official character. With high consideration, I am, Sincerely yours, JAMES R. GILMORE. 

 [Indorsement. ]

This letter has been written in my presence, has been read by me, and hasmy entire approval. A. L. 

PROCLAMATION FOR THANKSGIVING, JULY 15, 1863

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

It has pleased Almighty God to hearken to the supplications and prayers ofan afflicted people, and to vouchsafe to the army and navy of the UnitedStates victories on land and on the sea so signal and so effective asto furnish reasonable grounds for augmented confidence that the Union ofthese States will be maintained, their Constitution preserved, and theirpeace and prosperity permanently restored. But these victories havebeen accorded not without sacrifices of life, limb, health, and liberty, incurred by brave, loyal, and patriotic citizens. Domestic afflictionin every part of the country follows in the train of these fearfulbereavements. It is meet and right to recognize and confess the presenceof the Almighty Father, and the power of His hand equally in thesetriumphs and in these sorrows. 

Now, therefore, be it known that I do set apart Thursday, the 6th day ofAugust next, to be observed as a day for national thanksgiving, praise, and prayer, and I invite the people of the United States to assemble onthat occasion in their customary places of worship, and, in the formsapproved by their own consciences, render the homage due to the DivineMajesty for the wonderful things He has done in the nation's behalf, andinvoke the influence of His Holy Spirit to subdue the anger which hasproduced and so long sustained a needless and cruel rebellion, to changethe hearts of the insurgents, to guide the counsels of the Government withwisdom adequate to so great a national emergency, and to visit with tendercare and consolation throughout the length and breadth of our land allthose who, through the vicissitudes of marches, voyages, battles, andsieges have been, brought to suffer in mind, body, or estate, and finallyto lead the whole nation through the paths of repentance and submissionto the Divine Will back to the perfect enjoyment of union and fraternalpeace. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this fifteenth day of July, in the yearof our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of theindependence of the United States of America the eighty-eighth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By, the President WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO L. SWETT. 

[Cipher. ]

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, July 15, 1863. 

HON. L SWETT, San Francisco, Cal. :

Many persons are telegraphing me from California, begging me for the peaceof the State to suspend the military enforcement of the writ of possessionin the Almaden case, while you are the single one who urges the contrary. You know I would like to oblige you, but it seems to me my duty in thiscase is the other way. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SIMON CAMERON. 

[Cipher. ]

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, JULY 15, 1863. 

HON. SIMON CAMERON, Harrisburg, Pa. :

Your despatch of yesterday received. Lee was already across the riverwhen you sent it. I would give much to be relieved of the impression thatMeade, Couch, Smith, and all since the battle at Gettysburg, have strivenonly to get Lee over the river without another fight. Please tell me, if you know, who was the one corps commander who was for fighting in thecouncil of war on Sunday night. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. O. BROADHEAD. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , JULY 15, 1863. 

J. O. BROADHEAD, St. Louis, Mo. :

The effect on political position of McKee's arrest will not be relievedany by its not having been made with that purpose. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL LANE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 17 1863. 

HON. S. H. LANE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Governor Carney has not asked to [have] General Bluntremoved, or interfered with, in his military operations. He has asked thathe, the Governor, be allowed to commission officers for troops raised inKansas, as other governors of loyal States do; and I think he is right inthis. 

He has asked that General Blunt shall not take persons charged with civilcrimes out of the hands of the courts and turn them over to mobs to behung; and I think he is right in this also. He has asked that GeneralEwing's department be extended to include all Kansas; and I have notdetermined whether this is right or not. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR MORTON. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 18, 1863. 

GOVERNOR O. P. MORTON, Indianapolis:

What do you remember about the case of John O. Brown, convicted ofmutinous conduct and sentenced to death? What do you desire about it?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR PARKER

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON

July 20, 1863. 

HIS EXCELLENCY JOEL PARKER, Governor of New Jersey. 

DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 15th has been received, and considered by theSecretary of War and myself. I was pained to be informed this morning bythe Provost-Marshal-General that New Jersey is now behind twelve thousand, irrespective of the draft. I did not have time to ascertain by what rulesthis was made out; and I shall be very glad if it shall, by any means, prove to be incorrect. He also tells me that eight thousand will be aboutthe quota of New Jersey on the first draft; and the Secretary of Warsays the first draft in that State would not be made for some time in anyevent. As every man obtained otherwise lessens the draft so much, and thismay supersede it altogether, I hope you will push forward your volunteerregiments as fast as possible. 

It is a very delicate matter to postpone the draft in one State, becauseof the argument it furnishes others to have postponement also. If we couldhave a reason in one case which would be good if presented in all cases, we could act upon it. 

I will thank you, therefore, to inform me, if you can, by what day, atthe earliest, you can promise to have ready to be mustered into the UnitedStates service the eight thousand men. 

If you can make a reliable promise (I mean one which you can rely onyourself) of this sort, it will be of great value, if the day is not tooremote. 

I beg you to be assured I wish to avoid the difficulties you dread as muchas yourself. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN

TO GENERAL SCHOFIELD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON D. C. JULY 20, 1863

MAJOR GENERAL JOHN M. SCHOFIELD. 

MY DEAR GENERAL:--I have received and read your letter of the 14th ofJuly. 

I think the suggestion you make, of discontinuing proceedings againstMr. McKee, a very proper one. While I admit that there is an apparentimpropriety in the publication of the letter mentioned, without my consentor yours, it is still a case where no evil could result, and which I amentirely willing to overlook. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. M. SCHOFIELD

WASHINGTON, D. C. JULY 22, 1863

MAJOR GENERAL SCHOFIELD, St. Louis, Mo. :

The following despatch has been placed in my hands. Please look to thesubject of it. 

LEXINGTON, Mo. , JULY 21, 1863 HON. S C. POMEROY: Under Orders No. 63 thesheriff is arresting slaves of rebels inside our lines, and returning themin great numbers. Can he do it? Answer. GOULD. 

A. LINCOLN

TO POSTMASTER-GENERAL BLAIR

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, JULY 24, 1863. 

HON. POSTMASTER-GENERAL

SIR:-Yesterday little indorsements of mine went to you in two casesof postmasterships sought for widows whose husbands have fallen in thebattles of this war. These cases occurring on the same day brought me toreflect more attentively than I had before done, as to what is fairly duefrom us herein the dispensing of patronage toward the men who, by fightingour battles, bear the chief burden of serving our country. My conclusionis that, other claims and qualifications being equal, they have the betterright and this is especially applicable to the disabled and the soldier, deceased soldier's family. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN

TO SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 25, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF THE NAVY. 

SIR:--Certain matters have come to my notice, and considered by me, whichinduce me to believe that it will conduce to the public interest foryou to add to the general instructions given to our naval commanders inrelation to contraband trade propositions substantially as follows, towit:

First. You will avoid the reality, and as far as possible the appearance, of using any neutral port to watch neutral vessels and then to dart outand seize them on their departure. 

NOTE. --Complaint is made that this has been practiced at the port of StThomas, which practice, if it exists, is disapproved and must cease. 

Second. You will not in any case detain the crew of a captured neutralvessel or any other subject of a neutral power on board such vessel, as prisoners of war or otherwise, except the small number necessary aswitnesses in the prize court. 

NOTE. -The practice here forbidden is also charged to exist, which, iftrue, is disapproved and must cease. 

My dear sir, it is not intended to be insinuated that you have beenremiss in the performance of the arduous and responsible duties of yourdepartment, which, I take pleasure in affirming, has in your hands beenconducted with admirable success. Yet, while your subordinates are almostof necessity brought into angry collision with the subjects of foreignstates, the representatives of those states and yourself do not come intoimmediate contact for the purpose of keeping the peace, in spite of suchcollisions. At that point there is an ultimate and heavy responsibilityupon me. 

What I propose is in strict accordance with international law, and istherefore unobjectionable; whilst, if it does no other good, it willcontribute to sustain a considerable portion of the present Britishministry in their places, who, if displaced, are sure to be replaced byothers more unfavorable to us. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN

LETTER TO GOVERNOR PARKER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 25, 1863. 

HIS EXCELLENCY GOVERNOR JOEL PARKER. 

SIR:--Yours of the 21st is received, and I have taken time and consideredand discussed the subject with the Secretary of War and Provost-MarshalGeneral, in order, if possible, to make you a more favorable answer than Ifinally find myself able to do. 

It is a vital point with us to not have a special stipulation with thegovernor of any one State, because it would breed trouble in many, if notall, other States; and my idea was when I wrote you, as it still is, toget a point of time to which we could wait, on the reason that we were notready ourselves to proceed, and which might enable you to raise the quotaof your State, in whole, or in large part, without the draft. The pointsof time you fix are much farther off than I had hoped. We might have gotalong in the way I have indicated for twenty, or possibly thirty, days. Asit stands, the best I can say is that every volunteer you will present uswithin thirty days from this date, fit and ready to be mustered into theUnited States service, on the usual terms, shall be pro tanto an abatementof your quota of the draft. That quota I can now state at eight thousandseven hundred and eighty-three (8783). No draft from New Jersey, otherthan for the above quota, will be made before an additional draft, commonto [all] the States, shall be required; and I may add that if we get wellthrough with this draft, I entertain a strong hope that any furtherone may never be needed. This expression of hope, however, must not beconstrued into a promise. 

As to conducting the draft by townships, I find it would require such awaste of labor already done, and such an additional amount of it, and sucha loss of time, as to make it, I fear, inadmissible. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --Since writing the above, getting additional information, Iam enabled to say that the draft may be made in subdistricts, as theenrolment has been made, or is in process of making. This will amountpractically to drafting by townships, as the enrollment subdistricts aregenerally about the extent of townships. A. L. 

To GENERAL G. G. MEADE. (Private. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 27, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE:

I have not thrown General Hooker away; and therefore I would like to knowwhether it would be agreeable to you, all things considered, for him totake a corps under you, if he himself is willing to do so. Write me inperfect freedom, with the assurance that I will not subject you to anyembarrassment by making your letter or its contents known to any one. Iwish to know your wishes before I decide whether to break the subjectto him. Do not lean a hair's breadth against your own feelings, or yourjudgment of the public service, on the idea of gratifying me. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. B. BURNSIDE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, July 27, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cincinnati, O. :

Let me explain. In General Grant's first despatch after the fall ofVicksburg, he said, among other things, he would send the Ninth Corps toyou. Thinking it would be pleasant to you, I asked the Secretary of War totelegraph you the news. For some reasons never mentioned to us by GeneralGrant, they have not been sent, though we have seen outside intimationsthat they took part in the expedition against Jackson. General Grant isa copious worker and fighter, but a very meager writer or telegrapher. No doubt he changed his purpose in regard to the Ninth Corps for somesufficient reason, but has forgotten to notify us of it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 29, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK:

Seeing General Meade's despatch of yesterday to yourself causes me to fearthat he supposes the Government here is demanding of him to bring on ageneral engagement with Lee as soon as possible. I am claiming no suchthing of him. In fact, my judgment is against it; which judgment, ofcourse, I will yield if yours and his are the contrary. If he could notsafely engage Lee at Williamsport, it seems absurd to suppose he cansafely engage him now, when he has scarcely more than two thirds ofthe force he had at Williamsport, while it must be that Lee has beenreinforced. True, I desired General Meade to pursue Lee across thePotomac, hoping, as has proved true, that he would thereby clear theBaltimore and Ohio Railroad, and get some advantages by harassing him onhis retreat. These being past, I am unwilling he should now get into ageneral engagement on the impression that we here are pressing him, andI shall be glad for you to so inform him, unless your own judgment isagainst it. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

H. W. HALLECK, General-in-Chief. 

TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 29, 1863

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

SIR:--Can we not renew the effort to organize a force to go to westernTexas?

Please consult with the general-in-chief on the subject. 

If the Governor of New Jersey shall furnish any new regiments, might notthey be put into such an expedition? Please think of it. 

I believe no local object is now more desirable. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER OF RETALIATION. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 30, 1863. 

It is the duty of every government to give protection to its citizens, ofwhatever class, color, or condition, and especially to those who are dulyorganized as soldiers in the public service. The law of nations and theusages and customs of war, as carried on by civilized powers, permit nodistinction as to color in the treatment of prisoners of war as publicenemies. To sell or enslave any captured person, on account of his colorand for no offense against the laws of war, is a relapse into barbarism, and a crime against the civilization of the age. 

The Government of the United States will give the same protection to allits soldiers; and if the enemy shall sell or enslave any one because ofhis color, the offense shall be punished by retaliation upon the enemy'sprisoners in our possession. 

It is therefore ordered that for every soldier of the United States killedin violation of the laws of war, a rebel soldier shall be executed; andfor every one enslaved by the enemy or sold into slavery, a rebel soldiershall be placed at hard labor on the public works, and continued at suchlabor until the other shall be released and receive the treatment due to aprisoner of war. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL S. A. HURLBUT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 31, 1863. 

MY DEAR GENERAL HURLBUT:

Your letter by Mr. Dana was duly received. I now learn that yourresignation has reached the War Department. I also learn that an activecommand has been assigned you by General Grant. The Secretary of War andGeneral Halleck are very partial to you, as you know I also am. We allwish you to reconsider the question of resigning; not that we wouldwish to retain you greatly against your wish and interest, but that yourdecision may be at least a very well-considered one. 

I understand that Senator [William K. ] Sebastian, of Arkansas, thinks ofoffering to resume his place in the Senate. Of course the Senate, and notI, would decide whether to admit or reject him. Still I should feel greatinterest in the question. It may be so presented as to be one of the verygreatest national importance; and it may be otherwise so presented as tobe of no more than temporary personal consequence to him. 

The Emancipation Proclamation applies to Arkansas. I think it is validin law, and will be so held by the courts. I think I shall not retractor repudiate it. Those who shall have tasted actual freedom I believe cannever be slaves or quasi-slaves again. For the rest, I believe some plansubstantially being gradual emancipation would be better for both whiteand black. The Missouri plan recently adopted, I do not object to onaccount of the time for ending the institution; but I am sorry thebeginning should have been postponed for seven years, leaving all thattime to agitate for the repeal of the whole thing. It should begin atonce, giving at least the new-born a vested interest in freedom whichcould not be taken away. If Senator Sebastian could come with somethingof this sort from Arkansas, I, at least, should take great interest in hiscase; and I believe a single individual will have scarcely done the worldso great a service. See him if you can, and read this to him; but chargehim not to make it public for the present. Write me again. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM FROM GOVERNOR SEYMOUR. 

ALBANY, August 1, 1863. Recvd 2 P. M. 

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

I ask that the draft be suspended in this State until I can send you acommunication I am preparing. 

HORATIO SEYMOUR. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR SEYMOUR

WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 1, 1863. 4 P. M. 

HIS EXCELLENCY GOVERNOR SEYMOUR, Albany, N. Y. :

By what day may I expect your communication to reach me? Are you anxiousabout any part except the city and vicinity?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FOSTER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 3, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FOSTER (or whoever may be in command of the militarydepartment with headquarters at Fort Monroe, Va. ):

If Dr. Wright, on trial at Norfolk, has been or shall be convicted, sendme a transcript of his trial and conviction, and do not let execution bedone upon him until my further order. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL N. P. BANKS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 5, 1863. 

MY DEAR GENERAL BANKS:

While I very well know what I would be glad for Louisiana to do, it isquite a different thing for me to assume direction of the matter. I wouldbe glad for her to make a new constitution, recognizing the emancipationproclamation, and adopting emancipation in those parts of the State towhich the proclamation does not apply. And while she is at it, I think itwould not be objectionable for her to adopt some practical system by whichthe two races could gradually live themselves out of their old relation toeach other, and both come out better prepared for the new. Educationfor young blacks should be included in the plan. After all, the power orelement of "contract" may be sufficient for this probationary period, andby its simplicity and flexibility may be the better. 

As an antislavery man, I have a motive to desire emancipation whichproslavery men do not have but even they have strong enough reason tothus place themselves again under the shield of the Union, and to thusperpetually hedge against the recurrence of the scenes through which weare now passing. 

Governor Shepley has informed me that Mr. Durant is now taking a registry, with a view to the election of a constitutional convention in Louisiana. This, to me, appears proper. If such convention were to ask my views, Icould present little else than what I now say to you. I think the thingshould be pushed forward, so that, if possible, its mature work may reachhere by the meeting of Congress. 

For my own part, I think I shall not, in any event, retract theemancipation proclamation: nor, as executive, ever return to slavery anyperson who is free by the terms of that proclamation, or by any of theacts of Congress. 

If Louisiana shall send members to Congress, their admission to seatswill depend, as you know, upon the respective Houses, and not upon thePresident. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR SEYMOUR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 7, 1863. 

HIS EXCELLENCY HORATIO SEYMOUR, Governor of New York:

Your communication of the 3rd instant has been received and attentivelyconsidered. 

I cannot consent to suspend the draft in New York, as you request, because, among other reasons, time is too important. 

By the figures you send, which I presume are correct, the twelve districtsrepresented fall into two classes of eight and four respectively. Thedisparity of the quotas for the draft in these two classes is certainlyvery striking, being the difference between an average of 2200 in oneclass and 4864 in the other. Assuming that the districts are equal one toanother in entire population, as required by the plan on which they weremade, this disparity is such as to require attention. Much of it, however, I suppose will be accounted for by the fact that so many more persons fitfor soldiers are in the city than are in the country who have too recentlyarrived from other parts of the United States and from Europe to be eitherincluded in the census of 1860, or to have voted in 1862. Still, makingdue allowance for this, I am yet unwilling to stand upon it as an entirelysufficient explanation of the great disparity. 

I shall direct the draft to proceed in all the districts, drawing, however, at first from each of the four districts--to wit, the Second, Fourth, Sixth, and Eighth--only, 2200 being the average quota of the otherclass. After this drawing, these four districts, and also the Seventeenthand Twenty-ninth, shall be carefully re-enrolled; and, if you please, agents of yours may witness every step of the process. Any deficiencywhich may appear by the new enrolment will be supplied by a special draftfor that object, allowing due credit for volunteers who may be obtainedfrom these districts respectively during the interval; and at all points, so far as consistent with practical convenience, due credits shall begiven for volunteers, and your Excellency shall be notified of the timefixed for commencing the draft in each district. 

I do not object to abide a decision of the United States Supreme Court, orof the judges thereof, on the constitutionality of the draft law. Infact, I should be willing to facilitate the obtaining of it. But I cannotconsent to lose the time while it is being obtained. We are contendingwith an enemy who, as I understand, drives every able-bodied man he canreach into his ranks, very much as a butcher drives bullocks into theslaughter-pen. No time is wasted, no argument is used. This produces anarmy which will soon turn upon our now victorious soldiers already in thefield, if they shall not be sustained by recruits as they should be. Itproduces an army with a rapidity not to be matched on our side if we firstwaste time to re-experiment with the volunteer system, already deemed byCongress, and palpably, in fact, so far exhausted as to be inadequate;and then more time to obtain a court decision as to whether a law isconstitutional, which requires a part of those not now in the serviceto go to the aid of those who are already in it; and still more time todetermine with absolute certainty that we get those who are to go in theprecisely legal proportion to those who are not to go. My purpose is to bein my action just and constitutional, and yet practical, in performing theimportant duty with which I am charged, of maintaining the unity and thefree principles of our common country. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, August 9, 1863. 

MY DEAR GENERAL GRANT:

I see by a despatch of yours that you incline quite strongly toward anexpedition against Mobile. This would appear tempting to me also, were itnot that in view of recent events in Mexico I am greatly impressed withthe importance of re-establishing the national authority in western Texasas soon as possible. I am not making an order, however; that I leave, forthe present at least, to the general-in-chief. 

A word upon another subject: General Thomas has gone again to theMississippi Valley, with the view of raising colored troops. I have noreason to doubt that you are doing what you reasonably can upon the samesubject. I believe it is a resource which if vigorously applied nowwill soon close the contest. It works doubly, weakening the enemy andstrengthening us. We were not fully ripe for it until the river wasopened. Now, I think at least one hundred thousand can and ought to berapidly organized along its shores, relieving all white troops to serveelsewhere. Mr. Dana understands you as believing that the EmancipationProclamation has helped some in your military operations. I am very gladif this is so. 

Did you receive a short letter from me dated the 13th of July?

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 10, 1863. 

MY DEAR GENERAL ROSECRANS:

Yours of the 1st was received two days ago. I think you must have inferredmore than General Halleck has intended, as to any dissatisfaction of minewith you. I am sure you, as a reasonable man, would not have been woundedcould you have heard all my words and seen all my thoughts in regard toyou. I have not abated in my kind feeling for and confidence in you. Ihave seen most of your despatches to General Halleck--probably all ofthem. After Grant invested Vicksburg I was very anxious lest Johnstonshould overwhelm him from the outside, and when it appeared certain thatpart of Bragg's force had gone and was going to Johnston, it did seem tome it was exactly the proper time for you to attack Bragg with what forcehe had left. In all kindness let me say it so seems to me yet. Findingfrom your despatches to General Halleck that your judgment was different, and being very anxious for Grant, I, on one occasion, told General HalleckI thought he should direct you to decide at once to immediately attackBragg or to stand on the defensive and send part of your force to Grant. He replied he had already so directed in substance. Soon after, despatchesfrom Grant abated my anxiety for him, and in proportion abated my anxietyabout any movement of yours. When afterward, however, I saw a despatch ofyours arguing that the right time for you to attack Bragg was not before, but would be after, the fall of Vicksburg, it impressed me very strangely, and I think I so stated to the Secretary of War and General Halleck. Itseemed no other than the proposition that you could better fight Braggwhen Johnston should be at liberty to return and assist him than you couldbefore he could so return to his assistance. 

Since Grant has been entirely relieved by the fall of Vicksburg, by whichJohnston is also relieved, it has seemed to me that your chance for astroke has been considerably diminished, and I have not been pressing youdirectly or indirectly. True, I am very anxious for East Tennessee to beoccupied by us; but I see and appreciate the difficulties you mention. Thequestion occurs, Can the thing be done at all? Does preparation advance atall? Do you not consume supplies as fast as you get them forward? Have youmore animals to-day than you had at the battle of Stone's River? Andyet have not more been furnished you since then than your entire presentstock? I ask the same questions as to your mounted force. 

Do not misunderstand: I am not casting blame upon you; I rather thinkby great exertion you can get to East Tennessee; but a very importantquestion is, Can you stay there? I make no order in the case--that I leaveto General Halleck and yourself. 

And now be assured once more that I think of you in all kindness andconfidence, and that I am not watching you with an evil eye. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR SEYMOUR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, August 11. 1863. 

HIS EXCELLENCY HORATIO SEYMOUR, Governor of New York:

Yours of the 8th, with Judge-Advocate-General Waterbury's report, wasreceived to-day. 

Asking you to remember that I consider time as being very important, bothto the general cause of the country and to the soldiers in the field, Ibeg to remind you that I waited, at your request, from the 1st until the6th inst. , to receive your communication dated the 3d. In view ofits great length, and the known time and apparent care taken in itspreparation, I did not doubt that it contained your full case as youdesired to present it. It contained the figures for twelve districts, omitting the other nineteen, as I suppose, because you found nothing tocomplain of as to them. I answered accordingly. In doing so I laid downthe principle to which I purpose adhering, which is to proceed with thedraft, at the same time employing infallible means to avoid any greatwrong. With the communication received to-day you send figures fortwenty-eight districts, including the twelve sent before, and stillomitting three, for which I suppose the enrolments are not yet received. In looking over the fuller list of twenty-eight districts, I find that thequotas for sixteen of them are above 2000 and below 2700, while, of therest, six are above 2700 and six are below 2000. Applying the principle tothese new facts, the Fifth and Seventh districts must be added to the fourin which the quotas have already been reduced to 2200 for the first draft;and with these four others just be added to those to be re-enrolled. Thecorrect case will then stand: the quotas of the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, and Eighth districts fixed at 2200 for the first draft. The Provost-Marshal-General informs me that the drawing is alreadycompleted in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Eighteenth, Twenty-second, Twenty-fourth, Twenty-sixth, Twenty-seventh, Twenty-eighth, Twenty-ninth, and Thirtieth districts. In the others, except the three outstanding, thedrawing will be made upon the quotas as now fixed. After the first draft, the Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Seventh, Eighth, Sixteenth, Seventeenth, Twenty-first, Twenty-fifth, Twenty-ninth, and Thirty-first will beenrolled for the purpose and in the manner stated in my letter of the 7thinst. The same principle will be applied to the now outstanding districtswhen they shall come in. No part of my former letter is repudiated byreason of not being restated in this, or for any other cause. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL J. A. McCLERNAND. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 12, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL McCLERNAND. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Our friend William G. Greene has just presented a kindletter in regard to yourself, addressed to me by our other friends Yates, Hatch, and Dubois. 

I doubt whether your present position is more painful to you than tomyself. Grateful for the patriotic stand so early taken by you in thislife-and-death struggle of the nation, I have done whatever has appearedpracticable to advance you and the public interest together. No charges, with a view to a trial, have been preferred against you by any one; nor doI suppose any will be. All there is, so far as I have heard, is GeneralGrant's statement of his reasons for relieving you. And even this I havenot seen or sought to see; because it is a case, as appears to me, inwhich I could do nothing without doing harm. General Grant and yourselfhave been conspicuous in our most important successes; and for me tointerfere and thus magnify a breach between you could not but be of evileffect. Better leave it where the law of the case has placed it. For me toforce you back upon General Grant would be forcing him to resign. I cannotgive you a new command, because we have no forces except such as alreadyhave commanders. 

I am constantly pressed by those who scold before they think, or withoutthinking at all, to give commands respectively to Fremont, McClellan, Butler, Sigel, Curtis, Hunter, Hooker, and perhaps others, when, all elseout of the way, I have no commands to give them. This is now your case;which, as I have said, pains me not less than it does you. My belief isthat the permanent estimate of what a general does in the field is fixedby the "cloud of witnesses" who have been with him in the field, and that, relying on these, he who has the right needs not to fear. 

Your friend as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR SEYMOUR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, AUGUST 16, 1863. 

GOVERNOR SEYMOUR, New York:

Your despatch of this morning is just received, and I fear I do notperfectly understand it. 

My view of the principle is that every soldier obtained voluntarily leavesone less to be obtained by draft. The only difficulty is in applying theprinciple properly. Looking to time, as heretofore, I am unwilling togive up a drafted man now, even for the certainty, much less for the merechance, of getting a volunteer hereafter. Again, after the draft in anydistrict, would it not make trouble to take any drafted man out and put avolunteer in--for how shall it be determined which drafted man is to havethe privilege of thus going out, to the exclusion of all the others? Andeven before the draft in any district the quota must be fixed; and thedraft must be postponed indefinitely if every time a volunteer is offeredthe officers must stop and reconstruct the quota. At least I fear theremight be this difficulty; but, at all events, let credits for volunteersbe given up to the last moment which will not produce confusion or delay. That the principle of giving credits for volunteers shall be applied bydistricts seems fair and proper, though I do not know how far by presentstatistics it is practicable. When for any cause a fair credit is notgiven at one time, it should be given as soon thereafter as practicable. My purpose is to be just and fair, and yet to not lose time. 

A. LINCOLN

To J. H. HACKETT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON August 17, 1863. 

JAMES H. HACKETT, Esq. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Months ago I should have acknowledged the receipt of yourbook and accompanying kind note; and I now have to beg your pardon for nothaving done so. 

For one of my age I have seen very little of the drama. The firstpresentation of Falstaff I ever saw was yours here, last winter or spring. Perhaps the best compliment I can pay is to say, as I truly can, I am veryanxious to see it again. Some of Shakespeare's plays I have never read, while others I have gone over perhaps as frequently as any un-professionalreader. Among the latter are Lear, Richard III. , Henry VIII. , Hamlet, andespecially Macbeth. I think nothing equals Macbeth. It is wonderful. 

Unlike you gentlemen of the profession, I think the soliloquy in Hamletcommencing "Oh, my offense is rank, " surpasses that commencing "To be ornot to be. " But pardon this small attempt at criticism. I should like tohear you pronounce the opening speech of Richard III. Will you not soonvisit Washington again? If you do, please call and let me make yourpersonal acquaintance. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN

TO F. F. LOWE. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 17, 1863. 

HON. P. F. LOWE, San Francisco, Cal. :

There seems to be considerable misunderstanding about the recent movementto take possession of the "New Almaden" mine. It has no reference to anyother mine or mines. 

In regard to mines and miners generally, no change of policy by theGovernment has been decided on, or even thought of, so far as I know. 

The "New Almaden" mine was peculiar in this: that its occupants claimed tobe the legal owners of it on a Mexican grant, and went into court on thatclaim. The case found its way into the Supreme Court of the United States, and last term, in and by that court, the claim of the occupants wasdecided to be utterly fraudulent. Thereupon it was considered the duty ofthe Government by the Secretary of the Interior, the Attorney-General, and myself to take possession of the premises; and the Attorney-Generalcarefully made out the writ and I signed it. It was not obtainedsurreptitiously, although I suppose General Halleck thought it had been, when he telegraphed, simply because he thought possession was about beingtaken by a military order, while he knew no such order had passed throughhis hands as general-in-chief. 

The writ was suspended, upon urgent representations from California, simply to keep the peace. It never had any direct or indirect reference toany mine, place, or person, except the "New Almaden" mine and the personsconnected with it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 21, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Warrenton, Va. :

At this late moment I am appealed to in behalf of William Thompson ofCompany K, Third Maryland Volunteers, in Twelfth Army Corps, said to beat Kelly's Ford, under sentence to be shot to-day as a deserter. He isrepresented to me to be very young, with symptoms of insanity. Pleasepostpone the execution till further order. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHOFIELD. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 22, 1863. 

GENERAL SCHOFIELD, Saint Louis, Mo. :

Please send me if you can a transcript of the record in the case of McQuinand Bell, convicted of murder by a military commission. I telegraphedGeneral Strong for it, but he does not answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. GRIMSLEY. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 24, 1863. 

MRS. ELIZABETH J. GRIMSLEY, Springfield, Ill. :

I mail the papers to you to-day appointing Johnny to the Naval school. 

A. LINCOLN

TO CRITICS OF EMANCIPATION

To J. C. CONKLING. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 26, 1863. 

HON. JAMES C. CONKLING. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your letter inviting me to attend a mass meeting ofunconditional Union men, to be held at the capital of Illinois, on the3d day of September, has been received. It would be very agreeable forme thus to meet my old friends at my own home, but I cannot just now beabsent from here so long as a visit there would require. 

The meeting is to be of all those who maintain unconditional devotion tothe Union, and I am sure that my old political friends will thank me fortendering, as I do, the nation's gratitude to those other noble men whomno partisan malice or partisan hope can make false to the nation's life. 

There are those who are dissatisfied with me. To such I would say: Youdesire peace, and you blame me that we do not have it. But how can weobtain it? There are but three conceivable ways:

First--to suppress the rebellion by force of arms. This I am trying to do. Are you for it? If you are, so far we are agreed. If you are not for it, asecond way is to give up the Union. I am against this. Are you for it? Ifyou are you should say so plainly. If you are not for force nor yet fordissolution, there only remains some imaginable compromise. 

I do not believe that any compromise embracing the maintenance of theUnion is now possible. All that I learn leads to a directly oppositebelief. The strength of the rebellion is its military, its army. That armydominates all the country and all the people within its range. Any offerof terms made by any man or men within that range, in opposition to thatarmy, is simply nothing for the present; because such man or men have nopower whatever to enforce their side of a compromise, if one were madewith them. 

To illustrate: Suppose refugees from the South and peace men of the Northget together in convention, and frame and proclaim a compromise embracinga restoration of the Union. In what way can that compromise be used tokeep Lee's army out of Pennsylvania? Meade's army can keep Lee's army outof Pennsylvania, and, I think, can ultimately drive it out of existence. But no paper compromise to which the controllers of Lee's army are notagreed can at all affect that army. In an effort at such compromise wewould waste time, which the enemy would improve to our disadvantage; andthat would be all. 

A compromise, to be effective, must be made either with those who controlthe rebel army, or with the people, first liberated from the domination ofthat army by the success of our own army. Now allow me to assure youthat no word or intimation from that rebel army, or from any of the mencontrolling it, in relation to any peace compromise, has ever come tomy knowledge or belief. All charges and insinuations to the contrary aredeceptive and groundless. And I promise you that if any such propositionshall hereafter come, it shall not be rejected and kept a secret from you. I freely acknowledge myself to be the servant of the people, according tothe bond of service, the United States Constitution, and that, as such, Iam responsible to them. 

But, to be plain: You are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quitelikely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself uponthat subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while you, I suppose, do not. Yet, I have neither adopted nor proposed any measurewhich is not consistent with even your view, provided you are for theUnion. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied youwished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxedto buy negroes, except in such way as to save you from greater taxation tosave the Union exclusively by other means. 

You dislike the Emancipation Proclamation, and perhaps would have itretracted. You say it is unconstitutional. I think differently. I thinkthe Constitution invests its commander-in-chief with the law of war intime of war. The most that can be said, if so much, is, that slaves areproperty. Is there, has there ever been, any question that by the law ofwar, property, both of enemies and friends, may be taken when needed? Andis it not needed whenever it helps us and hurts the enemy? Armies, theworld over, destroy enemies' property when they cannot use it, and evendestroy their own to keep it from the enemy. Civilized belligerents do allin their power to help themselves or hurt the enemy, except a few thingsregarded as barbarous or cruel. Among the exceptions are the massacre ofvanquished foes and non-combatants, male and female. 

But the proclamation, as law, either is valid or is not valid. If it isnot valid it needs no retraction. If it is valid it cannot be retracted, any more than the dead can be brought to life. Some of you profess tothink its retraction would operate favorably for the Union, why betterafter the retraction than before the issue? There was more than a yearand a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation wasissued, the last one hundred days of which passed under an explicit noticethat it was coming, unless averted by those in revolt returning to theirallegiance. The war has certainly progressed as favorably for us since theissue of the proclamation as before. 

I know, as fully as one can know the opinions of others, that some ofthe commanders of our armies in the field, who have given us our mostimportant victories, believe the emancipation policy and the use ofcolored troops constitute the heaviest blows yet dealt to the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have beenachieved when it was but for the aid of black soldiers. 

Among the commanders who hold these views are some who have never had anyaffinity with what is called "Abolitionism, " or with "Republican Partypolitics, " but who hold them purely as military opinions. I submit theiropinions are entitled to some weight against the objections often urgedthat emancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted as such in good faith. 

You say that you will not fight to free negroes. Some of them seem willingto fight for you; but no matter. Fight you, then, exclusively, to savethe Union. I issued the proclamation on purpose to aid you in saving theUnion. Whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, ifI shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then foryou to declare you will not fight to free negroes. I thought that inyour struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should ceasehelping the enemy, to that extent it weakened the enemy in his resistanceto you. Do you think differently? I thought that whatever negroes can begot to do as soldiers, leaves just so much less for white soldiers to doin saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, likeother people, act upon motives. Why should they do anything for us if wewill do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us they must beprompted by the strongest motive, even the promise of freedom. And thepromise, being made, must be kept. 

The signs look better. The Father of Waters again goes unvexed to thesea. Thanks to the great Northwest for it; nor yet wholly to them. Threehundred miles up they met New England, Empire, Keystone, and Jersey, hewing their way right and left. The sunny South, too, in more colors thanone, also lent a helping hand. On the spot, their part of the history wasjotted down in black and white. The job was a great national one, and letnone be slighted who bore an honorable part in it And while those who havecleared the great river may well be proud, even that is not all. It ishard to say that anything has been more bravely and well done than atAntietam, Murfreesboro, Gettysburg, and on many fields of less note. Normust Uncle Sam's web-feet be forgotten. At all the watery margins theyhave been present; not only on the deep sea, the broad bay, and the rapidriver, but also up the narrow, muddy bayou, and wherever the ground was alittle damp, they have been and made their tracks. Thanks to all. For thegreat Republic--for the principle it lives by and keeps alive--for man'svast future--thanks to all. 

Peace does not appear so distant as it did. I hope it will come soon, andcome to stay, and so come as to be worth the keeping in all futuretime. It will then have been proved that among freemen there can be nosuccessful appeal from the ballot to the bullet, and that they who takesuch appeal are sure to lose their case and pay the cost. And there willbe some black men who can remember that with silent tongue, and clinchedteeth, and steady eye, and well-poised bayonet, they have helped mankindon to this great consummation; while I fear there will be some white onesunable to forget that with malignant heart and deceitful speech they havestriven to hinder it. 

Still, let us not be over-sanguine of a speedy, final triumph. Let us bequite sober. Let us diligently apply the means, never doubting that a justGod, in His own good time, will give us the rightful result. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO JAMES CONKLING. 

(Private. )

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, D. C. , August 27. 1863. 

HON. JAMES CONKLING. 

MY DEAR CONKLING:--I cannot leave here now. Herewith is a letter instead. You are one of the best public readers. I have but one suggestion--read itvery slowly. And now God bless you, and all good Union men. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 26, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR SIR:-In my correspondence with Governor Seymour inrelation to the draft, I have said to him, substantially, that creditsshall be given for volunteers up to the latest moment, before drawing inany district, that can be done without producing confusion or delay. Inorder to do this, let our mustering officers in New York and elsewhere beat, once instructed that whenever they muster into our service any numberof volunteers, to at once make return to the War Department, both bytelegraph and mail, the date of the muster, the number mustered, and theCongressional or enrolment district or districts, of their residences, giving the numbers separately for each district. Keep these returnsdiligently posted, and by them give full credit on the quotas, ifpossible, on the last day before the draft begins in any district. 

Again, I have informed Governor Seymour that he shall be notified of thetime when the draft is to commence in each district in his State. Thisis equally proper for all the States. In order to carry it out, I proposethat so soon as the day for commencing the draft in any district isdefinitely determined, the governor of the State, including the district, be notified thereof, both by telegraph and mail, in form about as follows:

 ------------------------------

 ------------------------ 1863. 

Governor of ------------------------------ ------------------------------------

You are notified that the draft will commence in the------------------ ---- district, at ------ on the ------ day ------------1863, at ------ A. M. Of said day. 

Please acknowledge receipt of this by telegraph and mail. ------------------------ ------------------------

This notice may be given by the Provost-Marshal-General here, thesub-provost-marshal-generals in the States, or perhaps by the districtprovost-marshals. 

Whenever we shall have so far proceeded in New York as to make there-enrolment specially promised there practicable, I wish that also to goforward, and I wish Governor Seymour notified of it; so that if he choose, he can place agents of his with ours to see the work fairly done. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR SEYMOUR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 27. 1863. 

HIS EXCELLENCY HORATIO SEYMOUR, Governor of New York:

Yours of the 21st, with exhibits, was received on the 24th. 

In the midst of pressing duties I have been unable to answer it sooner. Inthe meantime the Provost Marshal-General has had access to yours, and hasaddressed a communication in relation to it to the Secretary of War, acopy of which communication I herewith enclose to you. 

Independently of this, I addressed a letter on the same subject to theSecretary of War, a copy of which I also enclose to you. The Secretaryhas sent my letter to the Provost-Marshal General, with direction thathe adopt and follow the course therein pointed out. It will, of course, overrule any conflicting view of the Provost-Marshal-General, if there besuch. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. -I do not mean to say that if the Provost-Marshal-General can findit practicable to give credits by subdistricts, I overrule him in that. On the contrary, I shall be glad of it; but I will not take the risk ofover-burdening him by ordering him to do it. A. L. 

Abraham Lincoln

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. M. SCHOFIELD. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 27, 1863 8. 30 P. M. 

GENERAL SCHOFIELD, St. LOUIS:

I have just received the despatch which follows, from two very influentialcitizens of Kansas, whose names I omit. The severe blow they have receivednaturally enough makes them intemperate even without there being any justcause for blame. Please do your utmost to give them future security and topunish their invaders. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. G. MEADE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 27, 1863 9 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Warrenton, Va. :

Walter, Rionese, Folancy, Lai, and Kuhn appealed to me for mercy, withoutgiving any ground for it whatever. I understand these are very flagrantcases, and that you deem their punishment as being indispensable to theservice. If I am not mistaken in this, please let them know at once thattheir appeal is denied. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO F. C. SHERMAN AND J. S. HAYES. 

WASHINGTON, August 27, 1863. 

F. C. SHERMAN, Mayor, J. S. HAVES, Comptroller, Chicago, Ill. :

Yours of the 24th, in relation to the draft, is received. It seems to methe Government here will be overwhelmed if it undertakes to conductthese matters with the authorities of cities and counties. They must beconducted with the governors of States, who will, of course, representtheir cities and counties. Meanwhile you need not be uneasy until youagain hear from here. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FOSTER. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, August 28, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FOSTER, Fort Monroe, Va. :

Please notify, if you can, Senator Bowden, Mr. Segar, and Mr. Chandler, all or any of them, that I now have the record in Dr. Wright's case, andam ready to hear them. When you shall have got the notice to them, pleaselet me know. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL CRAWFORD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 28, 1863. 

GENERAL CRAWFORD, Rappahannock Station, Va. :

I regret that I cannot be present to witness the presentation of a swordby the gallant Pennsylvania Reserve Corps to one so worthy to receive itas General Meade. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO L. SWETT. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 29, 1863. 

HON. L. SWETT, San Francisco, Cal. : If the Government's rights arereserved, the Government will be satisfied, and at all events it willconsider. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. August 29, 1863. 

MRS. A. LINCOLN, Manchester, N. H. :

All quite well. Fort Sumter is certainly battered down and utterly uselessto the enemy, and it is believed here, but not entirely certain, that bothSumter and Fort Wagner are occupied by our forces. It is also certain thatGeneral Gilmore has thrown some shot into the city of Charleston. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. C. CONKLING. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 31, 1863. 

HON. JAMES C. CONKLING, Springfield, Ill. :

In my letter of the 26th insert between the sentence ending "since theissue of the Emancipation Proclamation as before" and the next, commencing"You say you will not fight, etc. , " what follows below my signaturehereto. 

A. LINCOLN. 

"I know as fully as one can know the opinions of others that some ofthe commanders of our armies in the field, who have given us our mostimportant successes, believe the emancipation policy and the use ofcolored troops constitute the heaviest blow yet dealt to the rebellion, and that at least one of those important successes could not have beenachieved when it was, but for the aid of black soldiers. Among thecommanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinitywith what is called abolitionism, or with Republican party politics, butwho hold them purely as military opinions. I submit these opinions asbeing entitled to some weight against the objections, often urged, thatemancipation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures andwere not adopted as such in good faith. "

TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 31, 1863. 

MY DEAR GENERAL ROSECRANS:

Yours of the 22d was received yesterday. When I wrote you before, I didnot intend, nor do I now, to engage in an argument with you on militaryquestions. You had informed me you were impressed through General Halleckthat I was dissatisfied with you, and I could not bluntly deny that I waswithout unjustly implicating him. I therefore concluded to tell you theplain truth, being satisfied the matter would thus appear much smallerthan it would if seen by mere glimpses. I repeat that my appreciation ofyou has not abated. I can never forget whilst I remember anything, thatabout the end of last year and the beginning of this, you gave us ahard-earned victory, which, had there been a defeat instead, the nationcould hardly have lived over. Neither can I forget the check you soopportunely gave to a dangerous sentiment which was spreading in theNorth. 

Yours, as ever, A. LINCOLN

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

August 31, 1863

It is not improbable that retaliation for the recent great outrageat Lawrence, in Kansas, may extend to indiscriminate slaughter on theMissouri border, unless averted by very judicious action. I shall beobliged if the general-in-chief can make any suggestions to GeneralSchofield upon the subject. 

A. LINCOLN. 

POLITICAL MOTIVATED MISQUOTATION IN NEWSPAPER

TELEGRAM TO J. C. CONKLING. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 3, 1863. 

HON. JAMES C. CONKLING, Springfield, Ill. :

I am mortified this morning to find the letter to you botched up in theEastern papers, telegraphed from Chicago. How did this happen?

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER CONCERNING COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 4, 1863. 

Ordered, That the executive order dated November 21, 1862, prohibiting theexportation from the United States of arms, ammunition, or munitions ofwar, under which the commandants of departments were, by order of theSecretary of War dated May 13, 1863, directed to prohibit the purchaseand sale, for exportation from the United States, of all horses and muleswithin their respective commands, and to take and appropriate for theuse of the United States any horses, mules, and live stock designed forexportation, be so far modified that any arms heretofore imported into theUnited States may be re-exported to the place of original shipment, and that any live stock raised in any State or Territory bounded by thePacific Ocean may be exported from, any port of such State or Territory. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. SEGAR. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. . September 5, 1863. 

HON. JOSEPH SEGAR, Fort Monroe, Va. :

I have just seen your despatch to the Secretary of War, who is absent. I also send a despatch from Major Hayner of the 3d showing that he hadnotice of my order, and stating that the people were jubilant over it, asa victory over the Government extorted by fear, and that he had alreadycollected about $4000 of the money. If he has proceeded since, I shallhold him accountable for his contumacy. On the contrary, no dollar shallbe refunded by my order until it shall appear that my act in the case hasbeen accepted in the right spirit. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON. D. C. September 6, 1863. 

MRS. A. LINCOLN, Manchester, Vt. :

All well and no news except that General Burnside has Knoxville, Ten. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, September 6, 1863. 6 P. M. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR, Bedford, Pa. :

Burnside has Kingston and Knoxville, and drove the enemy across the riverat Loudon, the enemy destroying the bridge there; captured some stores andone or two trains; very little fighting; few wounded and none killed. Noother news of consequence. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO F. C. SHERMAN AND J. S. HAYES. 

WASHINGTON, September 7, 1863. 

Yours of August 29 just received. I suppose it was intended by Congressthat this government should execute the act in question without dependenceupon any other government, State, city, or county. It is, however, withinthe range of practical convenience to confer with the governments ofStates, while it is quite beyond that range to have correspondence on thesubject with counties and cities. They are too numerous. As instances, Ihave corresponded with Governor Seymour, but Not with Mayor Opdyke; withGovernor Curtin, but not with Mayor Henry. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 8, 1863. 9. 30

HON. ANDREW JOHNSON, Nashville, Tenn. :

Despatch of yesterday just received. I shall try to find the paper youmention and carefully consider it. In the meantime let me urge that you doyour utmost to get every man you can, black and white, under arms at thevery earliest moment, to guard roads, bridges, and trains, allowing allthe better trained soldiers to go forward to Rosecrans. Of course I meanfor you to act in co-operation with and not independently of, the militaryauthorities. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 9, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Warrenton, Va. :

It would be a generous thing to give General Wheaton a leave of absencefor ten or fifteen days, and if you can do so without injury to theservice, please do it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL WHEATON. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 10, 1863. 

GENERAL WHEATON, Army of Potomac:

Yesterday at the instance of Mr. Blair, senator, I telegraphed GeneralMeade asking him to grant you a leave of absence, to which he replied thatyou had not applied for such leave, and that you can have it when you doapply. I suppose it is proper for you to know this. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER, 11, 1863

HON. ANDREW JOHNSON. 

MY DEAR SIR:--All Tennessee is now clear of armed insurrectionists. Youneed not to be reminded that it is the nick of time for reinauguratinga loyal State government. Not a moment should be lost. You and theco-operating friends there can better judge of the ways and means than canbe judged by any here. I only offer a few suggestions. The reinaugurationmust not be such as to give control of the State and its representationin Congress to the enemies of the Union, driving its friends thereinto political exile. The whole struggle for Tennessee will have beenprofitless to both State and nation if it so ends that Governor Johnson isput down and Governor Harris put up. It must not be so. You must have itotherwise. Let the reconstruction be the work of such men only as can betrusted for the Union. Exclude all others, and trust that your governmentso organized will be recognized here as being the one of republican formto be guaranteed to the State, and to be protected against invasion anddomestic violence. It is something on the question of time to rememberthat it cannot be known who is next to occupy the position I now hold, norwhat he will do. I see that you have declared in favor of emancipationin Tennessee, for which may God bless you. Get emancipation into your newState government constitution and there will be no such word as fail foryour cause. The raising of colored troops, I think, will greatly helpevery way. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE. 

WASHINGTON, September 11, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Cumberland Gap:

Yours received. A thousand thanks for the late successes you have givenus. We cannot allow you to resign until things shall be a little moresettled in East Tennessee. If then, purely on your own account, you wishto resign, we will not further refuse you. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 11, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Warrenton, Va. :

It is represented to me that Thomas Edds, in your army, is under sentenceof death for desertion, to be executed next Monday. It is also said hissupposed desertion is comprised in an absence commencing with his fallingbehind last winter, being captured and paroled by the enemy, and thengoing home. If this be near the truth, please suspend the execution tillfurther order and send in the record of the trial. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 12, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEAD, Warrenton, Va. :

The name is "Thomas Edds" not "Eddies" as in your despatch. The papersleft with me do not designate the regiment to which he belongs. The manwho gave me the papers, I do not know how to find again. He only told methat Edds is in the Army of the Potomac, and that he fell out of the ranksduring Burnside's mud march last winter. If I get further information Iwill telegraph again. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO H. H. SCOTT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 13, 1863. 

Dr. WILLIAM H. H. SCOTT, Danville, Ill. :

Your niece, Mrs. Kate Sharp, can now have no difficulty in going toKnoxville, Tenn. , as that place is within our military lines. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. G. BLAINE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 25, 1863. 

J. G. BLAINE, Augusta, Me. : Thanks both for the good news you send and forthe sending of it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION SUSPENDING WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, SEPTEMBER 15, 1863. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas the Constitution of the United States has ordained that theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it; and:

Whereas a rebellion was existing on the third day of March, 1863, whichrebellion is still existing; and:

Whereas by a statute which was approved on that day it was enacted bythe Senate and House of Representatives of the United States in Congressassembled that during the present insurrection the President of theUnited States, whenever in his judgment the public safety may require, isauthorized to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in anycase throughout the United States or any part thereof; and:

Whereas, in the judgment of the President, the public safety does requirethat the privilege of the said writ shall new be suspended throughout theUnited States in the cases where, by the authority of the President of theUnited States, military, naval, and civil officers of the United States, or any of them, hold persons under their command or in their custody, either as prisoners of war, spies, or aiders or abettors of the enemy, orofficers, soldiers, or seamen enrolled or drafted or mustered or enlistedin or belonging to the land or naval forces of the United States, or asdeserters therefrom, or otherwise amenable to military law or the rulesand articles of war or the rules or regulations prescribed for themilitary or naval services by authority of the President of the UnitedStates, or for resisting a draft, or for any other offense against themilitary or naval service. 

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, do hereby proclaim and make known to all whom it may concern that theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus is suspended throughout the UnitedStates in the several cases before mentioned, and that this suspensionwill continue throughout the duration of the said rebellion or until thisproclamation shall, by a subsequent one to be issued by the President ofthe United States, be modified or revoked. And I do hereby require allmagistrates, attorneys, and other civil officers within the United Statesand all officers and others in the military and naval services of theUnited States to take distinct notice of this suspension and to give itfull effect, and all citizens of the United States to conduct and governthemselves accordingly and in conformity with the Constitution of theUnited States and the laws of Congress in such case made and provided. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed, this fifteenth day of September, A. D. 1863, and of the independence of the United States of America theeighty-eighth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 13, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK:

If I did not misunderstand General Meade's last despatch, he posts youon facts as well as he can, and desires your views and those of theGovernment as to what he shall do. My opinion is that he should move uponLee at once in manner of general attack, leaving to developments whetherhe will make it a real attack. I think this would develop Lee's realcondition and purposes better than the cavalry alone can do. Of course myopinion is not to control you and General Meade. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. SPEED. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 16, 1862. 

MRS. J. F. SPEED, Louisville, Ky. :

Mr. Holman will not be jostled from his place with my knowledge andconsent. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 16, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Warrenton, Va. :

Is Albert Jones of Company K, Third Maryland Volunteers, to be shot onFriday next? If so please state to me the general features of the case. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHENCK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 17, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md. :

Major Haynor left here several days ago under a promise to put down inwriting, in detail, the facts in relation to the misconduct of the peopleon the eastern shore of Virginia. He has not returned. Please send himover. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 17, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Headquarters Army of Potomac:

Yours in relation to Albert Jones is received. I am appealed to inbehalf of Richard M. Abrams of Company A, Sixth New Jersey Volunteers, byGovernor Parker, Attorney-General Frelinghuysen, Governor Newell, Hon. Mr. Middleton, M. C. , of the district, and the marshal who arrested him. I amalso appealed to in behalf of Joseph S. Smith, of Company A, Eleventh NewJersey Volunteers, by Governor Parker, Attorney-General Frelinghuysen, andHon. Marcus C. Ward. Please state the circumstances of their cases to me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

REQUEST TO SUGGEST NAME FOR A BABY

TELEGRAM TO C. M. SMITH. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 18, 1863. 

C. M. SMITH, Esq. , Springfield, Ill. :

Why not name him for the general you fancy most? This is my suggestion. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO MRS. ARMSTRONG. 

WASHINGTON, September 18, 1863. 

MRS. HANNAH ARMSTRONG, Petersburg, Ill. :

I have just ordered the discharge of your boy William, as you say, now atLouisville, Ky. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

(Private. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 19. 1863. 

HON. ANDREW JOHNSON. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith I send you a paper, substantially the same as theone drawn up by yourself and mentioned in your despatch, but slightlychanged in two particulars: First, yours was so drawn as that I authorizedyou to carry into effect the fourth section, etc. , whereas I so modifyit as to authorize you to so act as to require the United States to carryinto effect that section. 

Secondly, you had a clause committing me in some sort to the Stateconstitution of Tennessee, which I feared might embarrass you in making anew constitution, if you desire; so I dropped that clause. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

[Inclosure. ]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 19, 1863. 

HON. ANDREW JOHNSON, Military Governor of Tennessee:

In addition to the matters contained in the orders and instructions givenyou by the Secretary of War, you are hereby authorized to exercise suchpowers as may be necessary and proper to enable the loyal people ofTennessee to present such a republican form of State government as willentitle the State to the guaranty of the United States therefor, and tobe protected under such State government by the United States againstinvasion and domestic violence, all according to the fourth Section of thefourth article of the Constitution of the United States. 

A. LINCOLN

MILITARY STRATEGY

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON D. C. September 19, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK:

By General Meade's despatch to you of yesterday it appears that he desiresyour views and those of the government as to whether he shall advance uponthe enemy. I am not prepared to order, or even advise, an advance in thiscase, wherein I know so little of particulars, and wherein he, in thefield, thinks the risk is so great and the promise of advantage so small. 

And yet the case presents matter for very serious consideration inanother aspect. These two armies confront each other across a small river, substantially midway between the two capitals, each defending its owncapital, and menacing the other. General Meade estimates the enemy'sinfantry in front of him at not less than 40, 000. Suppose we add fifty percent. To this for cavalry, artillery, and extra-duty men stretching as faras Richmond, making the whole force of the enemy 60, 000. 

General Meade, as shown by the returns, has with him, and between him andWashington, of the same classes, of well men, over 90, 000. Neither canbring the whole of his men into a battle; but each can bring as large apercentage in as the other. For a battle, then, General Meade has threemen to General Lee's two. Yet, it having been determined that choosingground and standing on the defensive gives so great advantage that thethree cannot safely attack the two, the three are left simply standing onthe defensive also. 

If the enemy's 60, 000 are sufficient to keep our 90, 000 away fromRichmond, why, by the same rule, may not 40, 000 of ours keep their 60, 000away from Washington, leaving us 50, 000 to put to some other use? Havingpractically come to the mere defensive, it seems to be no economy at allto employ twice as many men for that object as are needed. With no object, certainly, to mislead myself, I can perceive no fault in this statement, unless we admit we are not the equal of the enemy, man for man. I hope youwill consider it. 

To avoid misunderstanding, let me say that to attempt to fight the enemyslowly back into his entrenchments at Richmond, and then to capture him, is an idea I have been trying to repudiate for quite a year. 

My judgment is so clear against it that I would scarcely allow the attemptto be made if the general in command should desire to make it. My lastattempt upon Richmond was to get McClellan, when he was nearer therethan the enemy was, to run in ahead of him. Since then I have constantlydesired the Army of the Potomac to make Lee's army, and not Richmond, itsobjective point. If our army cannot fall upon the enemy and hurt him wherehe is, it is plain to me it can gain nothing by attempting to follow himover a succession of intrenched lines into a fortified city. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 20, 1863. 

MRS. A. LINCOLN, New York:

I neither see nor hear anything of sickness here now, though there maybe much without my knowing it. I wish you to stay or come just as is mostagreeable to yourself. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C, September 21, 1863. 

MRS. A. LINCOLN. Fifth Avenue Hotel. New York:

The air is so clear and cool and apparently healthy that I would be gladfor you to come. Nothing very particular, but I would be glad to see youand Tad. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 21, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK:

I think it very important for General Rosecrans to hold his position ator about Chattanooga, because if held from that place to Cleveland, bothinclusive, it keeps all Tennessee clear of the enemy, and also breaks oneof his most important railroad lines. To prevent these consequences is sovital to his cause that he cannot give up the effort to dislodge us fromthe position, thus bringing him to us and saving us the labor, expense, and hazard of going farther to find him, and also giving us the advantageof choosing our own ground and preparing it to fight him upon. The detailsmust, of course, be left to General Rosecrans, while we must furnish himthe means to the utmost of our ability. If you concur, I think he wouldbetter be informed that we are not pushing him beyond this position; andthat, in fact, our judgment is rather against his going beyond it. If hecan only maintain this position, without more, this rebellion can only ekeout a short and feeble existence, as an animal sometimes may with a thornin its vitals. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 21, 1863. 

GENERAL BURNSIDE, Greenville, Tenn. :

If you are to do any good to Rosecrans it will not do to waste time withJonesboro. It is already too late to do the most good that might have beendone, but I hope it will still do some good. Please do not lose a moment. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE

WAR DEPARTMENT, September 21, 1863. 11 A. M. 

GENERAL BURNSIDE, Knoxville, Tenn. :

Go to Rosecrans with your force without a moment's delay. 

A. LINCOLN, TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS

WASHINGTON, September 21, 1863. 12. 55 PM. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Chattanooga:

Be of good cheer. We have unabated confidence in you, and in your soldiersand officers. In the main you must be the judge as to what is to bedone. If I were to suggest, I would say, save your army by taking strongpositions until Burnside joins you, when, I hope, you can turn the tide. Ithink you had better send a courier to Burnside to hurry him up. Wecannot reach him by telegraph. We suppose some force is going to you fromCorinth, but for want of communication we do not know how they aregetting along. We shall do our utmost to assist you. Send us your presentpositions. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

[Cipher. ]

WAR DEPARTMENT, September 22, 1863. 8. 30 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Chattanooga, Tenn. :

We have not a word here as to the whereabouts or condition of your army upto a later hour than sunset, Sunday, the 20th. Your despatches to me of 9A. M. , and to General Halleck of 2 P. M. , yesterday, tell us nothinglater on those points. Please relieve my anxiety as to the position andcondition of your army up to the latest moment. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO O. M. HATCH AND J. K. DUBOIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON. September 22, 1863. 

HON. O. M. HATCH, HON. J. K. DUBOIS, Springfield, Ill. :

Your letter is just received. The particular form of my despatch wasjocular, which I supposed you gentlemen knew me well enough to understand. General Allen is considered here as a very faithful and capable officer, and one who would be at least thought of for quartermaster-general if thatoffice were vacant. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 22, 1863. 

MRS. A. LINCOLN, Fifth Avenue House, New York:--Did you receive mydespatch of yesterday? Mrs. Cuthbert did not correctly understand me. Idirected her to tell you to use your own pleasure whether to stay or come, and I did not say it is sickly and that you should on no account come. So far as I see or know, it was never healthier, and I really wish to seeyou. Answer this on receipt. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

WASHINGTON, September 23, 1863. 9. 13 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Chattanooga, Tenn:

Below is Bragg's despatch as found in the Richmond papers. You see hedoes not claim so many prisoners or captured guns as you were inclinedto concede. He also confesses to heavy loss. An exchanged general of oursleaving Richmond yesterday says two of Longstreet's divisions and hisentire artillery and two of Pickett's brigades and Wise's legion have goneto Tennessee. He mentions no other. 

"CHICAMAUGA RIVER, SEPTEMBER 20. 

"GENERAL COOPER, Adjutant-General:

"After two days' hard fighting we havedriven the enemy, after a desperate resistance, from several positions, and now hold the field; but he still confronts us. The loses are heavy onboth sides, especially in our officers. .. . 

"BRAXTON BRAGG"

A. LINCOLN

PROCLAMATION OPENING THE PORT OF ALEXANDRIA, VIRGINIA, SEPTEMBER 24, 1863. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas, in my proclamation of the twenty-seventh of April, 1861, theports of the States of Virginia and North Carolina were, for reasonstherein set forth, placed under blockade; and whereas the port ofAlexandria, Virginia, has since been blockaded, but as the blockade ofsaid port may now be safely relaxed with advantage to the interests ofcommerce:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited Sates, pursuant to the authority in me vested by the fifth sectionof the act of Congress, approved on the 13th of July, 1861, entitled "Anact further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and forother purposes, " do hereby declare that the blockade of the said port ofAlexandria shall so far cease and determine, from and after this date, that commercial intercourse with said port, except as to persons, things, and information contraband of war, may from this date be carried on, subject to the laws of the United States, and to the limitations and inpursuance of the regulations which are prescribed by the Secretary of theTreasury in his order which is appended to my proclamation of the 12th ofMay, 1862. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this twenty-fourth day of September in theyear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of theindependence of the United States the eighty-eighth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, September 24, 1863. 10 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Chattanooga, Term. :

Last night we received the rebel accounts, through Richmond papers, ofyour late battle. They give Major-General Hood as mortally wounded, andBrigadiers Preston Smith, Wofford, Walthall, Helm of Kentucky, andDesMer killed, and Major-Generals Preston, Cleburne, and Gregg, andBrigadier-Generals Benning, Adams, Burm, Brown, and John [B. H. ] Helmwounded. By confusion the two Helms may be the same man, and Bunn andBrown may be the same man. With Burnside, Sherman, and from elsewhere weshall get to you from forty to sixty thousand additional men. 

A. LINCOLN

MRS. LINCOLN'S REBEL BROTHER-IN-LAW KILLED

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, SEPTEMBER 24, 1863

MRS. A. LINCOLN, Fifth Avenue Hotel, New York:

We now have a tolerably accurate summing up of the late battle betweenRosecrans and Braag. The result is that we are worsted, if at all, onlyin the fact that we, after the main fighting was over, yielded the ground, thus leaving considerable of our artillery and wounded to fall into theenemy's hands. , for which we got nothing in turn. We lost in generalofficers one killed and three or four wounded, all brigadiers, while, according to the rebel accounts which we have, they lost six killedand eight wounded: of the killed one major-general and five brigadiersincluding your brother-in-law, Helm; and of the wounded threemajor-generals and five brigadiers. This list may be reduced two in numberby corrections of confusion in names. At 11. 40 A. M. Yesterday GeneralRosecrans telegraphed from Chattanooga: "We hold this point, and I cannotbe dislodged except by very superior numbers and after a great battle. " Adespatch leaving there after night yesterday says, "No fight to-day. "

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL McCALLUM. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 25, 1863. 

GENERAL McCALLUM, Alexandria, Va. :

I have sent to General Meade, by telegraph, to suspend the execution ofDaniel Sullivan of Company F, Thirteenth Massachusetts, which was to beto-day, but understanding there is an interruption on the line, may I begyou to send this to him by the quickest mode in your power?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 25, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

Owing to the press in behalf of Daniel Sullivan, Company E, ThirteenthMassachusetts, and the doubt; though small, which you express of hisguilty intention, I have concluded to say let his execution be suspendedtill further order, and copy of record sent me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 25, 1863. 

MY DEAR GENERAL ROSECRANS:

We are sending you two small corps, one under General Howard and one underGeneral Slocum, and the whole under General Hooker. 

Unfortunately the relations between Generals Hooker and Slocum are notsuch as to promise good, if their present relative positions remain. Therefore, let me beg--almost enjoin upon you--that on their reaching you, you will make a transposition by which General Slocum with his Corps, maypass from under the command of General Hooker, and General Hooker, inturn receive some other equal force. It is important for this to be done, though we could not well arrange it here. Please do it. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, September 28, 1863. 8 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Chattanooga. , Tenn. :

You can perhaps communicate with General Burnside more rapidly by sendingtelegrams directly to him at Knoxville. Think of it. I send a likedespatch to him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHOFIELD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C, September 30, 1863. 

GENERAL SCHOFIELD, Saint Louis, Mo. :

Following despatch just received:

"Union Men Driven out of Missouri. "

"Leavenworth, September 29, 1863. 

"Governor Gamble having authorized Colonel Moss, of Liberty, Missouri, to arm the men in Platte and Clinton Counties, he has armed mostly thereturned rebel soldiers and men wider bonds. Moss's men are now drivingthe Union men out of Missouri. Over one hundred families crossed the riverto-day. Many of the wives of our Union soldiers have been compelled toleave. Four or five Union men have been murdered by Colonel Moss's men. "

Please look to this and, if true, in main or part, put a stop to it. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO F. S. CORKRAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 30, 1863. 

HON. FRANCIS S. CORKRAN, Baltimore, Md. : MRS. L. Is now at home and wouldbe pleased to see you any time. If the grape time has not passed away, shewould be pleased to join in the enterprise you mention. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL TYLER

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 1, 1863. 

GENERAL TYLER, Baltimore:

Take care of colored troops in your charge, but do nothing further aboutthat branch of affairs until further orders. Particularly do nothing aboutGeneral Vickers of Kent County. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Send a copy to Colonel Birney. A. L. 

TO GENERAL SCHOFIELD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, OCTOBER 1, 1863

GENERAL JOHN M. SCHOFIELD:

There is no organized military force in avowed opposition to the GeneralGovernment now in Missouri, and if any shall reappear, your duty in regardto it will be too plain to require any special instruction. Still, thecondition of things, both there and elsewhere, is such as to renderit indispensable to maintain, for a time, the United States militaryestablishment in that State, as well as to rely upon it for a faircontribution of support to that establishment generally. Your immediateduty in regard to Missouri now is to advance the efficiency of thatestablishment, and to so use it, as far as practicable, to compel theexcited people there to let one another alone. 

Under your recent order, which I have approved, you will only arrestindividuals, and suppress assemblies or newspapers, when they may beworking palpable injury to the military in your charge; and in no othercase will you interfere with the expression of opinion in any form, orallow it to be interfered with violently by others. In this you have adiscretion to exercise with great caution, calmness, and forbearance. 

With the matter of removing the inhabitants of certain counties en masse, and of removing certain individuals from time to time, who are supposedto be mischievous, I am not now interfering, but am leaving to your owndiscretion. 

Nor am I interfering with what may still seem to you to be necessaryrestrictions upon trade and intercourse. I think proper, however, toenjoin upon you the following: Allow no part of the military under yourcommand to be engaged in either returning fugitive slaves or in forcing orenticing slaves from their homes; and, so far as practicable, enforce thesame forbearance upon the people. 

Report to me your opinion upon the availability for good of the enrolledmilitia of the State. Allow no one to enlist colored troops, except uponorders from you, or from here through you. 

Allow no one to assume the functions of confiscating property, under thelaw of Congress, or otherwise, except upon orders from here. 

At elections see that those, and only those, are allowed to vote who areentitled to do so by the laws of Missouri, including as of those lawsthe restrictions laid by the Missouri convention upon those who may haveparticipated in the rebellion. 

So far as practicable, you will, by means of your military force, expelguerrillas, marauders, and murderers, and all who are known to harbor, aid, or abet them. But in like manner you will repress assumptions ofunauthorized individuals to perform the same service, because underpretense of doing this they become marauders and murderers themselves. 

To now restore peace, let the military obey orders, and those not of themilitary leave each other alone, thus not breaking the peace themselves. 

In giving the above directions, it is not intended to restrain you inother expedient and necessary matters not falling within their range. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL S. M. SCHOFIELD. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. OCTOBER 2, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHOFIELD:

I have just seen your despatch to Halleck about Major-General Blunt. Ifpossible, you better allow me to get through with a certain matterhere, before adding to the difficulties of it. Meantime supply me theparticulars of Major-General Blunt's case. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL BIRNEY. [Cipher. ] WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 3, 1863. 

COLONEL BIRNEY, Baltimore, Md. :

Please give me, as near as you can, the number of slaves you haverecruited in Maryland. Of course the number is not to include the freecolored. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION FOR THANKSGIVING, OCTOBER 3, 1863. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

The year that is drawing towards its close has been filled with theblessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, whichare so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source fromwhich they come, others have been added which are of so extraordinary anature that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart whichis habitually insensible to the ever-watchful providence of Almighty God. In the midst of a civil war of unequalled magnitude and severity which hassometimes seemed to invite and provoke the aggressions of foreign states;peace has been preserved with all nations, order has been maintained, thelaws have been respected and obeyed, and harmony has prevailed everywhereexcept in the theatre of military conflict; while that theatre has beengreatly contracted by the advancing armies and navies of the Union. Theneedful diversion of wealth and strength from the fields of peacefulindustry, to the national defense has not arrested the plough, theshuttle, or the ship: The axe has enlarged the borders of our settlements, and the mines, as well of, iron and coal as of the precious metals, haveyielded even more abundantly than heretofore. Population has steadilyincreased, notwithstanding the waste that has been made in the camp, the siege, and the battle-field; and the country, rejoicing in theconsciousness of augmented strength and vigor, is permitted to expect acontinuance of years, with large increase of freedom. 

No human counsel hath devised, nor hath any mortal hand worked out thesegreat things. They are the gracious gifts of the Most High God, who, whiledealing with us in anger for our sins, hath nevertheless remembered mercy. 

It has seemed to me fit and proper that they should be reverently, solemnly, and gratefully acknowledged, as with one heart and voice, by thewhole American people. I do, therefore, invite my fellow-citizens in everypart of the United States, and also those who are at sea, and thosewho are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the lastThursday of November next as a day of thanksgiving and prayer to ourbeneficent Father who dwelleth in the heavens. And I recommend to themthat, while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for suchsingular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitencefor our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender careall those who have become widows, orphans, mourners, or sufferers in thelamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and ferventlyimplore the interposition of the Almighty hand to heal the wounds ofthe nation, and to restore it, as soon as may be consistent with divinepurposes, to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity, andunion. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this third day of October, in the yearof our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of theindependence of the United States the eighty-eighth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. M. SCHOFIELD. 

WASHINGTON D. C. , OCTOBER 4, 1863

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHOFIELD, St. Louis, Mo. :

I think you will not have just cause to complain of my action. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, October 4, 1863. 11. 30 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Chattanooga, Tenn. :

Yours of yesterday received. If we can hold Chattanooga and EastTennessee, I think the rebellion must dwindle and die. I think you andBurnside can do this, and hence doing so is your main object. Of courseto greatly damage or destroy the enemy in your front would be a greaterobject, because it would include the former and more, but it is not socertainly within your power. I understand the main body of the enemy isvery near you, so near that you could "board at home, " so to speak, andmenace or attack him any day. Would not the doing of this be your bestmode of counteracting his raid on your communications? But this is not anorder. I intend doing something like what you suggest whenever the caseshall appear ripe enough to have it accepted in the true understandingrather than as a confession of weakness and fear. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO C. D. DRAKE AND OTHERS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 5, 1863. 

HON. CHARLES D. DRAKE AND OTHERS, Committee. 

GENTLEMEN:-Your original address, presented on the 30th ult. , and thefour supplementary ones presented on the 3d inst. , have been carefullyconsidered. I hope you will regard the other duties claiming my attention, together with the great length and importance of these documents, asconstituting a sufficient apology for not having responded sooner. 

These papers, framed for a common object, consist of the things demandedand the reasons for demanding them. 

The things demanded are

First. That General Schofield shall be relieved, and General Butler beappointed as Commander of the Military Department of Missouri. 

Second. That the system of enrolled militia in Missouri may be broken up, and national forces he substituted for it; and

Third. That at elections persons may not be allowed to vote who are notentitled by law to do so. 

Among the reasons given, enough of suffering and wrong to Union men iscertainly, and I suppose truly, stated. Yet the whole case, as presented, fails to convince me that General Schofield, or the enrolled militia, isresponsible for that suffering and wrong. The whole can be explained on amore charitable, and, as I think, a more rational hypothesis. 

We are in a civil war. In such cases there always is a main question, butin this case that question is a perplexing compound--Union and slavery. It thus becomes a question not of two sides merely, but of at least foursides, even among those who are for the Union, saying nothing of those whoare against it. Thus, those who are for the Union with, but not withoutslavery; those for it without, but not with; those for it with or without, but prefer it with; and those for it with or without, but prefer itwithout. 

Among these, again, is a subdivision of those who are for gradual, butnot for immediate, and those who are for immediate, but not for gradualextinction of slavery. 

It is easy to conceive that all these shades of opinion, and even more, may be sincerely entertained by honest and truthful men. Yet, all beingfor the Union, by reason of these differences each will prefer a differentway of sustaining the Union. At once, sincerity is questioned, and motivesare assailed. Actual war comming, blood grows hot and blood is spilled. Thought is forced from old channels into confusion. Deception breeds andthrives. Confidence dies, and universal suspicion reigns. Each man feelsan impulse to kill his neighbor, lest he be killed by him. Revenge andretaliation follow. And all this, as before said, may be among honest menonly. But this is not all. Every foul bird comes abroad, and every dirtyreptile rises up. These add crime to confusion. Strong measuresdeemed indispensable, but harsh at best, such men make worse bymaladministration. Murders for old grudges, and murders for self, proceedunder any cloak that will best serve for the occasion. 

These causes amply account for what has occurred in Missouri, withoutascribing it to the weakness or wickedness of any general. The newspaperfiles, those chroniclers of current events, will show that the evils nowcomplained of were quite as prevalent under Fremont, Hunter, Halleck, andCurtis, as under Schofield. If the former had greater force opposedto them, they also had greater force with which to meet it. When theorganized rebel army left the State, the main Federal force had to goalso, leaving the department commander at home relatively no strongerthan before. Without disparaging any, I affirm with confidence that nocommander of that department has, in proportion to his means, done betterthan General Schofield. 

The first specific charge against General Schofield is, that the enrolledmilitia was placed under his command, whereas it had not been placed underthe command of General Curtis. The fact is, I believe, true; but you donot point out, nor can I conceive, how that did, or could, injure loyalmen or the Union cause. 

You charge that, General Curtis being superseded by General Schofield, Franklin A. Dick was superseded by James O. Broadhead as Provost-MarshalGeneral. No very specific showing is made as to how this did or couldinjure the Union cause. It recalls, however, the condition of things, aspresented to me, which led to a change of commander of that department. 

To restrain contraband intelligence and trade, a system of searches, seizures, permits, and passes, had been introduced, I think, by GeneralFremont. When General Halleck came, he found and continued the system, andadded an order, applicable to some parts of the State, to levy andcollect contributions from noted rebels, to compensate losses and relievedestitution caused by the rebellion. The action of General Fremont andGeneral Halleck, as stated, constituted a sort of system which GeneralCurtis found in full operation when he took command of the department. That there was a necessity for something of the sort was clear; but thatit could only be justified by stern necessity, and that it was liable togreat abuse in administration, was equally clear. Agents to execute it, contrary to the great prayer, were led into temptation. Some might, whileothers would not, resist that temptation. It was not possible to holdany to a very strict accountability; and those yielding to the temptationwould sell permits and passes to those who would pay most and most readilyfor them, and would seize property and collect levies in the aptest wayto fill their own pockets. Money being the object, the man having money, whether loyal or disloyal, would be a victim. This practice doubtlessexisted to some extent, and it was, a real additional evil that it couldbe, and was, plausibly charged to exist in greater extent than it did. 

When General Curtis took command of the department, Mr. Dick, againstwhom I never knew anything to allege, had general charge of this system. A controversy in regard to it rapidly grew into almost unmanageableproportions. One side ignored the necessity and magnified the evils of thesystem, while the other ignored the evils and magnified the necessity;and each bitterly assailed the other. I could not fail to see that thecontroversy enlarged in the same proportion as the professed Union menthere distinctly took sides in two opposing political parties. I exhaustedmy wits, and very nearly my patience also, in efforts to convince boththat the evils they charged on each other were inherent in the case, andcould not be cured by giving either party a victory over the other. 

Plainly, the irritating system was not to be perpetual; and it wasplausibly urged that it could be modified at once with advantage. The casecould scarcely be worse, and whether it could be made better could onlybe determined by a trial. In this view, and not to ban or brand GeneralCurtis, or to give a victory to any party, I made the change of commanderfor the department. I now learn that soon after this change Mr. Dick wasremoved, and that Mr. Broadhead, a gentleman of no less good character, was put in the place. The mere fact of this change is more distinctlycomplained of than is any conduct of the new officer, or other consequenceof the change. 

I gave the new commander no instructions as to the administration ofthe system mentioned, beyond what is contained in the private letterafterwards surreptitiously published, in which I directed him to actsolely for the public good, and independently of both parties. Neither anything you have presented me, nor anything I have otherwise learned, hasconvinced me that he has been unfaithful to this charge. 

Imbecility is urged as one cause for removing General Schofield; andthe late massacre at Lawrence, Kansas, is pressed as evidence of thatimbecility. To my mind that fact scarcely tends to prove the proposition. That massacre is only an example of what Grierson, John Morgan, and manyothers might have repeatedly done on their respective raids, had theychosen to incur the personal hazard, and possessed the fiendish hearts todo it. 

The charge is made that General Schofield, on purpose to protect theLawrence murderers, would not allow them to be pursued into Missouri. While no punishment could be too sudden or too severe for those murderers, I am well satisfied that the preventing of the threatened remedial raidinto Missouri was the only way to avoid an indiscriminate massacre there, including probably more innocent than guilty. Instead of condemning, Itherefore approve what I understand General Schofield did in that respect. 

The charges that General Schofield has purposely withheld protection fromloyal people and purposely facilitated the objects of the disloyal arealtogether beyond my power of belief. I do not arraign the veracity ofgentlemen as to the facts complained of, but I do more than question thejudgment which would infer that those facts occurred in accordance withthe purposes of General Schofield. 

With my present views, I must decline to remove General Schofield. Inthis I decide nothing against General Butler. I sincerely wish it wereconvenient to assign him a suitable command. In order to meet someexisting evils I have addressed a letter of instructions to GeneralSchofield, a copy of which I enclose to you. 

As to the enrolled militia, I shall endeavor to ascertain better thanI now know what is its exact value. Let me say now, however, that yourproposal to substitute national forces for the enrolled militia impliesthat in your judgment the latter is doing something which needs to bedone; and if so, the proposition to throw that force away and to supplyits place by bringing other forces from the field where they are urgentlyneeded seems to me very extraordinary. Whence shall they come? Shall theybe withdrawn from Banks, or Grant, or Steele, or Rosecrans? Few thingshave been so grateful to my anxious feelings as when, in June last, thelocal force in Missouri aided General Schofield to so promptly senda large general force to the relief of General Grant, then investingVicksburg and menaced from without by General Johnston. Was this allwrong? Should the enrolled militia then have been broken up and GeneralHerron kept from Grant to police Missouri? So far from finding cause toobject, I confess to a sympathy for whatever relieves our general forcein Missouri and allows it to serve elsewhere. I therefore, as at presentadvised, cannot attempt the destruction of the enrolled militia ofMissouri. I may add that, the force being under the national militarycontrol, it is also within the proclamation in regard to the habeascorpus. 

I concur in the propriety of your request in regard to elections, andhave, as you see, directed General Schofield accordingly. I do not feeljustified to enter upon the broad field you present in regard to thepolitical differences between Radicals and Conservatives. From time totime I have done and said what appeared to me proper to do and say. The public knows it all. It obliges nobody to follow me, and I trust itobliges me to follow nobody. The Radicals and Conservatives each agreewith me in some things and disagree in others. I could wish both to agreewith me in all things, for then they would agree with each other, andwould be too strong for any foe from any quarter. They, however, choose todo otherwise; and I do not question their right. I too shall do whatseems to be my duty. I hold whoever commands in Missouri or elsewhereresponsible to me and not to either Radicals or Conservatives. It is myduty to hear all, but at last I must, within my sphere, judge what to doand what to forbear. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

THE CASE OF DR. DAVID M. WRIGHT

APPROVAL OF THE DECISION OF THE COURT

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERALS OFFICE, WASHINGTON, October 8, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL J. G. FOSTER, Commanding Department of Virginia and NorthCarolina, Fort Monroe, Va. 

SIR:--The proceedings of the military commission instituted for the trialof David Wright, of Norfolk, in Special Orders Nos. 195, 196, and 197, of1863, from headquarters Department of Virginia, have been submitted to thePresident of the United States. The following are his remarks on the case:

Upon the presentation of the record in this case and the examinationthereof, aided by the report thereon of the Judge-Advocate-General, andon full hearing of counsel for the accused, being specified that no properquestion remained open except as to the sanity of the accused, I caused avery full examination to be made on that question, upon a great amount ofevidence, including all effort by the counsel for accused, by an expertof high reputation in that professional department, who thereon reports tome, as his opinion, that the accused, Dr. David M. Wright, was not insaneprior to or on the 11th day of July, 1863, the date of the homicide ofLieutenant Sanborn; that he has not been insane since, and is not insanenow (Oct. 7, 1863). I therefore approve the finding and sentence of themilitary commission, and direct that the major-general in command of thedepartment including the place of trial, and wherein the convict is now incustody, appoint a time and place and carry such sentence into execution. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 8, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

I am appealed to in behalf of August Blittersdorf, at Mitchell's Station, Va. , to be shot to-morrow as a deserter. I am unwilling for any boy undereighteen to be shot, and his father affirms that he is yet under sixteen. Please answer. His regiment or company not given me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 8, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

The boy telegraphs from Mitchell's Station, Va. The father thinks he is inthe One hundred and nineteenth Pennsylvania Volunteers. The father signsthe name "Blittersdorf. " I can tell no more. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 12, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

The father and mother of John Murphy, of the One hundred and nineteenthPennsylvania Volunteers, have filed their own affidavits that he was bornJune 22, 1846, and also the affidavits of three other persons who allswear that they remembered the circumstances of his birth and that itwas in the year 1846, though they do not remember the particular day. Itherefore, on account of his tender age, have concluded to pardon him, andto leave it to yourself whether to discharge him or continue him in theservice. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO W. S. ROSECRANS. 

[Cipher. ]

WAR DEPARTMENT, October 12, 1863. 8. 35 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Chattanooga, Term. :

As I understand, Burnside is menaced from the west, and so cannot go toyou without surrendering East Tennessee. I now think the enemy will notattack Chattanooga, and I think you will have to look out for his makinga concentrated drive at Burnside. You and Burnside now have him by thethroat, and he must break your hold or perish I therefore think you bettertry to hold the road up to Kingston, leaving Burnside to what is abovethere. Sherman is coming to you, though gaps in the telegraph prevent ourknowing how far he is advanced. He and Hooker will so support you on thewest and northwest as to enable you to look east and northeast. This isnot an order. General Halleck will give his views. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. G. MEADE. 

WASHINGTON, October 12, 1863. 9 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE: What news this morning? A despatch from Rosecrans, leaving him at 7. 30 P. M. Yesterday, says:

"Rebel rumors that head of Ewell's column reached Dalton yesterday. "

I send this for what it is worth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO WAYNE McVEIGH. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 13, 1863. 

McVEIGH, Philadelphia:

The enemy some days ago made a movement, apparently to turn GeneralMeade's right. This led to a maneuvering of the two armies and to prettyheavy skirmishing on Saturday, Sunday, and Monday. We have frequentdespatches from General Meade and up to 10 o'clock last night nothing hadhappened giving either side any marked advantage. Our army reported to bein excellent condition. The telegraph is open to General Meade's camp thismorning, but we have not troubled him for a despatch. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THURLOW WEED. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 14, 1863. 

HON. THURLOW WEED. 

DEAR SIR:--I have been brought to fear recently that somehow, bycommission or omission, I have caused you some degree of pain. I havenever entertained an unkind feeling or a disparaging thought toward you;and if I have said or done anything which has been construed into suchunkindness or disparagement, it has been misconstrued. I am sure if wecould meet we would not part with any unpleasant impression On eitherside. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO L. B. TODD. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 15, 1863. 

L. B. TODD, Lexington, Ky. :

I send the following pass to your care. 

A. LINCOLN. 

AID TO MRS. HELM, MRS. LINCOLN'S SISTER

WASHINGTON, D. C. . October 15, 1863. 

To WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Allow MRS. Robert S. Todd, widow, to go south and bring her daughter, MRS. General B. Hardin Helm, with her children, north to Kentucky. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FOSTER. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 15, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FOSTER, Fort Monroe, Va. :

Postpone the execution of Dr. Wright to Friday the 23d instant (October). This is intended for his preparation and is final. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 15, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

On the 4th instant you telegraphed me that Private Daniel Hanson, ofNinety-seventh New York Volunteers, had not yet been tried. When he shallbe, please notify me of the result, with a brief statement of his case, ifhe be convicted. Gustave Blittersdorf, who you say is enlisted in the Onehundred and nineteenth Pennsylvania Volunteers as William Fox, is provento me to be only fifteen years old last January. I pardon him, and youwill discharge him or put him in the ranks at your discretion. MathiasBrown, of Nineteenth Pennsylvania Volunteers, is proven to me to beeighteen last May, and his friends say he is convicted on an enlistmentand for a desertion both before that time. If this last be true he ispardoned, to be kept or discharged as you please. If not true suspend hisexecution and report the facts of his case. Did you receive my despatch of12th pardoning John Murphy?

A. LINCOLN. 

[The Lincoln papers during this time have a suspended execution on almostevery other page, I have omitted most of these D. W. ]

TELEGRAM TO T. W. SWEENEY. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 16, 1863. 

THOMAS W. SWEENEY, Continental, Philadelphia:

Tad is teasing me to have you forward his pistol to him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO T. C. DURANT. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 16, 1863. 

T. C. DURANT, New York:

I remember receiving nothing from you of the 10th, and I do not comprehendyour despatch of to-day. In fact I do not remember, if I ever knew, whoyou are, and I have very little conception as to what you are telegraphingabout. 

A. LINCOLN. 

COMMENT ON A NOTE. 

NEW YORK, October 15, 1863. 

DEAR SIR: On the point of leaving I am told, by a gentleman towhose statements I attach credit, that the opposition policy for thePresidential campaign will be to "abstain from voting. " J. 

[Comment. ]

More likely to abstain from stopping, once they get at it, until theyshall have voted several times each. 

October 16. A. L. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 16, 1863. 

MAJOR GENERAL HALLECK:

I do not believe Lee can have over 60, 000 effective men. 

Longstreet's corps would not be sent away to bring an equal force backupon the same road; and there is no other direction for them to have comefrom. 

Doubtless, in making the present movement, Lee gathered in all availablescraps, and added them to Hill's and Ewell's corps; but that is all, andhe made the movement in the belief that four corps had left General Meade;and General Meade's apparently avoiding a collision with him has confirmedhim in that belief. If General Meade can now attack him on a field noworse than equal for us, and will do so now with all the skill and couragewhich he, his officers, and men possess, the honor will be his if hesucceeds, and the blame may be mine if he fails. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

CALL FOR 300, 000 VOLUNTEERS, OCTOBER 17, 1863. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas the term of service of a part of the Volunteer forces of theUnited States will expire during the coming year; and whereas, in additionto the men raised by the present draft, it is deemed expedient to call outthree hundred thousand volunteers to serve for three years or during thewar, not, however, exceeding three years:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, andCommander-in-Chief of the Army and Navy thereof, and of the militia ofthe several States when called into actual service, do issue this myproclamation, calling upon the governors of the different States toraise, and have enlisted into the United States service, for the variouscompanies and regiments in the field from their respective States, thequotas of three hundred thousand men. 

I further proclaim that all the volunteers thus called out and dulyenlisted shall receive advance pay, premium, and bounty, as heretoforecommunicated to the governors of States by the War Department through theProvost-Marshal-General's office, by special letters. 

I further proclaim that all volunteers received under this call, as wellas all others not heretofore credited, shall be duly credited and deductedfrom the quotas established for the next draft. 

I further proclaim that if any State shall fail to raise the quotaassigned to it by the War Department under this call, then a draft for thedeficiency in said quota shall be made in said State, or in the districtsof said State, for their due proportion of said quota, and the said draftshall commence on the 5th day of January, 1864. 

And I further proclaim that nothing in this proclamation shall interferewith existing orders, or with those which may be issued for the presentdraft in the States where it is now in progress, or where it has not yetbeen commenced. 

The quotas of the States and districts will be assigned by the WarDepartment through the Provost-Marshal-General's office, due regard beinghad for the men heretofore furnished, whether by volunteering or drafting;and the recruiting will be conducted in accordance with such instructionsas have been or may be issued by that department. 

In issuing this proclamation, I address myself not only to the governorsof the several States, but also to the good and loyal people thereof, invoking them to lend their cheerful, willing, and effective aid to themeasures thus adopted, with a view to reinforce our victorious army now inthe field, and bring our needful military operations to a prosperous end, thus closing forever the fountains of sedition and civil war. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FOSTER. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 17, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FOSTER, Port Monroe, Va. :

It would be useless for Mrs. Dr. Wright to come here. The subject is avery painful one, but the case is settled. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO W. B. THOMAS

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , OCTOBER 17, 1863

HON. WILLIAM B. THOMAS, Philadelphia, Pa. 

I am grateful for your offer of 100, 000 men, but as at present advisedI do not consider that Washington is in danger, or that there is anyemergency requiring 60 or 90 days men. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. WILLIAMS AND N. G. TAYLOR. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, October 17, 1863. 

JOHN WILLIAMS AND N G. TAYLOR, Knoxville, Tenn. :

You do not estimate the holding of East Tennessee more highly than I do. There is no absolute purpose of withdrawing our forces from it, and only acontingent one to withdraw them temporarily for the purpose of not losingthe position permanently. I am in great hope of not finding it necessaryto withdraw them at all, particularly if you raise new troops rapidly forus there. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO T. C. DURANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON CITY, October 18, 1863. 

T. C. DURANT, New York:

As I do with others, so I will try to see you when you come. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, October 19, 1863. 9. A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Chattanooga, Tenn:

There has been no battle recently at Bull Run. I suppose what you haveheard a rumor of was not a general battle, but an "affair" at BristowStation on the railroad, a few miles beyond Manassas Junction toward theRappahannock, on Wednesday, the 14th. It began by an attack of the enemyupon General Warren, and ended in the enemy being repulsed with a loss offour cannon and from four to seven hundred prisoners. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL R. C. SCHENCK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 21, 1863. 2. 45

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md. :

A delegation is here saying that our armed colored troops are at many, ifnot all, the landings on the Patuxent River, and by their presence witharms in their hands are frightening quiet people and producing greatconfusion. Have they been sent there by any order, and if so, for whatreason?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL R. C. SCHENCK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 22, 1863. 1. 30 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHENCK, Baltimore, Md. :

Please come over here. The fact of one of our officers being killed on thePatuxent is a specimen of what I would avoid. It seems to me we couldsend white men to recruit better than to send negroes and thus inauguratehomicides on punctilio. 

Please come over. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 24, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK:

Taking all our information together, I think it probable that Ewell'scorps has started for East Tennessee by way of Abingdon, marchinglast Monday, say from Meade's front directly to the railroad atCharlottesville. 

First, the object of Lee's recent movement against Meade; his destructionof the Alexandria and Orange Railroad, and subsequent withdrawalwithout more motive, not otherwise apparent, would be explained by thishypothesis. 

Secondly, the direct statement of Sharpe's men that Ewell has gone toTennessee. 

Thirdly, the Irishman's [Northern Spy in Richmond] statement that he hasnot gone through Richmond, and his further statement of an appeal madeto the people at Richmond to go and protect their salt, which could onlyrefer to the works near Abingdon. 

Fourthly, Graham's statement from Martinsburg that Imboden is in retreatfor Harrisonburg. This last matches with the idea that Lee has retainedhis cavalry, sending Imboden and perhaps other scraps to join Ewell. Uponthis probability what is to be done?

If you have a plan matured, I have nothing to say. If you have not, thenI suggest that, with all possible expedition, the Army of the Potomacget ready to attack Lee, and that in the meantime a raid shall, at allhazards, break the railroad at or near Lynchburg. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO E. B. WASHBURNE. 

(Private and Confidential. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 26, 1863. 

HON. E. B. WASHBURNE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of the 12th has been in my hands several days. Inclosed I send the leave of absence for your brother, in as good form asI think I can safely put it. Without knowing whether he would accept it. Ihave tendered the collectorship at Portland, Maine, to your other brother, the governor. 

Thanks to both you and our friend Campbell for your kind words andintentions. A second term would be a great honor and a great labor, which, together, perhaps I would not decline if tendered. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY CHASE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 26, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

MY DEAR SIR:--The writer of the accompanying letter is one of Mrs. Lincoln's numerous cousins. He is a grandson of "Milliken's Bend, " nearVicksburg--that is, a grandson of the man who gave name to Milliken'sBend. His father was a brother to MRS. Lincoln's mother. I know not athing about his loyalty beyond what he says. Supposing he is loyal, canany of his requests be granted, and if any, which of them?

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

THE PAPERS AND WRITINGS OF ABRAHAM LINCOLN

VOLUME SEVEN

CONSTITUTIONAL EDITION

By Abraham Lincoln

Edited by Arthur Brooks Lapsley

THE WRITINGS OF A. LINCOLN, Volume Seven, 1863-1865

1863

OPINION ON THE LOSS OF GENERAL R. H. MILROY'S DIVISION. 

October 27, 1863. 

In June last a division was substantially lost at or near Winchester, Va. At the time, it was under General Milroy as immediate commander in thefield, General Schenck as department commander at Baltimore, and GeneralHalleck as general-in-chief at Washington. 

General Milroy, as immediate commander, was put in arrest, andsubsequently a court of inquiry examined chiefly with reference todisobedience of orders, and reported the evidence. 

The foregoing is a synoptical statement of the evidence, together with thejudge-advocate-general's conclusions. The disaster, when it came, was asurprise to all. It was very well known to Generals Shenck and Milroy forsome time before, that General Halleck thought the division was in greatdanger of a surprise at Winchester; that it was of no service commensuratewith the risk it incurred, and that it ought to be withdrawn; but, although he more than once advised its withdrawal, he never positivelyordered it. General Schenck, on the contrary, believed the service of theforce at Winchester was worth the hazard, and so did not positivelyorder its withdrawal until it was so late that the enemy cut the wire andprevented the order reaching General Milroy. 

General Milroy seems to have concurred with General Schenck in the opinionthat the force should be kept at Winchester at least until the approach ofdanger, but he disobeyed no order upon the subject. 

Some question can be made whether some of General Halleck's dispatches toGeneral Schenk should not have been construed to be orders to withdraw theforce, and obeyed accordingly; but no such question can be made againstGeneral Milroy. In fact, the last order he received was to be prepared towithdraw, but not to actually withdraw until further order, which furtherorder never reached him. 

Serious blame is not necessarily due to any serious disaster, and I cannotsay that in this case any of the officers are deserving of serious blame. No court-martial is deemed necessary or proper in the case. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL SCHOFIELD. 

Private and confidential

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 28, 1863. 

GENERAL JOHN M. SCHOFIELD:

There have recently reached the War Department, and thence been laidbefore me, from Missouri, three communications, all similar in import andidentical in object. One of them, addressed to nobody, and without placeor date, but having the signature of (apparently) the writer, is a letterof eight closely written foolscap pages. The other two are written bya different person, at St. Joseph, Mo. , and of the dates, respectively, October 12 and 13, 1863, and each inclosing a large number of affidavits. The general statements of the whole are that the Federal and Stateauthorities are arming the disloyal and disarming the loyal, and that thelatter will all be killed or driven out of the State unless there shall bea change. In particular, no loyal man who has been disarmed is named, butthe affidavits show by name forty-two persons as disloyal who have beenarmed. They are as follows: [The names are omitted. ]

A majority of these are shown to have been in the rebel service. I believeit could be shown that the government here has deliberately armed morethan ten times as many captured at Gettysburg, to say nothing of similaroperations in East Tennessee. These papers contain altogether thirty--onemanuscript pages, and one newspaper in extenso, and yet I do not find itanywhere charged in them that any loyal man has been harmed by reason ofbeing disarmed, or that any disloyal one has harmed anybody by reason ofbeing armed by the Federal or State Government. Of course, I have not hadtime to carefully examine all; but I have had most of them examined andbriefed by others, and the result is as stated. The remarkable fact thatthe actual evil is yet only anticipated--inferred--induces me to suppose Iunderstand the case; but I do not state my impression, because I mightbe mistaken, and because your duty and mine is plain in any event. Thelocality of nearly all this seems to be St. Joseph and Buchanan County. I wish you to give special attention to this region, particularly onelection day. Prevent violence from whatever quarter, and see that thesoldiers themselves do no wrong. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

[Cipher. ]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 28, 1863. 

HON. ANDREW JOHNSON, Nashville, Tenn. : If not too inconvenient, pleasecome at once and have a personal conversation with me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO VICE-PRESIDENT HAMLIN. 

AN ACT TO REGULATE THE DUTIES OF THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVESIN PREPARING FOR THE ORGANIZATION OF THE HOUSE. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the UnitedStates of America in Congress assembled, that, before the first meeting ofthe next Congress, and of every subsequent Congress, the clerk of thenext preceding House of Representatives shall make a roll of theRepresentatives elect, and place thereon the names of all persons, and ofsuch persons only, whose credentials show that they were regularly electedin accordance with the laws of their States respectively, or the laws ofthe United States. 

Approved March 3, 1863. 

TO J. W. GRIMES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 29, 1863. 

HON. JAMES W. GRIMES. 

MY DEAR SIR:--The above act of Congress was passed, as I suppose, forthe purpose of shutting out improper applicants for seats in the House ofRepresentatives; and I fear there is some danger that it will be used toshut out proper ones. Iowa, having an entire Union delegation, will beone of the States the attempt will be made, if upon any. The Governordoubtless has made out the certificates, and they are already in thehands of the members. I suggest that they come on with them; but that, forgreater caution, you, and perhaps Mr. Harlan with you, consult with theGovernor, and have an additional set made out according to the form on theother half of this sheet; and still another set, if you can, by studyingthe law, think of a form that in your judgment, promises additionalsecurity, and quietly bring the whole on with you, to be used in case ofnecessity. Let what you do be kept still. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO P. F. LOWE. 

[Cipher. ]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 30, 1863. 

HON. F. F. LOWE, San Francisco, Cal. :

Below is an act of Congress, passed last session, intended to excludeapplicants not entitled to seats, but which, there is reason to fear, willbe used to exclude some who are entitled. Please get with the Governorand one or two other discreet friends, study the act carefully, and makecertificates in two or three forms, according to your best judgement, and have them sent to me, so as to multiply the chances of the delegationgetting their seats. Let it be done without publicity. Below is a formwhich may answer for one. If you could procure the same to be done for theOregon member it might be well. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 30, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

Much obliged for the information about deserters contained in yourdispatch of yesterday, while I have to beg your pardon for troubling youin regard to some of them, when, as it appears by yours, I had the meansof answering my own questions. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MEMORANDUM. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 31, 1863. 

The Provost-Marshal-General has issued no proclamation at all. He hasin no form announced anything recently in regard to troops in New York, except in his letter to Governor Seymour of October 21, which has beenpublished in the newspapers of that State. It has not been announced ordecided in any form by the Provost-Marshal-General, or any one else inauthority of the Government, that every citizen who has paid his threehundred dollars commutation is liable to be immediately drafted again, orthat towns that have just raised the money to pay their quotas will haveagain to be subject to similar taxation or suffer the operations of thenew conscription, nor it is probable that the like of them ever will beannounced or decided. 

TELEGRAM TO W. H. SEWARD. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 1, 1863. 

HON. W. H. SEWARD, Auburn, N. Y. :

No important news. Details of Hooker's night fight do great credit to hiscommand, and particularly to the Eleventh Corps and Geary's part of theTwelfth. No discredit on any. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO POSTMASTER-GENERAL BLAIR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 2, 1863. 

HON. MONTGOMERY BLAIR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Some days ago I understood you to say that your brother, General Frank Blair, desires to be guided by my wishes as to whether hewill occupy his seat in Congress or remain in the field. My wish, then, iscompounded of what I believe will be best for the country; and it is thathe will come here, put his military commission in my hands, take his seat, go into caucus with our friends, abide the nominations, help elect thenominees, and thus aid to organize a House of Representatives which willreally support the Government in the war. If the result shall be theelection of himself as Speaker, let him serve in that position. If not, let him retake his commission and return to the army for the benefit ofthe country. 

This will heal a dangerous schism for him. It will relieve him from adangerous position or a misunderstanding, as I think he is in danger ofbeing permanently separated from those with whom only he can ever have areal sympathy--the sincere opponents of slavery. 

It will be a mistake if he shall allow the provocations offered him byinsincere time-servers to drive him from the house of his own building. Heis young yet. He has abundant talents--quite enough to occupy all his timewithout devoting any to temper. 

He is rising in military skill and usefulness. His recent appointment tothe command of a corps, by one so competent to judge as General Sherman, proves this. In that line he can serve both the country and himself moreprofitably than he could as a member of Congress upon the floor. 

The foregoing is what I would say if Frank Blair was my brother instead ofyours. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR BRADFORD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 2, 1863. 

His EXCELLENCY A. W. BRADFORD, Governor of Maryland. 

SIR:--Yours of the 31st ult. Was received yesterday about noon, and sincethen I have been giving most earnest attention to the subject-matterof it. At my call General Schenck has attended, and he assures me it isalmost certain that violence will be used at some of the voting places onelection day unless prevented by his provost-guards. He says that at someof those places Union voters will not attend at all, or run a ticket, unless they have some assurance of protection. This makes the Missouricase, of my action in regard to which you express your approval. 

The remaining point of your letter is a protest against any personoffering to vote being put to any test not found in the laws of Maryland. This brings us to a difference between Missouri and Maryland. With thesame reason in both States, Missouri has, by law, provided a test for thevoter with reference to the present rebellion, while Maryland has not. Forexample, General Trimble, captured fighting us at Gettysburg, is, withoutrecanting his treason, a legal voter by the laws of Maryland. Even GeneralSchenck's order admits him to vote, if he recants upon oath. I think thatis cheap enough. My order in Missouri, which you approve, and GeneralScherick's order here, reach precisely the same end. Bach assures theright of voting to all loyal men, and whether a man is loyal, each allowsthat man to fix by his own oath. Your suggestion that nearly all thecandidates are loyal, I do not think quite meets the case. In thisstruggle for the nation's life, I cannot so confidently rely on thosewhose elections may have depended upon disloyal votes. Such men, whenelected, may prove true; but such votes are given them in the expectationthat they will prove false. 

Nor do I think that to keep the peace at the polls, and to prevent thepersistently disloyal from voting, constitutes just cause of offense toMaryland. I think she has her own example for it. If I mistake not, it isprecisely what General Dix did when your Excellency was elected Governor. 

I revoke the first of the three propositions in General Schenek's GeneralOrder No. 53; not that it is wrong in principle, but because the military, being of necessity exclusive judges as to who shall be arrested, theprovision is too liable to abuse. For the revoked part I substitute thefollowing:

That, all provost-marshals and other military officers do prevent alldisturbance and violence at or about the polls, whether offered by suchpersons as above described, or by any other person or persons whomsoever. 

The other two propositions of the order I allow to stand. General Schenekis fully determined, and has my strict orders besides, that all loyal menmay vote, and vote for whom they please. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. H. HACKETT

[Private. ]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 2, 1863. 

JAMES H. HACKETT. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of October 22d is received, as also was, indue course, that of October 3d. I look forward with pleasure to thefulfillment of the promise made in the former to visit Washington thefollowing winter and to "call. "

Give yourself no uneasiness on the subject mentioned in that of the 22d. My note to you I certainly did not expect to see in print, yet I have notbeen much shocked by the newspaper comments upon it. 

Those comments constitute a fair specimen of what has occurred to methrough life. I have endured a great deal of ridicule, without muchmalice; and have received a great deal of kindness not quite free fromridicule. I am used to it. 

TELEGRAM TO W. H. SEWARD. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, November 3, 1863. 

HON. W. H. SEWARD, Auburn, N. Y. :

Nothing new. Dispatches up to 12 last night from Chattanooga show allquiet and doing well. How is your son?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 3, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

Samuel Wellers, private in Company B, Forty-ninth Pennsylvania Volunteers, writes that he is to be shot for desertion on the 6th instant. His ownstory is rather a bad one, and yet he tells it so frankly, that Iam somewhat interested in him. Has he been a good soldier except thedesertion? About how old is he?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE, MANSION WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 5, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

Please suspend the execution of Samuel Wellers, Forty-ninth PennsylvaniaVolunteers, until further orders. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL A. E. BURNSIDE. WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, November9, 1863. 4 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Knoxville, Tenn. :

Have seen dispatch from General Grant about your loss at Rogersville. Percontra, about the same time, Averell and Duffle got considerable advantageof the enemy at and about Lewisburg, Virginia: and on Saturday, theseventh, Meade drove the enemy from Rappahannock Station and Kelly's Ford, capturing eight battle-flags, four guns, and over 1800 prisoners, withvery little loss to himself. Let me hear from you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. G. MEADE. 

WASHINGTON, November 9, 1863 7. 30 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE:

I have seen your dispatches about operations on the Rappahannock onSaturday, and I wish to say, "Well done!" Do the 1500 prisoners reportedby General Sedgwick include the 400 taken by General French, or do theWhole amount to 1900?

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER CONCERNING THE EXPORT OF TOBACCO PURCHASED BY FOREIGN NATIONS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 10, 1863. 

In consideration of the peculiar circumstances and pursuant to the comitydeemed to be due to friendly powers, any tobacco in the United Statesbelonging to the government either of France, Austria, or any other statewith which this country is at peace, and which tobacco was purchased andpaid for by such government prior to the 4th day of March, 1861, may beexported from any port of the United States under the supervision and uponthe responsibility of naval officers of such governments and in conformityto such regulations as may be presented by the Secretary of State of theUnited States, and not otherwise. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHOFIELD. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 10, 1863. 

GENERAL SCHOFIELD, Saint Louis, Mo. :

 I see a dispatch here from Saint Louis, which is a little difficultfor me to understand. It says "General Schofield has refused leave ofabsence to members in military service to attend the legislature. All suchare radical and administration men. The election of two Senators fromthis place on Thursday will probably turn upon this thing. " what does thismean? Of course members of the legislation must be allowed to attend itssessions. But how is there a session before the recent election returnsare in? And how is it to be at "this place"--and that is Saint Louis?Please inform me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SCHOFIELD. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 11, 1863. 

GENERAL SCHOFIELD, Saint Louis, Mo. :

I believe the Secretary of War has telegraphed you about members of thelegislation. At all events, allow those in the service to attend thesession, and we can afterward decide whether they can stay through theentire session. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO HIRAM BARNEY. 

 [Cipher. ]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 11, 1863. 

HON. HIRAM BARNEY, New York; I would like an interview with you. Can younot come?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. MILDERBORGER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 11, 1863. 

JOHN MILDERBORGER, Peru, Ind. :

I cannot comprehend the object of your dispatch. I do not often declineseeing people who call upon me, and probably will see you if you call. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM to E. H. AND E. JAMESON. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 13, 1863. 

E. H. And E. JAMESON, Jefferson City, Mo. :

Yours saying Brown and Henderson are elected Senators is received. Iunderstand this is one and one. If so it is knocking heads together tosome. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, November 14, 1863. 12. 15 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Cincinnati, Ohio:

I have received and considered your dispatch of yesterday. Of the reportsyou mention, I have not the means of seeing any except your own. Besidesthis, the publication might be improper in view of the court of inquirywhich has been ordered. With every disposition, not merely to do justice, but to oblige you, I feel constrained to say I think the publicationsbetter not be made now. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURNSIDE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, November 16, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURNSIDE, Knoxville, Tenn. :

What is the news?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY CHASE

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 17, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I expected to see you here at Cabinet meeting, and to saysomething about going to Gettysburg. There will be a train to take andreturn us. The time for starting is not yet fixed, but when it shall be Iwill notify you. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ADDRESS AT GETTYSBURG

NOVEMBER 19, 1863. 

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on thiscontinent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to theproposition that all men are created equal. 

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation orany nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on agreat battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of thatfield, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives thatthat nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we shoulddo this. 

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate--we can not consecrate--wecan not hallow--this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggledhere, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it cannever forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to bededicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thusfar so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to thegreat task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we takeincreased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measureof devotion that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not havedied in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth offreedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 20, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

If there is a man by the name of King under sentence to be shot, pleasesuspend execution till further order, and send record. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON. November 20, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

An intelligent woman in deep distress, called this morning, saying herhusband, a lieutenant in the Army of Potomac, was to be shot next Mondayfor desertion, and putting a letter in my hand, upon which I relied forparticulars, she left without mentioning a name or other particular bywhich to identify the case. On opening the letter I found it equallyvague, having nothing to identify by, except her own signature, whichseems to be "Mrs. Anna S. King. " I could not again find her. If you havea case which you shall think is probably the one intended, please apply mydispatch of this morning to it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO E. P. EVANS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 23, 1863. 

E. P. EVANS, West Union, Adams County, Ohio:

Yours to Governor Chase in behalf of John A Welch is before me. Can therebe a worse case than to desert and with letters persuading others todesert? I cannot interpose without a better showing than you make. Whendid he desert? when did he write the letters?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 23, 1863. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Two despatches since I saw you; one not quite so late onfiring as we had before, but giving the points that Burnside thinks hecan hold the place, that he is not closely invested, and that he foragesacross the river. The other brings the firing up to 11 A. M. Yesterday, being twenty-three hours later than we had before. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL GRANT. 

WASHINGTON, November 25, 1863. 8. 40 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL U. S. GRANT:

Your despatches as to fighting on Monday and Tuesday are here. Well done!Many thanks to all. Remember Burnside. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO C. P. KIRKLAND. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 7, 1863. 

CHARLES P. KIRKLAND, ESQ. , New York:

I have just received and have read your published letter to the HON. Benjamin R. Curtis. Under the circumstances I may not be the mostcompetent judge, but it appears to me to be a paper of great ability, andfor the country's sake more than for my own I thank you for it. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

ANNOUNCEMENT OF UNION SUCCESS IN EAST TENNESSEE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 7, 1863. 

Reliable information being received that the insurgent force is retreatingfrom East Tennessee, under circumstances rendering it probable that theUnion forces cannot hereafter be dislodged from that important position;and esteeming this to be of high national consequence, I recommend thatall loyal people do, on receipt of this information, assemble at theirplaces of worship, and render special homage and gratitude to Almighty Godfor this great advancement of the national cause. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION OF AMNESTY AND RECONSTRUCTION. DECEMBER 8, 1863. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas in and by the Constitution of the United States it is providedthat the President "shall have power to grant reprieves and pardons foroffenses against the United States, except in cases of impeachment;" and, Whereas a rebellion now exists whereby the loyal State governments ofseveral States have for a long time been subverted, and many persons havecommitted and are now guilty of treason against the United States; and

Whereas, with reference to said rebellion and treason, laws have beenenacted by Congress declaring forfeitures and confiscation of property andliberation of slaves, all upon terms and conditions therein stated, andalso declaring that the President was thereby authorized at anytime thereafter, by proclamation, to extend to persons who may haveparticipated in the existing rebellion in any State or part thereof pardonand amnesty, with such exceptions and at such times and on such conditionsas he may deem expedient for the public welfare; and

Whereas the Congressional declaration for limited and conditional pardonaccords with well-established judicial exposition of the pardoning power;and

Whereas, with reference to said rebellion, the President of the UnitedStates has issued several proclamations with provisions in regard to theliberation of slaves; and

Whereas it is now desired by some persons heretofore engaged in saidrebellion to resume their allegiance to the United States and toreinaugurate loyal State governments within and for their respectiveStates:

Therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, doproclaim, declare, and make known to all persons who have, directly or byimplication, participated in the existing rebellion, except as hereinafterexcepted, that a full pardon is hereby granted to them and each of them, with restoration of all rights of property, except as to slaves and inproperty cases where rights of third parties shall have intervened, andupon the condition that every such person shall take and subscribe an oathand thenceforward keep and maintain said oath inviolate, and which oathshall be registered for permanent preservation and shall be of the tenorand effect following, to wit:

"I, ------, do solemnly swear, in presence of Almighty God, that I willhenceforth faithfully support, protect, and defend the Constitution of theUnited States and the Union of the States thereunder; and that I will inlike manner abide by and faithfully support all acts of Congress passedduring the existing rebellion with reference to slaves, so long and so faras not repealed, modified, or held void by Congress or by decision ofthe Supreme Court; and that I will in like manner abide by and faithfullysupport all proclamations of the President made during the existingrebellion having reference to slaves, so long and so far as not modifiedor declared void by decision of the Supreme Court. So help me God. "

The persons excepted from the benefits of the foregoing provisions are allwho are or shall have been civil or diplomatic officers or agents of theso-called Confederate Government; all who have left judicial stationsunder the United States to aid the rebellion; all who are or shall havebeen military or naval officers of said so-called Confederate Governmentabove the rank of colonel in the army or of lieutenant in the navy; allwho left seats in the United States Congress to aid the rebellion; allwho resigned commissions in the Army or Navy of the United States andafterwards aided the rebellion; and all who have engaged in any way intreating colored persons, or white persons in charge of such, otherwisethan lawfully as prisoners of war, and which persons may have beenfound in the United States service as soldiers, seamen, or in any othercapacity. 

And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known that whenever, inany of the States of Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Tennessee, Alabama, Georgia, Florida, South Carolina, and North Carolina, a number ofpersons, not less than one-tenth in number of the votes cast in such Stateat the Presidential election of the year A. D. 1860, each having taken oathaforesaid, and not having since violated it, and being a qualified voterby the election law of the State existing immediately before the so-calledact of secession, and excluding all others, shall reestablish a Stategovernment which shall be republican and in nowise contravening said oath, such shall be recognized as the true government of the State, andthe State shall receive thereunder the benefits of the constitutionalprovision which declares that "the United States shall guarantee to everyState in this Union a republican form of government and shall protect eachof them against invasion, and, on application of the legislature, or theEXECUTIVE (when the legislature can not be convened), against domesticviolence. "

And I do further proclaim, declare, and make known that any provisionwhich may be adopted by such State government in relation to the freedpeople of such State which shall recognize and declare their permanentfreedom, provide for their education, and which may yet be consistent asa temporary arrangement with their present condition as a laboring, landless, and homeless class, will not be objected to by the NationalEXECUTIVE. 

And it is suggested as not improper that in constructing a loyalState government in any State the name of the State, the boundary, thesubdivisions, the constitution, and the general code of laws as before therebellion be maintained, subject only to the modifications made necessaryby the conditions hereinbefore stated, and such others, if any, notcontravening said co and which may be deemed expedient by those framingthe new State government. 

To avoid misunderstanding, it may be proper to say that this proclamation, so far as it relates to State governments, has no reference to Stateswherein loyal State governments have all the while been maintained. Andfor the same reason it may be proper to further say that whethermembers sent to Congress from any State shall be admitted to seatsconstitutionally rests exclusively with the respective Houses, and not toany extent with the EXECUTIVE. And, still further, that this proclamationis intended to present the people of the States wherein the nationalauthority has been suspended and loyal State governments have beensubverted a mode in and by which the national authority and loyal Stategovernments may be re-established within said States or in any of them;and while the mode presented is the best the EXECUTIVE can suggest, withhis present impressions, it must not be understood that no other possiblemode would be acceptable. 

Given under my hand at the city of WASHINGTON, the 8th day of December, A. D. 1863, and of the Independence of the United States of America theeighty-eighth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, DECEMBER 8, 1863. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:--

Another year of health, and of sufficiently abundant harvests, has passed. For these, and especially for the improved condition cf our nationalaffairs, our renewed and profoundest gratitude to God is due. 

We remain in peace and friendship with foreign powers. 

The efforts of disloyal citizens of the United States to involve us inforeign wars, to aid an inexcusable insurrection, have been unavailing. Her Britannic Majesty's government, as was justly expected, have exercisedtheir authority to prevent the departure of new hostile expeditions fromBritish ports. The Emperor of France has, by a like proceeding, promptlyvindicated the neutrality which he proclaimed at the beginning of thecontest. Questions of great intricacy and importance have arisen out ofthe blockade, and other belligerent operations, between the Government andseveral of the maritime powers, but they have been discussed, and, asfar as was possible, accommodated, in a spirit of frankness, justice, andmutual good-will. It is especially gratifying that our prize courts, bythe impartiality of their adjudications, have commanded the respect andconfidence of maritime powers. 

The supplemental treaty between the United States and Great Britainfor the suppression of the African slave-trade, made on the 17th day ofFebruary last, has been duly ratified and carried into execution. Itis believed that, so far as American ports and American citizens areconcerned, that inhuman and odious traffic has been brought to an end. 

I shall submit, for the consideration of the Senate, a convention for theadjustment of possessory claims in Washington Territory, arising out ofthe treaty of the 15th of June, 1846, between the United States andGreat Britain, and which have been the source of some disquiet among thecitizens of that now rapidly improving part of the country. 

A novel and important question, involving the extent of the maritimejurisdiction of Spain in the waters which surround the island of Cuba, has been debated without reaching an agreement, and it is proposed, inan amicable spirit, to refer it to the arbitrament of a friendly power. Aconvention for that purpose will be submitted to the Senate. 

I have thought it proper, subject to the approval of the Senate, toconcur with the interested commercial powers in an arrangement for theliquidation of the Scheldt dues upon the principles which have beenheretofore adopted in regard to the imposts upon navigation in the watersof Denmark. 

The long-pending controversy between this government and that of Chiletouching the seizure at Sitana, in Peru, by Chilean officers, of a largeamount in treasure belonging to citizens of the United States has beenbrought to a close by the award of His Majesty the King of the Belgians, to whose arbitration the question was referred by the parties. The subjectwas thoroughly and patiently examined by that justly respected magistrate, and although the sum awarded to the claimants may not have been aslarge as they expected there is no reason to distrust the wisdom of HisMajesty's decision. That decision was promptly complied with by Chile whenintelligence in regard to it reached that country. 

The joint commission under the act of the last session of carryinginto effect the convention with Peru on the subject of claims has beenorganized at Lima, and is engaged in the business intrusted to it. 

Difficulties concerning interoceanic transit through Nicaragua are incourse of amicable adjustment. 

In conformity with principles set forth in my last annual message, I havereceived a representative from the United States of Colombia, and haveaccredited a minister to that Republic. 

Incidents occurring in the progress of our civil war have forced uponmy attention the uncertain state of international questions touching therights of foreigners in this country and of United States citizens abroad. In regard to some governments these rights are at least partially definedby treaties. In no instance, however, is it expressly stipulated that inthe event of civil war a foreigner residing in this country within thelines of the insurgents is to be exempted from the rule which classes himas a belligerent, in whose behalf the government of his country can notexpect any privileges or immunities distinct from that character. I regretto say, however, that such claims have been put forward, and in someinstances in behalf of foreigners who have lived in the United States thegreater part of their lives. 

There is reason to believe that many persons born in foreign countries whohave declared their intention to become citizens, or who have been fullynaturalized have evaded the military duty required of them by denying thefact and thereby throwing upon the Government the burden of proof. It hasbeen found difficult or impracticable to obtain this proof from the wantof guides to the proper sources of information. These might be supplied byrequiring clerks of courts where declarations of intention may be made ornaturalizations effected to send periodically lists of the names of thepersons naturalized or declaring their intention to become citizens tothe Secretary of the Interior, in whose Department those names might bearranged and printed for general information. 

There is also reason to believe that foreigners frequently become citizensof the United States for the sole purpose of evading duties imposed by thelaws of their native countries, to which on becoming naturalized here theyat once repair, and though never returning to the United States they stillclaim the interposition of this government as citizens. Many altercationsand great prejudices have heretofore arisen out of this abuse. It istherefore submitted to your serious consideration. It might be advisableto fix a limit beyond which no citizen of the United States residingabroad may claim the interposition of his government. 

The right of suffrage has often been assumed and exercised by aliens underpretenses of naturalization, which they have disavowed when drafted intothe military service. I submit the expediency of such an amendment ofthe law as will make the fact of voting an estoppe against any plea ofexemption from military service or other civil obligation on the ground ofalienage. 

In common with other Western powers, our relations with Japan have beenbrought into serious jeopardy through the perverse opposition of thehereditary aristocracy of the Empire to the enlightened and liberal policyof the Tycoon, designed to bring the country into the society of nations. It is hoped, although not with entire confidence, that these difficultiesmay be peacefully overcome. I ask your attention to the claim of theminister residing there for the damages he sustained in the destruction byfire of the residence of the legation at Yedo. 

Satisfactory arrangements have been made with the Emperor of Russia, which, it is believed, will result in effecting a continuous line oftelegraph through that Empire from our Pacific coast. 

I recommend to your favorable consideration the subject of aninternational telegraph across the Atlantic Ocean, and also of a telegraphbetween this capital and the national forts along the Atlantic seaboardand the Gulf of Mexico. Such communications, established with anyreasonable outlay, would be economical as well as effective aids to thediplomatic, military, and naval service. 

The consular system of the United States, under the enactments of the lastCongress, begins to be self-sustaining, and there is reason to hope thatit may become entirely so with the increase of trade which will ensuewhenever peace is restored. Our ministers abroad have been faithful indefending American rights. In protecting commercial interests our consulshave necessarily had to encounter increased labors and responsibilitiesgrowing out of the war. These they have for the most part met anddischarged with zeal and efficiency. This acknowledgment justly includesthose consuls who, residing in Morocco, Egypt, Turkey, Japan, China, and other Oriental countries, are charged with complex functions andextraordinary powers. 

The condition of the several organized Territories is generallysatisfactory, although Indian disturbances in New Mexico have not beenentirely suppressed. The mineral resources of Colorado, Nevada, Idaho, New Mexico, and Arizona are proving far richer than has been heretoforeunderstood. I lay before you a communication on this subject fromthe Governor of New Mexico. I again submit to your consideration theexpediency of establishing a system for the encouragement of immigration. Although this source of national wealth and strength is again flowing withgreater freedom than for several years before the insurrection occurred, there is still a great deficiency of laborers in every field of industry, especially in agriculture and in our mines, as well of iron and coal asof the precious metals. While the demand for labor is much increased here, tens of thousands of persons, destitute of remunerative occupation, arethronging our foreign consulates and offering to emigrate to the UnitedStates if essential, but very cheap, assistance can be afforded them. Itis easy to see that under the sharp discipline of civil war the nationis beginning a new life. This noble effort demands the aid and ought toreceive the attention and support of the Government. 

Injuries unforeseen by the Government and unintended may in some caseshave been inflicted on the subjects or citizens of foreign countries, bothat sea and on land, by persons in the service of the United States. Asthis government expects redress from other powers when similar injuriesare inflicted by persons in their service upon citizens of the UnitedStates, we must be prepared to do justice to foreigners. If the existingjudicial tribunals are inadequate to this purpose, a special court maybe authorized, with power to hear and decide such claims of the characterreferred to as may have arisen under treaties and the public law. Conventions for adjusting the claims by joint commission have beenproposed to some governments, but no definitive answer to the propositionhas yet been received from any. 

In the course of the session I shall probably have occasion to request youto provide indemnification to claimants where decrees of restitution havebeen rendered and damages awarded by admiralty courts, and in other caseswhere this government may be acknowledged to be liable in principle andwhere the amount of that liability has been ascertained by an informalarbitration. 

The proper officers of the Treasury have deemed themselves required by thelaw of the United States upon the subject to demand a tax upon theincomes of foreign consuls in this country. While such a demand may notin strictness be in derogation of public law, or perhaps of any existingtreaty between the United States and a foreign country, the expediency ofso far modifying the act as to exempt from tax the income of such consulsas are not citizens of the United States, derived from the emolumentsof their office or from property not situated in the United States, issubmitted to your serious consideration. I make this suggestion upon theground that a comity which ought to be reciprocated exempts our consuls inall other countries from taxation to the extent thus indicated. The UnitedStates, I think, ought not to be exceptionally illiberal to internationaltrade and commerce. 

The operations of the Treasury during the last year have been successfullyconducted. The enactment by Congress of a national banking law has proveda valuable support of the public credit, and the general legislation inrelation to loans has fully answered the expectations of its favorers. Some amendments may be required to perfect existing laws, but no change intheir principles or general scope is believed to be needed. 

Since these measures have been in operation all demands on the Treasury, including the pay of the Army and Navy, have been promptly met and fullysatisfied. No considerable body of troops, it is believed, were ever moreamply provided and more liberally and punctually paid, and it may beadded that by no people were the burdens incident to a great war ever morecheerfully borne. 

The receipts during the year from all sources, including loans andbalance in the Treasury at its commencement, were $901, 125, 674. 86, and theaggregate disbursements $895, 796, 630. 65, leaving a balance on the 1stof July, 1863, of $5, 329, 044. 21. Of the receipts there were derived fromcustoms $69, 059, 642. 40, from internal revenue $37, 640, 787. 95, from directtax $1, 485, 103. 61, from lands $167, 617. 17, from miscellaneous sources$3, 046, 615. 35, and from loans $776, 682, 361. 57, making the aggregate$901, 125, 674. 86. Of the disbursements there were for the civil service$23, 253, 922. 08, for pensions and Indians $4, 216, 520. 79, for interest onpublic debt $24, 729, 846. 51, for the War Department $599, 298, 600. 83, forthe Navy Department $63, 211, 105. 27, for payment of funded and temporarydebt $181, 086, 635. 07, making the aggregate $895, 796, 630. 65 and leaving thebalance of $5, 329, 044. 21. But the payment of funded and temporary debt, having been made from moneys borrowed during the year, must be regardedas merely nominal payments and the moneys borrowed to make them as merelynominal receipts, and their amount, $181, 086, 635. 07, should thereforebe deducted both from receipts and disbursements. This being done thereremains as actual receipts $720, 039, 039. 79 and the actual disbursements$714, 709, 995. 58, leaving the balance as already stated. 

The actual receipts and disbursements for the first quarter and theestimated receipts and disbursements for the remaining three-quarters ofthe current fiscal year (1864) will be shown in detail by the report ofthe Secretary of the Treasury, to which I invite your attention. It issufficient to say here that it is not believed that actual results willexhibit a state of the finances less favorable to the country than theestimates of that officer heretofore submitted while it is confidentlyexpected that at the close of the year both disbursements and debt will befound very considerably less than has been anticipated. 

The report of the Secretary of War is a document of great interest. Itconsists of:

1. The military operations of the year, detailed in the report of theGeneral in Chief. 

2. The organization of colored persons into the war service. 

3. The exchange of prisoners, fully set forth in the letter of GeneralHitchcock. 

4. The operations under the act for enrolling and calling out the nationalforces, detailed in the report of the Provost Marshal General. 

5. The organization of the invalid corps, and

6. The operation of the several departments of the Quartermaster-General, Commissary-General, Paymaster-General, Chief of Engineers, Chief ofOrdnance, and Surgeon-General. 

It has appeared impossible to make a valuable summary of this report, except such as would be too extended for this place, and hence I contentmyself by asking your careful attention to the report itself. 

The duties devolving on the naval branch of the service during the yearand throughout the whole of this unhappy contest have been discharged withfidelity and eminent success. The extensive blockade has been constantlyincreasing in efficiency as the Navy has expanded, yet on so long a lineit has so far been impossible to entirely suppress illicit trade. Fromreturns received at the Navy Department it appears that more than 1, 000vessels have been captured since the blockade was instituted? and thatthe value of prizes already sent in for adjudication amounts to over$13, 000, 000. 

The naval force of the United States consists at this time of five hundredand eighty-eight vessels completed and in the course of completion, and ofthese seventy-five are ironclad or armored steamers. The events of the wargive an increased interest and importance to the Navy which will probablyextend beyond the war itself. 

The armored vessels in our Navy completed and in service, or which areunder contract and approaching completion, are believed to exceed innumber those of any other power; but while these may be relied upon forharbor defense and coast service, others of greater strength and capacitywill be necessary for cruising purposes and to maintain our rightfulposition on the ocean. 

The change that has taken place in naval vessels and naval warfare sincethe introduction of steam as a motive power for ships of war demandseither a corresponding change in some of our existing navy yards or theestablishment of new ones for the construction and necessary repair ofmodern naval vessels. No inconsiderable embarrassment, delay, andpublic injury have been experienced from the want of such governmentalestablishments. The necessity of such a navy-yard, so furnished, at somesuitable place upon the Atlantic seaboard has on repeated occasions beenbrought to the attention of Congress by the Navy Department, and isagain presented in the report of the Secretary which accompanies thiscommunication. I think it my duty to invite your special attention tothis subject, and also to that of establishing a yard and depot for navalpurposes upon one of the Western rivers. A naval force has been createdon those interior waters, and under many disadvantages, within little morethan two years, exceeding in numbers the whole naval force of the countryat the commencement of the present Administration. Satisfactory andimportant as have been the performances of the heroic men of the Navy atthis interesting period, they are scarcely more wonderful than the successof our mechanics and artisans in the production of war vessels, which hascreated a new form of naval power. 

Our country has advantages superior to any other nation in our resourcesof iron and timber, with inexhaustible quantities of fuel in the immediatevicinity of both, and all available and in close proximity to navigablewaters. Without the advantage of public works, the resources of the nationhave been developed and its power displayed in the construction of a Navyof such magnitude, which has at the very period of its creation renderedsignal service to the Union. 

The increase of the number of seamen in the public service from 7, 500men in the spring of 1861 to about 34, 000 at the present time has beenaccomplished without special legislation or extraordinary bounties topromote that increase. It has been found, however, that the operation ofthe draft, with the high bounties paid for army recruits, is beginningto affect injuriously the naval service, and will, if not corrected, belikely to impair its efficiency by detaching seamen from their propervocation and inducing them to enter the Army. I therefore respectfullysuggest that Congress might aid both the army and naval services bya definite provision on this subject which would at the same time beequitable to the communities more especially interested. 

I commend to your consideration the suggestions of the Secretary of theNavy in regard to the policy of fostering and training seamen and alsothe education of officers and engineers for the naval service. The NavalAcademy is rendering signal service in preparing midshipmen for the highlyresponsible duties which in after life they will be required to perform. In order that the country should not be deprived of the proper quota ofeducated officers, for which legal provision has been made at thenaval school, the vacancies caused by the neglect or omission to makenominations from the States in insurrection have been filled by theSecretary of the Navy. The school is now more full and complete thanat any former period, and in every respect entitled to the favorableconsideration of Congress. 

During the past fiscal year the financial condition of the Post-OfficeDepartment has been one of increasing prosperity, and I am gratified inbeing able to state that the actual postal revenue has nearly equaled theentire expenditures, the latter amounting to $11, 314, 206. 84 and the formerto $11, 163, 789. 59, leaving a deficiency of but $150, 417. 25. In 1860, the year immediately preceding the rebellion, the deficiency amounted to$5, 656, 705. 49, the postal receipts of that year being $2, 645, 722. 19less that those of 1863. The decrease since 1860 in the annual amount oftransportation has been only about twenty-five per cent, but the annualexpenditure on account of the same has been reduced thirty-five per cent. It is manifest, therefore, that the Post-Office Department may becomeself-sustaining in a few years, even with the restoration of the wholeservice. 

The international conference of postal delegates from the principalcountries of Europe and America, which was called at the suggestion of thePostmaster-General, met at Paris on the 11th of May last and concludedits deliberations on the 8th of June. The principles established bythe conference as best adapted to facilitate postal intercourse betweennations and as the basis of future postal conventions inaugurate a generalsystem of uniform international charges at reduced rates of postage, andcan not fail to produce beneficial results. 

I refer you to the report of the Secretary of the Interior, which isherewith laid before you, for useful and varied information in relation tothe public lands, Indian affairs, patents, pensions, and other matters ofpublic concern pertaining to his Department. 

The quantity of land disposed of during the last and the first quarter ofthe present fiscal years was 3, 841, 549 acres, of which 161, 911 acres weresold for cash, 1, 456, 514 acres were taken up under the homestead law, andthe residue disposed of under laws granting lands for military bounties, for railroad and other purposes. It also appears that the sale of thepublic lands is largely on the increase. 

It has long been a cherished opinion of some of our wisest statesmen thatthe people of the United States had a higher and more enduring interest inthe early settlement and substantial cultivation of the public lands thanin the amount of direct revenue to be derived from the sale of them. Thisopinion has had a controlling influence in shaping legislation upon thesubject of our national domain. I may cite as evidence of this the liberalmeasures adopted in reference to actual settlers; the grant to the Statesof the overflowed lands within their limits, in order to their beingreclaimed and rendered fit for cultivation; the grants to railwaycompanies of alternate sections of land upon the contemplated lines oftheir roads, which when completed will so largely multiply the facilitiesfor reaching our distant possessions. This policy has received its mostsignal and beneficent illustration in the recent enactment grantinghomesteads to actual settlers. Since the 1st day of January last thebefore-mentioned quantity of 1, 456, 514 acres of land have been taken upunder its provisions. This fact and the amount of sales furnish gratifyingevidence of increasing settlement upon the public lands, notwithstandingthe great struggle in which the energies of the nation have been engaged, and which has required so large a withdrawal of our citizens from theiraccustomed pursuits. I cordially concur in the recommendation of theSecretary of the Interior suggesting a modification of the act in favorof those engaged in the military and naval service of the United States. I doubt not that Congress will cheerfully adopt such measures as will, without essentially changing the general features of the system, secure tothe greatest practicable extent its benefits to those who have left theirhomes in the defense of the country in this arduous crisis. 

I invite your attention to the views of the Secretary as to the proprietyof raising by appropriate legislation a revenue from the mineral lands ofthe United States. 

The measures provided at your last session for the removal of certainIndian tribes have been carried into effect. Sundry treaties have beennegotiated, which will in due time be submitted for the constitutionalaction of the Senate. They contain stipulations for extinguishing thepossessory rights of the Indians to large and valuable tracts of lands. It is hoped that the effect of these treaties will result in theestablishment of permanent friendly relations with such of these tribesas have been brought into frequent and bloody collision with our outlyingsettlements and emigrants. Sound policy and our imperative duty to thesewards of the Government demand our anxious and constant attention to theirmaterial well-being, to their progress in the arts of civilization, and, above all, to that moral training which under the blessing of DivineProvidence will confer upon them the elevated and sanctifying influences, the hopes and consolations, of the Christian faith. 

I suggested in my last annual message the propriety of remodeling ourIndian system. Subsequent events have satisfied me of its necessity. Thedetails set forth in the report of the Secretary evince the urgent needfor immediate legislative action. 

I commend the benevolent institutions established or patronized by theGovernment in this District to your generous and fostering care. 

The attention of Congress during the last session was engaged to someextent with a proposition for enlarging the water communication betweenthe Mississippi River and the northeastern seaboard, which proposition, however, failed for the time. Since then, upon a call of the greatestrespectability, a convention has been held at Chicago upon the samesubject, a summary of whose views is contained in a memorial addressed tothe President and Congress, and which I now have the honor to lay beforeyou. That this interest is one which ere long will force its own way I donot entertain a doubt, while it is submitted entirely to your wisdom as towhat can be done now. Augmented interest is given to this subject by theactual commencement of work upon the Pacific Railroad, under auspicesso favorable to rapid progress and completion. The enlarged navigationbecomes a palpable need to the great road. 

I transmit the second annual report of the Commissioner of the Departmentof Agriculture, asking your attention to the developments in that vitalinterest of the nation. 

When Congress assembled a year ago, the war had already lasted nearlytwenty months, and there had been many conflicts on both land and sea, with varying results; the rebellion had been pressed back into reducedlimits; yet the tone of public feeling and opinion, at home and abroad, was not satisfactory. With other signs, the popular elections then justpast indicated uneasiness among ourselves, while, amid much that was coldand menacing, the kindest words coming from Europe were uttered in accentsof pity that we are too blind to surrender a hopeless cause. Our commercewas suffering greatly by a few armed vessels built upon and furnished fromforeign shores, and we were threatened with such additions from the samequarter as would sweep our trade from the sea and raise our blockade. Wehad failed to elicit from European governments anything hopeful upon thissubject. The preliminary emancipation proclamation, issued in September, was running its assigned period to the beginning of the new year. A monthlater the final proclamation came, including the announcement that coloredmen of suitable condition would be received into the war service. Thepolicy of emancipation and of employing black soldiers gave to the futurea new aspect, about which hope and fear and doubt contended in uncertainconflict. According to our political system, as a matter of civiladministration, the General Government had no lawful power to effectemancipation in any State, and for a long time it had been hoped thatthe rebellion could be suppressed without resorting to it as a militarymeasure. It was all the while deemed possible that the necessity for itmight come, and that if it should the crisis of the contest would then bepresented. It came, and, as was anticipated, it was followed by dark anddoubtful days. Eleven months having now passed, we are permitted to takeanother review. The rebel borders are pressed still farther back, andby the complete opening of the Mississippi the country dominated by therebellion is divided into distinct parts, with no practical communicationbetween them. Tennessee and Arkansas have been substantially cleared ofinsurgent control, and influential citizens in each, owners of slaves andadvocates of slavery at the beginning of the rebellion, now declare openlyfor emancipation in their respective States. Of those States not includedin the emancipation proclamation, Maryland and Missouri, neither of whichthree years ago would tolerate any restraint upon the extension of slaveryinto new Territories, dispute now only as to the best mode of removing itwithin their own limits. 

Of those who were slaves at the beginning of the rebellion full 100, 000are now in the United States military service, about one-half of whichnumber actually bear arms in the ranks, thus giving the double advantageof taking so much labor from the insurgent cause and supplying the placeswhich otherwise must be filled with so many white men. So far as tested, it is difficult to say they are not as good soldiers as any. No servileinsurrection or tendency to violence or cruelty has marked the measuresof emancipation and arming the blacks. These measures have been muchdiscussed in foreign countries, and, contemporary with such discussion, the tone of public sentiment there is much improved. At home the samemeasures have been fully discussed, supported, criticized, and denounced, and the annual elections following are highly encouraging to those whoseofficial duty it is to bear the country through this great trial. Thus wehave the new reckoning. The crisis which threatened to divide the friendsof the Union is past. 

Looking now to the present and future, and with reference to a resumptionof the national authority within the States wherein that authority hasbeen suspended, I have thought fit to issue a proclamation, a copy ofwhich is herewith transmitted. On examination of this proclamation itwill appear, as is believed, that nothing will be attempted beyond what isamply justified by the Constitution. True, the form of an oath is given, but no man is coerced to take it. The man is promised a pardon onlyin case he voluntarily takes the oath. The Constitution authorizes theExecutive to grant or withhold the pardon at his own absolute discretion, and this includes the power to grant on terms, as is fully established byjudicial and other authorities. 

It is also proffered that if in any of the States named a State governmentshall be in the mode prescribed set up, such government shall berecognized and guaranteed by the United States, and that under it theState shall, on the constitutional conditions, be protected againstinvasion and domestic violence. The constitutional obligation of theUnited States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican formof government and to protect the State in the cases stated is explicitand full. But why tender the benefits of this provision only to a Stategovernment set up in this particular way? This section of the Constitutioncontemplates a case wherein the element within a State favorable torepublican government in the Union may be too feeble for an oppositeand hostile element external to or even within the State, and such areprecisely the cases with which we are now dealing. 

An attempt to guarantee and protect a revived State government, constructed in whole or in preponderating part from the very elementagainst whose hostility and violence it is to be protected, is simplyabsurd. There must be a test by which to separate the opposing elements, so as to build only from the sound; and that test is a sufficientlyliberal one which accepts as sound whoever will make a sworn recantationof his former unsoundness. 

But if it be proper to require as a test of admission to the politicalbody an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States andto the Union under it, why also to the laws and proclamations in regard toslavery? Those laws and proclamations were enacted and put forth for thepurpose of aiding in the suppression of the rebellion. To give them theirfullest effect there had to be a pledge for their maintenance. In myjudgment, they have aided and will further aid the cause for which theywere intended. To now abandon them would be not only to relinquish a leverof power, but would also be a cruel and an astounding breach of faith. Imay add at this point that while I remain in my present position I shallnot attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation, norshall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of thatproclamation or by any of the acts of Congress. For these and otherreasons it is thought best that support of these measures shall beincluded in the oath, and it is believed the Executive may lawfully claimit in return for pardon and restoration of forfeited rights, which he hasclear constitutional power to withhold altogether or grant upon the termswhich he shall deem wisest for the public interest. It should be observedalso that this part of the oath is subject to the modifying and abrogatingpower of legislation and supreme judicial decision. 

The proposed acquiescence of the National Executive in any reasonabletemporary State arrangement for the freed people is made with the view ofpossibly modifying the confusion and destitution which must at best attendall classes by a total revolution of labor throughout whole States. Itis hoped that the already deeply afflicted people in those States may besomewhat more ready to give up the cause of their affliction if to thisextent this vital matter be left to themselves, while no power of theNational Executive to prevent an abuse is abridged by the proposition. 

The suggestion in the proclamation as to maintaining the politicalframework of the States on what is called reconstruction is made in thehope that it may do good without danger of harm. It will save labor andavoid great confusion. 

But why any proclamation now upon this subject? This question is besetwith the conflicting views that the step might be delayed too long or betaken too soon. In some States the elements for resumption seem ready foraction, but remain inactive apparently for want of a rallying point--aplan of action. Why shall A adopt the plan of B rather than B that ofA? And if A and B should agree, how can they know but that the GeneralGovernment here will reject their plan? By the proclamation a plan ispresented which may be accepted by them as a rallying point, and whichthey are assured in advance will not be rejected here. This may bring themto act sooner than they otherwise would. 

The objections to a premature presentation of a plan by the NationalExecutive consist in the danger of committals on points which could bemore safely left to further developments. Care has been taken to so shapethe document as to avoid embarrassments from this source. Saying that oncertain terms certain classes will be pardoned with rights restored, it isnot said that other classes or other terms will never be included. Sayingthat reconstruction will be accepted if presented in a specified way, itis not said it will never be accepted in any other way. 

The movements by State action for emancipation in several of the Statesnot included in the emancipation proclamation are matters of profoundgratulation. And while I do not repeat in detail what I have heretoforeso earnestly urged upon this subject my general views and feelings remainunchanged and I trust that Congress will omit no fair opportunity ofaiding these important steps to a great consummation. 

In the midst of other cares, however important we must not lose sightof the fact that the war power is still our main reliance. To that poweralone we look yet for a time to give confidence to the people in thecontested regions that the insurgent power will not again overrun them. Until that confidence shall be established little can be done anywherewhat is called reconstruction. Hence our chiefest care must still bedirected to the Army and Navy who have thus far borne their harder part sonobly and well; and it may be esteemed fortunate that giving the greatestefficiency to these indispensable arms we do also honorably recognize thegallant men, from commander to sentinel, who compose them, and to whommore than to others the world must stand indebted for the home of freedomdisenthralled, regenerated, enlarged, and perpetuated. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. WASHINGTON D. C. , December 8, 1863. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In conformity to the law of July 16, 1862, I most cordially recommendthat Captain John Rogers United States Navy, receive a vote of thanksfrom Congress for the eminent skill and gallantry exhibited by him in theengagement with the rebel armed ironclad steamer Fingal, alias Atlanta, whilst in command of the United States ironclad steamer Weehawken, whichled to her capture on the 17th June, 1863, and also for the zeal, bravery, and general good conduct shown by this officer on many occasions. 

This recommendation is specially made in order to comply with therequirements of the ninth section of the aforesaid act, which is in thefollowing words, viz:

That any line officer of the Navy or Marine Corps may be advanced onegrade if upon recommendation of the President by name he receives thethanks of Congress for highly distinguished conduct in conflict with theenemy or for extraordinary heroism in the line of his profession. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 8, 1863. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

Congress, on my recommendation, passed a resolution, approved 7thFebruary, 1863, tendering its thanks to Commander D. D. Porter "for thebravery and skill displayed in the attack on the post of Arkansas on the10th January, 1863, " and in consideration of those services, together withhis efficient labors and vigilance subsequently displayed in thwarting theefforts of the rebels to obstruct the Mississippi and its tributaries andthe important part rendered by the squadron under his command, which ledto the surrender of Vicksburg. 

I do therefore, in conformity to the seventh section of the act approved16th July, 1862, nominate Commander D. D. Porter to be a rear-admiral inthe Navy on the active list from the 4th July, 1863, to fill an existingvacancy. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

WASHINGTON, December 8, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GRANT:

Understanding that your lodgment at Chattanooga and Knoxville is nowsecure, I wish to tender you, and all under your command, my more thanthanks, my profoundest gratitude, for the skill, courage, and perseverancewith which you and they, over so great difficulties, have effected thatimportant object. God bless you all!

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR CURTIN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 9, 1863

HIS EXCELLENCY A. G. CURTIN, Governor of Pennsylvania. 

DEAR SIR:--I have to urge my illness, and the preparation of the message, in excuse for not having sooner transmitted you the inclosed from theSecretary of War and Provost Marshal General in response to yours inrelation to recruiting in Pennsylvania. Though not quite as you desire, Ihope the grounds taken will be reasonably satisfactory to you. Allow meto exchange congratulations with you on the organization of the House ofRepresentatives, and especially on recent military events in Georgia andTennessee. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 10, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Fort Monroe, Va. :

Please suspend execution in any and all sentences of death in yourdepartment until further order. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 11, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of the Potomac:

Lieut. Col. James B. Knox, Tenth Regiment Pennsylvania Reserves, offershis resignation under circumstances inducing me to wish to accept it. ButI prefer to know your pleasure upon the subject. Please answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO JUDGE HOFFMAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 15, 1863. 

HON. OGDEN HOFFMAN, U. S. District Judge, San Francisco, Cal. :

The oath in the proclamation of December 8 is intended for those who mayvoluntarily take it, and not for those who may be constrained to take itin order to escape actual imprisonment or punishment. It is intended thatthe latter class shall abide the granting or withholding of the pardoningpower in the ordinary way. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MARY GONYEAG. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 15, 1863. 

MOTHER MARY GONYEAG, Superior, Academy of Visitation, Keokuk, Iowa:

The President has no authority as to whether you may raffle for thebenevolent object you mention. If there is no objection in the Iowa laws, there is none here. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION CONCERNING DISCRIMINATING DUTIES, DECEMBER 16, 1863. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas by an act of the Congress of the United States of the 24th of May, 1828, entitled "An act in addition to an act entitled 'An act concerningdiscriminating duties of tonnage and impost' and to equalize the duties onPrussian vessels and their cargoes, " it is provided that upon satisfactoryevidence being given to the President of the United States by thegovernment of any foreign nation that no discriminating duties of tonnageor impost are imposed or levied in the ports of the said nation uponvessels wholly belonging to citizens of the United States or upon theproduce, manufactures, or merchandise imported in the same from the UnitedStates or from any foreign country, the President is thereby authorized toissue his proclamation declaring that the foreign discriminating duties oftonnage and impost within the United States are and shall be suspended anddiscontinued so far as respects the vessels of the said foreign nation andthe produce, manufactures, or merchandise imported into the UnitedStates in the same from the said foreign nation or from any otherforeign country, the said suspension to take effect from the time of suchnotification being given to the President of the United States and tocontinue so long as the reciprocal exemption of vessels belonging tocitizens of the United States and their cargoes, as aforesaid, shall becontinued, and no longer; and

Whereas satisfactory evidence has lately been received by me through anofficial communication of Senor Don Luis Molina, Envoy Extraordinary andMinister Plenipotentiary of the Republic of Nicaragua, under date of the28th of November, 1863, that no other or higher duties of tonnage andimpost have been imposed or levied since the second day of August, 1838, in the ports of Nicaragua, upon vessels wholly belonging to citizens ofthe United States, and upon the produce, manufactures, or merchandiseimported in the same from the United States, and from any foreign countrywhatever, than are levied on Nicaraguan ships and their cargoes in thesame ports under like circumstances:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ofAmerica, do hereby declare and proclaim that so much of the several actsimposing discriminating duties of tonnage and impost within the UnitedStates are, and shall be, suspended and discontinued so far as respectsthe vessels of Nicaragua, and the produce, manufactures, and themerchandise imported into the United States in the same from the dominionsof Nicaragua, and from any other foreign country whatever; the saidsuspension to take effect from the day above mentioned, and to continuethenceforward so long as the reciprocal exemption of the vessels of theUnited States, and the produce, manufactures, and merchandise importedinto the dominions of Nicaragua in the same, as aforesaid, shall becontinued on the part of the government of Nicaragua. 

Given under my hand at the city of Washington, the sixteenth dayof December, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred andsixty-three, and the eighty-eighth of the Independence of the UnitedStates. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, DECEMBER 17, 1863. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES:

Herewith I lay before you a letter addressed to myself by a committee ofgentlemen representing the freedmen's aid societies in Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Cincinnati. The subject of the letter, as indicatedabove, is one of great magnitude and importance, and one which thesegentlemen, of known ability and high character, seem to have consideredwith great attention and care. Not having the time to form a maturejudgment of my own as to whether the plan they suggest is the best, Isubmit the whole subject to Congress, deeming that their attention theretois almost imperatively demanded. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL HURLBUT. 

[Cipher. ]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 17, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HURLBUT, Memphis, Tenn. :

I understand you have under sentence of death, a tall old man, by the nameof Henry F. Luckett. I personally knew him, and did not think him a badman. Please do not let him be executed unless upon further order from me, and in the meantime send me a transcript of the record. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, December 19, 1863. 

GENERAL GRANT, Chattanooga, Tennessee:

The Indiana delegation in Congress, or at least a large part of them, arevery anxious that General Milroy shall enter active service again, and Ishare in this feeling. He is not a difficult man to satisfy, sincerity andcourage being his strong traits. Believing in our cause, and wantingto fight for it, is the whole matter with him. Could you, withoutembarrassment, assign him a place, if directed to report to you?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

(Private. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 21, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Sending a note to the Secretary of the Navy, as I promised, he called over and said that the strikes in the ship-yards had thrownthe completion of vessels back so much that he thought General Gilimore'sproposition entirely proper. He only wishes (and in which I concur) thatGeneral Gillmore will courteously confer with, and explain to, AdmiralDahlgren. 

In regard to the Western matter, I believe the program will have to standsubstantially as I first put it. Henderson, and especially Brown, believethat the social influence of St. Louis would inevitably tell injuriouslyupon General Pope in the particular difficulty existing there, and I thinkthere is some force in that view. 

As to retaining General Schofield temporarily, if this should be done, I believe I should scarcely be able to get his nomination through theSenate. Send me over his nomination, which, however, I am not quite readyto send to the Senate. 

Yours as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

TO O. D. FILLEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 22, 1863. 

O. D. FILLEY, ST. Louis, Missouri:

I have just looked over a petition signed by some three dozen citizens ofSt. Louis, and three accompanying letters, one by yourself, one by a Mr. Nathan Ranney, and one by a Mr. John D. Coalter, the whole relating to theRev. Dr. McPheeters. The petition prays, in the name of justice and mercy, that I will restore Dr. McPheeters to all his ecclesiastical rights. Thisgives no intimation as to what ecclesiastical rights are withheld. 

Your letter states that Provost-Marshal Dick, about a year ago, orderedthe arrest of Dr. McPheeters, pastor of the Vine Street Church, prohibitedhim from officiating, and placed the management of the affairs of thechurch out of the control of its chosen trustees; and near the closeyou state that a certain course "would insure his release. " Mr. Ranney'sletter says: "Dr. Samuel S. McPheeters is enjoying all the rights of acivilian, but cannot preach the Gospel!!!!" Mr. Coalter, in his letter, asks: "Is it not a strange illustration of the condition of things, thatthe question of who shall be allowed to preach in a church in St. Louisshall be decided by the President of the United States?"

Now, all this sounds very strangely; and, withal, a little as if yougentlemen making the application do not understand the case alike; oneaffirming that the doctor is enjoying all the rights of a civilian, andanother pointing out to me what will secure his release! On the second dayof January last, I wrote to General Curtis in relation to Mr. Dick's orderupon Dr. McPheeters; and, as I suppose the doctor is enjoying all therights of a civilian, I only quote that part of my letter which relatesto the church. It is as follows: "But I must add that the United StatesGovernment must not, as by this order, undertake to run the churches. Whenan individual, in a church or out of it, becomes dangerous to the publicinterest, he must be checked; but the churches, as such, must take careof themselves. It will not do for the United States to appoint trustees, supervisors, or other agents for the churches. "

This letter going to General Curtis, then in command there, I supposed, ofcourse, it was obeyed, especially as I heard no further complaint fromDr. McPheeters or his friends for nearly an entire year. I have neverinterfered, nor thought of interfering, as to who shall or shall notpreach in any church; nor have I knowingly or believingly tolerated anyone else to so interfere by my authority. If any one is so interfering bycolor of my authority, I would like to have it specifically made knownto me. If, after all, what is now sought is to have me put Dr. McPheetersback over the heads of a majority of his own congregation, that, too, willbe declined. I will not have control of any church on any side. 

Yours respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MILITARY COMMANDER AT POINT LOOKOUT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 22, 1863. 

MILITARY COMMANDER, Point Lookout, Md. :

If you have a prisoner by the name Linder--Daniel Linder, I think, andcertainly the son of U. F. Linder, of Illinois, please send him to me byan officer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MILITARY COMMANDER AT POINT LOOKOUT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 24, 1863. 

MILITARY COMMANDER, Point Lookout, Md. :

If you send Linder to me as directed a day or two ago, also send Edwin C. Claybrook, of Ninth Virginia rebel cavalry. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO U. F. LINDER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON D. C. , December 26, 1863. 

HON. U. F. LINDER, Chicago, Ill. : Your son Dan has just left me withmy order to the Secretary of War, to administer to him the oath ofallegiance, discharge him and send him to you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL N. P. BANKS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 29, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BANKS:

Yours of the sixteenth is received, and I send you, as covering the groundof it, a copy of my answer to yours of the sixth, it being possible theoriginal may not reach you. I intend you to be master in every controversymade with you. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 30, 1863. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Fort Monroe, Va. :

Jacob Bowers is fully pardoned for past offence, upon condition that hereturns to duty and re-enlists for three years or during the war. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, December 31, 1863. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

SIR:--Please fix up the department to which Curtis is to go, withoutwaiting to wind up the Missouri matter. Lane is very anxious to have FortSmith in it, and I am willing, unless there be decided military reasons tothe contrary, in which case of course, I am not for it. It will oblige meto have the Curtis department fixed at once. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

1864

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SULLIVAN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 1, 1864. 3. 30 p. M. 

GENERAL SULLIVAN, Harper's Ferry:

Have you anything new from Winchester, Martinsburg or thereabouts?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR PIERPOINT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 2, 1864. 

GOVERNOR PIERPOINT, Alexandria, Va. :

Please call and see me to-day if not too inconvenient. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 2, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER. 

SIR:--The Secretary of War and myself have concluded to discharge of theprisoners at Point Lookout the following classes: First, those who willtake the oath prescribed in the proclamation of December 8, and issued bythe consent of General Marston, will enlist in our service. Second, thosewho will take the oath and be discharged and whose homes lie safely withinour military lines. 

I send by Mr. Hay this letter and a blank-book and some other blanks, theway of using which I propose for him to explain verbally better than I canin writing. 

Yours, very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 5, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE:

If not inconsistent with the service, please allow General William Harrowas long a leave of absence as the rules permit with the understanding thatI may lengthen it if I see fit. He is an acquaintance and friend of mine, and his family matters very urgently require his presence. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, JANUARY 5, 1864. 

GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

By a joint resolution of your honorable bodies approved December 23, 1863, the paying of bounties to veteran volunteers, as now practiced by theWar Department, is, to the extent of three hundred dollars in each case, prohibited after this 5th day of the present month. I transmit for yourconsideration a communication from the Secretary of War, accompanied byone from the Provost-Marshal General to him, both relating to the subjectabove mentioned. I earnestly recommend that the law be so modified as toallow bounties to be paid as they now are, at least until the ensuing 1stday of February. 

I am not without anxiety lest I appear to be importunate in thus recallingyour attention to a subject upon which you have so recently acted, andnothing but a deep conviction that the public interest demands it couldinduce me to incur the hazard of being misunderstood on this point. TheExecutive approval was given by me to the resolution mentioned, and itis now by a closer attention and a fuller knowledge of facts that I feelconstrained to recommend a reconsideration of the subject. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR BRAMLETTE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 6, 1864. 2 P. M. 

GOVERNOR BRAMLETTE, Frankfort, Kentucky:

Yours of yesterday received. Nothing is known here about General Foster'sorder, of which you complain, beyond the fair presumption that it comesfrom General Grant, and that it has an object which, if you understood, you would be loath to frustrate. True, these troops are, in strict law, only to be removed by my order; but General Grant's judgment would be thehighest incentive to me to make such order. Nor can I understand how doingso is bad faith and dishonor, nor yet how it so exposes Kentucky to ruin. Military men here do not perceive how it exposes Kentucky, and I am sureGrant would not permit it if it so appeared to him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL Q. A. GILLMORE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 13, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL GILLMORE:

I understand an effort is being made by some worthy gentlemen toreconstruct a legal State government in Florida. Florida is in yourDepartment, and it is not unlikely you may be there in person. I havegiven Mr. Hay a commission of major, and sent him to you, with someblank-books and other blanks, to aid in the reconstruction. He willexplain as to the manner of using the blanks, and also my general views onthe subject. It is desirable for all to co-operate, but if irreconcilabledifferences of opinion shall arise, you are master. I wish the thing donein the most speedy way, so that when done it be within the range of thelate proclamation on the subject. The detail labor will, of course, haveto be done by others; but I will be greatly obliged if you will giveit such general supervision as you can find consistent with your morestrictly military duties. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR BROUGH. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 15, 1864. 

GOVERNOR BROUGH, Columbus, Ohio:

If Private William G. Toles, of Fifty-ninth Ohio Volunteers, returns tohis regiment and faithfully serves out his term, he is fully pardoned forall military offenses prior to this. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO CROSBY AND NICHOLS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 16, 1864. 

MESSRS. CROSBY AND NICHOLS. 

GENTLEMEN: The number for this month and year of the North American Reviewwas duly received, and for which please accept my thanks. Of course I amnot the most impartial judge; yet, with due allowance for this, I ventureto hope that the article entitled "The President's Policy" will be ofvalue to the country. I fear I am not worthy of all which is thereinkindly said of me personally. 

The sentence of twelve lines, commencing at the top of page 252, I couldwish to be not exactly what it is. In what is there expressed, the writerhas not correctly understood me. I have never had a theory that secessioncould absolve States or people from their obligations. Precisely thecontrary is asserted in the inaugural address; and it was because of mybelief in the continuation of those obligations that I was puzzled, fora time, as to denying the legal rights of those citizens who remainedindividually innocent of treason or rebellion. But I mean no more now thanto merely call attention to this point. 

Yours respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL P. STEELE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 20, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL STEELE:

Sundry citizens of the State of Arkansas petition me that an election maybe held in that State, at which to elect a Governor; that it be assumedat that election, and thenceforward, that the constitution and laws ofthe State, as before the rebellion, are in full force, except that theconstitution is so modified as to declare that there shall be neitherslavery nor involuntary servitude, except in the punishment of crimeswhereof the party shall have been duly convicted; that the GeneralAssembly may make such provisions for the freed people as shall recognizeand declare their permanent freedom, and provide for their education, andwhich may yet be construed as a temporary arrangement suitable to theircondition as a laboring, landless, and homeless class; that said electionshall be held on the 28th of March, 1864, at all the usual places of theState, or all such as voters may attend for that purpose, that the votersattending at eight o'clock in the morning of said day may choose judgesand clerks of election for such purpose; that all persons qualifiedby said constitution and laws, and taking the oath presented in thePresident's proclamation of December 8, 1863, either before or at theelection, and none others, may be voters; that each set of judges andclerks may make returns directly to you on or before the --th day of ----next; that in all other respects said election may be conducted accordingto said constitution and laws: that on receipt of said returns, when fivethousand four hundred and six votes shall have been cast, you can receivesaid votes, and ascertain all who shall thereby appear to have beenelected; that on the --th day of ------ next, all persons so appearing tohave been elected, who shall appear before you at Little Rock, and takethe oath, to be by you severally administered, to support the Constitutionof the United States and said modified Constitution of the State ofArkansas, may be declared by you qualified and empowered to enterimmediately upon the duties of the offices to which they shall have beenrespectively elected. 

You will please order an election to take place on the 28th of March, 1864, and returns to be made in fifteen days thereafter. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, JANUARY 20, 1864

GENTLEMEN OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In accordance with a letter addressed by the Secretary of State, with myapproval, to the Hon. Joseph A. Wright, of Indiana, that patriotic anddistinguished gentleman repaired to Europe and attended the InternationalAgricultural Exhibition, held at Hamburg last year, and has since hisreturn made a report to me, which, it is believed, can not fail to beof general interest, and especially so to the agricultural community. Itransmit for your consideration copies of the letters and report. Whileit appears by the letter that no reimbursement of expenses or compensationwas promised him, I submit whether reasonable allowance should not be madehim for them. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER APPROVING TRADE REGULATIONS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 26, 1864. 

I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States having seen andconsidered the additional regulations of trade prescribed by the Secretaryof the Treasury, and numbered LI, LII, LIII, LIV, LV, and LVI, do herebyapprove the same; and I further declare and order that all propertybrought in for sale, in good faith, and actually sold in pursuance of saidRegulations LII, LIII, LIV, LV, and LVI, after the same shall have takeneffect and come in force as provided in Regulation LVI, shall be exemptfrom confiscation or forfeiture to the United States. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL FOSTER. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 27, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL FOSTER, Knoxville, Tenn. :

Is a supposed correspondence between General Longstreet and yourself aboutthe amnesty proclamation, which is now in the newspapers, genuine?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO E. STANLEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 28, 1864

HON. EDWARD STANLEY, San Francisco, Cal. :

Yours of yesterday received. We have rumors similar to the dispatchreceived by you, but nothing very definite from North Carolina. KnowingMr. Stanley to be an able man, and not doubting that he is a patriot, Ishould be glad for him to be with his old acquaintances south of Virginia, but I am unable to suggest anything definite upon the subject. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL H. W. HALLECK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION

WASHINGTON, January 28, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK:

Some citizens of Missouri, vicinity of Kansas City, are apprehensive thatthere is special danger of renewed troubles in that neighborhood, andthence on the route toward New Mexico. I am not impressed that the dangeris very great or imminent, but I will thank you to give Generals Rosecransand Curtis, respectively, such orders as may turn their attention theretoand prevent as far as possible the apprehended disturbance. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SICKLES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 29, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SICKLES, New York:

Could you, without it being inconvenient or disagreeable to yourself, immediately take a trip to Arkansas for me?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR BRAMLETTE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 31, 1864. 

GOVERNOR BRAMLETTE, Frankfort, Ky. :

General Boyle's resignation is accepted, so that your Excellency can givehim the appointment proposed. 

A. LINCOLN. 

COLONIZATION EXPERIMENT

ORDER TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 1, 1864

HON. EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

SIR:-You are directed to have a transport (either a steam or sailingvessel, as may be deemed proper by the Quartermaster-General) sent to thecolored colony established by the United States at the island of Vache, on the coast of San Domingo, to bring back to this country such of thecolonists there as desire to return. You will have the transport furnishedwith suitable supplies for that purpose, and detail an officer of theQuartermaster's Department, who, under special instructions to be given, shall have charge of the business. The colonists will be brought toWashington, unless otherwise hereafter directed, and be employed andprovided for at the camps for colored persons around that city. Those onlywill be brought from the island who desire to return, and their effectswill be brought with them. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER FOR A DRAFT OF FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 1, 1864. 

Ordered, That a draft of five hundred thousand (500, 000) men, to serve forthree years or during the war, be made on the tenth (10th) day of Marchnext, for the military service of the United States, crediting anddeducting therefrom so many as may have been enlisted or drafted into theservice prior to the first (1st) day of March, and not before credited. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR YATES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 3, 1864. 

GOVERNOR YATES, Springfield, Ill. :

The United States Government lot in Springfield can be used for asoldiers' home, with the understanding that the Government does not incurany expense in the case. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR MURPHY. 

WASHINGTON, February 6, 1864. 

GOVERNOR J. MURPHY:

My order to General Steele about an election was made in ignorance ofthe action your convention had taken or would take. A subsequent letterdirects General Steele to aid you on your own plan, and not to thwart orhinder you. Show this to him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

THE STORY OF THE EMANCIPATION PROCLAMATION

TOLD BY THE PRESIDENT, TO THE ARTIST F. B. CARPENTER, FEBRUARY 6, 1864. 

"It had got to be, " said Mr. Lincoln, "midsummer, 1862. Things had gone onfrom bad to worse, until I felt that we had reached the end of our rope onthe plan of operations we had been pursuing; that we had about played ourlast card, and must change our tactics, or lose the game. I now determinedupon the adoption of the emancipation policy; and without consultationwith, or the knowledge of, the Cabinet, I prepared the original draftof the proclamation, and, after much anxious thought, called a Cabinetmeeting upon the subject. This was the last of July or the first part ofthe month of August, 1862. [The exact date was July 22, 1862. ]. .. All werepresent excepting Mr. Blair, the Postmaster-General, who was absent at theopening of the discussion, but came in subsequently. I said to the Cabinetthat I had resolved upon this step, and had not called them together toask their advice, but to lay the subject-matter of a proclamation beforethem, suggestions as to which would be in order after they had heard itread. Mr. Lovejoy was in error when he informed you that it excited nocomment excepting on the part of Secretary Seward. Various suggestionswere offered. Secretary Chase wished the language stronger in reference tothe arming of the blacks. 

"Mr. Blair, after he came in, deprecated the policy on the ground that itwould cost the administration the fall elections. Nothing, however, wasoffered that I had not already fully anticipated and settled in my mind, until Secretary Seward spoke. He said in substance, 'Mr. President, Iapprove of the proclamation, but I question the expediency of its issueat this juncture. The depression of the public mind, consequent upon ourrepeated reverses, is so great that I fear the effect of so important astep. It may be viewed as the last measure of an exhausted government, a cry for help; the government stretching forth its hands to Ethiopia, instead of Ethiopia stretching forth her hands to the government. ' Hisidea, " said the President, "was that it would be considered our lastshriek on the retreat. " [This was his precise expression. ] 'Now, 'continued Mr. Seward, 'while I approve the measure, I suggest, sir, thatyou postpone its issue until you can give it to the country supported bymilitary success, instead of issuing it, as would be the case now, uponthe greatest disasters of the war. ' Mr. Lincoln continued "The wisdom ofthe view of the Secretary of State struck me with very great force. Itwas an aspect of the case that, in all my thought upon the subject, Ihad entirely overlooked. The result was that I put the draft of theproclamation aside, as you do your sketch for a picture, waiting for avictory. 

"From time to time I added or changed a line, touching it up here andthere, anxiously watching the process of events. Well, the next news wehad was of Pope's disaster at Bull Run. Things looked darker than ever. Finally came the week of the battle of Antietam. I determined to wait nolonger. The news came, I think, on Wednesday, that the advantage was onour side. I was then staying at the Soldiers' Home [three miles out ofWashington]. Here I finished writing the second draft of the preliminaryproclamation; came up on Saturday; called the Cabinet together to hear it, and it was published on the following Monday. "

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SEDGWICK. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 11, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SEDGWICK, Army of Potomac:

Unless there be some strong reason to the contrary, please send GeneralKilpatrick to us here, for two or three days. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO HORACE MAYNARD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 13, 1864. 

HON. HORACE MAYNARD, Nashville, Tenn. :

Your letter of [the] second received. Of course Governor Johnson willproceed with reorganization as the exigencies of the case appear to him torequire. I do not apprehend he will think it necessary to deviate from myviews to any ruinous extent. On one hasty reading I see no such deviationin his program, which you send. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO W. M. FISHBACK. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, February 17, 1864. 

WILLIAM M. FISHBACK, Little Rock, Arkansas:

When I fixed a plan for an election in Arkansas I did it in ignorance thatyour convention was doing the same work. Since I learned the latter factI have been constantly trying to yield my plan to them. I have sent twoletters to General Steele, and three or four despatches to you and others, saying that he, General Steele, must be master, but that it will probablybe best for him to merely help the convention on its own plan. Some singlemind must be master, else there will be no agreement in anything, andGeneral Steele, commanding the military and being on the ground, is thebest man to be that master. Even now citizens are telegraphing me topostpone the election to a later day than either that fixed by theconvention or by me. This discord must be silenced. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL STEELE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 17, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL STEELE, Little Rock, Arkansas:

The day fixed by the convention for the election is probably the best, but you on the ground, and in consultation with gentlemen there, are todecide. I should have fixed no day for an election, presented no plan forreconstruction, had I known the convention was doing the same things. Itis probably best that you merely assist the convention on their ownplan, as to election day and all other matters I have already written andtelegraphed this half a dozen times. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO A. ROBINSON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 18, 1864. 

A. ROBINSON, Leroy, N. Y. :

The law only obliges us to keep accounts with States, or at mostCongressional Districts, and it would overwhelm us to attempt in counties, cities and towns. Nevertheless we do what we can to oblige in particularcases. In this view I send your dispatch to the Provost-Marshal General, asking him to do the best he can for you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION CONCERNING BLOCKADE, FEBRUARY 18, 1864. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

A Proclamation. 

Whereas, by my proclamation of the nineteenth of April, one thousand eighthundred and sixty-one, the ports of the States of South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Texas were, for reasonstherein set forth, placed under blockade; and whereas, the port ofBrownsville, in the district of Brazos Santiago, in the State of Texas, has since been blockaded, but as the blockade of said port may now besafely relaxed with advantage to the interests of commerce:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States, pursuant to the authority in me vested by the fifth sectionof the act of Congress approved on the 13th of July, 1861, entitled "Anact further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and forother purposes, " do hereby declare that the blockade of the said port ofBrownsville shall so far cease and determine from and after this date, that commercial intercourse with said port, except as to persons, things, and information hereinafter specified, may, from this date, be carried on, subject to the laws of the United States, to the regulations prescribedby the Secretary of the Treasury, and, until the rebellion shall have beensuppressed, to such orders as may be promulgated by the general commandingthe department, or by an officer duly authorized by him and commanding atsaid port. This proclamation does not authorize or allow the shipmentor conveyance of persons in, or intending to enter, the service of theinsurgents, or of things or information intended for their use, or fortheir aid or comfort, nor, except upon the permission of the Secretaryof War, or of some officer duly authorized by him, of the followingprohibited articles, namely: cannon, mortars, firearms, pistols, bombs, grenades, powder, saltpeter, sulphur, balls, bullets, pikes, swords, boarding-caps (always excepting the quantity of the said articles whichmay be necessary for the defense of the ship and those who compose thecrew), saddles, bridles, cartridge-bag material, percussion and othercaps, clothing adapted for uniforms; sail-cloth of all kinds, hemp andcordage, intoxicating drinks other than beer and light native wines. 

To vessels clearing from foreign ports and destined to the port ofBrownsville, opened by this proclamation, licenses will be granted byconsuls of the United States upon satisfactory evidence that the vesselso licensed will convey no persons, property, or information excepted orprohibited above, either to or from the said port; which licenses shallbe exhibited to the collector of said port immediately on arrival, and, if required, to any officer in charge of the blockade, and on leaving saidport every vessel will be required to have a clearance from the collectorof the customs, according to law, showing no violation of the conditionsof the license. Any violations of said conditions will involve theforfeiture and condemnation of the vessel and cargo, and the exclusion ofall parties concerned from any further privilege of entering the UnitedStates during the war for any purpose whatever. 

In all respects, except as herein specified, the existing blockade remainsin full force and effect as hitherto established and maintained, nor isit relaxed by this proclamation except in regard to the port to whichrelaxation is or has been expressly applied. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, thiseighteenth day of February, in the year of our Lord one thousand eighthundred and sixty-four, and of the independence of the United States theeighty-eighth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO COMMANDER BLAKE. 

EXECUTIVE, MANSION, February 19, 1864. 

COMMANDER GEORGE S. BLAKE, Commandant Naval Academy, Newport, R. I. :

I desire the case of Midshipman C. Lyon re-examined and if not clearlyinconsistent I shall be much obliged to have the recommendation changed. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM FROM WARREN JORDAN. 

NASHVILLE, February 20, 1864. 

HON. W. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Washington, D. C. :

In county and State elections, must citizens of Tennessee take the oathprescribed by Governor Johnson, or will the President's oath of amnestyentitle them to vote? I have been appointed to hold the March election inCheatham County, and wish to act understandingly. 

WARREN JORDAN. 

WASHINGTON, February 20, 1864. 

WARREN JORDAN, NASHVILLE:

In county elections you had better stand by Governor Johnson's plan;otherwise you will have conflict and confusion. I have seen his plan. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL ROSECRANS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 22, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Saint LOUIS, MO. :

Colonel Sanderson will be ordered to you to-day, a mere omission that itwas not done before. The other questions in your despatch I am not yetprepared to answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL STEELE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 22, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL STEELE, Little Rock, Ark. :

Yours of yesterday received. Your conference with citizens approved. Letthe election be on the 14th of March as they agreed. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL F. STEELE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, February 25, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL STEELE, Little Rock, Arkansas:

General Sickles is not going to Arkansas. He probably will make a tourdown the Mississippi and home by the gulf and ocean, but he will notmeddle in your affairs. 

At one time I did intend to have him call on you and explain more fullythan I could do by letter or telegraph, so as to avoid a difficulty comingof my having made a plan here, while the convention made one there, forreorganizing Arkansas; but even his doing that has been given up formore than two weeks. Please show this to Governor Murphy to save metelegraphing him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

DESERTERS DEATH SENTENCES REMITTED

GENERAL ORDERS, NO. 76. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, ADJUTANT-GENERALS OFFICE, WASHINGTON, February 26, 1864. 

Sentence of Deserters. 

The President directs that the sentences of all deserters who have beencondemned by court-martial to death, and that have not been otherwiseacted upon by him, be mitigated to imprisonment during the war at the DryTortugas, Florida, where they will be sent under suitable guards by ordersfrom army commanders. 

The commanding generals, who have power to act on proceedings ofcourts-martial in such cases, are authorized in special cases to restoreto duty deserters under sentence, when in their judgment the service willbe thereby benefited. 

Copies of all orders issued under the foregoing instructions will beimmediately forwarded to the Adjutant-General and to the Judge-AdvocateGeneral. 

By order of the Secretary of War: B. D. TOWNSEND, AssistantAdjutant-General

FEMALE SPY

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 26, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Fort. Monroe, Va. :

I cannot remember at whose request it was that I gave the pass to Mrs. Bulky. Of course detain her, if the evidence of her being a spy is strongagainst her. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO W. JAYNE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 26, 1864. 

HON. W. JAYNE. 

DEAR SIR--I dislike to make changes in office so long as they canbe avoided. It multiplies my embarrassments immensely. I dislike twoappointments when one will do. Send me the name of some man not thepresent marshal, and I will nominate him to be Provost-Marshal for Dakota. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO E. H. EAST. 

WASHINGTON, February 27, 1864. 

HON. E. H: EAST, Secretary of State, Nashville, Tennessee

Your telegram of the twenty-sixth instant asking for a copy of my despatchto Warren Jordan, Esq. , at Nashville Press office, has just been referredto me by Governor Johnson. In my reply to Mr. Jordan, which was briefand hurried, I intended to say that in the county and State elections ofTennessee, the oath prescribed in the proclamation of Governor Johnson onthe twenty-sixth of January, 1864, ordering an election in Tennessee onthe first Saturday in March next, is entirely satisfactory to me as a testof loyalty of all persons proposing or offering to vote in said elections;and coming from him would better be observed and followed. There isno conflict between the oath of amnesty in my proclamation of eighthDecember, 1863, and that prescribed by Governor Johnson in hisproclamation of the twenty-sixth ultimo. 

No person who has taken the oath of amnesty of eighth December, 1863, andobtained a pardon thereby, and who intends to observe the same in goodfaith, should have any objection to taking that prescribed by GovernorJohnson as a test of loyalty. 

I have seen and examined Governor Johnson's proclamation, and am entirelysatisfied with his plan, which is to restore the State government andplace it under the control of citizens truly loyal to the Government ofthe United States. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Please send above to Governor Johnson. A. L. 

TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 27, 1864

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

SIR:--You ask some instructions from me in relation to the Report ofSpecial Commission constituted by an order of the War Department, datedDecember 5, 1863, "to revise the enrolment and quotas of the City andState of New York, and report whether there be any, and what, errors orirregularities therein, and what corrections, if any, should be made. "

In the correspondence between the Governor of New York and myself lastsummer, I understood him to complain that the enrolments in several of thedistricts of that State had been neither accurately nor honestly made;and in view of this, I, for the draft then immediately ensuing, ordered anarbitrary reduction of the quotas in several of the districts wherein theyseemed too large, and said: "After this drawing, these four districts, and also the seventeenth and twenty-ninth, shall be carefully re-enrolled, and, if you please, agents of yours may witness every step of theprocess. " In a subsequent letter I believe some additional districts wereput into the list of those to be re-enrolled. My idea was to do the workover according to the law, in presence of the complaining party, andthereby to correct anything which might be found amiss. The commission, whose work I am considering, seem to have proceeded upon a totallydifferent idea. Not going forth to find men at all, they have proceededaltogether upon paper examinations and mental processes. One of theirconclusions, as I understand, is that, as the law stands, and attemptingto follow it, the enrolling officers could not have made the enrolmentsmuch more accurately than they did. The report on this point might beuseful to Congress. The commission conclude that the quotas for the draftshould be based upon entire population, and they proceed upon this basisto give a table for the State of New York, in which some districts arereduced and some increased. For the now ensuing draft, let the quotasstand as made by the enrolling officers, in the districts wherein thistable requires them to be increased; and let them be reduced according tothe table in the others: this to be no precedent for subsequent action. But, as I think this report may, on full consideration, be shown to havemuch that is valuable in it, I suggest that such consideration be givenit, and that it be especially considered whether its suggestions can beconformed to without an alteration of the law. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL THOMAS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, February 28, 1864. 

GENERAL L. THOMAS, Louisville, Kentucky:

I see your despatch of yesterday to the Secretary of War. 

I wish you would go to the Mississippi River at once, and take hold of andbe master in the contraband and leasing business. You understand it betterthan any other man does. Mr. Miller's system doubtless is well intended, but from what I hear I fear that, if persisted in, it would fall deadwithin its own entangling details. Go there and be the judge. A Mr. Lewiswill probably follow you with something from me on this subject, but donot wait for him. Nor is this to induce you to violate or neglect anymilitary order from the General-in-Chief or Secretary of War. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY CHASE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 29, 1864. 

HON. SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I would have taken time to answer yours of the 22d inst. Sooner, only that I did not suppose any evil could result from the delay, especially as, by a note, I promptly acknowledged the receipt of yours, and promised a fuller answer. Now, on consideration I find there is reallyvery little to say. My knowledge of Mr. Pomeroy's letter having been madepublic came to me only the day you wrote; but I had, in spite of myself, known of its existence several days before. I have not yet read it, and Ithink I shall not. I was not shocked or surprised by the appearance ofthe letter, because I had had knowledge of Mr. Pomeroy's committee, and ofsecret issues which, I supposed, came from it, and of secret agents who, I supposed, were sent out by it for several weeks. I have known just aslittle a these things as my friends have allowed me to know. They bringthe documents to me, but I do not read them; they tell me what they thinkfit to tell me, but I do not inquire for more. 

I fully concur with you that neither of us can justly be held responsiblefor what our respective friends may do without our instigation orcountenance and I assure you, as you have assured me, that no assault hasbeen made upon you by my instigation, or with my countenance. 

Whether you shall remain at the head of the Treasury Department is aquestion which I will not allow myself to consider from any standpointother than my judgment of the public service, and, in that view, I do notperceive occasion for a change. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL THOMAS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, March 1, 1864. 

GENERAL L. THOMAS:

This introduces Mr. Lewis, mentioned in my despatch sent you at Louisvillesome days ago. I have but little personal acquaintance with him; but hehas the confidence of several members of Congress here who seem to knowhim well. He hopes to be useful, without charge to the government, infacilitating the introduction of the free-labor system on the Mississippiplantations. He is acquainted with, and has access to, many of theplanters who wish to adopt the system. He will show you two letters ofmine on this subject, one somewhat General, and the other relating tonamed persons; they are not different in principle. He will also show yousome suggestions coming from some of the planters themselves. I desirethat all I promise in these letters, so far as practicable, may be in goodfaith carried out, and that suggestions from the planters may be heardand adopted, so far as they may not contravene the principles stated, norjustice, nor fairness, to laborers. I do not herein intend to overruleyour own mature judgment on any point. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL STEELE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 3, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL STEELE, Little Rock, Ark. :

Yours including address to people of Arkansas is received. I approve theaddress and thank you for it. Yours in relation to William M. Randolphalso received. Let him take the oath of December 8, and go to work for thenew constitution, and on your notifying me of it, I will immediately issuethe special pardon for him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 4, 1864. MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, FortMonroe, Va. :

Admiral Dahlgren is here, and of course is very anxious about his son. Please send me at once all you know or can learn of his fate. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER IN REGARD TO THE EXPORTATION OF TOBACCO BELONGING TO THE FRENCHGOVERNMENT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 7, 1864. 

Whereas, by an Executive order of the 10th of November last permission wasgiven to export certain tobacco belonging to the French government frominsurgent territory, which tobacco was supposed to have been purchasedand paid for prior to the 4th day of March, 1861; but whereas it wassubsequently ascertained that a part at least of the said tobacco hadbeen purchased subsequently to that date, which fact made it necessary tosuspend the carrying into effect of the said order; but whereas, pursuantto mutual explanations, a satisfactory understanding upon the subject hasnow been reached, it is directed that the order aforesaid may be carriedinto effect, it being understood that the quantity of French tobacco so tobe exported shall not exceed seven thousand hogsheads, and that it isthe same tobacco respecting the exportation of which application Wasoriginally made by the French government. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO UNITED STATES MARSHAL, LOUISVILLE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 7, 1864. 

U. S. MARSHAL, Louisville, Ky. :

Until further order suspend sale of property and further proceedings incases of the United States against Dr. John B. English, and S. S. English, qt al. , sureties for John L. Hill. Also same against same sureties forThomas A. Ireland. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MAJOR ECKERT: Please send the above dispatch. JNO. G. NICOLAY, PrivateSecretary

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 9, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

New York City votes ninety-five hundred majority for allowing soldiersto vote, and the rest of the State nearly all on the same side. Tell thesoldiers. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO SENATE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 9, 1864. 

TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

In compliance with a resolution of the Senate of the 1st instant, respecting the points of commencement of the Union Pacific Railroad, onthe one hundredth degree of west longitude, and of the branch road, from the western boundary of Iowa to the said one hundredth degree oflongitude, I transmit the accompanying report from the Secretary of theInterior, containing the information called for. 

I deem it proper to add that on the 17th day of November last an Executiveorder was made upon this subject and delivered to the vice-president ofthe Union Pacific Railroad Company, which fixed the point on the westernboundary of the State of Iowa from which the company should constructtheir branch road to the one hundredth degree of west longitude, anddeclared it to be within the limits of the township in Iowa opposite thetown of Omaha, in Nebraska. Since then the company has represented to methat upon actual surveys made it has determined upon the precise point ofdeparture of their said branch road from the Missouri River, and locatedthe same as described in the accompanying report of the Secretary of theInterior, which point is within the limits designated in the order ofNovember last; and inasmuch as that order is not of record in any of theExecutive Departments, and the company having desired a more definite one, I have made the order of which a copy is herewith, and caused the same tobe filed in the Department of the Interior. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ADDRESS TO GENERAL GRANT, MARCH 9, 1864. 

GENERAL GRANT:--The expression of the nation's approbation of what youhave already done, and its reliance on you for what remains to do inthe existing great struggle, is now presented with this commissionconstituting you Lieutenant-General of the Army of the United States. 

With this high honor, devolves on you an additional responsibility. As thecountry herein trusts you, so, under God, it will sustain you. I scarcelyneed add, that with what I here speak for the country, goes my own heartypersonal concurrence. 

GENERAL GRANT'S REPLY. 

Mr. PRESIDENT:--I accept this commission, with gratitude for the highhonor conferred. 

With the aid of the noble armies that have fought on so many fields forour common country, it will be my earnest endeavor not to disappoint yourexpectations. 

I feel the full weight of the responsibilities now devolving on me, and Iknow that if they are met, it will be due to those armies; and above all, to the favor of that Providence which leads both nations and men. 

ORDER ASSIGNING U. S. GRANT COMMAND OF THE ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 10, 1864. 

Under the authority of an act of Congress to revive the grade oflieutenant-General in the United States Army, approved February 29, 1864, Lieutenant-General Ulysses S. Grant, United States Army, is assigned tothe command of the Armies of the United States. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR MURPHY. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 12, 1864. 

GOVERNOR MURPHY, Little Rock, Arkansas:

I am not appointing officers for Arkansas now, and I will try to rememberyour request. Do your best to get out the largest vote possible, and ofcourse as much of it as possible on the right side. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL HAHN. (Private. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 13, 1864

HON. MICHAEL HAHN. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I congratulate you on having fixed your name in history asthe first free-state governor of Louisiana. Now, you are about to havea convention, which among other things will probably define the electivefranchise. I barely suggest for your private consideration, whether someof the colored people may not be let in, --as, for instance, the veryintelligent, and especially those who have fought gallantly in our ranks. They would probably help, in some trying time to come, to keep thejewel of liberty within the family of freedom. But this is only asuggestion, --not to the public, but to you alone. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

CALL FOR TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND MEN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, MARCH 14, 1864. 

In order to supply the force required to be drafted for the Navy and toprovide an adequate reserve force for all contingencies, in additionto the five hundred thousand men called for February 1, 1864, a callis hereby made and a draft ordered for two hundred thousand men for themilitary service (Army, Navy, and Marine Corps) of the United States. 

The proportional quotas for the different wards, towns, townships, precincts, or election districts, or counties, will be made known throughthe Provost Marshal-General's Bureau, and account will be taken of thecredits and deficiencies on former quotas. 

The 15th day of April, 1864, is designated as the time up to which thenumbers required from each ward of a city, town, etc. , may be raised byvoluntary enlistment, and drafts will be made in each ward of a city, town, etc. , which shall not have filled the quota assigned to it withinthe time designated for the number required to fill said quotas. Thedrafts will be commenced as soon after the 15th of April as practicable. 

The Government bounties as now paid continue until April I, 1864, at whichtime the additional bounties cease. On and after that date one hundreddollars bounty only will be paid, as provided by the act approved July 22, 1861. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

(Private. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 15, 1864

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, Nashville, Tenn. :

General McPherson having been assigned to the command of a department, could not General Frank Blair, without difficulty or detriment to theservice, be assigned to command the Corps he commanded a while lastautumn?

A. LINCOLN. 

PASS FOR GENERAL D. E. SICKLES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 15, 1864. 

WHOM IT MAY CONCERN

Major-General Sickles is making a tour for me from here by way of Cairo, New Orleans, and returning by the gulf, and ocean, and all land and navalofficers and, employees are directed to furnish reasonable transportationand other reasonable facilities to himself and personal staff notinconsistent with the public service. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER TO GOVERNOR HAHN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 15, 1864. 

HIS EXCELLENCY MICHAEL HAHN, Governor of Louisiana

Until further order, you are hereby invested with the powers exercisedhitherto by the military governor of Louisiana. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

REMARKS AT A FAIR IN THE PATENT OFFICE, WASHINGTON, MARCH 16, 1864. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

I appear to say but a word. This extraordinary war in which we are engagedfalls heavily upon all classes of people but the most heavily upon thesoldier. For it has been said, "All that a man hath will he give for hislife;" and while all contribute of their substance, the soldier puts hislife at stake, and often yields it up in his country's cause. The highestmerit, then, is due to the soldier. 

In this extraordinary war, extraordinary developments have manifestedthemselves, such as have not been seen in former wars; and among thesemanifestations nothing has been more remarkable than these fairs for therelief of suffering soldiers and their families. And the chief agents ofthese fairs are the women of America. 

I am not accustomed to the use of language of eulogy: I have never studiedthe art of paying compliments to women; but I must say, that if all thathas been said by orators and poets since the creation of the world inpraise of women were applied to the women of America, it would not do themjustice for their conduct during this war. I will close by saying, Godbless the women of America. 

REPLY TO A COMMITTEE FROM THE WORKINGMEN'S ASSOCIATION OF NEW YORK, MARCH 21, 1864. 

GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE:

The honorary membership in your association, as generously tendered, isgratefully accepted. 

You comprehend, as your address shows, that the existing rebellion meansmore and tends to do more than the perpetuation of African slavery--thatit is, in fact, a war upon the rights of all working people. Partly toshow that this view has not escaped my attention, and partly that I cannotbetter express myself, I read a passage from the message to Congress inDecember, 1861:

"It continues to develop that the insurrection is largely, if notexclusively, a war upon the first principle of popular government, therights of the people. Conclusive evidence of this is found in the mostgrave and maturely considered public documents, as well as in the Generaltone of the insurgents. In those documents we find the abridgment of theexisting right of suffrage, and the denial to the people of all right toparticipate in the selection of public officers, except the legislature, boldly advocated, with labored argument to prove that large control of thepeople in government is the source of all political evil. Monarchy itselfis sometimes hinted at as a possible refuge from the power of the people. In my present position I could scarcely be justified were I to omitraising a warning voice against this approach of returning despotism. 

"It is not needed, nor fitting here, that a General argument should bemade in favor of popular institutions; but there is one point, with itsconnections, not so hackneyed as most others, to which I ask a briefattention. It is the effort to place capital on an equal footing, if notabove labor, in the structure of government. It is assumed that laboris available only in connection with capital; that nobody labors unlesssomebody else, owning capital, somehow by the use of it induces him tolabor. This assumed, it is next considered whether it is best that capitalshall hire laborers, and thus induce them to work by their own consent orbuy them, and drive them to it without their consent. Having proceeded soit is naturally concluded that all laborers are either hired laborers, orwhat we call slaves. And, further, it is assumed that whoever is once ahired laborer, is fixed in that condition for life. Now there is no suchrelation between capital and labor as assumed, nor is there any such thingas a free man being fixed for life in the condition of a hired laborer. Both these assumptions are false, and all inferences from them aregroundless. 

"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruitof labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higherconsideration. Capital has its rights, which are as worthy of protectionas any other rights. Nor is it denied that there is, and probably alwayswill be, a relation between capital and labor, producing mutual benefits. The error is in assuming that the whole labor of a community exists withinthat relation. A few men own capital, and that few avoid labor themselves, and, with their capital, hire or buy another few to labor for them. Alarge majority belong to neither class--neither work for others, nor haveothers working for them. In most of the Southern States, a majority of thewhole people, of all colors, are neither slaves nor masters; while in theNorthern, a large majority are neither hirers nor hired. Men with theirfamilies, wives, sons, and daughters--work for themselves, on theirfarms, in their houses, and in their shops, taking the whole product tothemselves, and asking no favors of capital on the one hand, nor of hiredlaborers or slaves on the other. It is not forgotten that a considerablenumber of persons mingle their own labor with capital; that is, they laborwith their own hands, and also buy or hire others to labor for them, butthis is only a mixed and not a distinct class. No principle stated isdisturbed by the existence of this mixed class. 

"Again, as has already been said, there is not, of necessity, any suchthing as the free hired laborer being fixed to that condition for life. Many independent men everywhere in these States, a few years back in theirlives, were hired laborers. The prudent penniless beginner in the worldlabors for wages a while, saves a surplus with which to buy tools or landfor himself, then labors on his own account another while, and at lengthhires another new beginner to help him. This is the just and generousand prosperous system which opens the way to all--gives hope to all, andconsequent energy and progress, and improvement of condition to all. No men living are more worthy to be trusted than those who toil up frompoverty--none less inclined to touch or take aught which they have nothonestly earned. Let them beware of surrendering a political power theyalready possess, and which, if surrendered, will surely be used to closethe door of advancement against such as they, and to fix new disabilitiesand burdens upon them, till all of liberty shall be lost. "

The views then expressed remain unchanged, nor have I much to add. Noneare so deeply interested to resist the present rebellion as the workingpeople. Let them beware of prejudices, working division and hostilityamong themselves. The most notable feature of a disturbance in yourcity last summer was the hanging of some working people by other workingpeople. It should never be so. The strongest bond of human sympathy, outside of the family relation, should be one uniting all working people, of all nations, and tongues, and kindreds. Nor should this lead to a warupon property, or the owners of property. Property is the fruit of labor;property is desirable; is a positive good in the world. That someshould be rich shows that others may become rich, and, hence, is justencouragement to industry and enterprise. Let not him who is houselesspull down the house of another, but let him labor diligently and buildone for himself, thus by example assuring that his own shall be safe fromviolence when built. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 22, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Fort Monroe, Va. :

Hon. W. R. Morrison says he has requested you by letter to effect aspecial exchange of Lieut. Col. A. F. Rogers, of Eightieth IllinoisVolunteers, now in Libby Prison, and I shall be glad if you can effect it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

CORRESPONDENCE WITH GENERAL C. SCHURZ. 

( Private. )

WASHINGTON, March 13, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SCHURZ. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Yours of February 29 reached me only four days ago; but thedelay was of little consequence, because I found, on feeling around, Icould not invite you here without a difficulty which at least would beunpleasant, and perhaps would be detrimental to the public service. Allowme to suggest that if you wish to remain in the military service, itis very dangerous for you to get temporarily out of it; because, with amajor-general once out, it is next to impossible for even the Presidentto get him in again. With my appreciation of your ability and correctprinciple, of course I would be very glad to have your service forthe country in the approaching political canvass; but I fear we cannotproperly have it without separating you from the military. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION ABOUT AMNESTY, MARCH 26, 1864. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas, it has become necessary to define the cases in which insurgentenemies are entitled to the benefits of the Proclamation of the Presidentof the United States, which was made on the 8th day of December, 1863, and the manner in which they shall proceed to avail themselves of thesebenefits; and whereas the objects of that Proclamation were to suppressthe insurrection and to restore the authority of the United States; andwhereas the amnesty therein proposed by the President was offered withreference to these objects alone:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, dohereby proclaim and declare that the said Proclamation does not applyto the cases of persons who, at the time when they seek to obtain thebenefits thereof by taking the oath thereby prescribed, are in military, naval, or civil confinement or custody, or under bonds, or on parole ofthe civil, military, or naval authorities, or agents of the United States, as prisoners of war, or persons detained for offences of any kind, eitherbefore or after conviction; and that on the contrary it does apply onlyto those persons who, being yet at large, and free from any arrest, confinement, or duress, shall voluntarily come forward and take the saidoath, with the purpose of restoring peace, and establishing the nationalauthority. 

Persons excluded from the amnesty offered in the said Proclamation mayapply to the President for clemency, like all other offenders, and theirapplication will receive due consideration. 

I do further declare and proclaim that the oath presented in the aforesaidproclamation of the 8th of December, 1863, may be taken and subscribedbefore any commissioned officer, civil, military, or naval, in the serviceof the United States, or any civil or military officer of a State orTerritory not in insurrection, who, by the laws thereof, may be qualifiedfor administering oaths. 

All officers who receive such oaths are hereby authorized to givecertificates thereof to the persons respectively by whom they are made, and such officers are hereby required to transmit the original records ofsuch oaths, at as early a day as may be convenient, to the Department ofState, where they will be deposited, and remain in the archives of theGovernment. 

The Secretary of State will keep a registry thereof, and will, onapplication, in proper cases, issue certificates of such records in thecustomary form of official certificates. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. .. . 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 28, 1864. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--The Governor of Kentucky is here, and desires to have thefollowing points definitely fixed:

First. That the quotas of troops furnished, and to be furnished, byKentucky may be adjusted upon the basis as actually reduced by able-bodiedmen of hers having gone into the rebel service; and that she be requiredto furnish no more than her just quotas upon fair adjustment upon suchbasis. 

Second. To whatever extent the enlistment and drafting, one or both, of colored troops may be found necessary within the State, it may beconducted within the law of Congress; and, so far as practicable, freefrom collateral embarrassments, disorders, and provocations. 

I think these requests of the Governor are reasonable; and I shall beobliged if you will give him a full hearing, and do the best you can toeffect these objects. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL G. G. MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 29, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE. 

MY DEAR SIR:--Your letter to Colonel Townsend, inclosing a slip from the"Herald, " and asking a court of inquiry, has been laid before me by theSecretary of War, with the request that I would consider it. It is quitenatural that you should feel some sensibility on the subject; yet I am notimpressed, nor do I think the country is impressed, with the belief thatyour honor demands, or the public interest demands, such an inquiry. Thecountry knows that at all events you have done good service; and I believeit agrees with me that it is much better for you to be engaged in tryingto do more, than to be diverted, as you necessarily would be, by a courtof inquiry. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 29, 1864. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, Army of the Potomac:

Captain Kinney, of whom I spoke to you as desiring to go on your staff, is now in your camp, in company with Mrs. Senator Dixon. Mrs. Grant and I, and some others, agreed last night that I should, by this despatch, kindlycall your attention to Captain Kinney. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO A. G. HODGES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 4, 1864. 

A. G. HODGES, ESQ. , Frankfort, Kentucky:

MY DEAR SIR:--You ask me to put in writing the substance of what Iverbally said the other day, in your presence, to Governor Bramlette andSenator Dixon. It was about as follows:

"I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I cannot remember when I did not so think and feel, and yet I have neverunderstood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right toact officially upon this judgment and feeling. It was in the oath I tookthat I would to the best of my ability preserve, protect, and defend theConstitution of the United States. I could not take the office withouttaking the oath. Nor was it my view that I might take an oath to getpower, and break the oath in using the power. I understood, too, that inordinary civil administration this oath even forbade me to practicallyindulge my primary abstract judgment on the moral question of slavery. Ihad publicly declared this many times, and in many ways. And I aver that, to this day, I have done no official act in mere deference to my abstractjudgment and feeling on slavery. I did understand, however, that my oathto preserve the Constitution to the best of my ability, imposed upon methe duty of preserving, by every indispensable means, that government, that nation, of which that Constitution was the organic law. Was itpossible to lose the nation and yet preserve the Constitution? By Generallaw, life and limb must be protected; yet often a limb must be amputatedto save a life; but a life is never wisely given to save a limb. Ifelt that measures, otherwise unconstitutional, might become lawful, bybecoming indispensable to the preservation of the Constitution, throughthe preservation of the nation. Right or wrong, I assumed this ground, andnow avow it. I could not feel that to the best of my ability I had eventried to preserve the Constitution, if, to save slavery, or anyminor matter, I should permit the wreck of government, country, andConstitution, altogether. When, early in the war, General Fremontattempted military emancipation, I forbade it, because I did not thenthink it an indispensable necessity. When, a little later, GeneralCameron, then Secretary of War, suggested the arming of the blacks, Iobjected, because I did not yet think it an indispensable necessity. When, still later, General Hunter attempted military emancipation, I againforbade it, because I did not yet think the indispensable necessityhad come. When, in March, and May, and July, 1862, I made earnest andsuccessive appeals to the Border States to favor compensated emancipation, I believed the indispensable necessity for military emancipation andarming the blacks would come, unless averted by that measure. Theydeclined the proposition, and I was, in my best judgment, driven tothe alternative of either surrendering the Union, and with it theConstitution, or of laying strong hand upon the colored element. I chosethe latter. In choosing it, I hoped for greater gain than loss, but ofthis I was not entirely confident. More than a year of trial now shows noloss by it in our foreign relations, none in our home popular sentiment, none in our white military force, no loss by it any how, or anywhere. Onthe contrary, it shows a gain of quite one hundred and thirty thousandsoldiers, seamen, and laborers. These are palpable facts, about which, asfacts, there can be no caviling. We have the men; and we could not havehad them without the measure. 

"And now let any Union man who complains of the measure test himself bywriting down in one line that he is for subduing the rebellion by forceof arms; and in the next, that he is for taking these hundred and thirtythousand men from the Union side, and placing them where they would be butfor the measure he condemns. If he cannot face his case so stated, it isonly because he cannot face the truth. "

I add a word which was not in the verbal conversation. In telling thistale I attempt no compliment to my own sagacity. I claim not to havecontrolled events, but confess plainly that events have controlled me. Now, at the end of three years' struggle, the nation's condition is notwhat either party, or any man, devised or expected. God alone can claimit. Whither it is tending seems plain. If God now wills the removal of agreat wrong, and wills also that we of the North, as well as you ofthe South, shall pay fairly for our complicity in that wrong, impartialhistory will find therein new cause to attest and revere the justice andgoodness of God. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO MRS. HORACE MANN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 5, 1864. 

MRS HORACE MANN:

MADAM:--The petition of persons under eighteen, praying that I wouldfree all slave children, and the heading of which petition it appears youwrote, was handed me a few days since by Senator Sumner. Please tell theselittle people I am very glad their young hearts are so full of just andgenerous sympathy, and that, while I have not the power to grant all theyask, I trust they will remember that God has, and that, as it seems, hewills to do it. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 12, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Fort Monroe, Va. :

I am pressed to get from Libby, by special exchange, Jacob C. Hagenbuek, first lieutenant, Company H, Sixty-seventh Pennsylvania Volunteers. Pleasedo it if you can without detriment or embarrassment. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 17, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of the Potomac:

Private William Collins of Company B, of the Sixty-ninth New YorkVolunteers, has been convicted of desertion, and execution suspended asin numerous other cases. Now Captain O'Neill, commanding the regiment, and nearly all its other regimental and company officers, petition for hisfull pardon and restoration to his company. Is there any good objection?

A. LINCOLN. 

LECTURE ON LIBERTY

ADDRESS AT SANITARY FAIR IN BALTIMORE, APRIL 18, 1864. 

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:--Calling to mind that we are in Baltimore, wecannot fail to note that the world moves. Looking upon these many peopleassembled here to serve, as they best may, the soldiers of the Union, itoccurs at once that three years ago the same soldiers could not so muchas pass through Baltimore. The change from then till now is both great andgratifying. Blessings on the brave men who have wrought the change, andthe fair women who strive to reward them for it!

But Baltimore suggests more than could happen within Baltimore. The changewithin Baltimore is part only of a far wider change. When the war began, three years ago, neither party, nor any man, expected it would last tillnow. Each looked for the end, in some way, long ere to-day. Neither didany anticipate that domestic slavery would be much affected by the war. But here we are; the war has not ended, and slavery has been much affectedhow much needs not now to be recounted. So true is it that man proposesand God disposes. 

But we can see the past, though we may not claim to have directed it;and seeing it, in this case, we feel more hopeful and confident for thefuture. 

The world has never had a good definition of the word liberty, and theAmerican people, just now, are much in want of one. We all declare forliberty; but in using the same word we do not all mean the same thing. With some the word liberty may mean for each man to do as he pleases withhimself, and the product of his labor; while with others the same word maymean for some men to do as they please with other men, and the productof other men's labor. Here are two, not only different, but incompatiblethings, called by the same name, liberty. And it follows that each ofthe things is, by the respective parties, called by two different andincompatible names--liberty and tyranny. 

The shepherd drives the wolf from the sheep's throat, for which the sheepthanks the shepherd as his liberator, while the wolf denounces him for thesame act, as the destroyer of liberty, especially as the sheep was a blackone. Plainly, the sheep and the wolf are not agreed upon a definition ofthe word liberty; and precisely the same difference prevails to-day amongus human creatures, even in the North, and all professing to love liberty. Hence we behold the process by which thousands are daily passing fromunder the yoke of bondage hailed by some as the advance of liberty, andbewailed by others as the destruction of all liberty. Recently, as itseems, the people of Maryland have been doing something to define liberty, and thanks to them that, in what they have done, the wolf's dictionary hasbeen repudiated. 

It is not very becoming for one in my position to make speeches at length;but there is another subject upon which I feel that I ought to say a word. A painful rumor, true, I fear, has reached us, of the massacre, bythe rebel forces at Fort Pillow, in the west end of Tennessee, on theMississippi River, of some three hundred colored soldiers and whiteofficers [I believe it latter turned out to be 500], who had just beenoverpowered by their assailants [numbering 5000]. There seems to be someanxiety in the public mind whether the Government is doing its duty to thecolored soldier, and to the service, at this point. At the beginningof the war, and for some time, the use of colored troops was notcontemplated; and how the change of purpose was wrought I will not nowtake time to explain. Upon a clear conviction of duty I resolved to turnthat element of strength to account; and I am responsible for it to theAmerican people, to the Christian world, to history, and in my finalaccount to God. Having determined to use the negro as a soldier, there isno way but to give him all the protection given to any other soldier. Thedifficulty is not in stating the principle, but in practically applyingit. It is a mistake to suppose the Government is indifferent to thismatter, or is not doing the best it can in regard to it. We do not to-dayknow that a colored soldier, or white officer commanding colored soldiers, has been massacred by the rebels when made a prisoner. We fear it, webelieve it, I may say, --but we do not know it. To take the life of one oftheir prisoners on the assumption that they murder ours, when it is shortof certainty that they do murder ours, might be too serious, too cruel, amistake. We are having the Fort Pillow affair thoroughly investigated; andsuch investigation will probably show conclusively how the truth is. Ifafter all that has been said it shall turn out that there has been nomassacre at Fort Pillow, it will be almost safe to say there has beennone, and will be none, elsewhere. If there has been the massacre ofthree hundred there, or even the tenth part of three hundred, it will beconclusively proved; and being so proved, the retribution shall as surelycome. It will be matter of grave consideration in what exact course toapply the retribution; but in the supposed case it must come. 

[There was a massacre of a black company and their officers at FortPillow--they were prisoners who later on, the day of their capture, were ordered executed. The black soldiers were tied alive to individualplanks--then man and plank were cobbled up like cord wood and burned. Thewhite officers were shot. D. W. ]

TO CALVIN TRUESDALE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 20, 1864. 

CALVIN TRUESDALE, ESQ. , Postmaster, Rock Island, Ill. :

Thomas J. Pickett, late agent of the Quartermaster 's Department for theisland of Rock Island, has been removed or suspended from that position ona charge of having sold timber and stone from the island for his privatebenefit. Mr. Pickett is an old acquaintance and friend of mine, and I willthank you, if you will, to set a day or days and place on and at whichto take testimony on the point. Notify Mr. Pickett and one J. B. Danforth(who, as I understand, makes the charge) to be present with theirwitnesses. Take the testimony in writing offered by both sides, and reportit in full to me. Please do this for me. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO OFFICER COMMANDING AT FORT WARREN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 20, 1864. 

OFFICER IN MILITARY COMMAND, Fort Warren, Boston Harbor, Mass. :

If there is a man by the name of Charles Carpenter, under sentence ofdeath for desertion, at Fort Warren, suspend execution until further orderand send the record of his trial. If sentenced for any other offence, telegraph what it is and when he is to be executed. Answer at all events. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO OFFICER COMMANDING AT FORT WARREN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 21, 1864. 

OFFICER IN COMMAND AT FORT WARREN, Boston Harbor, Mass. :

The order I sent yesterday in regard to Charles Carpenter is herebywithdrawn and you are to act as if it never existed. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DIX. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , April 21, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL Dix, New York:

Yesterday I was induced to telegraph the officer in military command atFort Warren, Boston Harbor, Massachusetts, suspending the execution ofCharles Carpenter, to be executed tomorrow for desertion. Just now, on reaching your order in the case, I telegraphed the same officerwithdrawing the suspension, and leave the case entirely with you. Theman's friends are pressing me, but I refer them to you, intending to takeno further action myself. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 23, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Fort Monroe, Va. :

Senator Ten Eyck is very anxious to have a special exchange of Capt. FrankJ. McLean, of Ninth Tennessee Cavalry now, or lately, at Johnson's Island, for Capt. T. Ten Eyck, Eighteenth U. S. Infantry, and now at Richmond. Iwould like to have it done. Can it be?

A. LINCOLN. 

INDORSEMENT ON OFFER OF TROOPS, APRIL 23, 1864. 

TO THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

1. The Governors of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin offerto the President infantry troops for the approaching campaign as follows:Ohio, thirty thousand; Indiana, twenty thousand; Illinois, twentythousand; Iowa, ten thousand; Wisconsin, five thousand. 

2. The term of service to be one hundred days, reckoned from the date ofmuster into the service of the United States, unless sooner discharged. 

3. The troops to be mustered into the service of the United States byregiments, when the regiments are filled up, according to regulations, to the minimum strength--the regiments to be organized according to theregulations of the War Department. The whole number to be furnished withintwenty days from date of notice of the acceptance of this proposition. 

4. The troops to be clothed, armed, equipped, subsisted; transported, and paid as other United States infantry volunteers, and to serve infortifications, --or wherever their services may be required, within orwithout their respective States. 

5. No bounty to be paid the troops, nor the service charged or credited onany draft. 

6. The draft for three years' service to go on in any State or districtwhere the quota is not filled up; but if any officer or soldier in thisspecial service should be drafted, he shall be credited for the servicerendered. 

JOHN BROUGH, Governor of Ohio. O. P. MORTON, Governor of Indiana. RICHARDPATES, Governor of Illinois. WILLIAM M. STONE, Governor of Iowa. JAMES T. LEWIS, Governor of Wisconsin

(Indorsement. )

April 23, 1864. 

The foregoing proposition of the governors is accepted, and the Secretaryof War is directed to carry it into execution. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 23, 1864. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR:

MY DEAR SIR:--According to our understanding with Major-General Frank P. Blair at the time he took his seat in Congress last winter, he now asks towithdraw his resignation as Major-General, then tendered, and be sent tothe field. Let this be done. Let the order sending him be such as shown meto-day by the Adjutant-General, only dropping from it the names of Maguireand Tompkins. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO JOHN WILLIAMS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, April 25, 1864. 

JOHN WILLIAMS, Springfield, Ill. :

Yours of the 15th is just received. Thanks for your kind remembrance. Iwould accept your offer at once, were it not that I fear there might besome impropriety in it, though I do not see that there would. I will thinkof it a while. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, April 25, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

A Mr. Corby brought you a note from me at the foot of a petition Ibelieve, in the case of Dawson, to be executed to-day. The record has beenexamined here, and it shows too strong a case for a pardon or commutation, unless there is something in the poor man's favor outside of the record, which you on the ground may know, but I do not. My note to you only meansthat if you know of any such thing rendering a suspension of the executionproper, on your own judgment, you are at liberty to suspend it. OtherwiseI do not interfere. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL THOMAS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , April 26, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL THOMAS, Chattanooga, Term. :

Suspend execution of death sentence of young Perry, of Wisconsin, condemned for sleeping on his post, till further orders, and forwardrecord for examination. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR MURPHY. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , April 27, 1864. 

GOVERNOR MURPHY, Little Rock, Arkansas:

I am much gratified to learn that you got out so large a vote, so nearlyall the right way, at the late election; and not less so that your Stategovernment including the legislature, is organized and in good workingorder. Whatever I can I will do to protect you; meanwhile you must do yourutmost to protect yourselves. Present my greeting to all. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, APRIL 28, 1864. 

TO THE HONORABLE THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

I have the honor to transmit herewith an address to the President ofthe United States, and through him to both Houses of Congress, on thecondition and wants of the people of east Tennessee, and asking theirattention to the necessity of some action on the part of the Governmentfor their relief, and which address is presented by a committee of anorganization called "The East Tennessee Relief Association. "

Deeply commiserating the condition of these most loyal and sufferingpeople, I am unprepared to make any specific recommendation for theirrelief. The military is doing and will continue to do the best for themwithin its power. Their address represents that the construction of directrailroad communication between Knoxville and Cincinnati by way of centralKentucky would be of great consequence in the present emergency. It maybe remembered that in the annual message of December, 1861, such railroadconstruction was recommended. I now add that, with the hearty concurrenceof Congress, I would yet be pleased to construct a road, both for therelief of these people and for its continuing military importance. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, APRIL 28, 1864. 

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In obedience to the resolution of your honorable body, a copy of which isherewith returned, I have the honor to make the following brief statement, which is believed to contain the information sought:

Prior to and at the meeting of the present Congress, Robert C. Schenck, ofOhio, and Frank P. Blair, Jr. , of Missouri, members elect thereto, byand with the consent of the Senate held commissions from the Executiveas major-generals in the volunteer army. General Schenck tendered theresignation of his said commission, and took his seat in the House ofRepresentatives, at the assembling thereof, upon the distinct verbalunderstanding with the Secretary of War and the Executive that he might, at any time during the session, at his own pleasure, withdraw saidresignation and return to the field. 

General Blair was, by temporary assignment of General Sherman, in commandof a corps through the battles in front of Chattanooga, and in the marchto the relief of Knoxville, which occurred in the latter days of Novemberand early days of December last, and of course was not present at theassembling of Congress. When he subsequently arrived here, he sought, andwas allowed by the Secretary of War and the Executive, the same conditionsand promise as allowed and made to General Schenck. 

General Schenck has not applied to withdraw his resignation; but whenGeneral Grant was made Lieutenant-General, producing some change ofcommanders, General Blair sought to be assigned to the command of a corps. This was made known to Generals Grant and Sherman, and assented to bythem, and the particular corps for him designated. 

This was all arranged and understood, as now remembered, so much as amonth ago; but the formal withdrawal of General Blair's resignation, and making the order assigning him to the command of the corps, were notconsummated at the War Department until last week, perhaps on the 23d ofApril instant. As a summary of the whole, it may be stated that GeneralBlair holds no military commission or appointment other than as hereinstated, and that it is believed he is now acting as major-General upon theassumed validity of the commission herein stated, in connection with thefacts herein stated, and not otherwise. There are some letters, notes, telegrams, orders, entries, and perhaps other documents in connection withthis subject, which it is believed would throw no additional light uponit, but which will be cheerfully furnished if desired. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 30, 1864. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

Not expecting to see you before the spring campaign opens, I wish toexpress in this way my entire satisfaction with what you have done up tothis time, so far as I understand it. 

The particulars of your plans I neither know nor seek to know. You arevigilant and self-reliant; and, pleased with this, I wish not to obtrudeany restraints or constraints upon you. While I am very anxious that anygreat disaster or capture of our men in great number shall be avoided, Iknow that these points are less likely to escape your attention than theywould be mine. If there be anything wanting which is within my power togive, do not fail to let me know it. 

And now, with a brave army and a just cause, may God sustain you. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

MAY 2, 1864. 

TO THE HONORABLE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In compliance with the request contained in your resolution of the 29thultimo, a copy of which resolution is herewith returned, I have the honorto transmit the following:

[Correspondence and orders relating to the resignation and reinstatementof Major-General Frank P. Blair, Jr. , of Missouri. ]

The foregoing constitutes all sought by the resolution so far as isremembered or has been found upon diligent search. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 4, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SHERMAN, Chattanooga, Tenn. :

I have an imploring appeal in behalf of the citizens who say your OrderNo. 8 will compel them to go north of Nashville. This is in no sense anorder, nor is it even a request that you will do anything which in theleast shall be a drawback upon your military operations, but anything youcan do consistently with those operations for those suffering people Ishall be glad of. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL ROSECRANS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 5, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Commanding, Saint Louis, Mo. :

The President directs me to inquire whether a day has yet been fixed forthe execution of citizen Robert Louden, and if so what day?

JOHN HAY, Major and Assistant Adjutant-General. 

TO MRS. S. B. McCONKEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 9, 1864. 

MRS. SARAH B. McCONKEY, West Chester, Pa. :

MADAM:--Our mutual friend, Judge Lewis, tells me you do me the honor toinquire for my personal welfare. I have been very anxious for some days inregard to our armies in the field, but am considerably cheered, just now, by favorable news from them. 

I am sure you will join me in the hope for their further success; whileyourself, and other good mothers, wives, sisters, and daughters, do allyou and they can, to relieve and comfort the gallant soldiers who composethem. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

RECOMMENDATION OF THANKSGIVING. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 9, 1864

TO THE FRIENDS OF UNION AND LIBERTY:

Enough is known of army operations, within the last five days, to claimour special gratitude to God. While what remains undone demands our mostsincere prayers to and reliance upon Him (without whom all effort isvain), I recommend that all patriots at their homes, in their places ofpublic worship, and wherever they may be, unite in common thanksgiving andprayer to Almighty God. 

A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO A SERENADE, MAY 9, 1864. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I am very much obliged to you for the compliment of thiscall, though I apprehend it is owing more to the good news received to-dayfrom the Army, than to a desire to see me. I am indeed very grateful tothe brave men who have been struggling with the enemy in the field, totheir noble commanders who have directed them, and especially to ourMaker. Our commanders are following up their victories resolutely andsuccessfully. I think, without knowing the particulars of the plans ofGeneral Grant, that what has been accomplished is of more importance thanat first appears. I believe, I know (and am especially grateful to know)that General Grant has not been jostled in his purposes, that he has madeall his points, and to-day he is on his line as he purposed before hemoved his armies. I will volunteer to say that I am very glad at whathas happened, but there is a great deal still to be done. While we aregrateful to all the brave men and officers for the events of the past fewdays, we should, above all, be very grateful to Almighty God, who gives usvictory. 

There is enough yet before us requiring all loyal men and patriots toperform their share of the labor and follow the example of the modestGeneral at the head of our armies, and sink all personal considerationfor the sake of the country. I commend you to keep yourselves in the sametranquil mood that is characteristic of that brave and loyal man. I havesaid more than I expected when I came before you. Repeating my thanks forthis call, I bid you good-bye. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL LEW WALLACE. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 10, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL WALLACE, Baltimore:

Please tell me what is the trouble with Dr. Hawks. Also please ask BishopWhittington to give me his view of the case. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS, EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 11, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, St. Louis, Missouri:

Complaints are coming to me of disturbances in Canoll, Platte, andBuchanan counties. Please ascertain the truth, correct what is foundwrong, and telegraph me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO P. B. LOOMIS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 12, 1864

F. B. LOOMIS, ESQ. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I have the honor to acknowledge the receipt of yourcommunication of the 28th April, in which you offer to replace the presentgarrison at Port Trumbull with volunteers, which you propose to raise atyour own expense. While it seems inexpedient at this time to acceptthis proposition on account of the special duties now devolving upon thegarrison mentioned, I cannot pass unnoticed such a meritorious instanceof individual patriotism. Permit me, for the Government, to express mycordial thanks to you for this generous and public-spirited offer, whichis worthy of note among the many called forth in these times of nationaltrial. 

I am very truly, your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO A METHODIST DELEGATION, MAY 14, 1864. 

GENTLEMEN:-In response to your address, allow me to attest the accuracy ofits historical statements, indorse the sentiments it expresses, and thankyou in the nation's name for the sure promise it gives. Nobly sustained, as the Government has been, by all the churches, I would utter nothingwhich might in the least appear invidious against any. Yet without this, it may fairly be said, that the Methodist Episcopal Church, not lessdevoted than the best, is by its greatest numbers the most importantof all. It is no fault in others that the Methodist Church sends moresoldiers to the field, more nurses to the hospitals, and more prayersto Heaven than--any other. God bless the Methodist Church Bless all thechurches; and blessed be God, who in this our great trial giveth us thechurches. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR YATES. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 18, 1864. 

His EXCELLENCY RICHARD YATES, Springfield, Ill. :

If any such proclamation has appeared, it is a forgery. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ARREST AND IMPRISONMENT OF IRRESPONSIBLE NEWSPAPER REPORTERS AND EDITORS

ORDER TO GENERAL J. A. DIX. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 18, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL JOHN A. DIX, Commanding at New York:

Whereas there has been wickedly and traitorously printed and publishedthis morning in the New York World and New York Journal of Commerce, newspapers printed and published in the city of New York, a false andspurious proclamation purporting to be signed by the President and tobe countersigned by the Secretary of State, which publication is of atreasonable nature, designed to give aid and comfort to the enemies ofthe United States and to the rebels now at war against the Government andtheir aiders and abettors, you are therefore hereby commanded forthwithto arrest and imprison in any fort or military prison in your command, theeditors, proprietors, and publishers of the aforesaid newspapers, and allsuch persons as, after public notice has been given of the falsehood ofsaid publication, print and publish the same with intent to give aid andcomfort to the enemy; and you will hold the persons so arrested in closecustody until they can be brought to trial before a military commissionfor their offense. You will also take possession by military force of theprinting establishments of the New York World and Journal of Commerce, andhold the same until further orders, and prohibit any further publicationtherefrom. 

A. LINCOLN. 

[On the morning of May 18, 3864, a forged proclamation was published inthe World, and Journal of Commerce, of New York. The proclamation named aday for fasting and prayer, called for 400, 000 fresh troops, and purposedto raise by an "immediate and peremptory draft, " whatever quotas were notfurnished on the day specified. Ed. ]

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL B. P. BUTLER. 

(Cipher. )

WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 18, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Bermuda Hundred, Va. :

Until receiving your dispatch of yesterday, the idea of commissions in thevolunteers expiring at the end of three years had not occurred to me. Ithink no trouble will come of it; and, at all events, I shall take care ofit so far as in me lies. As to the major-generalships in the regulararmy, I think I shall not dispose of another, at least until the combinedoperations now in progress, under direction of General Grant, and withinwhich yourself and command are included, shall be terminated. 

Meanwhile, on behalf of yourself, officers, and men, please accept myhearty thanks for what you and they have so far done. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER CONCERNING THE EXEMPTION OF AMERICAN CONSULS FROM MILITARY SERVICE

MAY 19, 1864. 

It is officially announced by the State Department that citizens of theUnited States holding commissions and recognized as Consuls of foreignpowers, are not by law exempt from military service if drafted:

Therefore the mere enrolment of a citizen holding a foreign consulatewill not be held to vacate his commission, but if he shall be draftedhis exequatur will be revoked unless he shall have previously resigned inorder that another Consul may be received. 

An exequatur bearing date the 3d day of May, 1858, having been issued toCharles Hunt, a citizen of the United States, recognizing him as a Consulof Belgium for St. Louis, Missouri, and declaring him free to exercise andenjoy such functions, powers, and privileges as are allowed to the Consulsof the most favored nations in the United States, and the said Hunthaving sought to screen himself from his military duty to his country, in consequence of thus being invested with the consular functions of aforeign power in the United States, it is deemed advisable that the saidCharles Hunt should no longer be permitted to continue in the exercise ofsaid functions, powers, and privileges. 

These are therefore to declare that I no longer recognize the said Huntas Consul of Belgium, for St. Louis, Missouri, and will not permit him toexercise or enjoy any of the functions, powers or privileges allowed toconsuls of that nation, and that I do hereby wholly revoke and annul thesaid exequatur heretofore given, and do declare the same to be absolutelynull and void from this day forward. 

In testimony whereof, I have caused these letters to be made patent, and the seal of the United States of America to be hereuntoaffixed. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR MORTON AND OTHERS. EXECUTIVE MANSION, May 21, 1864

GOVERNOR O. P. MORTON:

The getting forward of hundred-day troops to sustain General Sherman'slengthening lines promises much good. Please put your best efforts intothe work. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Same to Governor Yates, Springfield, Illinois; Governor Stone, Davenport, Iowa; Governor Lewis, Madison, Wisconsin. 

TELEGRAM TO CHRISTIANA A. SACK. WAR DEPARTMENT WASHINGTON, D. C. , May 21, 1864

CHRISTIANA A. SACK, Baltimore, Md. :

I cannot postpone the execution of a convicted spy on a mere telegraphicdespatch signed with a name I never heard before. General Wallace may giveyou a pass to see him if he chooses. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR BROUGH. WASHINGTON CITY, May 24, 1864. 

GOVERNOR BROUGH, Columbus, Ohio:

Yours to Secretary of War [received] asking for something cheering. Wehave nothing bad from anywhere. I have just seen a despatch of Grant, of11 P. M. , May 23, on the North Anna and partly across it, which ends asfollows: "Everything looks exceedingly favorable for us. " We have nothinglater from him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 25, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of Potomac:

Mr. J. C. Swift wishes a pass from me to follow your army to pick up ragsand cast-off clothing. I will give it to him if you say so, otherwise not. 

A. LINCOLN. 

["No job to big or too small" for this president--not even a request froma Rag Picker. D. W. ]

MEMORANDUM CONCERNING THE TRANSPORTATION OF THE NEW YORK NAVAL BRIGADE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May 26, 1864. 

WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

I am again pressed with the claim of Mr. Marshall O. Roberts, fortransportation of what was called the Naval Brigade from New York toFortress Monroe. This force was a special organization got up by oneBartlett, in pretended pursuance of written authority from me, but infact, pursuing the authority in scarcely anything whatever. Thecredit given him by Mr. Roberts, was given in the teeth of the expressdeclaration that the Government would not be responsible for the class ofexpenses to which it belonged. After all some part of the transportationbecame useful to the Government, and equitably should be paid for; butI have neither time nor means to ascertain this equitable amount, or anyappropriation to pay it with if ascertained. If the Quartermaster at NewYork can ascertain what would compensate for so much of the transportationas did result usefully to the Government, it might be a step towardsreaching justice. I write this from memory, but I believe it issubstantially correct. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO P. A. CONKLING AND OTHERS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 3, 1864. 

HON. F. A. CONKLING AND OTHERS. 

GENTLEMEN:--Your letter, inviting me to be present at a mass meeting ofloyal citizens, to be held at New York on the 4th instant, for thepurpose of expressing gratitude to Lieutenant-General Grant for his signalservices, was received yesterday. It is impossible for me to attend. Iapprove, nevertheless, of whatever may tend to strengthen and sustainGeneral Grant and the noble armies now under his direction. My previoushigh estimate of General Grant has been maintained and heightened by whathas occurred in the remarkable campaign he is now conducting, while themagnitude and difficulty of the task before him does not prove less thanI expected. He and his brave soldiers are now in the midst of their greattrial, and I trust that at your meeting you will so shape your good wordsthat they may turn to men and guns, moving to his and their support. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

INDORSEMENT ON A LETTER TOUCHING THE REPUBLICAN NATIONAL CONVENTION. 

JUNE 5, 1864. 

(Indorsement. )

Swett is unquestionably all right. Mr. Holt is a good man, but I had notheard or thought of him for Vice-President. Wish not to interfere aboutVice-President. Cannot interfere about platform. Convention must judge foritself. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL MEADE. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 6, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL MEADE, Army of the Potomac:

Private James McCarthy, of the One-hundred and fortieth New YorkVolunteers, is here under sentence to the Dry Tortugas for an attempt todesert. His friends appeal to me and if his colonel and you consent, Iwill send him to his regiment. Please answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. WASHINGTON, June 8, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, St. Louis, Missouri:

Yours of to-day received. I am unable to conceive how a message can beless safe by the express than by a staff-officer. If you send a verbalmessage, the messenger is one additional person let into the secret. 

A. LINCOLN

REPLY TO THE COMMITTEE NOTIFYING PRESIDENT LINCOLN OF HIS RENOMINATION, JUNE 9, 1864. 

Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE COMMITTEE:

I will neither conceal my gratification nor restrain the expression ofmy gratitude that the Union people, through their convention, in theircontinued effort to save and advance the nation, have deemed me notunworthy to remain in my present position. I know no reason to doubtthat I shall accept the nomination tendered; and yet perhaps I shouldnot declare definitely before reading and considering what is called theplatform. I will say now, however, I approve the declaration in favor ofso amending the Constitution as to prohibit slavery throughout the nation. When the people in revolt, with a hundred days of explicit notice thatthey could within those days resume their allegiance without the overthrowof their institution, and that they could not so resume it afterward, elected to stand out, such amendment of the Constitution as now proposedbecame a fitting and necessary conclusion to the final success ofthe Union cause. Such alone can meet and cover all cavils. Now theunconditional Union men, North and South, perceive its importance andembrace it. In the joint names of Liberty and Union, let us labor to giveit legal form and practical effect. 

PLATFORM OF THE UNION NATIONAL CONVENTION HELD IN BALTIMORE, MD. , JUNE 7AND 8, 1864. 

1. Resolved, That it is the highest duty of every American citizen tomaintain against all their enemies the integrity of the Union and theparamount authority of the Constitution and laws of the United States;and that, laying aside all differences of political opinion, we pledgeourselves, as Union men, animated by a common sentiment and aiming ata common object, to do everything in our power to aid the Government inquelling by force of arms the rebellion now raging against its authority, and in bringing to the punishment due to their crimes the rebels andtraitors arrayed against it. 

2. Resolved, That we approve the determination of the Government of theUnited States not to compromise with rebels, or to offer them any termsof peace, except such as may be based upon an unconditional surrender oftheir hostility and a return to their just allegiance to the Constitutionand laws of the United States, and that we call upon the Government tomaintain this position, and to prosecute the war with the utmost possiblevigor to the complete suppression of the rebellion, in full relianceupon the self-sacrificing patriotism, the heroic valor, and theundying devotion of the American people to their Country and its freeinstitutions. 

3. Resolved, That as slavery was the cause, and now constitutes thestrength, of this rebellion, and as it must be, always and everywhere, hostile to the principles of republican government, justice and thenational safety demand its utter and complete extirpation from the soilof the republic; and that while we uphold and maintain the acts andproclamations by which the Government, in its own defense, has aimed adeath-blow at this gigantic evil, we are in favor, furthermore, of such anamendment to the Constitution, to be made by the people in conformity withits provisions, as shall terminate and forever prohibit the existence ofslavery within the limits or the jurisdiction of the United States. 

4. Resolved, That the thanks of the American people are due to thesoldiers and sailors of the Army and Navy, who have periled their lives indefense of their country and in vindication of the honor of its flag; thatthe nation owes to them some permanent recognition of their patriotismand their valor, and ample and permanent provision for those of theirsurvivors who have received disabling and honorable wounds in the serviceof the country; and that the memories of those who have fallen in itsdefense shall be held in grateful and everlasting remembrance. 

5. Resolved, That we approve and applaud the practical wisdom, theunselfish patriotism, and the unswerving fidelity to the Constitutionand the principles of American liberty, with which Abraham Lincoln hasdischarged under circumstances of unparalleled difficulty the great dutiesand responsibilities of the Presidential office; that we approve andindorse as demanded by the emergency and essential to the preservation ofthe nation, and as within the provisions of the Constitution, the measuresand acts which he has adopted to defend the nation against its openand secret foes; that we approve, especially, the Proclamation ofEmancipation, and the employment as Union soldiers of men heretofore heldin slavery; and that we have full confidence in his determination to carrythese and all other constitutional measures essential to the salvation ofthe country into full and complete effect. 

6. Resolved, That we deem it essential to the General welfare that harmonyshould prevail in the national councils, and we regard as worthy ofpublic confidence and official trust those only who cordially indorse theprinciples proclaimed in these resolutions, and which should characterizethe administration of the Government. 

7. Resolved, That the Government owes to all men employed in its armies, without regard to distinction of color, the full protection of the laws ofwar, and that any violation of these laws, or of the usages of civilizednations in time of war, by the rebels now in arms, should be made thesubject of prompt and full redress. 

8. Resolved, That foreign immigration, which in the past has added so muchto the wealth, development of resources, and increase of power to thisnation, the asylum of the oppressed of all nations, should be fostered andencouraged by a liberal and just policy. 

9. Resolved, That we are in favor of the speedy construction of therailroad to the Pacific coast. 

10. Resolved, That the national faith, pledged for the redemption ofthe public debt, must be kept inviolate, and that for this purpose werecommend economy and rigid responsibility in the public expenditures, anda vigorous and just system of taxation: and that it is the duty of everyloyal State to sustain the credit and promote the use of the nationalcurrency. 

11. Resolved, That we approve the position taken by the Government thatthe people of the United States can never regard with indifference theattempt of any European power to overthrow by force or to supplantby fraud the institutions of any republican government on the WesternContinent, and that they will view with extreme jealousy, as menacing tothe peace and independence of their own country, the efforts of any suchpower to obtain new footholds for monarchical governments, sustained byforeign military force, in near proximity to the United States. 

REPLY TO A DELEGATION FROM THE NATIONAL UNION LEAGUE, JUNE 9, 1864. 

GENTLEMEN--I can only say in response to the remarks of your chairman, that I am very grateful for the renewed confidence which has been accordedto me, both by the convention and by the National League. I am notinsensible at all to the personal compliment there is in this, yet I donot allow myself to believe that any but a small portion of it is tobe appropriated as a personal compliment to me. The convention and thenation, I am assured, are alike animated by a higher view of the interestsof the country, for the present and the great future, and the part I amentitled to appropriate as a compliment is only that part which I may layhold of as being the opinion of the convention and of the League, that Iam not entirely unworthy to be intrusted with the place I have occupiedfor the last three years. I have not permitted myself, gentlemen, toconclude that I am the best man in the country; but I am reminded in thisconnection of a story of an old Dutch farmer, who remarked to a companiononce that "it was not best to swap horses when crossing a stream. "

REPLY TO A DELEGATION FROM OHIO, JUNE 9, 1864. 

GENTLEMEN:--I am very much obliged to you for this compliment. I have justbeen saying, and will repeat it, that the hardest of all speeches I haveto answer is a serenade. I never know what to say on these occasions. Isuppose that you have done me this kindness in connection with the actionof the Baltimore convention, which has recently taken place, and withwhich, of course, I am very well satisfied. What we want still more thanBaltimore conventions, or Presidential elections, is success under GeneralGrant. I propose that you constantly bear in mind that the support youowe to the brave officers and soldiers in the field is of the very firstimportance, and we should therefore bend all our energies to that point. Now without detaining you any longer, I propose that you help me to closeup what I am now saying with three rousing cheers for General Grant andthe officers and soldiers under his command. 

ADDRESS TO THE ENVOY FROM THE HAWAIIAN ISLANDS, JUNE 11, 1864. 

SIR:--In every light in which the State of the Hawaiian Islands can becontemplated, it is an object of profound interest for the United States. Virtually it was once a colony. It is now a near and intimate neighbor. It is a haven of shelter and refreshment for our merchants, fishermen, seamen, and other citizens, when on their lawful occasions they arenavigating the eastern seas and oceans. Its people are free, and itslaws, language, and religion are largely the fruit of our own teaching andexample. The distinguished part which you, Mr. Minister, have acted inthe history of that interesting country, is well known here. It gives mepleasure to assure you of my sincere desire to do what I can to render nowyour sojourn in the United States agreeable to yourself, satisfactory toyour sovereign, and beneficial to the Hawaiian people. 

REMARKS TO AN OHIO REGIMENT, JUNE 11, 1864. 

Soldiers! I understand you have just come from Ohio; come to help us inthis the nation's day of trial, and also of its hopes. I thank you foryour promptness in responding to the call for troops. Your services werenever needed more than now. I know not where you are going. You may stayhere and take the places of those who will be sent to the front, or youmay go there yourselves. Wherever you go I know you will do your best. Again I thank you. Good-by. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL L. THOMAS. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 13, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL THOMAS, Louisville, Kentucky:

Complaint is made to me that in the vicinity of Henderson, our militiais seizing negroes and carrying them off without their own consent, andaccording to no rules whatever, except those of absolute violence. I wishyou would look into this and inform me, and see that the making soldiersof negroes is done according to the rules you are acting upon, so thatunnecessary provocation and irritation be avoided. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO THOMAS WEBSTER. WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 13, 1864. 

THOMAS WEBSTER, Philadelphia:

Will try to leave here Wednesday afternoon, say at 4 P. M. , remain tillThursday afternoon and then return. This subject to events. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, June 15, 1864. 7 A. M. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, Headquarters Army of the Potomac:

I have just received your dispatch of 1 P. M. Yesterday. I begin to see it:you will succeed. God bless you all. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ADDRESS AT A SANITARY FAIR IN PHILADELPHIA, JUNE 16, 1864. 

I suppose that this toast is intended to open the way for me to saysomething. War at the best is terrible, and this of ours in its magnitudeand duration is one of the most terrible the world has ever known. Ithas deranged business totally in many places, and perhaps in all. It hasdestroyed property, destroyed life, and ruined homes. It has produced anational debt and a degree of taxation unprecedented in the history ofthis country. It has caused mourning among us until the heavens mayalmost be said to be hung in black. And yet it continues. It has hadaccompaniments not before known in the history of the world. I mean theSanitary and Christian Commissions, with their labors for the relief ofthe soldiers, and the Volunteer Refreshment Saloons, understood better bythose who hear me than by myself, and these fairs, first begun at Chicagoand next held in Boston, Cincinnati, and other cities. The motive andobject that lie at the bottom of them are worthy of the most that we cando for the soldier who goes to fight the battles of his country. From thefair and tender hand of women is much, very much, done for the soldier, continually reminding him of the care and thought for him at home. Theknowledge that he is not forgotten is grateful to his heart. Anotherview of these institutions is worthy of thought. They are voluntarycontributions, giving proof that the national resources are not at allexhausted, and that the national patriotism will sustain us through all. It is a pertinent question, When is this war to end? I do not wish to namethe day when it will end, lest the end should not come at the given time. We accepted this war, and did not begin it. We accepted it for an object, and when that object is accomplished the war will end, and I hope to Godthat it will never end until that object is accomplished. We are goingthrough with our task, so far as I am concerned, if it takes us threeyears longer. I have not been in the habit of making predictions, but Iam almost tempted now to hazard one. I will. It is, that Grant is thisevening in a position, with Meade and Hancock, of Pennsylvania, whence hecan never be dislodged by the enemy until Richmond is taken. If I shalldiscover that General Grant may be greatly facilitated in the captureof Richmond by rapidly pouring to him a large number of armed men at thebriefest notice, will you go? Will you march on with him? [Cries of "Yes, yes. "] Then I shall call upon you when it is necessary. 

TO ATTORNEY-GENERAL BATES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, Jun. 24, 1864

HONORABLE ATTORNEY-GENERAL. 

SIR:--By authority of the Constitution, and moved thereto by the fourthsection of the act of Congress, entitled "An act making appropriationsfor the support of the army for the year ending the thirtieth of June, eighteen hundred and sixty-five, and for other purposes, approved Juneis, 1864, " I require your opinion in writing as to what pay, bounty, and clothing are allowed by law to persons of color who were free on thenineteenth day of April, 1861, and who have been enlisted and musteredinto the military service of the United States between the month ofDecember, 1862, and the sixteenth of June, 1864. 

Please answer as you would do, on my requirement, if the act of June 15, 1864, had not been passed, and I will so use your opinion as to satisfythat act. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 24, 1864. 

MRS. A. LINCOLN, Boston, Massachusetts:

All well and very warm. Tad and I have been to General Grant's army. Returned yesterday safe and sound. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. ROSECRANS. WASHINGTON, June 24, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, St. Louis, Missouri:

Complaint is made to me that General Brown does not do his best tosuppress bushwhackers. Please ascertain and report to me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

LETTER ACCEPTING THE NOMINATION FOR PRESIDENT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 27, 1864. 

HON. WILLIAM DENNISON AND OTHERS, a Committee of the Union NationalConvention. 

GENTLEMEN:--Your letter of the 14th inst. . , formally notifying me that Ihave been nominated by the convention you represent for the Presidencyof the United States for four years from the 4th of March next, has beenreceived. The nomination is gratefully accepted, as the resolutions of theconvention, called the platform, are heartily approved. 

While the resolution in regard to the supplanting of republican governmentupon the Western Continent is fully concurred in, there might bemisunderstanding were I not to say that the position of the Government inrelation to the action of France in Mexico, as assumed through the StateDepartment and indorsed by the convention among the measures and acts ofthe Executive, will be faithfully maintained so long as the state of factsshall leave that position pertinent and applicable. 

I am especially gratified that the soldier and seaman were not forgottenby the convention, as they forever must and will be remembered by thegrateful country for whose salvation they devote their lives. 

Thanking you for the kind and complimentary terms in which you havecommunicated the nomination and other proceedings of the convention, Isubscribe myself, Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL P. STEELE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 29, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL STEELE:

I understand that Congress declines to admit to seats the persons sent asSenators and Representatives from Arkansas. These persons apprehend that, in consequence, you may not support the new State government there as youotherwise would. My wish is that you give that government and the peoplethere the same support and protection that you would if the members hadbeen admitted, because in no event, nor in any view of the case, can thisdo any harm, while it will be the best you can do toward suppressing therebellion. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL GRANT. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, June 29, 1864. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point:

Dr. Worster wishes to visit you with a view of getting your permission tointroduce into the army "Harmon's Sandal Sock. " Shall I give him a passfor that object?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO DAVID TOD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , June 30, 1864. 

HON. DAVID TOD, Youngstown, Ohio: I have nominated you to be Secretary ofthe Treasury, in place of Governor Chase, who has resigned. Please comewithout a moment's delay. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. L. SCRIPPS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 4, 1864. 

To JOHN L. SCRIPPS, ESQ. 

DEAR SIR:--Complaint is made to me that you are using your official powerto defeat Mr. Arnold's nomination to Congress. I am well satisfied withMr. Arnold as a member of Congress, and I do not know that the man whomight supplant him would be as satisfactory; but the correct principle, I think, is that all our friends should have absolute freedom of choiceamong our friends. My wish, therefore, is that you will do just as youthink fit with your own suffrage in the case, and not constrain any ofyour subordinates to [do] other than [as] he thinks fit with his. This isprecisely the rule I inculcated and adhered to on my part, when a certainother nomination, now recently made, was being canvassed for. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. W. GARRETT. WASHINGTON, July 5, 1864. 

J. W. GARRETT, President [B. & 0. R. R. ], Camden Station:

You say telegraphic communication is re-established with Sandy Hook. Well, what does Sandy Hook say about operations of enemy and of Sigel duringto-day?

A. LINCOLN. 

FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GOVERNOR SEYMOUR. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, July 5, 1864. 

HIS EXCELLENCY HORATIO SEYMOUR, Governor of New York, Albany:

The President directs me to inform you that a rebel force, variouslyestimated at from fifteen to twenty thousand men, have invaded the Stateof Maryland, and have taken Martinsburg and Harper's Ferry, and arethreatening other points; that the public safety requires him to callupon the State executives for a militia force to repel this invasion. Hetherefore directs me to call on you for a militia force of twelve thousandmen from your State to serve not more than one hundred days, and torequest that you will with the utmost despatch forward the troops toWashington by rail or steamboat as may be most expeditious. 

Please favor me with an answer at your earliest convenience. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

PROCLAMATION SUSPENDING THE WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS, JULY 5, 1864. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas, by a proclamation which was issued on the 15th day of April, 1861, the President of the United States announced and declared that thelaws of the United States had been for some time past, and then were, opposed and the execution thereof obstructed in certain States thereinmentioned, by combinations too powerful to be suppressed by the ordinarycourse of judicial proceedings or by the power vested in the marshals bylaw; and

Whereas, immediately after the issuing of the said proclamation the landand naval forces of the United States were put into activity to suppressthe said insurrections and rebellion; and

Whereas, the Congress of the United States, by an act approved on thethird day of March, 1863, did enact that during the said rebellion thePresident of the United States, whenever in his judgment the public safetymay require it, is authorized to suspend the privilege of the writ ofhabeas corpus in any case throughout the United States, or any partthereof; and

Whereas, the said insurrection and rebellion still continue, endangeringthe existence of the Constitution and Government of the United States; and

Whereas, the military forces of the United States are now actively engagedin suppressing the said insurrection and rebellion in various parts ofthe States where the said rebellion has been successful in obstructingthe laws and public authorities, especially in the States of Virginia andGeorgia; and

Whereas, on the fifteenth day of September last, the President of theUnited States duly issued his proclamation, wherein he declared that theprivilege of the writ of habeas corpus should be suspended throughoutthe United States, in Cases whereby the authority of the President ofthe United States, the military, naval, and civil officers of the UnitedStates, or any of them, hold persons under their command or in theircustody, either as prisoners of war, spies, or aiders or abettors of theenemy, or officers, soldiers, or seamen enrolled or drafted, or mustered, or enlisted in, or belonging to the land or naval forces of the UnitedStates, or as deserters therefrom, or otherwise amenable to military law, or the rules and articles of war, or the rules and regulations prescribedfor the military and naval service by authority of the President of theUnited States, or for resisting a draft, or for any other offence againstthe military or naval service; and

Whereas, many citizens of the State of Kentucky have joined the forces ofthe insurgents, who have on several occasions entered the said Stateof Kentucky in large force and not without aid and comfort furnished bydisaffected and disloyal citizens of the United States residing therein, have not only greatly disturbed the public peace but have overborne thecivil authorities and made flagrant civil war, destroying property andlife in various parts of the State; and

Whereas, it has been made known to the President of the United States, bythe officers commanding the National armies, that combinations have beenformed in the said State of Kentucky, with a purpose of inciting the rebelforces to renew the said operations of civil war within the said State, and thereby to embarrass the United States armies now operating in thesaid States of Virginia and Georgia, and even to endanger their safety. 

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, byvirtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and laws, dohereby declare that in my judgment the public safety especially requiresthat the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus soproclaimed in the said proclamation of the 15th of September, 1863, bemade effectual and be duly enforced in and throughout the said State ofKentucky, and that martial law be for the present declared therein. I dotherefore hereby require of the military officers of the said State thatthe privilege of the habeas corpus be effectually suspended within thesaid State, according to the aforesaid proclamation, and that martial lawbe established therein to take effect from the date of this proclamation, the said suspension and establishment of martial law to continue untilthis proclamation shall be revoked or modified, but not beyond the periodwhen the said rebellion shall have been suppressed or come to an end. AndI do hereby require and command, as well as military officers, all civilofficers and authorities existing or found within the said State ofKentucky, to take notice of this proclamation and to give full effectto the same. The martial laws herein proclaimed and the things in thatrespect herein ordered will not be deemed or taken to interfere with theholding of lawful elections, or with the proceedings of the constitutionalLegislature of Kentucky, or with the administration of justice in thecourts of law existing therein between citizens of the United States insuits or proceedings which do not affect the military operations or theconstituted authorities of the government of the United States. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington this 5th day of July, in the year of ourLord 1864, and of the independence of the United States the eighty-eighth. 

A. LINCOLN. By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

PROCLAMATION FOR A DAY OF PRAYER, JULY 7, 1864. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas, the Senate and House of Representatives at their last sessionadopted a concurrent resolution, which was approved on the second day ofJuly instant, and which `was in the words following, namely:

That the President of the United States be requested to appoint a day ofhumiliation and prayer by the people of the United States, that he requesthis constitutional advisers at the head of the Executive Departmentsto unite with him, as Chief Magistrate of the nation, at the City ofWashington, and the members of Congress, and all magistrates, all civil, military, and naval officers, all soldiers, sailors, and marines, with allloyal and law-abiding people, to convene at their usual places of worship, or wherever they may be, to confess and to repent of their manifoldsins, to implore the compassion and forgiveness of the Almighty, that, if consistent with His will, the existing rebellion may be speedilysuppressed, and the supremacy of the Constitution and laws of the UnitedStates may be established throughout all the States; to implore Him, asthe Supreme Ruler of the world, not to destroy us as a people, nor sufferus to be destroyed by the hostility or connivance of other nations, or byobstinate adhesion to our own counsels which may be in conflict with Hiseternal, purposes, and to implore Him to enlighten the mind of the nationto know and do His will, humbly believing that it is in accordance withHis will that our place should be maintained as a united people among thefamily of nations; to implore Him to grant to our armed defenders, andthe masses of the people, that courage, power of resistance, and endurancenecessary to secure that result; to implore Him in His infinite goodnessto soften the hearts, enlighten the minds, and quicken the conscience ofthose in rebellion, that they may lay down their arms, and speedily returnto their allegiance to the United States, that they may not be utterlydestroyed, that the effusion of blood may be stayed, and that unity andfraternity may be restored, and peace established throughout all ourborders. 

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the `United States, cordially concurring with the Congress of the United States, in thepenitential and pious sentiments expressed in the aforesaid resolutions, and heartily approving of the devotional design and purpose thereof, dohereby appoint the first Thursday of August next to be observed by thepeople of the United States as a day of national humiliation and prayer. 

I do hereby further invite and request the heads of the ExecutiveDepartments of this Government, together with all legislators, all judgesand magistrates, and all other persons exercising authority in the land, whether civil, military, or naval, and all soldiers, seamen, and marinesin the national service, and all other loyal and law-abiding people of theUnited States, to assemble in their preferred places of public worship onthat day, and there to render to the Almighty and merciful Ruler of theUniverse, such homage and such confessions, and to offer to Him suchsupplications as the Congress of the United States have, in theiraforesaid resolution, so solemnly, so earnestly, and so reverentlyrecommended. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the sealof the United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington thisseventh day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundredand sixty-four, and of the independence of the United States theeighty-ninth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

PROCLAMATION CONCERNING A BILL "TO GUARANTEE TO CERTAIN STATES, WHOSE GOVERNMENTS HAVE BEEN USURPED OR OVERTHROWN, A REPUBLICAN FORM OFGOVERNMENT, " AND CONCERNING RECONSTRUCTION, JULY 8, 1864. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas at the late session Congress passed a bill "to guarantee tocertain states whose governments have been usurped or overthrown arepublican form of government, " a copy of which is hereunto annexed; and

Whereas, the said bill was presented to the President of the United Statesfor his approval less than one hour before the sine die adjournment ofsaid session, and was not signed by him; and

Whereas the said bill contains, among other things, a plan for restoringthe States in rebellion to their proper practical relation in the Union, which plan expresses the sense of Congress upon that subject, andwhich plan it is now thought fit to lay before the people for theirconsideration:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, doproclaim, declare, and make known that while I am (as I was in Decemberlast, when, by proclamation, I propounded a plan for restoration)unprepared by a formal approval of this bill to be inflexibly committed toany single plan of restoration, and while I am also unprepared to declarethat the free State constitutions and governments already adopted andinstalled in Arkansas and Louisiana shall be set aside and held fornaught, thereby repelling and discouraging the loyal citizens who haveset up the same as to further effort, or to declare a constitutionalcompetency in Congress to abolish slavery in States, but am at the sametime sincerely hoping and expecting that a constitutional amendmentabolishing slavery throughout the nation may be adopted, nevertheless I amfully satisfied with the system for restoration contained in the bill asone very proper plan for the loyal people of any State choosing to adoptit, and that I am and at all times shall be prepared to give the Executiveaid and assistance to any such people so soon as the military resistanceto the United States shall have been suppressed in any such States and thepeople thereof shall have sufficiently returned to their obedience tothe Constitution and the laws of the United States, in which casesmilitia-governors will be appointed with directions to proceed accordingto the bill. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TO HORACE GREELEY. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 9, 1864

HON. HORACE GREELEY. 

DEAR SIR:--Your letter of the 7th, with inclosures, received. 

If you can find any person, anywhere, professing to have any propositionof Jefferson Davis in writing, for peace, embracing the restoration of theUnion and abandonment of slavery, whatever else it embraces, say to him hemay come to me with you; and that if he really brings such proposition, he shall at the least have safe conduct with the paper (and withoutpublicity, if he chooses) to the point where you shall have to meet him. The same if there be two or more persons. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. W. GARRETT. WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 9, 1864

J. W. GARRETT, Camden Station:

What have you heard about a battle at Monocacy to-day? We have nothingabout it here except what you say. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM FROM GENERAL HALLECK TO GENERAL WALLACE. 

WASHINGTON, July 9, 1864. 11. 57 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL L. WALLACE, Commanding Middle Department:

I am directed by the President to say that you will rally your forces andmake every possible effort to retard the enemy's march on Baltimore. 

H. W. HALLECK, Major-General and Chief of Staff. 

TELEGRAM TO T. SWAN AND OTHERS. WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 10, 1864. 9. 20A. M. 

THOMAS SWAN AND OTHERS, Baltimore, Maryland:

Yours of last night received. I have not a single soldier but whom isbeing disposed by the military for the best protection of all. By latestaccounts the enemy is moving on Washington. They cannot fly to eitherplace. Let us be vigilant, but keep cool. I hope neither Baltimore norWashington will be sacked. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON CITY, July TO, 1864. 2 P. M. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

Your dispatch to General Halleck, referring to what I may think in thepresent emergency, is shown me. General Halleck says we have absolutely noforce here fit to go to the field. He thinks that with the hundred-daymen and invalids we have here we can defend Washington, and, scarcely, Baltimore. Besides these there are about eight thousand, not veryreliable, under Howe, at Harper's Ferry with Hunter approaching that pointvery slowly, with what number I suppose you know better than I. Wallace, with some odds and ends, and part of what came up with Ricketts, was sobadly beaten yesterday at Monocacy, that what is left can attempt no morethan to defend Baltimore. What we shall get in from Pennsylvania and NewYork will scarcely be worth counting, I fear. Now, what I think is, thatyou should provide to retain your hold where you are, certainly, and bringthe rest with you personally, and make a vigorous effort to destroy theenemy's forces in this vicinity. I think there is really a fair chanceto do this, if the movement is prompt. This is what I think upon yoursuggestion, and is not an order. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, July 11, 1864. 8 A. M. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

Yours of 10. 30 P. M. Yesterday received, and very satisfactory. The enemywill learn of Wright's arrival, and then the difficulty will be to uniteWright and Hunter south of the enemy before he will recross the Potomac. Some firing between Rockville and here now. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, D. C. , July 12, 1864. 11. 30AM. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

Vague rumors have been reaching us for two or three days that Longstreet'scorps is also on its way [to] this vicinity. Look out for its absence fromyour front. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM AND LETTER TO HORACE GREELEY. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July12, 1864. 

HON. HORACE GREELEY, New York:

I suppose you received my letter of the 9th. I have just received yours ofthe 13th, and am disappointed by it. I was not expecting you to send me aletter, but to bring me a man, or men. Mr. Hay goes to you with my answerto yours of the 13th. 

A. LINCOLN. 

[Carried by Major John Hay. ]

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, JULY 15, 1864. 

HON. HORACE GREELEY. 

MY DEAR SIR:-Yours of the 13th is just received, and I am disappointedthat you have not already reached here with those commissioners, if theywould consent to come on being shown my letter to you of the 9th instant. Show that and this to them, and if they will come on the terms stated inthe former, bring them. I not only intend a sincere effort for peace, butI intend that you shall be a personal witness that it is made. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

SAFE CONDUCT FOR CLEMENT C. CLAY AND OTHERS, JULY 16, 1864. 

The President of the United States directs that the four persons whosenames follow, to wit, HON. Clement C. Clay, HON. Jacob Thompson, ProfessorJames P. Holcombe, George N. Sanders, shall have safe conduct to the cityof Washington in company with the HON. HORACE GREELEY, and shall be exemptfrom arrest or annoyance of any kind from any officer of the United Statesduring their journey to the said city of Washington. 

By order of the President: JOHN HAY, Major and Assistant Adjutant-General

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. [WASHINGTON] July 17. 1864. 11. 25 A. M. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

In your dispatch of yesterday to General Sherman, I find the following, towit:

"I shall make a desperate effort to get a position here, which will holdthe enemy without the necessity of so many men. "

Pressed as we are by lapse of time I am glad to hear you say this; and yetI do hope you may find a way that the effort shall not be desperate in thesense of great loss of life. 

A. LINCOLN, President. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. HUNTER WASHINGTON JULY 17, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER, Harper's Ferry, West Va. 

Yours of this morning received. You misconceive. The order you complain ofwas only nominally mine, and was framed by those who really made it withno thought of making you a scapegoat. It seemed to be General Grant's wishthat the forces under General Wright and those under you should join anddrive at the enemy under General Wright. Wright had the larger part of theforce, but you had the rank. It was thought that you would prefer Crook'scommanding your part to your serving in person under Wright. That is allof it. General Grant wishes you to remain in command of the department, and I do not wish to order otherwise. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 18, 1864. 11. 25 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SHERMAN, Chattahoochee River, Georgia:

I have seen your despatches objecting to agents of Northern States openingrecruiting stations near your camps. An act of Congress authorizes this, giving the appointment of agents to the States, and not to the ExecutiveGovernment. It is not for the War Department, or myself, to restrainor modify the law, in its execution, further than actual necessity mayrequire. To be candid, I was for the passage of the law, not apprehendingat the time that it would produce such inconvenience to the armies in thefield as you now cause me to fear. Many of the States were very anxiousfor it, and I hoped that, with their State bounties, and active exertions, they would get out substantial additions to our colored forces, which, unlike white recruits, help us where they come from, as well as where theygo to. I still hope advantage from the law; and being a law, it must betreated as such by all of us. We here will do what we consistently can tosave you from difficulties arising out of it. May I ask, therefore, thatyou will give your hearty co-operation. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ANNOUNCEMENT CONCERNING TERMS OF PEACE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 18, 1864. 

TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:

Any proposition which embraces the restoration of peace, the integrity ofthe whole Union, and the abandonment of slavery, and which comes by andwith an authority that can control the armies now at war against theUnited States, will be received and considered by the ExecutiveGovernment of the United States, and will be met by liberal terms on othersubstantial and collateral points; and the bearer or bearers thereof shallhave safe conduct both ways. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION CALLING FOR FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND VOLUNTEERS, JULY 18, 1864, BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas by the act approved July 4, 1864, entitled "An act further toregulate and provide for the enrolling and calling out the national forcesand for other purposes, " it is provided that the President of the UnitedStates may, "at his discretion, at any time hereafter, call for any numberof men, as volunteers for the respective terms of one, two, and threeyears for military service, " and "that in case the quota or any partthereof of any town, township, ward of a city, precinct, or electiondistrict, or of a county not so subdivided, shall not be filled within thespace of fifty days after such call, then the President shall immediatelyorder a draft for one year to fill such quota or any part thereof whichmay be unfilled;" and

Whereas the new enrolment heretofore ordered is so far completed asthat the aforementioned act of Congress may now be put in operation forrecruiting and keeping up the strength of the armies in the field, forgarrisons, and such military operations as may be required for the purposeof suppressing the rebellion and restoring the authority of the UnitedStates Government in the insurgent States:

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, doissue this my last call for five hundred thousand volunteers for themilitary service: Provided, nevertheless, That this call shall be reducedby all credits which may be established under section eight of theaforesaid act on account of persons who have entered the naval serviceduring the present rebellion and by credits for men furnished to themilitary service in excess of calls heretofore made. Volunteers will beaccepted under this call for one, two, or three years, as they may elect, and will be entitled to the bounty provided by the law for the period ofservices for which they enlist. 

And I hereby proclaim, order, and direct that immediately after the 5thday of September, 1864, being fifty days from the date of this call, a draft for troops to serve for one year shall be had in every town, township, ward of a city, precinct, or election district, or county notso subdivided, to fill the quota which shall be assigned to it under thiscall or any part thereof which may be unfilled by volunteers on the said5th day of September, 1864. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the City of Washington, this 18th day of July, A. D. 1864, and ofthe independence of the United States the eighty-ninth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 20, 1864. 4. 30 p. M. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

Yours of yesterday, about a call for three hundred thousand, is received. I suppose you had not seen the call for five hundred thousand, made theday before, and which, I suppose, covers the case. Always glad to haveyour suggestions. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. L. WRIGHT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, JULY. 20, 1864. 

J. L. WRIGHT, Indianapolis, Ind. :

All a mistake. Mr. Stanton has not resigned. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL D. HUNTER. (Cipher. )

WAR DEPARTMENT, JULY 23, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HUNTER, Harper's Ferry, West Va. 

Are you able to take care of the enemy, when he turns back upon you, as heprobably will on finding that Wright has left?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR CURTIN, ENCLOSING A LETTER TO WILLIAM O. SNIDER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 25, 1864. 

GOVERNOR CURTIN:

Herewith is the manuscript letter for the gentleman who sent me a canethrough your hands. For my life I cannot make out his name; and thereforeI cut it from his letter and pasted it on, as you see. I suppose [sic]will remember who he is, and I will thank you to forward him the letter. He dates his letter at Philadelphia. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

PRESENTATION OF A CANE

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 25, 1864. 

WILLIAM O. SNIDER:

The cane you did me the honor to present through Governor Curtin was dulyplaced in my hand by him. Please accept my thanks; and, at the same time, pardon me for not having sooner found time to tender them. Your obedientservant, A. LINCOLN. 

FROM JOHN HAY TO J. C. WELLING. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON. July 25, 1864. 

J. C. WELLING, ESQ. 

SIR:--According to the request contained in your note, I have placed Mr. Gibson's letter of resignation in the hands of the President. He has readthe letter, and says he accepts the resignation, as he will be glad todo with any other, which may be tendered, as this is, for the purpose oftaking an attitude of hostility against him. 

He says he was not aware that he was so much indebted to Mr. Gibson forhaving accepted the office at first, not remembering that he ever pressedhim to do so, or that he gave it otherwise than as was usual, upon requestmade on behalf of Mr. Gibson. 

He thanks Mr. Gibson for his acknowledgment that he has been treated withpersonal kindness and consideration, and says he knows of but two smalldrawbacks upon Mr. Gibson's right to still receive such treatment, oneof which is that he never could learn of his giving much attention tothe duties of his office, and the other is this studied attempt of Mr. Gibson's to stab him. 

I am very truly, Your obedient servant, JOHN HAY. 

TO COLONEL, FIRST N. Y. VETERAN CAVALRY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, JULY 25, 1864. 

Thomas Connor, a private in the First Veteran New York Cavalry, is nowimprisoned at hard labor for desertion. If the Colonel of said Regimentwill say in writing on this sheets that he is willing to receive him backto the Regiment, I will pardon, and send him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN. 

WASHINGTON, July 26, 1864. 2. 30 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SHERMAN, near Atlanta:

I have just seen yours complaining of the appointment of Hovey andOsterhaus. The point you make is unquestionably a good one, and yetplease hear a word from us. My recollection is that both General Grantand yourself recommended both H [ovey] and O [sterhaus] for promotion, andthese, with other strong recommendations, drew committals from us which wecould neither honorably or safely disregard. We blamed H [ovey] for comingaway in the manner in which he did, but he knew he had apparent reason tofeel disappointed and mortified, and we felt it was not best to crush onewho certainly had been a good soldier. As to [Osterhaus], we did not knowof his leaving at the time we made the appointment, and do not nowknow the terms on which he left. Not to have appointed him, as the caseappeared to us at the time, would have been almost, if not quite, aviolation of our word. The word was given on what we thought was highmerit and somewhat on his nationality. I beg you to believe we do not actin a spirit of disregarding merit. We expect to await your programme forfurther changes and promotions in your army. My profoundest thanks to youand your whole army for the present campaign so far. 

A. LINCOLN. 

FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GENERAL HALLECK. 

WASHINGTON CITY, July 27, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL HALLECK, Chief of Staff of the Army:

GENERAL:--Lieutenant-General Grant having signified that, owing to thedifficulties and delay of communication between his headquarters andWashington, it is necessary that in the present emergency military ordersmust be issued directly from Washington, the President directs me toinstruct you that all the military operations for the defense of theMiddle Department, the Department of the Susquehanna, the Department ofWashington, and the Department of West Virginia, and all the forces inthose departments, are placed under your general command, and that youwill be expected to take all military measures necessary for defenseagainst any attack of the enemy and for his capture and destruction. You will issue from time to time such orders to the commanders of therespective departments and to the military authorities therein as may beproper. 

Your obedient servant, EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. WASHINGTON, July 27, 1864. 

GOVERNOR JOHNSON, Nashville, Tennessee:

Yours in relation to General A. C. Gillam just received. Will look afterthe matter to-day. 

I also received yours about General Carl Schurz. I appreciate himcertainly, as highly as you do; but you can never know until you have thetrial, how difficult it is to find a place for an officer of so high rankwhen there is no place seeking him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO Mrs. ANNE WILLIAMSON, EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, July 29, 1864. 

Mrs. ANNE WILLIAMSON. 

MADAM:--The plaid you send me is just now placed in my hands. I thank youfor that pretty and useful present, but still more for those good wishesfor myself and our country, which prompted you to present it. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

INDORSEMENT, AUGUST 3, 1864. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, August 2, 1864. 

MR. PRESIDENT:--This note will introduce to you Mr. Schley of Baltimore, who desires to appeal to you for the revocation of an order of GeneralHunter, removing some persons, citizens of Frederick, beyond his lines, and imprisoning others. This Department has no information of the reasonsor proofs on which General Hunter acts, and I do not therefore feelat liberty to suspend or interfere with his action except under yourdirection. 

Yours truly, EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

[Indorsement. ]

August 3, 1864. 

The Secretary of War will suspend the order of General Hunter mentionedwithin, until further order and direct him to send to the Department abrief report of what is known against each one proposed to be dealt with. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U, S. GRANT. 

(Cipher. )

WASHINGTON, D. C. . August 3, 1864

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

I have seen your despatch in which you say, "I want Sheridan put incommand of all the troops in the field, with instructions to put himselfsouth of the enemy, and follow him to the death. Wherever the enemy goes, let our troops go also. "

This, I think, is exactly right as to how our forces should move; butplease look over the despatches you may have received from here, eversince you made that order, and discover, if you can, that there is anyidea in the head of any one here of "putting our army south of the enemy, "or of following him to the "death, " in any direction. I repeat to you, it will neither be done nor attempted, unless you watch it every day andhour, and force it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

 [Here the President was mistaken in thinking that Sherman, Sheridan, and Grant had the same inability of most of his previous general officers. No one needed to watch Grant or Sherman or Sheridan, they only needed to get out of their way. D. W. ]

TELEGRAM TO HORACE GREELEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 6, 1864

HON. HORACE GREELEY, New York:

Yours to Major Hay about publication of our correspondence received. Withthe suppression of a few passages in your letters in regard to which Ithink you and I would not disagree, I should be glad of the publication. Please come over and see me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO HORACE GREELEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 8, 1864

HON. HORACE GREELEY, New York:

I telegraphed you Saturday. Did you receive the despatch? Please answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ON DISLOYAL FAMILY MEMBER

TO GENERAL S. O. BURBRIDGE. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 8, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL BURBRIDGE, Lexington, Ky. :

Last December Mrs. Emily T. Helm, half-sister of Mrs. Lincoln, and widowof the rebel general, Ben Hardin Helm, stopped here on her way fromGeorgia to Kentucky, and I gave her a paper, as I remember, to protect heragainst the mere fact of her being General Helm's widow. I hear a rumorto-day that you recently sought to arrest her, but were prevented by herpresenting the paper from me. I do not intend to protect her against theconsequences of disloyal words or acts, spoken or done by her since herreturn to Kentucky, and if the paper given her by me can be construedto give her protection for such words and acts, it is hereby revoked protanto. Deal with her for current conduct just as you would with any other. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 14, 1864. 1. 30 P. M. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

The Secretary of War and I concur that you had better confer with GeneralLee, and stipulate for a mutual discontinuance of house-burning and otherdestruction of private property. The time and manner of conference andparticulars of stipulation we leave, on our part, to your convenience andjudgment. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August 15, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SHERMAN, near Atlanta, Ga. :

If the Government should purchase, on its own account, cotton northward ofyou, and on the line of your communications, would it be an inconvenienceto you, or detriment to the military service, for it to come to the northon the railroad?

A. LINCOLN. 

INTERVIEW WITH JOHN T. MILLS, AUGUST [15?], 1864. 

"Mr. President, " said Governor Randall, "why can't you seek seclusion, andplay hermit for a fortnight? It would reinvigorate you. "

"Ah, " said the President, "two or three weeks would do me no good. Icannot fly from my thoughts--my solicitude for this great country followsme wherever I go. I do not think it is personal vanity or ambition, thoughI am not free from these infirmities, but I cannot but feel that theweal or woe of this great nation will be decided in November. There is noprogram offered by any wing of the Democratic party but that must resultin the permanent destruction of the Union. "

"But, Mr. President, General McClellan is in favor of crushing out thisrebellion by force. He will be the Chicago candidate. "

"Sir, the slightest knowledge of arithmetic will prove to any man thatthe rebel armies cannot be destroyed by Democratic strategy. It wouldsacrifice all the white men of the North to do it. There are now inthe service of the United States nearly one hundred and fifty thousandable-bodied colored men, most of them under arms, defending and acquiringUnion territory. The Democratic strategy demands that these forces bedisbanded, and that the masters be conciliated by restoring them toslavery. The black men who now assist Union prisoners to escape are to beconverted into our enemies, in the vain hope of gaining the good-will oftheir masters. We shall have to fight two nations instead of one. 

"You cannot conciliate the South if you guarantee to them ultimatesuccess; and the experience of the present war proves their success isinevitable if you fling the compulsory labor of millions of black meninto their side of the scale. Will you give our enemies such militaryadvantages as insure success, and then depend on coaxing, flattery, andconcession to get them back into the Union? Abandon all the posts nowgarrisoned by black men, take one hundred and fifty thousand men from ourside and put them in the battle-field or corn-field against us, and wewould be compelled to abandon the war in three weeks. 

"We have to hold territory in inclement and sickly places; where are theDemocrats to do this? It was a free fight, and the field was open to thewar Democrats to put down this rebellion by fighting against both masterand slave, long before the present policy was inaugurated. 

"There have been men base enough to propose to me to return to slavery theblack warriors of Port Hudson and Olustee, and thus win the respect of themasters they fought. Should I do so, I should deserve to be damned in timeand eternity. Come what will, I will keep my faith with friend and foe. My enemies pretend I am now carrying on this war for the sole purpose ofabolition. So long as I am President, it shall be carried on for thesole purpose of restoring the Union. But no human power can subdue thisrebellion without the use of the emancipation policy, and every otherpolicy calculated to weaken the moral and physical forces of therebellion. 

"Freedom has given us one hundred and fifty thousand men, raised onSouthern soil. It will give us more yet. Just so much it has subtractedfrom the enemy, and, instead of alienating the South, there are nowevidences of a fraternal feeling growing up between our men and the rankand file of the rebel soldiers. Let my enemies prove to the country thatthe destruction of slavery is not necessary to a restoration of the Union. I will abide the issue. "

ENDORSEMENT OF APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT, AUGUST 15, 1864. 

I am always for the man who wishes to work; and I shall be glad for thisman to get suitable employment at Cavalry Depot, or elsewhere. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO H. J. RAYMOND. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, August 15, 1864

HON. HENRY J. RAYMOND. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I have proposed to Mr. Greeley that the Niagaracorrespondence be published, suppressing only the parts of his lettersover which the red pencil is drawn in the copy which I herewith send. Hedeclines giving his consent to the publication of his letters unless theseparts be published with the rest. I have concluded that it is better forme to submit, for the time, to the consequences of the false positionin which I consider he has placed me, than to subject the country to theconsequences of publishing these discouraging and injurious parts. I sendyou this, and the accompanying copy, not for publication, but merely toexplain to you, and that you may preserve them until their proper timeshall come. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 17, 1864. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

I have seen your despatch expressing your unwillingness to break your holdwhere you are. Neither am I willing. Hold on with a bulldog grip, and chewand choke as much as possible. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION CONCERNING COMMERCIAL REGULATIONS, AUGUST 18, 1864. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas the act of Congress of the 28th of September, 1850, entitled "Anact to create additional collection districts in the State of California, and to change the existing districts therein, and to modify the existingcollection districts in the United States, " extends to merchandisewarehoused under bond the privilege of being exported to the British NorthAmerican provinces adjoining the United States, in the manner prescribedin the act of Congress of the 3d of March, 1845, which designates certainfrontier ports through which merchandise may be exported, and furtherprovides "that such other ports, situated on the frontiers of the UnitedStates adjoining the British North American provinces, as may hereafterbe found expedient, may have extended to them the like privileges, on therecommendation of the Secretary of the Treasury, and proclamation dulymade by the President of the United States, specially designating theports to which the aforesaid privileges are to be extended. "

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ofAmerica, in accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary of theTreasury, do hereby declare and proclaim that the port of Newport, in theState of Vermont, is and shall be entitled to all the privileges in regardto the exportation of merchandise in bond to the British North Americanprovinces adjoining the United States, which are extended to the portsenumerated in the seventh section of the act of Congress of the 3d ofMarch, 1845, aforesaid, from and after the date of this proclamation. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, thiseighteenth day of August, in the year of our Lord one thousand eighthundred and sixty-four, and of the independence of the United States ofAmerica, the eighty-ninth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

INDORSEMENT CONCERNING AN EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS, AUGUST 18, 1864. 

If General Hitchcock can effect a special exchange of Thomas D. Armesy, now under conviction as a spy, or something of the sort, and in prisonat for Major Nathan Goff, made a prisoner of war, and now in prison atRichmond, let it be done. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ADDRESS TO THE 164TH OHIO REGIMENT, AUGUST 18, 1864. 

SOLDIERS:--You are about to return to your homes and your friends, afterhaving, as I learn, performed in camp a comparatively short term of dutyin this great contest. I am greatly obliged to you, and to all whohave come forward at the call of their country. I wish it might be moregenerally and universally understood what the country is now engaged in. We have, as all will agree, a free government, where every man has a rightto be equal with every other man. In this great struggle, this form ofgovernment and every form of human right is endangered if our enemiessucceed. There is more involved in this contest than is realized byevery one. There is involved in this struggle, the question whether yourchildren and my children shall enjoy the privileges we have enjoyed. I saythis, in order to impress upon you, if you are not already so impressed, that no small matter should divert us from our great purpose. 

There may be some inequalities in the practical application of our system. It is fair that each man shall pay taxes in exact proportion to the valueof his property; but if we should wait, before collecting a tax, to adjustthe taxes upon each man in exact proportion with every other man, weshould never collect any tax at all. There may be mistakes made sometimes;and things may be done wrong, while the officers of the Government do allthey can to prevent mistakes. But I beg of you, as citizens of this greatRepublic, not to let your minds be carried off from the great work we havebefore us. This struggle is too large for you to be diverted from it byany small matter. When you return to your homes, rise up to the height ofa generation of men worthy of a free government, and we will carry out thegreat work we have commenced. I return to you my sincere thanks, soldiers, for the honor you have done me this afternoon. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August20, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Bermuda Hundred, Va. :

Please allow Judge Snead to go to his family on Eastern Shore, or give mesome good reason why not. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ADDRESS TO THE 166TH OHIO REGIMENT, AUGUST 22, 1864. 

SOLDIERS--I suppose you are going home to see your families and friends. For the services you have done in this great struggle in which we areengaged, I present you sincere thanks for myself and the country. 

I almost always feel inclined, when I say anything to soldiers, to impressupon them, in a few brief remarks, the importance of success in thiscontest. It is not merely for the day, but for all time to come, thatwe should perpetuate for our children's children that great and freegovernment which we have enjoyed all our lives. I beg you to rememberthis, not merely for my sake, but for yours. I happen, temporarily, tooccupy this big White House. I am a living witness that any one of yourchildren may look to come here as my father's child has. It is in orderthat each one of you may have, through this free government which we haveenjoyed, an open field, and a fair chance for your industry, enterprise, and intelligence; that you may all have equal privileges in the race oflife with all its desirable human aspirations--it is for this that thestruggle should be maintained, that we may not lose our birthrights--notonly for one, but for two or three years, if necessary. The nation isworth fighting for, to secure such an inestimable jewel. 

MEMORANDUM. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 23, 1864. 

This morning, as for some days past, it seems exceedingly probable thatthis administration will not be re-elected. Then it will be my duty toso co-operate with the President-elect as to save the Union between theelection and the inauguration; as he will have secured his election onsuch ground that he cannot possibly save it afterward. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 26, 1864. 

GOVERNOR JOHNSON, Nashville, Tenn. :

Thanks to General Gillam for making the news and also to you for sendingit. Does Joe Heiskell's "walking to meet us" mean any more than that "Joe"was scared and wanted to save his skin?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO B. H. BREWSTER. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , August30, 1864. 

HON. B. H. BREWSTER, Astor House, New York:

Your letter of yesterday received. Thank you for it. Please have no fears. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER CONCERNING COTTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, August 31, 1864. 

Any person or persons engaged in bringing out cotton, in strict conformitywith authority given by W. P. Fessenden, Secretary of the United StatesTreasury, must not be hindered by the War, Navy, or any other Departmentof the Government, or any person engaged under any of said Departments. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO COLONEL HUIDEKOPER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, SEPTEMBER 1, 1864

COLONEL H. C. HUIDEKOPER, Meadville, Penn. 

SIR: It is represented to me that there are at Rock Island, Illinois, asrebel prisoners of war, many persons of Northern and foreign birth who areunwilling to be exchanged and sent South, but who wish to take the oathof allegiance and enter the military service of the Union. ColonelHuidekoper, on behalf of the people of some parts of Pennsylvania, wishesto pay the bounties the Government would have to pay to proper personsof this class, have them enter the service of the United States, and becredited to the localities furnishing the bounty money. He will thereforeproceed to Rock Island, ascertain the names of such persons (notincluding any who have attractions Southward), and telegraph them tothe Provost-Marshal-General here, whereupon direction will be given todischarge the persons named upon their taking the oath of allegiance; andthen upon the official evidence being furnished that they shall have beenduly received and mustered into the service of the United States, theirnumber will be credited as may be directed by Colonel Huidekoper. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION OF THANKSGIVING, EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON CITY, September 3, 1864. 

The signal success that Divine Providence has recently vouchsafed to theoperations of the United States fleet and army in the harbor of Mobile, and the reduction of Fort Powell, Fort Gaines, and Fort Morgan, and theglorious achievements of the army under Major-General Sherman, in theState of Georgia, resulting in the capture of the city of Atlanta, callfor devout acknowledgment to the Supreme Being in whose hands are thedestinies of nations. It is therefore requested that on next Sunday, inall places of worship in the United States, thanksgivings be offered toHim for His mercy in preserve our national existence against the insurgentrebels who have been waging a cruel war against the Government of theUnited States for its overthrow, and also that prayer be made for Divineprotection to our brave soldiers and their leaders in the field who haveso often and so gallantly periled their lives in battling with the enemy, and for blessings and comfort from the Father of mercies to the sick, wounded, and prisoners, and to the orphans and widows of those who havefallen in the service of their country, and that He will continue touphold the Government of the United States against all the efforts ofpublic enemies and secret foes. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDERS OF GRATITUDE AND REJOICING. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 3, 1864. 

The national thanks are tendered by the President to Admiral Farragutand Major-General Canby, for the skill and harmony with which the recentoperations in Mobile Harbor and against Fort Powell, Fort Gaines, and FortMorgan were planned and carried into execution. Also to Admiral Farragutand Major-General Granger, under whose immediate command they wereconducted, and to the gallant commanders on sea and land, and to thesailors and soldiers engaged in the operations, for their energy andcourage, which, under the blessing of Providence, have been crowned withbrilliant success, and have won for them the applause and thanks of thenation. 

A. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 3, 1864. 

The national thanks are tendered by the President to Major-General WilliamT. Sherman and the gallant officers and soldiers of his command beforeAtlanta, for the distinguished ability, courage, and perseverancedisplayed in the campaign in Georgia, which under Divine power resultedin the capture of the city of Atlanta. The marches, battles, sieges, andother military operations that have signalized this campaign mustrender it famous in the annals of war, and have entitled those who haveparticipated therein to the applause and thanks of the nation. 

A. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 3, 1864. 

Ordered: First, That on Monday, the fifth day of September, commencingat the hour of twelve o'clock noon, there shall be given a salute of onehundred guns at the arsenal and navy-yard, at Washington, and on Tuesday, the 6th of September, or on the day after the receipt of this order, ateach arsenal and navy-yard in the United States, for the recent brilliantachievements of the fleet and land forces of the United States in theharbor of Mobile, and in the reduction of Fort Powell, Fort Gaines, andFort Morgan. The Secretary of War and the Secretary of the Navy will issuethe necessary directions in their respective departments for the executionof this order. 

Second, That on Wednesday, the 7th of September, commencing at the hour oftwelve o'clock noon, there shall be fired a salute of one hundred gunsat the arsenal at Washington, and at New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Baltimore, Pittsburg, Newport (Ky. ), and St. Louis, and New Orleans, Mobile, and Pensacola, Hilton Head, and Newbern, the day after the receiptof this order, for the brilliant achievements of the army under commandof Major-General Sherman, in the State of Georgia, and for the capture ofAtlanta. The Secretary of War will issue directions for the execution ofthis order. 

A. LINCOLN, President Of the United States. 

TO MRS. GURNEY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, SEPTEMBER 4, 1864. 

ELIZA P. GURNEY. 

MY ESTEEMED FRIEND:--I have not forgotten probably never shall forget thevery impressive occasion when yourself and friends visited me on a Sabbathforenoon two years ago--nor has your kind letter, written nearly ayear later, even been for gotten. In all, it has been your purpose tostrengthen my reliance on God. I am much indebted to the good Christianpeople of the country for their constant prayer and consolations; and tono one of them, more than to yourself. The purposes of the Almighty areperfect, and must prevail, though we erring mortals may fail to accuratelyperceive them in advance. We hoped for a happy termination of thisterrible war long before this; but God knows best, and has ruledotherwise. We shall yet acknowledge His wisdom, and our own error therein. Mean while we must work earnestly in the best light He gives us, trustingthat so working still conduces to the great ends He ordains. Surely Heintends some great good to follow this mighty convulsion, which no mortalcould make, and no mortal could stay. 

Your people--the Friends--have had, and are having, a very great trial. On principle, and faith, opposed to both war and oppression, they canonly practically oppose oppression by war. For those appealing to me onconscientious grounds, I have done, and shall do, the best I could andcan, in my own conscience, under my oath to the law. That you believe thisI doubt not, and believing it, I shall still receive, for our country andmyself your earnest prayers to our Father in Heaven. 

Your sincere friend, A. LINCOLN. 

REPLY TO A COMMITTEE OF COLORED PEOPLE FROM BALTIMORE

WHO PRESENTED HIM WITH A BIBLE, SEPTEMBER 7, 1864. 

I can only say now, as I have often said before, it has always been asentiment with me, that all mankind should be free. So far as I have beenable, so far as came within my sphere, I have always acted as I believedwas just and right, and done all I could for the good of mankind. I have, in letters sent forth from this office, expressed myself better than I cannow. 

In regard to the great Book, I have only to say it is the best gift whichGod has ever given to man. All the good from the Saviour of the world iscommunicated to us through this book. But for that Book, we could not knowright from wrong. All those things desirable to man are contained in it. Ireturn you sincere thanks for this very elegant copy of this great Book ofGod which you present. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR PICKERING. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 8, 1864:

GOVERNOR PICKERING, Olympia, W. T. :

Your patriotic despatch of yesterday received and will be published. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER OF THANKS TO HUNDRED-DAY TROOPS FROM OHIO. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON CITY, September 10, 1864. 

The term of one hundred days for which the National Guard of Ohiovolunteered having expired, the President directs an officialacknowledgment to be made of their patriotic and valuable services duringthe recent campaigns. The term of service of their enlistment was short, but distinguished by memorable events. In the Valley of the Shenandoah, onthe Peninsula, in the operations on the James River, around Petersburgand Richmond, in the battle of Monocacy, and in the intrenchments ofWashington, and in other important service, the National Guard of Ohioperformed with alacrity the duty of patriotic volunteers, for which theyare entitled to and are hereby tendered, through the Governor of theirState, the national thanks. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 12, 1864. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

Sheridan and Early are facing each other at a dead-lock. Could we not pickup a regiment here and there, to the number of say ten thousand men, andquietly but suddenly concentrate them at Sheridan's camp and enable him tomake a strike?

This is but a suggestion. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO JAMES G. BLAINE. WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September13, 1864. 

HON. J. G. BLAINE, Augusta, Me. : On behalf of the Union, thanks to Maine. Thanks to you personally for sending the news. 

A. LINCOLN. 

P. S. --Send same to L. B. Smith and M. A. Blanchard, Portland, Me. A. L. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL ROSECRANS. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September13, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS, Saint Louis:

Postpone the execution of S. H. Anderson for two weeks. Hear what hisfriends can say in mitigation and report to me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MAJOR ECKERT: Please send the above telegram. 

JNO. G. NICOLAY, Private Secretary. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL SLOUGH. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 16, 1864. 

GENERAL SLOUGH, Alexandria, Va. :

On the 14th I commuted the sentence of Conley, but fearing you may nothave received notice I send this. Do not execute him. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN. WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 17, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SHERMAN, Atlanta, Georgia:

I feel great interest in the subjects of your despatch mentioning corn andsorghum, and the contemplated visit to you. 

A. LINCOLN, President of the United States. 

TO GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 19, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SHERMAN:

The State election of Indiana occurs on the 11th of October, and the lossof it to the friends of the Government would go far towards losingthe whole Union cause. The bad effect upon the November election, andespecially the giving the State government to those who will oppose thewar in every possible way, are too much to risk if it can be avoided. Thedraft proceeds, notwithstanding its strong tendency to lose us the State. Indiana is the only important State voting in October whose soldierscannot vote in the field. Anything you can safely do to let her soldiersor any part of them go home and vote at the State election will be greatlyin point. They need not remain for the Presidential election, but mayreturn to you at once. This is in no sense an order, but is merelyintended to impress you with the importance to the Army itself of yourdoing all you safely can, yourself being the judge of what you can safelydo. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

INDORSEMENT CONCERNING AN EXCHANGE OF PRISONERS, SEPTEMBER 1864. 

The writer of this, who appeals for his brother, is our minister toEcuador, and whom, if at all compatible, I would like to have obliged by aspecial exchange of his brother. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL P. SHERIDAN. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September20, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL SHERIDAN, Winchester, Va. :

Have just heard of your great victory. God bless you all, officers andmen. Strongly inclined to come up and See you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL HITCHCOCK, EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 21, 1864. 

GENERAL HITCHCOCK:

Please see the bearer, Mr. Broadwell, on a question about a mutualsupplying of clothes to prisoners. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 22, 1864. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

I send this as an explanation to you, and to do justice to the Secretaryof War. I was induced, upon pressing application, to authorize the agentsof one of the districts of Pennsylvania to recruit in one of the prisondepots in Illinois; and the thing went so far before it came to theknowledge of the Secretary that, in my judgment, it could not be abandonedwithout greater evil than would follow its going through. I did not knowat the time that you had protested against that class of thing being done;and I now say that while this particular job must be completed, no otherof the sort will be authorized, without an understanding with you, if atall. The Secretary of War is wholly free of any part in this blunder. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TO POSTMASTER-GENERAL BLAIR. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, September 23, 1864. 

HON. MONTGOMERY BLAIR. 

MY DEAR SIR:--You have generously said to me, more than once, thatwhenever your resignation could be a relief to me, it was at my disposal. The time has come. You very well know that this proceeds from nodissatisfaction of mine with you personally or officially. Your uniformkindness has been unsurpassed by that of any other friend, and while itis true that the war does not so greatly add to the difficulties of yourdepartment as to those of some others, it is yet much to say, as I mosttruly can, that in the three years and a half during which you haveadministered the General Post-Office, I remember no single complaintagainst you in connection therewith. 

Yours, as ever, A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER CONCERNING THE PURCHASE OF PRODUCTS IN INSURRECTIONARY STATES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, September 24, 1864. 

I. Congress having authorized the purchase for the United States of theproducts of States declared in insurrection, and the Secretary of theTreasury having designated New Orleans, Memphis, Nashville, Pensacola, Port Royal, Beaufort (North Carolina), and Norfolk, as places of purchase, and, with my approval, appointed agents and made regulations under whichsaid products may be purchased, therefore:

II. All persons except such as may be in the civil, military, or navalservice of the government, having in their possession any products ofStates or parts of States declared in insurrection, which said agentsare authorized to purchase; and all persons owning or controlling suchproducts therein are authorized to convey such products to either of theplaces which have been hereby or may hereafter be designated as places ofpurchase, and such products so destined shall not be liable todetention, seizure, or forfeiture while in transitu, or in store waitingtransportation. 

III. Any person having the certificate of a purchasing agent, asprescribed by Treasury Regulation VIII, is authorized to pass with thenecessary means of transportation to the points named in said certificate, and to return therefrom with the products required for the fulfilment ofthe stipulations set forth in said certificate. 

IV. Any person having sold and delivered to a purchasing agent anyproducts of an insurrectionary State in accordance with the regulations inrelation thereto, and having in his possession a certificate settingforth the fact of such purchase and sale; the character and quantityof products, and the aggregate amount paid therefor, as prescribed byRegulation I, shall be permitted by the military authority commanding atthe place of sale to purchase from any authorized dealer at such placemerchandise and other articles not contraband of war nor prohibited byorder of the War Department, nor coin, bullion, or foreign exchange, toan amount not exceeding in value one-third of the aggregate value ofthe products sold by him as certified by the agents purchasing, and themerchandise and other articles so purchased may be transported by thesame route, and to the same place, from and by which the products sold anddelivered reached the purchasing agent, as set forth in the certificate, and such merchandise and other articles shall have safe conduct, andshall not be subject to detention, seizure, or forfeiture while beingtransported to the places and by the routes set forth in the saidcertificate. 

V. Generals commanding military districts, and commandants of militaryposts and detachments, and officers commanding fleets, flotillas, andgunboats, will give safe conduct to persons and products, merchandise, andother articles duly authorized as aforesaid, and not contraband of war, or prohibited by order of the War Department, or of the order of suchgenerals commanding, or other duly authorized military or naval officer, made in pursuance hereof, and all persons hindering or preventing suchsafe conduct of persons or property will, be deemed guilty of a militaryoffense and punished accordingly. 

VI. Any person transporting or attempting to transport any merchandise orother articles except in pursuance of regulations of the Secretary ofthe Treasury, dated July 29, 1864, or in pursuance of this order, ortransporting or attempting to transport any merchandise or other articlescontraband of war or forbidden by any order of the War Department, willbe deemed guilty of a military offense and punished accordingly; and allproducts of insurrectionary States found in transitu to any other personor than a purchasing agent and a designated of purchase shall be seizedand forfeited to the States, except such as may be moving to a loyalstate under duly authorized permits of a proper officer of the TreasuryDepartment, as prescribed by Regulation XXXVIII, concerning commercialintercourse, dated July 29, 1864, or such as may have been foundabandoned, or have been captured and are moving in pursuance of the act ofMarch 12, 1864. 

VII. No military or naval officer of the United States, or person inthe military or naval service, nor any civil officer, except such asare appointed for that purpose, shall engage in trade or traffic in theproducts of the insurrectionary States, or furnish transportation thereforunder pain of being deemed guilty of unlawful trading with the enemy andpunished accordingly. 

VIII. The Secretary of War will make such general orders or regulations aswill insure the proper observance and execution of, , this order, andthe Secretary of the Navy will give instructions to officers commandingfleets, flotillas, and gunboats in conformity therewith. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN. WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 27, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL SHERMAN, Atlanta, Georgia:

You say Jefferson Davis is on a visit to Hood. I judge that Brown andStephens are the objects of his visit. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, D. C. , September 29, 1864. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

I hope it will have no constraint on you, nor do harm any way, for me tosay I am a little afraid lest Lee sends reinforcements to Early, and thusenables him to turn upon Sheridan. 

A. LINCOLN. 

INDORSEMENT. 

September 29, 1864. 

I think the bearer of this, Second Lieutenant Albee, deserves a hearing. Will the Secretary of War please accord it to him?

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER RETURNING THANKS TO THE VOLUNTEERS FOR ONE HUNDRED DAYS

FROM THE STATES OF INDIANA, ILLINOIS, IOWA, AND WISCONSIN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 1, 1864. 

The term of one hundred days for which volunteers from the States ofIndiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin volunteered, under the call oftheir respective governors, in the months of May and June, to aid in thecampaign of General Sherman, having expired; the President directs anofficial acknowledgment to be made of their patriotic service. It wastheir good fortune to render efficient service in the brilliant operationsin the Southwest and to contribute to the victories of the national armsover the rebel forces in Georgia under command of Johnston and Hood. Onall occasions and in every service to which they were assigned their dutyas patriotic volunteers was performed with alacrity and courage, for whichthey are entitled to and are hereby tendered the national thanks throughthe governors of their respective States. 

The Secretary of War is directed to transmit a copy of this order tothe governors of Indiana, Illinois, Iowa, and Wisconsin and to cause acertificate of their honorable service to be delivered to the officersand soldiers of the States above named who recently served in the militaryforce of the United States as volunteers for one hundred days. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October 5, 1864

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

I inclose you a copy of a correspondence in regard to a contemplatedexchange of naval prisoners through your lines, and not very distant fromyour headquarters. It only came to the knowledge of the War Department andof myself yesterday, and it gives us some uneasiness. I therefore send itto you with the statement that, as the numbers to be exchanged under itare small, and so much has already been done to effect the exchange, Ihope you may find it consistent to let it go forward under the generalsupervision of General Butler, and particularly in reference to the pointshe holds vital in exchanges. Still, you are at liberty to arrest the wholeoperation if in your judgment the public good requires it. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

INDORSEMENT ON A MEMORANDUM BY GENERAL McDOWELL, OCTOBER 7, 1864

I well remember the meetings herein narrated. See nothing for me to objectto in the narrative as being made by General McDowell, except the phraseattributed to me "of the Jacobinism of Congress", [This memorandum describes the private discussions that preceded the transfer of McClellan's army from the Potomac, where it had confronted the Confederates at Manassas. See H. J. Raymond: Life of Lincoln, p. 772]

which phrase I do not remember using literally or in substance, and whichI wish not to be published in any event. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO H. W. HOFFMAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, October 10, 1864. 

HON. HENRY W. HOFFMAN. 

MY DEAR SIR:--A convention of Maryland has framed a new constitution forthe State; a public meeting is called for this evening at Baltimore to aidin securing its ratification by the people, and you ask a word from mefor the occasion. I presume the only feature of the instrument about whichthere is serious controversy is that which provides for the extinction ofslavery. It needs not to be a secret and I presume it is no secret, that Iwish success to this provision. I desire it on every consideration. I wishall men to be free. I wish the material prosperity of the already free, which I feel sure the extinction of slavery would bring. I wish to see inprocess of disappearing that only thing which ever could bring this nationto civil war. I attempt no argument. Argument upon the question is alreadyexhausted by the abler, better informed, and more immediately interestedsons of Maryland herself. I only add that I shall be gratified exceedinglyif the good people of the State shall, by their votes, ratify the newconstitution. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR CURTIN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 10, 1864, 5 P. M. 

GOVERNOR CURTIN, Harrisburg, Pa. :

Yours of to-day just this moment received, and the Secretary having leftit is impossible for me to answer to-day. I have not received your letterfrom Erie. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO ROBERT T. LINCOLN, Cambridge, Mass. :

Your letter makes us a little uneasy about your health. Telegraph us howyou are. If you think it would help you, make us a visit. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 12, 1864. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

Secretary of War not being in, I answer yours about election. Pennsylvaniavery close, and still in doubt on home vote. Ohio largely for us, withall the members of Congress but two or three. Indiana largely forus, --Governor, it is said, by fifteen thousand, and eight of the elevenmembers of Congress. Send us what you may know of your army vote. 

A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO A SERENADE, OCTOBER 19, 1864. 

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I am notified that this is a compliment paidme by the loyal Marylanders resident in this District. I infer that theadoption of the new constitution for the State furnishes the occasion, andthat in your view the extirpation of slavery constitutes the chiefmerit of the new constitution. Most heartily do I congratulate you, andMaryland, and the nation, and the world, upon this event. I regret thatit did not occur two years sooner, which, I am sure, would have saved thenation more money than would have met all the private loss incident tothe measure; but it has come at last, and I sincerely hope its friendsmay fully realize all their anticipations of good from it, and that itsopponents may by its effects be agreeably and profitably disappointed. 

A word upon another subject. Something said by the Secretary of State inhis recent speech at Auburn, has been construed by some into a threat, that if I shall be beaten at the election, I will, between then andthe end of my constitutional term, do what I may be able to ruin theGovernment. 

Others regard the fact that the Chicago Convention adjourned, not sinedie, but to meet again, if called to do so by a particular individual, asthe intimation of a purpose that if their nominee shall be elected hewill at once seize control of the Government. I hope the good people willpermit themselves to suffer no uneasiness on either point. I am strugglingto maintain the Government, not to overthrow it. I am strugglingespecially to prevent others from overthrowing it. I therefore say, thatif I live, I shall remain President until the 4th of next March, and thatwhoever shall be constitutionally elected, in November, shall be dulyinstalled as President on the 4th of March, and in the interval I shall domy utmost that whoever is to hold the helm for the next voyage shallstart with the best possible chance of saving the ship. This is due tothe people, both on principle and under the Constitution. Their will, constitutionally expressed, is the ultimate law for all. If they shoulddeliberately resolve to have immediate peace, even at the loss of theircountry and their liberties, I know not the power or the right to resistthem. It is their own business, and they must do as they please with theirown. I believe, however, they are still resolved to preserve their countryand their liberties; and in this, in office or out of it, I am resolved tostand by them. I may add, that in this purpose to save the country and itsliberties, no classes of people seem so nearly unanimous as the soldiersin the field and the sailors afloat. Do they not have the hardest of it?Who should quail while they do not? God bless the soldiers and seamen, with all their brave commanders. 

PROCLAMATION OF THANKSGIVING, OCTOBER 20, 1864. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

It has pleased Almighty God to prolong our national life another year, defending us with his guardian care against unfriendly designs fromabroad, and vouchsafing to us in His mercy many and signal victories overthe enemy, who is of our own household. It has also pleased our HeavenlyFather to favor as well our citizens in their homes as our soldiers intheir camps, and our sailors on the rivers and seas, with unusual health. He has largely augmented our free population by emancipation and byimmigration, while he has opened to us new: sources of wealth, and hascrowned the labor of our working-men in every department of industry withabundant rewards. Moreover, he has been pleased to animate and inspire ourminds and hearts with fortitude, courage, and resolution sufficientfor the great trial of civil war into which we have been brought by ouradherence as a nation to the cause of freedom and humanity, and to affordto us reasonable hopes of an ultimate and happy deliverance from all ourdangers and afflictions. 

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, dohereby appoint and set apart the last Thursday in November next as a daywhich I desire to be observed by all my fellow-citizens, wherever theymay be then, as a day of thanksgiving and praise to Almighty God, thebeneficent Creator and Ruler of the Universe. And I do further recommendto my fellow-citizens aforesaid, that on that occasion they do reverentlyhumble themselves in the dust, and from thence offer up penitent andfervent prayers and supplications to the great Disposer of events fora return of the inestimable blessings of peace, union, and harmonythroughout the, land which it has pleased him to assign as adwelling-place for ourselves and for our posterity throughout allgenerations. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this twentieth day of October, in theyear of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-four, and of theindependence of the United States the eighty-ninth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM To J. G. NICOLAY. WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 21, 1864. 9. 45 P. M. 

J. G. NICOLAY, Saint Louis, Missouri:

While Curtis is fighting Price, have you any idea where the force underRosecrans is, or what it is doing?

A. LINCOLN. 

TO WILLIAM B. CAMPBELL AND OTHERS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 22, 1864. 

MESSRS WILLIAM B. CAMPBELL, THOMAS A. R. NELSON, JAMES T. P. CARTER, JOHNWILLIAMS, A. BLIZZARD, HENRY COOPER, BAILLIE PEYTON, JOHN LELLYET, EMERSONETHERIDGE, and JOHN D. PERRYMAN. 

GENTLEMEN:--On the 15th day of this month, as I remember, a printed papermanuscript, with a few manuscript interlineations, called a protest, withyour names appended thereto, and accompanied by another printed paper, purporting to be a proclamation by Andrew Johnson, Military Governor ofTennessee, and also a manuscript paper, purporting to be extracts from theCode of Tennessee, were laid before me. 

The protest, proclamation, and extracts are respectively as follows:

[The protest is here recited, and also the proclamation of GovernorJohnson, dated September 30, to which it refers, together with a list ofthe counties in East, Middle, and West Tennessee; also extracts from theCode of Tennessee in relation to electors of President and Vice-President, qualifications of voters for members of the General Assembly, places ofholding elections, and officers of popular elections. ]

At the time these papers were presented, as before stated, I had neverseen either of them, nor heard of the subject to which they related, except in a general way one day previously. 

Up to the present moment, nothing whatever upon the subject haspassed between Governor Johnson, or any one else, connected with theproclamation, and myself. 

Since receiving the papers, as stated, I have given the subject such briefconsideration as I have been able to do, in the midst of so many pressingpublic duties. 

My conclusion is, that I can have nothing to do with the matter, either tosustain the plan as the convention and Governor Johnson have initiated it, or to revoke or modify it as you demand. 

By the Constitution and laws, the President is charged with no duty inthe presidential election in any State, nor do I in this case perceive anymilitary reason for his interference in the matter. 

The movement set on foot by the convention and Governor Johnson does not, as seems to be assumed by you, emanate from the National Executive. 

In no proper sense can it be considered other than an independent movementof, at least, a portion of the loyal people of Tennessee. 

I do not perceive in the plan any menace, or violence, or coercion towardsany one. 

Governor Johnson, like any other loyal citizen of Tennessee, has the rightto favor any political plan he chooses, and, as military governor, it ishis duty to keep peace among and for the loyal people of the State. 

I cannot discern that by this plan he purposes any more. But you object tothe plan. 

Leaving it alone will be your perfect security against it. It is notproposed to force you into it. Do as you please, on your own account, peaceably and loyally, and Governor Johnson will not molest you, but willprotect you against violence as far as in his power. 

I presume that the conducting of a presidential election in Tennesseein strict accordance with the old Code of the State, is not now apossibility. 

It is scarcely necessary to add, that if any election shall be heldand any votes shall be cast in the State of Tennessee for President andVice-President of the United States, it will belong, not to the militaryagents, nor yet to the Executive Department, but exclusively to anotherdepartment of the Government, to determine whether they are entitled to becounted in conformity with the Constitution and laws of the United States. 

Except it be to give protection against violence, I decline to interferein any way with any presidential election. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL P. H. SHERIDAN. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, October22, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL SHERIDAN:

With great pleasure I tender to you and your brave army the thanks ofthe nation, and my own personal admiration and gratitude, for the month'soperations in the Shenandoah Valley; and especially for the splendid workof October 19, 1864. 

Your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. H. THOMAS. WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 23, 1864 5P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL THOMAS, Nashville, Tennessee:

I have received information to-day, having great appearance ofauthenticity, that there is to be a rebel raid into Western Kentucky; thatit is to consist of four thousand infantry and three thousand cavalry, andis to start from Corinth, Mississippi, On the fourth day of November. 

A. LINCOLN, President. 

Send copy to General Washburn at Memphis. A. L. 

TELEGRAM TO T. T. DAVIS. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , October 31, 1864. 

HON. THOMAS T. DAVIS, Syracuse, N. Y. :

I have ordered that Milton D. Norton be discharged on taking the oath. Please notify his mother. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION ADMITTING NEVADA INTO THE UNION

OCTOBER 31, 1864. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation

Whereas the Congress of the United States passed an act, which wasapproved on the 21st day of March last, entitled "An act to enable thepeople of Nevada to form a constitution and State government, and forthe admission of such State into the Union on an equal footing with theoriginal States;" and, Whereas the said constitution and State government have been formed, pursuant to the conditions prescribed by the fifth section of the act ofCongress aforesaid, and the certificate required by the said act andalso a copy of the constitution and ordinances have been submitted to thePresident of the United States:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States, in accordance with the duty imposed upon me by the act ofCongress aforesaid, do hereby declare and proclaim that the said State ofNevada is admitted into the Union on an equal footing with the originalStates. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. . 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BURBRIDGE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 4, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL BURBRIDGE, Lexington, Ky. 

Suspend execution of all the deserters ordered to be executed on Sundayat Louisville, until further order, and send me the records in the cases. Acknowledge receipt. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO NAVAL OFFICER AT MOBILE BAY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 6, 1864. 9 P. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL CANBY, New Orleans, La. :

Please forward with all possible despatch to the naval officer commandingat Mobile Bay the following order. 

A. LINCOLN. 

(Inclosure. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 6, 1864. 

NAVAL OFFICER IN COMMAND AT MOBILE BAY

Do not on any account, or on any showing of authority whatever, fromwhomsoever purporting to come, allow the blockade to be violated. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SAILORS' FAIR, BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 8, 1864. 

TO THE MANAGING COMMITTEE OF THE SAILORS' FAIR, Boston, Massachusetts

Allow me to wish you a great success. With the old fame of the Navy madebrighter in the present war you cannot fail. I name none lest I wrongothers by omission. To all, from rear-admiral to honest Jack, I tender thenation's admiration and gratitude. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO A. H. RICE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 8, 1864. 

HON. A. H. RICE, Boston, Massachusetts:

Yours received. I have no other notice that the ox is mine. If it bereally so, I present it to the Sailors' Fair as a contribution. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY SEWARD. WASHINGTON, November 8, 1864. 

HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Auburn, New York:

News from Grant, Sherman, Thomas and Rosecrans satisfactory, but notimportant. Pirate Florida captured by the Wachusett October 7, on thecoast of Brazil. The information is certain. 

A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO A SERENADE, NOVEMBER 9, 1864. 

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--Even before I had been informed by you thatthis compliment was paid me by loyal citizens of Pennsylvania, friendlyto me, I had inferred that you were of that portion of my countrymen whothink that the best interests of the nation are to be subserved by thesupport of the present administration. I do not pretend to say that you, who think so, embrace all the patriotism and loyalty of the country, but Ido believe, and I trust without personal interest, that the welfare of thecountry does require that such support and indorsement should be given. 

I earnestly believe that the consequences of this day's work, if it be asyou assume, and as now seems probable, will be to the lasting advantage, if not to the very salvation, of the country. I cannot at this hour saywhat has been the result of the election. But, whatever it may be, I haveno desire to modify this opinion: that all who have labored to-day inbehalf of the Union have wrought for the best interests of the country andthe world; not only for the present, but for all future ages. 

I am thankful to God for this approval of the people; but, while deeplygrateful for this mark of their confidence in me, if I know my heart, mygratitude is free from any taint of personal triumph. I do not impugn themotives of any one opposed to me. It is no pleasure to me to triumphover any one, but I give thanks to the Almighty for this evidence ofthe people's resolution to stand by free government and the rights ofhumanity. 

TELEGRAM TO H. W. HOFFMAN. WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. November 10, 1864. 

H. HOFFMAN, Baltimore, Md. :

The Maryland soldiers in the Army of the Potomac cast a total vote offourteen hundred and twenty-eight, out of which we get eleven hundred andsixty majority. This is directly from General Meade and General Grant. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ON DEMOCRATIC GOVERNMENT

RESPONSE TO A SERENADE, NOVEMBER 10, 1864. 

It has long been a grave question whether any government, not too strongfor the liberties of its people, can be strong enough to maintain itsexistence in great emergencies. On this point the present rebellionbrought our government to a severe test, and a presidential electionoccurring in regular course during the rebellion, added not a little tothe strain. 

If the loyal people united were put to the utmost of their strength by therebellion, must they not fail when divided and partially paralyzed bya political war among themselves? But the election was a necessity. Wecannot have free government without elections; and if the election couldforce us to forego or postpone a national election, it might fairly claimto have already conquered and ruined us. The strife of the election isbut human nature practically applied to the facts of the case. What hasoccurred in this case must ever recur in similar cases. Human nature willnot change. In any future great national trial, compared with the men ofthis, we will have as weak and as strong, as silly and as wise, as bad andas good. Let us, therefore, study the incidents of this as philosophy tolearn wisdom from, and none of them as wrongs to be revenged. 

But the election, along with its incidental and undesirable strife, hasdone good, too. It has demonstrated that a people's government can sustaina national election in the midst of a great civil war. Until now, it hasnot been known to the world that this was a possibility. It shows, also, how sound and strong we still are. It shows that even among the candidatesof the same party, he who is most devoted to the Union and most opposedto treason can receive most of the people's votes. It shows, also, tothe extent yet known, that we have more men now than we had when the warbegan. Gold is good in its place; but living, brave, and patriotic men arebetter than gold. 

But the rebellion continues, and, now that the election is over, maynot all have a common interest to reunite in a common effort to save ourcommon country? For my own part, I have striven and shall strive to avoidplacing any obstacle in the way. So long as I have been here, I have notwillingly planted a thorn in any man's bosom. While I am duly sensible tothe high compliment of a re-election, and duly grateful, as I trust, toAlmighty God, for having directed my countrymen to a right conclusion, asI think, for their good, it adds nothing to my satisfaction that any otherman may be disappointed by the result. 

May I ask those who have not differed with me to join with me in thissame spirit towards those who have? And now, let me close by asking threehearty cheers for our brave soldiers and seamen, and their gallant andskillful commanders. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL S. O. BURBRIDGE. WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 10, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BURBRIDGE, Lexington, Ky. :

I have just received a telegram from Governor Bramlette saying: "GeneralJohn B. Houston, a loyal man and prominent citizen, was arrested, andyesterday, started off by General Burbridge, to be sent beyond our linesby way of Catlettsburg, for no other offense than opposition to yourre-election, " and I have answered him as follows below, of which pleasetake notice and report to me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , November 10, 1864. GOVERNOR BRAMLETTE, Frankfort, Ky. :

Yours of yesterday received. I can scarcely believe that General JohnB. Houston has been arrested "for no other offense than opposition to myre-election;" for, if that had been deemed sufficient cause of arrest, Ishould have heard of more than one arrest in Kentucky on election day. If, however, General Houston has been arrested for no other cause thanopposition to my re-election, General Burbridge will discharge him atonce, I sending him a copy of this as an order to that effect. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL S. A. HURLBUT. 

(Private. )

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 14, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL HURLBUT:

Few things since I have been here have impressed me more painfullythan what, for four or five months past, has appeared a bitter militaryopposition to the new State government of Louisiana. I still indulged somehope that I was mistaken in the fact; but copies of a correspondenceon the subject between General Canby and yourself, and shown me to-day, dispel that hope. A very fair proportion of the people of Louisianahave inaugurated a new State government, making an excellent newconstitution--better for the poor black man than we have in Illinois. Thiswas done under military protection, directed by me, in the belief, stillsincerely entertained, that with such a nucleus around which to build wecould get the State into position again sooner than otherwise. In thisbelief a general promise of protection and support, applicable alike toLouisiana and other States, was given in the last annual message. Duringthe formation of the new government and constitution they were supportedby nearly every loyal person, and opposed by every secessionist. Andthis support and this opposition, from the respective standpoints of theparties, was perfectly consistent and logical. Every Unionist ought towish the new government to succeed; and every disunionist must desire itto fail. Its failure would gladden the heart of Slidell in Europe, andof every enemy of the old flag in the world. Every advocate of slaverynaturally desires to see blasted and crushed the liberty promised theblack man by the new constitution. But why General Canby and GeneralHurlbut should join on the same side is to me incomprehensible. 

Of course, in the condition of things at New Orleans, the military mustnot be thwarted by the civil authority; but when the ConstitutionalConvention, for what it deems a breach of privilege, arrests an editor inno way connected with the military, the military necessity for insultingthe convention and forcibly discharging the editor is difficult toperceive. Neither is the military necessity for protecting the peopleagainst paying large salaries fixed by a legislature of their own choosingvery apparent. Equally difficult to perceive is the military necessity forforcibly interposing to prevent a bank from loaning its own money to theState. These things, if they have occurred, are, at the best, no betterthan gratuitous hostility. I wish I could hope that they may be shown notto have occurred. To make assurance against misunderstanding, I repeatthat in the existing condition of things in Louisiana, the militarymust not be thwarted by the civil authority; and I add that on points ofdifference the commanding general must be judge and master. But I also addthat in the exercise of this judgment and control, a purpose, obvious, andscarcely unavowed, to transcend all military necessity, in order to crushout the civil government, will not be overlooked. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

REPLY TO MARYLAND UNION COMMITTEE, NOVEMBER 17, 1864. 

The President, in reply, said that he had to confess he had been dulynotified of the intention to make this friendly call some days ago, and inthis he had had a fair opportunity afforded to be ready with a set speech;but he had not prepared one, being too busy for that purpose. He wouldsay, however, that he was gratified with the result of the presidentialelection. He had kept as near as he could to the exercise of his bestjudgment for the interest of the whole country, and to have the seal ofapprobation stamped on the course he had pursued was exceedingly gratefulto his feelings. He thought he could say, in as large a sense as any otherman, that his pleasure consisted in belief that the policy he had pursuedwas the best, if not the only one, for the safety of the country. 

He had said before, and now repeated, that he indulged in no feeling oftriumph over any man who thought or acted differently from himself. Hehad no such feeling toward any living man. When he thought of Maryland, inparticular, he was of the opinion that she had more than double her sharein what had occurred in the recent elections. The adoption of a free-Stateconstitution was a greater thing than the part taken by the people of theState in the presidential election. He would any day have stipulated tolose Maryland in the presidential election to save it by the adoption ofa free-State constitution, because the presidential election comes everyfour years, while that is a thing which, being done, cannot be undone. Hetherefore thought that in that they had a victory for the right worth agreat deal more than their part in the presidential election, thoughof the latter he thought highly. He had once before said, but would sayagain, that those who have differed with us and opposed us will see thatthe result of the presidential election is better for their own good thanif they had been successful. 

Thanking the committee for their compliment, he brought his brief speechto a close. 

PROCLAMATION CONCERNING BLOCKADE, NOVEMBER 19, 1864

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas by my proclamation of the 19th of April, 1861, it was declaredthat the ports of certain States, including those of Norfolk, in the Stateof Virginia, Fernandina and Pensacola, in the State of Florida, were, forreasons therein set forth, intended to be placed under blockade; and:

Whereas the said ports were subsequently blockaded accordingly, but havingfor some time past been in the military possession of the United States, it is deeemd advisable that they should be opened to domestic and foreigncommerce:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States, pursuant to the authority in me vested by the fifth sectionof the act of Congress approved on the 13th of July, 1861, entitled "Anact further to provide for the collection of duties on imports, and forother purposes, " do hereby declare that the blockade of the said ports ofNorfolk, Fernandina, and Pensacola shall so far cease and determine, fromand after the first day of December next, that commercial intercourse withthose ports, except as to persons, things, and information contraband ofwar, may, from that time, be carried on, subject to the laws of the UnitedStates, to the limitations and in pursuance of the regulations which maybe prescribed by the Secretary of the Treasury, and to such militaryand naval regulations as are now in force, or may hereafter be foundnecessary. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. Done at the city of Washington, thisnineteenth day of November, in the year of our Lord one thousand eighthundred and sixty-four, and of the independence of the United States theeighty-ninth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

FIVE-STAR MOTHER

TO MRS. BIXBY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 21, 1864. 

MRS. BIXBY, Boston, Massachusetts. 

DEAR MADAM:--I have been shown in the files of the War Department astatement of the Adjutant-General of Massachusetts that you are the motherof five sons who have died gloriously on the field of battle. I feelhow weak and fruitless must be any words of mine which should attempt tobeguile you from the grief of a loss so overwhelming. But I cannot refrainfrom tendering to you the consolation that may be found in the thanksof the Republic they died to save. I pray that our Heavenly Father mayassuage the anguish of your bereavement, and leave you only the cherishedmemory of the loved and lost, and the solemn pride that must be yours tohave laid so costly a sacrifice upon the altar of freedom. 

Yours very sincerely and respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. PHILLIPS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, November 21, 1864. 

DEACON JOHN PHILLIPS. 

MY DEAR SIR:--I have heard of the incident at the polls in your town, inwhich you acted so honorable a part, and I take the liberty of writingto you to express my personal gratitude for the compliment paid me by thesuffrage of a citizen so venerable. 

The example of such devotion to civic duties in one whose days havealready been extended an average lifetime beyond the Psalmist's limit, cannot but be valuable and fruitful. It is not for myself only, but forthe country which you have in your sphere served so long and so well, thatI thank you. 

Your friend and servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR BRAMLETTE. WASHINGTON, D. C. NOVEMBER 22, 1864. 

GOVERNOR BRAMLETTE, Frankfort, Ky. :

Yours of to-day received. It seems that Lieutenant-Governor Jacobs andColonel Wolford are stationary now. General Sudarth and Mr. Hodges arehere, and the Secretary of War and myself are trying to devise means ofpacification and harmony for Kentucky, which we hope to effect soon, nowthat the passion-exciting subject of the election is past. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR CURTIN, WASHINGTON, D. C. , NOVEMBER 25, 1864

GOVERNOR CURTIN, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania;

I have no knowledge, information, or belief, that three States--or anyStates, offer to resume allegiance. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL ROSECRANS. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON D. C. , NOV. 26, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL ROSECRANS:

Please telegraph me briefly on what charge and evidence Mrs. Anna B. Martin has been sent to the penitentiary at Alton. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MEMORANDUM, DECEMBER 3, 1864. 

On Thursday of last week, two ladies from Tennessee came before thePresident, asking the release of their husbands held as prisoners of warat Johnson's Island. They were put off until Friday, when they came again, and were again put off until Saturday. At each of the interviews one ofthe ladies urged that her husband was a religious man, and on Saturday thePresident ordered the release of the prisoners, when he said to this lady:"You say your husband is a religious man; tell him when you meet him, thatI say I am not much of a judge of religion, but that, in my opinion, thereligion that sets men to rebel and fight against their own government, because, as they think, that government does not sufficiently help somemen to eat their bread in the sweat of other men's faces, is not the sortof religion upon which people can get to heaven. "

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER CONCERNING THE STEAMER "FUNAYMA SOLACE. "

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 3, 1864. 

A war steamer, called the Funayma Solace, having been built in thiscountry, for the Japanese government and at the instance of thatgovernment, it is deemed to comport with the public interest, in view ofthe unsettled condition of the relations of the United States with thatEmpire, that the steamer should not be allowed to proceed to Japan. If, however, the Secretary of the Navy should ascertain that the steamer isadapted to our service, he is authorized to purchase her, but the purchasemoney will be held in trust toward satisfying any valid claims which maybe presented by the Japanese on account of the construction of the steamerand the failure to deliver the same, as above set forth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON CITY, December 5, 1864

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In conformity to the law of July 16, 1862, I most cordially recommend thatCaptain John A. Winslow, United States Navy, receive a vote of thanks fromCongress for the skill and gallantry exhibited by him in the brilliantaction whilst in command of the United States steamer Keaysarge, which ledto the total destruction of the piratical craft Alabama, on the 19th ofJune, 1864. , a vessel superior in tonnage, superior in number of guns, andsuperior in number of crew. 

This recommendation is specially made in order to comply with therequirements of the ninth section of the aforesaid act, which is in thefollowing words, viz:

That any line officer of the navy or marine corps may be advanced onegrade, if, upon recommendation by the President by name he receives thethanks of Congress for highly distinguished conduct in conflict with theenemy, or far extraordinary heroism in the line of his profession. 

A. LINCOLN, MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

WASHINGTON CITY, December 5, 1864. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In conformity to the law of July 16, 1862, I most cordially recommendthat Lieutenant William B. Gushing, United States Navy, receive a vote ofthanks from Congress for his important, gallant, and perilous achievementin destroying the rebel ironclad steamer Albemarle on the night of the27th of October, 1864. , at Plymouth, N. C. 

The destruction of so formidable a vessel, which had resisted thecontinued attacks of a number of our vessels on former occasions, is animportant event touching our future naval and military operations, andwould reflect honor on any officer, and redounds to the credit of thisyoung officer and the few brave comrades who assisted in this successfuland daring undertaking. 

This recommendation is specially made in order to comply with therequirements of the ninth section of the Aforesaid act, which is in thefollowing words, namely:

That any line officer of the navy or marine corps may be advanced onegrade if upon recommendation of the President by name he receives thethanks of Congress for highly distinguished conduct in conflict with theenemy, or for extraordinary heroism in the line of his profession. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ANNUAL MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, DECEMBER 6, 1864. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

Again the blessings of health and abundant harvests claim our profoundestgratitude to Almighty God. 

The condition of our foreign affairs is reasonably satisfactory. 

Mexico continues to be a theater of civil war. While our politicalrelations with that country have undergone no change, we have at the sametime strictly maintained neutrality between the belligerents. 

At the request of the States of Costa Rica and Nicaragua, a competentengineer has been authorized to make a survey of the river San Juanand the port of San Juan. It is a source of much satisfaction that thedifficulties which for a moment excited some political apprehensions andcaused a closing of the interoceanic transit route have been amicablyadjusted, and that there is a good prospect that the route will soonbe reopened with an increase of capacity and adaptation. We could notexaggerate either the commercial or the political importance of that greatimprovement. 

It would be doing injustice to an important South American State notto acknowledge the directness, frankness, and cordiality with which theUnited States of Colombia have entered into intimate relations with thisgovernment. A claims convention has been constituted to complete theunfinished work of the one which closed its session in 1861. 

The new liberal constitution of Venezuela having gone into effect withthe universal acquiescence of the people, the government under it has beenrecognized and diplomatic intercourse with it has opened in a cordialand friendly spirit. The long-deferred Aves Island claim has beensatisfactorily paid and discharged. 

Mutual payments have been made of the claims awarded by the late jointcommission for the settlement of claims between the United States andPeru. An earnest and cordial friendship continues to exist between the twocountries, and such efforts as were in my power have been used to removemisunderstanding, and avert a threatened war between Peru and Spain. 

Our relations are of the most friendly nature with Chile, the ArgentineRepublic, Bolivia, Costa Rica, Paraguay, San Salvador, and Haiti. 

During the past year no differences of any kind have arisen with any ofthese republics, and on the other hand, their sympathies with the UnitedStates are constantly expressed with cordiality and earnestness. 

The claim arising from the seizure of the cargo of the brig Macedonian in1821 has been paid in full by the Government of Chile. 

Civil war continues in the Spanish part of San Domingo, apparently withoutprospect of an early close. 

Official correspondence has been freely opened with Liberia, and it givesus a pleasing view of social and political progress in that republic. Itmay be expected to derive new vigor from American influence improved bythe rapid disappearance of slavery in the United States. 

I solicit your authority to furnish to the republic a gunboat, at moderatecost, to be reimbursed to the United States by instalments. Such a vesselis needed for the safety of that state against the native African races, and in Liberian hands it would be more effective in arresting the Africanslave-trade than a squadron in our own hands. The possession of the leastorganized naval force would stimulate a generous ambition in the republic, and the confidence which we should manifest by furnishing it would winforbearance and favor toward the colony from all civilized nations. 

The proposed overland telegraph between America and Europe, by the way ofBering Straits and Asiatic Russia, which was sanctioned by Congress at thelast session, has been undertaken, under very favorable circumstances, by an association of American citizens, with the cordial good-will andsupport as well of this Government as of those of Great Britain andRussia. Assurances have been received from most of the South AmericanStates of their high appreciation of the enterprise and their readinessto co-operate in constructing lines tributary to that world-encirclingcommunication. I learn with much satisfaction that the noble design of atelegraphic communication between the eastern coast of America andGreat Britain has been renewed, with full expectation of its earlyaccomplishment. 

Thus it is hoped that with the return of domestic peace the country willbe able to resume with energy and advantage its former high career ofcommerce and civilization. 

Our very popular and estimable representative in Egypt died in April last. An unpleasant altercation which arose between the temporary incumbent ofthe office and the Government of the Pasha resulted in a suspensionof intercourse. The evil was promptly corrected on the arrival of thesuccessor in the consulate, and our relations with Egypt, as well as ourrelations with the Barbary Powers, are entirely satisfactory. 

The rebellion which has so long been flagrant in China has at last beensuppressed, with the co-operating good offices of this Government and ofthe other Western commercial States. The judicial consular establishmentthere has become very difficult and onerous, and it will need legislativerevision to adapt it to the extension of our commerce and to the moreintimate intercourse which has been instituted with the Government andpeople of that vast Empire. China seems to be accepting with heartygood-will the conventional laws which regulate commercial and socialintercourse among the Western nations. 

Owing to the peculiar situation of Japan and the anomalous form of itsGovernment, the action of that empire in performing treaty stipulations isinconstant and capricious. Nevertheless, good progress has been effectedby the Western powers, moving with enlightened concert. Our own pecuniaryclaims have been allowed or put in course of settlement, and the inlandsea has been reopened to commerce. There is reason also to believe thatthese proceedings have increased rather than diminished the friendship ofJapan toward the United States. 

The ports of Norfolk, Fernandina, and Pensacola have been opened byproclamation. It is hoped that foreign merchants will now consider whetherit is not safer and more profitable to themselves, as well as just tothe United States, to resort to these and other open ports than it is topursue, through many hazards and at vast cost, a contraband trade withother ports which are closed, if not by actual military occupation, atleast by a lawful and effective blockade. 

For myself, I have no doubt of the power and duty of the Executive, underthe law of nations, to exclude enemies of the human race from an asylum inthe United States. If Congress should think that proceedings in suchcases lack the authority of law, or ought to be further regulated by it, Irecommend that provision be made for effectually preventing foreignslave traders from acquiring domicile and facilities for their criminaloccupation in our country. 

It is possible that if it were a new and open question the maritimepowers, with the lights they now enjoy, would not concede the privilegesof a naval belligerent to the insurgents of the United States, destitute, as they are, and always have been, equally of ships of war and of portsand harbors. Disloyal emissaries have been neither assiduous nor moresuccessful during the last year than they were before that time in theirefforts, under favor of that privilege, to embroil our country in foreignwars. The desire and determination of the governments of the maritimestates to defeat that design are believed to be as sincere as and cannot be more earnest than our own. Nevertheless, unforeseen politicaldifficulties have arisen, especially in Brazilian and British ports and onthe northern boundary of the United States, which have required, and arelikely to continue to require, the practice of constant vigilance and ajust and conciliatory spirit on the part of the United States, as well asof the nations concerned and their governments. 

Commissioners have been appointed under the treaty with Great Britainon the adjustment of the claims of the Hudson Bay and Puget SoundAgricultural Companies, in Oregon, and are now proceeding to the executionof the trust assigned to them. 

In view of the insecurity of life and property in the region adjacentto the Canadian border, by reason of recent assaults and depredationscommitted by inimical and desperate persons who are harbored there, ithas been thought proper to give notice that after the expiration of sixmonths, the period conditionally stipulated in the existing arrangementwith Great Britain, the United States must hold themselves at libertyto increase their naval armament upon the Lakes if they shall find thatproceeding necessary. The condition of the border will necessarily comeinto consideration in connection with the question of continuing ormodifying the rights of transit from Canada through the United States, aswell as the regulation of imposts, which were temporarily established bythe reciprocity treaty of the 5th June, 1854. 

I desire, however, to be understood while making this statement that thecolonial authorities of Canada are not deemed to be intentionally unjustor unfriendly toward the United States, but, on the contrary, there isevery reason to expect that, with the approval of the Imperial Government, they will take the necessary measures to prevent new incursions across theborder. 

The act passed at the last session for the encouragement of immigrationhas so far as was possible been put into operation. It seems to needamendment which will enable the officers of the Government to prevent thepractice of frauds against the immigrants while on their way and ontheir arrival in the ports, so as to secure them here a free choice ofavocations and places of settlement. A liberal disposition toward thisgreat national policy is manifested by most of the European States, andought to be reciprocated on our part by giving the immigrants effectivenational protection. I regard our immigrants as one of the principalreplenishing streams which are appointed by Providence to repair theravages of internal war and its wastes of national strength and health. All that is necessary is to secure the flow of that stream in its presentfullness, and to that end the Government must in every way make itmanifest that it neither needs nor designs to impose involuntary militaryservice upon those who come from other lands to cast their lot in ourcountry. The financial affairs of the Government have been successfullyadministered during the last year. The legislation of the last session ofCongress has beneficially affected the revenues, although sufficienttime has not yet elapsed to experience the full effect of several of theprovisions of the acts of Congress imposing increased taxation. 

The receipts during the year from all sources, upon the basis of warrantssigned by the Secretary of the Treasury, including loans and the balancein the Treasury on the 1st day of July, 1863, were $1, 394, 196, 007. 62, andthe aggregate disbursements, upon the same basis, were $1, 298, 056, 101. 89, leaving a balance in the Treasury, as shown by warrants, of$96, 739, 905. 73. 

Deduct from these amounts the amount of the principal of the public debtredeemed and the amount of issues in substitution therefor, and theactual cash operations of the Treasury were: receipts, $884, 076, 646. 57;disbursements, $865, 234, 087. 86; which leaves a cash balance in theTreasury of $18, 842, 558. 71. 

Of the receipts there were derived from customs $102, 316, 152. 99, fromlands $588, 333. 29, from direct taxes $475, 648. 96, from internal revenue$109, 741, 134. 10, from miscellaneous sources $47, 511, 448. 10, and from loansapplied to actual expenditures, including former balance, $623, 443, 929. 13. 

There were disbursed for the civil service $27, 505, 599. 46, for pensionsand Indians $7, 517, 930. 97, for the War Department $690, 791, 842. 97, forthe Navy Department $85, 733, 292. 77, for interest on the public debt$53, 685, 421. 69, making an aggregate of $865, 234, 087. 86, and leaving abalance in the Treasury of $18, 842, 558. 71, as before stated. 

For the actual receipts and disbursements for the first quarter and theestimated receipts and disbursements for the three remaining quarters ofthe current fiscal year, and the general operations of the Treasury indetail, I refer you to the report of the Secretary of the Treasury. Iconcur with him in the opinion that the proportion of moneys required tomeet the expenses consequent upon the war derived from taxation shouldbe still further increased; and I earnestly invite your attention to thissubject to the end that there be such additional legislation as shall berequired to meet the just expectations of the Secretary. 

The public debt on the first day of July last, as appears by the booksof the Treasury, amounted to $1, 740, 690, 489. 49. Probably, should the warcontinue for another year, that amount may be increased by not far from$500, 000, 000. Held, as it is, for the most part by our own people, it hasbecome a substantial branch of national, though private, property. Forobvious reasons the more nearly this property can be distributed amongall the people the better. To favor such general distribution, greaterinducements to become owners might, perhaps, with good effect and withoutinjury be presented to persons of limited means. With this view I suggestwhether it might not be both competent and expedient for Congress toprovide that a limited amount of some future issue of public securitiesmight be held by any bona fide purchaser exempt from taxation and fromseizure for debt, under such restrictions and limitations as might benecessary to guard against abuse of so important a privilege. Thiswould enable every prudent person to set aside a small annuity against apossible day of want. 

Privileges like these would render the possession of such securities tothe amount limited most desirable to every person of small means who mightbe able to save enough for the purpose. The great advantage of citizensbeing creditors as well as debtors with relation to the public debt isobvious. Men readily perceive that they can not be much oppressed by adebt which they owe to themselves. 

The public debt on the first day of July last, although somewhat exceedingthe estimate of the Secretary of the Treasury made to Congress at thecommencement of the last session, falls short of the estimate of thatofficer made in the preceding December as to its probable amount at thebeginning of this year by the sum of $3, 995, 097. 31. This fact exhibits asatisfactory condition and conduct of the operations of the Treasury. 

The national banking system is proving to be acceptable to capitalistsand to the people. On the twenty-fifth day of November five hundred andeighty-four national banks had been organized, a considerable number ofwhich were conversions from State banks. Changes from State systems to thenational system are rapidly taking place, and it is hoped that very soonthere will be in the United States no banks of issue not authorized byCongress and no bank-note circulation not secured by the Government. Thatthe Government and the people will derive great benefit from this changein the banking systems of the country can hardly be questioned. Thenational system will create a reliable and permanent influence in supportof the national credit and protect the people against losses in the use ofpaper money. Whether or not any further legislation is advisable for thesuppression of State-bank issues, it will be for Congress to determine. It seems quite clear that the Treasury can not be satisfactorily conductedunless the Government can exercise a restraining power over the bank-notecirculation of the country. 

The report of the Secretary of War and the accompanying documents willdetail the campaigns of the armies in the field since the date of thelast annual message, and also the operations of the several administrativebureaus of the War Department during the last year. It will also specifythe measures deemed essential for the national defense and to keep up andsupply the requisite military force. 

The report of the Secretary of the Navy presents a comprehensive andsatisfactory exhibit of the affairs of that Department and of the navalservice. It is a subject of congratulation and laudable pride to ourcountrymen that a Navy of such vast proportions has been organized in sobrief a period and conducted with so much efficiency and success. 

The general exhibit of the Navy, including vessels under construction onthe first of December, 1864, shows a total of 671 vessels, carrying 4610guns, and of 510, 396 tons, being an actual increase during the year, overand above all losses by shipwreck or in battle, of 83 vessels, 167 guns, and 42, 427 tons. 

The total number of men at this time in the naval service, includingofficers, is about 51, 000. 

There have been captured by the Navy during the year 324 vessels, and thewhole number of naval captures since hostilities commenced is 1379, ofwhich 267 are steamers. 

The gross proceeds arising from the sale of condemned prize property thusfar reported amount to $14, 369, 250. 51. A large amount of such proceeds isstill under adjudication and yet to be reported. 

The total expenditure of the Navy Department of every description, including the cost of the immense squadrons that have been called intoexistence from the fourth of March, 1861, to the first of November, 1864, is $238, 647, 262. 35. 

Your favorable consideration is invited to the various recommendationsof the Secretary of the Navy, especially in regard to a navy-yard andsuitable establishment for the construction and repair of iron vessels andthe machinery and armature for our ships, to which reference was made inmy last annual message. 

Your attention is also invited to the views expressed in the report inrelation to the legislation of Congress at its last session in respect toprize on our inland waters. 

I cordially concur in the recommendation of the Secretary as to thepropriety of creating the new rank of vice-admiral in our naval service. 

Your attention is invited to the report of the Postmaster-General fora detailed account of the operations and financial condition of thePost-Office Department. 

The postal revenues for the year ending June 30, 1864, amounted to$12, 438, 253. 78, and the expenditures to $12, 644, 786. 20, the excess ofexpenditures over receipts being $206, 532. 42. 

The views presented by the Postmaster-General on the subject of specialgrants by the Government in aid of the establishment of new lines ofocean mail steamships and the policy he recommends for the development ofincreased commercial intercourse with adjacent and neighboring countriesshould receive the careful consideration of Congress. 

It is of noteworthy interest that the steady expansion of population, improvement, and governmental institutions over the new and unoccupiedportions of our country have scarcely been checked, much less impeded ordestroyed, by our great civil war, which at first glance would seem tohave absorbed almost the entire energies of the nation. 

The organization and admission of the State of Nevada has been completedin conformity with law, and thus our excellent system is firmlyestablished in the mountains, which once seemed a barren and uninhabitablewaste between the Atlantic States and those which have grown up on thecoast of the Pacific Ocean. 

The Territories of the Union are generally in a condition of prosperityand rapid growth. Idaho and Montana, by reason of their great distance andthe interruption of communication with them by Indian hostilities, have been only partially organized; but it is understood that thesedifficulties are about to disappear, which will permit their governments, like those of the others, to go into speedy and full operation. 

As intimately connected with and promotive of this material growth of thenation, I ask the attention of Congress to the valuable information andimportant recommendations relating to the public lands, Indian affairs, the Pacific Railroad, and mineral discoveries contained in the report ofthe Secretary of the Interior which is herewith transmitted, and whichreport also embraces the subjects of patents, pensions, and other topicsof public interest pertaining to his Department. 

The quantity of public land disposed of during the five quarters endingon the thirtieth of September last was 4, 221, 342 acres, of which 1, 538, 614acres were entered under the homestead law. The remainder was locatedwith military land warrants, agricultural scrip certified to States forrailroads, and sold for cash. The cash received from sales and locationfees was $1, 019, 446. 

The income from sales during the fiscal year ending June 30, 1864, was$678, 007. 21, against $136, 077. 95 received during the preceding year. Theaggregate number of acres surveyed during the year has been equal to thequantity disposed of, and there is open to settlement about 133, 000, 000acres of surveyed land. 

The great enterprise of connecting the Atlantic with the Pacific States byrailways and telegraph lines has been entered upon with a vigor that givesassurance of success, notwithstanding the embarrassments arising from theprevailing high prices of materials and labor. The route of the main lineof the road has been definitely located for one hundred miles westwardfrom the initial point at Omaha City, Nebraska, and a preliminary locationof the Pacific Railroad of California has been made from Sacramentoeastward to the great bend of the Truckee River in Nevada. 

Numerous discoveries of gold, silver, and cinnabar mines have been addedto the many heretofore known, and the country occupied by the SierraNevada and Rocky mountains and the subordinate ranges now teems withenterprising labor, which is richly remunerative. It is believed that theproduce of the mines of precious metals in that region has during the yearreached, if not exceeded, $100, 000, 000 in value. 

It was recommended in my last annual message that our Indian system beremodeled. Congress at its last session, acting upon the recommendation, did provide for reorganizing the system in California, and it is believedthat under the present organization the management of the Indians therewill be attended with reasonable success. Much yet remains to be done toprovide for the proper government of the Indians in other parts of thecountry, to render it secure for the advancing settler, and to provide forthe welfare of the Indian. The Secretary reiterates his recommendations, and to them the attention of Congress is invited. 

The liberal provisions made by Congress for paying pensions to invalidsoldiers and sailors of the Republic and to the widows, orphans, anddependent mothers of those who have fallen in battle or died of diseasecontracted or of wounds received in the service of their country have beendiligently administered. There have been added to the pension rolls duringthe year ending the 30th day of June last the names of 16, 770 invalidsoldiers and of 271 disabled seamen, making the present number of armyinvalid pensioners 22, 767 and of navy invalid pensioners 712. 

Of widows, orphans, and mothers 22, 198 have been placed on the armypension rolls and 248 on the navy rolls. The present number of armypensioners of this class is 25, 433 and of navy pensioners 793. At thebeginning of the year the number of Revolutionary pensioners was 1430. Only twelve of them were soldiers, of whom seven have since died. The remainder are those who under the law receive pensions becauseof relationship to Revolutionary soldiers. During the year ending thethirtieth of June, 1864, $4, 504, 616. 92 have been paid to pensioners of allclasses. 

I cheerfully commend to your continued patronage the benevolentinstitutions of the District of Columbia which have hitherto beenestablished or fostered by Congress, and respectfully refer forinformation concerning them and in relation to the Washington Aqueduct, the Capitol, and other matters of local interest to the report of theSecretary. 

The Agricultural Department, under the supervision of its presentenergetic and faithful head, is rapidly commending itself to the great andvital interest it was created to advance. It is peculiarly the people'sdepartment, in which they feel more directly concerned than in any other. I commend it to the continued attention and fostering care of Congress. 

The war continues. Since the last annual message all the important linesand positions then occupied by our forces have been maintained and ourarms have steadily advanced, thus liberating the regions left in rear, sothat Missouri, Kentucky, Tennessee, and parts of other States have againproduced reasonably fair crops. 

The most remarkable feature in the military operations of the year isGeneral Sherman's attempted march of three hundred miles directly throughthe insurgent region. It tends to show a great increase of our relativestrength that our General-in-Chief should feel able to confront andhold in check every active force of the enemy, and yet to detach awell-appointed large army to move on such an expedition. The result notyet being known, conjecture in regard to it is not here indulged. 

Important movements have also occurred during the year to the effect ofmolding society for durability in the Union. Although short of completesuccess, it is much in the right direction that twelve thousand citizensin each of the States of Arkansas and Louisiana have organized loyal Stategovernments, with free constitutions, and are earnestly struggling tomaintain and administer them. The movements in the same direction moreextensive though less definite in Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee, should not be overlooked. But Maryland presents the example of completesuccess. Maryland is secure to liberty and union for all the future. Thegenius of rebellion will no more claim Maryland. Like another foul spiritbeing driven out, it may seek to tear her, but it will woo her no more. 

At the last session of Congress a proposed amendment of the Constitutionabolishing slavery throughout the United States passed the Senate, but failed for lack of the requisite two-thirds vote in the House ofRepresentatives. Although the present is the same Congress and nearly thesame members, and without questioning the wisdom or patriotism of thosewho stood in opposition, I venture to recommend the reconsideration andpassage of the measure at the present session. Of course the abstractquestion is not changed; but an intervening election shows almostcertainly that the next Congress will pass the measure if this does not. Hence there is only a question of time as to when the proposed amendmentwill go to the States for their action. And as it is to so go at allevents, may we not agree that the sooner the better? It is not claimedthat the election has imposed a duty on members to change their views ortheir votes any further than, as an additional element to be considered, their judgment may be affected by it. It is the voice of the people nowfor the first time heard upon the question. In a great national crisislike ours, unanimity of action among those seeking a common end is verydesirable, almost indispensable. And yet no approach to such unanimity isattainable unless some deference shall be paid to the will of the majoritysimply because it is the will of the majority. In this case the common endis the maintenance of the Union, and among the means to secure that endsuch will, through the election, is most clearly declared in favor of suchConstitutional amendment. 

The most reliable indication of public purpose in this country is derivedthrough our popular elections. Judging by the recent canvass and itsresult, the purpose of the people within the loyal States to maintain theintegrity of the Union was never more firm nor more nearly unanimous thannow. The extraordinary calmness and good order with which the millionsof voters met and mingled at the polls give strong assurance of this. Not only all those who supported the Union ticket, so called, but a greatmajority of the opposing party also may be fairly claimed to entertain andto be actuated by the same purpose. It is an unanswerable argument tothis effect that no candidate for any office whatever, high or low, hasventured to seek votes on the avowal that he was for giving up the Union. There have been much impugning of motives and much heated controversy asto the proper means and best mode of advancing the Union cause, but onthe distinct issue of Union or no Union the politicians have shown theirinstinctive knowledge that there is no diversity among the people. Inaffording the people the fair opportunity of showing one to another and tothe world this firmness and unanimity of purpose, the election has been ofvast value to the national cause. 

The election has exhibited another fact not less valuable to be known--thefact that we do not approach exhaustion in the most important branch ofnational resources, that of living men. While it is melancholy to reflectthat the war has filled so many graves and carried mourning to so manyhearts, it is some relief to know that, compared with the surviving, the fallen have been so few. While corps and divisions and brigades andregiments have formed and fought and dwindled and gone out of existence, agreat majority of the men who composed them are still living. The same istrue of the naval service. The election returns prove this. So many voterscould not else be found. The States regularly holding elections, both nowand four years ago, to wit, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wisconsin, cast3, 982, 011 votes now, against 3, 870, 222 cast then, showing an aggregate nowof 3, 982, 011. To this is to be added 33, 762 cast now in the new States ofKansas and Nevada, which States did not vote in 1860, thus swelling theaggregate to 4, 015, 773 and the net increase during the three years and ahalf of war to 145, 551. A table is appended showing particulars. Tothis again should be added the number of all soldiers in the field fromMassachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Delaware, Indiana, Illinois, andCalifornia, who by the laws of those States could not vote away from theirhomes, and which number can not be less than 90, 000. Nor yet is this all. The number in organized Territories is triple now what it was four yearsago--while thousands, white and black, join us as the national arms pressback the insurgent lines. So much is shown, affirmatively and negatively, by the election. It is not material to inquire how the increase has beenproduced or to show that it would have been greater but for the war, whichis probably true. The important fact remains demonstrated that we havemore men now than we had when the war began; that we are not exhausted norin process of exhaustion; that we are gaining strength and may if need bemaintain the contest indefinitely. [This sentence recognizes the concernof a guerilla war after the main war finished. ]This as to men. Materialresources are now more complete and abundant than ever. 

The national resources, then, are unexhausted, and, as we believe, inexhaustible. The public purpose to re-establish and maintain thenational authority is unchanged, and, as we believe, unchangeable. The manner of continuing the effort remains to choose. On carefulconsideration of all the evidence accessible it seems to me that noattempt at negotiation with the insurgent leader could result in any good. He would accept nothing short of severance of the Union, precisely whatwe will not and can not give. His declarations to this effect are explicitand oft repeated. He does not attempt to deceive us. He affords us noexcuse to deceive ourselves. He can not voluntarily reaccept the Union;we can not voluntarily yield it. Between him and us the issue is distinct, simple, and inflexible. It is an issue which can only be tried by war anddecided by victory. If we yield, we are beaten; if the Southern peoplefail him, he is beaten. Either way it would be the victory and defeatfollowing war. What is true, however, of him who heads the insurgent causeis not necessarily true of those who follow. Although he can not reacceptthe Union, they can. Some of them, we know, already desire peace andreunion. The number of such may increase. They can at any moment havepeace simply by laying down their arms and submitting to the nationalauthority under the Constitution. After so much the Government could not, if it would, maintain war against them. The loyal people would not sustainor allow it. If questions should remain, we would adjust them by thepeaceful means of legislation, conference, courts, and votes, operatingonly in Constitutional and lawful channels. Some certain, and otherpossible, questions are and would be beyond the Executive power to adjust;as, for instance, the admission of members into Congress and whatevermight require the appropriation of money. The Executive power itselfwould be greatly diminished by the cessation of actual war. Pardonsand remissions of forfeitures, however, would still be within Executivecontrol. In what spirit and temper this control would be exercised can befairly judged of by the past. 

A year ago general pardon and amnesty, upon specified terms, were offeredto all except certain designated classes, and it was at the same time madeknown that the excepted classes were still within contemplation ofspecial clemency. During the year many availed themselves of the generalprovision, and many more would, only that the signs of bad faith in someled to such precautionary measures as rendered the practical process lesseasy and certain. During the same time also special pardons havebeen granted to individuals of the excepted classes, and no voluntaryapplication has been denied. Thus practically the door has been for a fullyear open to all except such as were not in condition to make free choice;that is, such as were in custody or under constraint. It is still so opento all. But the time may come, probably will come, when public duty shalldemand that it be closed and that in lieu more rigorous measures thanheretofore shall be adopted. 

In presenting the abandonment of armed resistance to the nationalauthority on the part of the insurgents as the only indispensablecondition to ending the war on the part of the Government, I retractnothing heretofore said as to slavery. I repeat the declaration made ayear ago, that "while I remain in my present position I shall not attemptto retract or modify the emancipation proclamation, nor shall I return toslavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation or by anyof the acts of Congress. " If the people should, by whatever mode or means, make it an Executive duty to re-enslave such persons, another, and not I, must be their instrument to perform it. 

In stating a single condition of peace I mean simply to say that the warwill cease on the part of the Government whenever it shall have ceased onthe part of those who began it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO A SERENADE, DECEMBER 6, 1864. 

FRIENDS AND FELLOW-CITIZENS:--I believe I shall never be old enough tospeak without embarrassment when I have nothing to talk about. I have nogood news to tell you, and yet I have no bad news to tell. We have talkedof elections until there is nothing more to say about them. The mostinteresting news now we have is from Sherman. We all know where he wentin at, but I can't tell where he will come out at. I will now close byproposing three cheers for General Sherman and his army. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR HALL. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 7, 1864. 

GOVERNOR HALL, Jefferson City, Mo. :

Complaint is made to me of the doings of a man at Hannibal, Mo. , by thename of Haywood, who, as I am told, has charge of some militia force, andis not in the United States service. Please inquire into the matter andcorrect anything you may find amiss if in your power. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL FASLEIGH. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 8, 1864. 

COLONEL FASLEIGH, Louisville, Ky. :

I am appealed to in behalf of a man by the name of Frank Fairbairns, saidto have been for a long time and still in prison, without any definiteground stated. How is it?

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER APPOINTING COMMISSIONERS

TO INVESTIGATE THE MILITARY DIVISION WEST OF THE MISSISSIPPI. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, December 10, 1864. 

ORDERED, First, that Major-General William P. Smith and the Hon. HenryStanbery be, and they are hereby, appointed special commissioners toinvestigate and report, for the information of the President; upon thecivil and military administration in the military division bordering uponand west of the Mississippi, under such instructions as shall be issued byauthority of the President and the War Department. 

Second, said commissioners shall have power to examine witnessesupon oath, and to take such proofs orally or in writing, upon thesubject-matters of investigation as they may deem expedient, and returnthe same together with their report. 

Third, all officers and persons in the military, naval and revenueservices, or in any branch of the public service under the authorityof the United States Government, are required, upon subpoena issued bydirection of the said commissioners, to appear before them at such timeand place as may be designated in said subpoena and to give testimony onoath touching such matters as may be inquired of by the commissioners, and to produce such books, papers, writings, and documents as they maybe notified or required to produce by the commissioners, and as may be intheir possession. 

Fourth, said special commissioners shall also investigate and report uponany other matters that may hereafter be directed by the Secretary of War, and shall with all convenient dispatch make report to him in writing oftheir investigation, and shall also from time to time make special reportsto the Secretary of War upon such matters as they may deem of importanceto the public interests. 

Fifth, the Secretary of War shall assign to the said commissioners suchaid and assistance as may be required for the performance of their duties, and make such just and reasonable allowances and compensation for the saidcommissioners and for the persons employed by them as he may deem proper. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G, H. THOMAS. WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 16, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL THOMAS, Nashville, Tennessee:

Please accept for yourself, officers, and men, the nation's thanks foryour good work of yesterday. You made a magnificent beginning; a grandconsummation is within your easy reach. Do not let it slip. 

A. LINCOLN, ORIGIN OF THE "GREENBACK" CURRENCY

TO COLONEL B. D. TAYLOR

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December [16?], 1864. 

DEAR COLONEL DICK:--I have long determined to make public the origin ofthe greenback and tell the world that it is Dick Taylor's creation. Youhad always been friendly to me, and when troublous times fell on us, andmy shoulders, though broad and willing, were weak, and myself surroundedby such circumstances and such people that I knew not whom to trust, thenI said in my extremity: "I will send for Colonel Taylor; he will know whatto do. " I think it was in January, 1862, on or about the 16th, that I didso. You came, and I said to you:

"What can we do?" Said you, "Why, issue Treasury notes bearing nointerest, printed on the best banking paper. Issue enough to pay off theArmy expenses and declare it legal tender. "

Chase thought it a hazardous thing, but we finally accomplished it, and gave the people of this Republic the greatest blessing they everhad--their own paper to pay their own debts. 

It is due to you, the father of the present greenback, that the peopleshould know it, and I take great pleasure in making it known. How manytimes have I laughed at you telling me plainly that I was too lazy to beanything but a lawyer. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO OFFICER IN COMMAND AT CHATTANOOGA. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 16, 1864

OFFICER IN COMMAND at Chattanooga, Tenn. :

It is said that Harry Walters, a private in the Anderson cavalry, is nowand for a long time has been in prison at Chattanooga. Please report to mewhat is his condition, and for what he is imprisoned. 

A. LINCOLN. 

CALL FOR 300, 000 VOLUNTEERS, DECEMBER 19, 1864. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

A Proclamation

Whereas, by the act approved July 4, 1864, entitled "An act furtherto regulate and provide for the enrolling and calling out the nationalforces, and for other purposes, " it is provided that the President of theUnited States may, "at his discretion, at any time hereafter, call forany number of men, as volunteers for the respective terms of one, two, andthree years for military service, " and "that in case the quota or anypart thereof of any town, township, ward of a city, precinct, or electiondistrict, or of any country not so subdivided, shall not be filledwithin the space of fifty days after such call, then the President shallimmediately order a draft for one year to fill such quota or any partthereof which may be unfilled;" and

Whereas, by the credits allowed in accordance with the act of Congresson the call for 500, 000 men, made July 18, 1864, the number of men to beobtained under that call was reduced to 280, 000; and

Whereas, the operations of the enemy in certain States have rendered itimpracticable to procure from them their full quotas of troops under saidcall; and

Whereas, from the foregoing causes but 240, 000 men have been put into theArmy, Navy, and Marine Corps under the said call of July 18, 1864, leavinga deficiency on that call of two hundred and sixty thousand (260, 000):

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ofAmerica, in order to supply the aforesaid deficiency and to provide forcasualties in the military and naval service of the United States, doissue this my call for three hundred thousand (300, 000) volunteers toserve for one, two, or three years. The quotas of the States, districts, and subdistricts under this call will be assigned by the War Departmentthrough the bureau of the Provost-Marshal General of the United States, and "in case the quota or any part thereof of any town, township, wardof a city, precinct, or election district, or of any county not sosubdivided, shall not be filled" before the fifteenth of February, 1865, then a draft shall be made to fill such quota or any part thereof underthis call which may be unfilled on said fifteenth day of February, 1865. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. . 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

SHERMAN'S MARCH TO THE SEA

TO GENERAL W. T. SHERMAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 26, 1864

MY DEAR GENERAL SHERMAN:--Many, many thanks for your Christmas gift, thecapture of Savannah. 

When you were about leaving Atlanta for the Atlantic coast, I wasanxious, if not fearful; but feeling that you were the better judge, andremembering that "nothing risked, nothing gained, " I did not interfere. Now, the undertaking being a success, the honor is all yours; for Ibelieve none of us went further than to acquiesce. 

And taking the work of General Thomas into the count, as it should betaken, it is indeed a great success. Not only does it afford the obviousand immediate military advantages; but in showing to the world that yourarmy could be divided, putting the stronger part to an important newservice, and yet leaving enough to vanquish the old opposing force of thewhole, --Hood's army, --it brings those who sat in darkness to see a greatlight. But what next?

I suppose it will be safe if I leave General Grant and yourself to decide. 

Please make my grateful acknowledgments to your whole army of officers andmen. 

Yours very truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO OFFICER IN COMMAND AT LEXINGTON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 27, 1864. 

OFFICER IN COMMAND at Lexington, Ky. :

If within your power send me the particulars of the causes for whichLieutenant-Governor Jacob was arrested and sent away. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO J. MACLEAN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 27, 1864. 

Dr. JOHN MACLEAN:

MY DEAR SIR:--I have the honor to acknowledge the reception of your noteof the twentieth of December, conveying the announcement that the Trusteesof the College of New Jersey had conferred upon me the degree of Doctor ofLaws. 

The assurance conveyed by this high compliment, that the course of theGovernment which I represent, has received the approval of a body ofgentlemen of such character and intelligence, in this time of publictrial, is most grateful to me. 

Thoughtful men must feel that the fate of civilization upon this continentis involved in the issue of our contest. Among the most gratifying proofsof this conviction is the hearty devotion everywhere exhibited by ourschools and colleges to the national cause. 

I am most thankful if my labors have seemed to conduct to the preservationof those institutions, under which alone we can expect good government andin its train sound learning, and the progress of the liberal arts. 

I am, sir, very truly, your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO OFFICER IN COMMAND AT NASHVILLE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 28, 1864. 

OFFICER IN COMMAND at Nashville, Tenn. :

Suspend execution of James R. Mallory, for six weeks from Friday thethirtieth of this month, which time I have given his friends to makeproof, if they can, upon certain points. 

A. LINCOLN, TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , December 28, 1864. 5. 30 p. M. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

If there be no objection, please tell me what you now understand of theWilmington expedition, present and prospective. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 29, 1864. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER:

There is a man in Company I, Eleventh Connecticut Volunteers, FirstBrigade, Third Division, Twenty-fourth Army Corps, at Chapin's Farm, Va. ;under the assumed name of William Stanley, but whose real name is FrankR. Judd, and who is under arrest, and probably about to be tried fordesertion. He is the son of our present minister to Prussia, who is aclose personal friend of Senator Trumbull and myself. We are not willingfor the boy to be shot, but we think it as well that his trial goregularly on, suspending execution until further order from me andreporting to me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL WARNER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, December 30, 1864. 

COLONEL WARNER, Indianapolis, Ind. :

It is said that you were on the court-martial that tried John Lennon, and that you are disposed to advise his being pardoned and sent to hisregiment. If this be true, telegraph me to that effect at once. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO J. WILLIAMS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 4, 1865. 

JOHN WILLIAMS, Springfield, Ill. :

Let Trumbo's substitute be regularly mustered in, send me the evidencethat it is done and I will then discharge Trumbo. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

WASHINGTON, January 5, 1865. 

TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE UNITED STATES:

I herewith return to your honorable body, in which it originated, a "jointresolution to correct certain clerical errors in the internal revenueact, " without my approval. 

My reason for so doing is that I am informed that this joint resolutionwas prepared during the last moments of the last session of Congress forthe purpose of correcting certain errors of reference in the internalrevenue act, which were discovered on an examination of an officialcopy procured from the State Department a few hours only before theadjournment. It passed the House and went to the Senate, where a vote wastaken upon it, but by some accident it was not presented to the Presidentof the Senate for his signature. 

Since the adjournment of the last session of Congress, other errors of akind similar to those which this resolution was designed to correct, have been discovered in the law, and it is now thought most expedient toinclude all the necessary corrections in one act or resolution. 

The attention of the proper committee of the House has, I am informed, been already directed to the preparation of a bill for this purpose. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 5, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

Richard T. Jacob, Lieutenant-Governor of Kentucky, is at the SpotswoodHouse, in Richmond, under an order of General Burbridge not to return toKentucky. Please communicate leave to him to pass our lines, and come tome here at Washington. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 6, 1865, LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point:

If there is a man at City Point by the name of Waterman Thornton who is introuble about desertion, please have his case briefly stated to me and donot let him be executed meantime. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS, WASHINGTON, January 9, 1865. 

TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: I transmit to Congress acopy of two treaties between the United States and Belgium, for theextinguishment of the Scheldt dues, etc. , concluded on the twentieth ofMay, 1863, and twentieth of July, 1863, respectively, the ratifications ofwhich were exchanged at Brussels on the twenty-fourth of June last; andI recommend an appropriation to carry into effect the provisions thereofrelative to the payment of the proportion of the United States toward thecapitalization of the said dues. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO SCHUYLER COLFAX. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 9, 1865. 

HON. SCHUYLER COLFAX, Speaker of the House of Representatives. 

SIR:--I transmit herewith the letter of the Secretary of War, withaccompanying report of the Adjutant-General, in reply to the resolutionof the House of Representatives, dated December 7, 1864, requesting me"to communicate to the House the report made by Col. Thomas M. Key of aninterview between himself and General Howell Cobb on the fourteenth [15th]day of June, 1862, on the banks of the Chickahominy, on the subject of theexchange of prisoners of war. "

I am, sir, very respectfully, your obedient servant, A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION CONCERNING COMMERCE, JANUARY 10, 1865. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas the act of Congress of the twenty-eighth of September, 1850, entitled "An act to create additional collection districts in the Stateof California, and to change the existing districts therein, and tomodify the existing collection districts in the United States, " extends tomerchandise warehoused under bond the privilege of being exported tothe British North American provinces adjoining the United States, in themanner prescribed in the act of Congress of the third of March, 1845, which designates certain frontier ports through which merchandise maybe exported, and further provides "that such other ports situated onthe frontiers of the United States, adjoining the British North Americanprovinces, as may hereafter be found expedient, may have extended tothem the like privileges on the recommendation of the Secretary of theTreasury, and proclamation duly made by the President of the UnitedStates, specially designating the ports to which the aforesaid privilegesare to be extended;"

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States ofAmerica, in accordance with the recommendation of the Secretary of theTreasury, do hereby declare and proclaim that the port of St. Albans, inthe State of Vermont, is, and shall be, entitled to all the privilegesin regard to the exportation of merchandise in bond to the British NorthAmerican provinces adjoining the United States, which are extended tothe ports enumerated in the seventh section of the act of Congress ofthe third of March, 1845, aforesaid, from and after the date of thisproclamation. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this tenth day of January, in the yearof our Lord one thousand eight hundred-and sixty-five, and of theindependence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL B. F. BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 10, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Fort Monroe, Va. :

No principal report of yours on the Wilmington expedition has ever reachedthe War Department, as I am informed there. A preliminary report did reachhere, but was returned to General Grant at his request. Of course, leaveto publish cannot be given without inspection of the paper, and not thenif it should be deemed to be detrimental to the public service. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL B. F. BUTLER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 13, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL BUTLER, Fort Monroe, Va. :

Yours asking leave to come to Washington is received. You have beensummoned by the Committee on the Conduct of the War to attend here, which, of course, you will do. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 15, 1865. 

GOVERNOR JOHNSON, Nashville, Tennessee:

Yours announcing ordinance of emancipation received. Thanks to theconvention and to you. When do you expect to be here? Would be glad tohave your suggestion as to supplying your place of military governor. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. M. DODGE. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January15, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL DODGE, St. Louis, Missouri:

It is represented to me that there is so much irregular violence innorthern Missouri as to be driving away the people and almost depopulatingit. Please gather information, and consider whether an appeal to thepeople there to go to their homes and let one another alone recognizing asa full right of protection for each that he lets others alone, and banningonly him who refuses to let others alone may not enable you to withdrawthe troops, their presence itself [being] a cause of irritation andconstant apprehension, and thus restore peace and quiet, and returningprosperity. Please consider this and telegraph or write me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

FIRST OVERTURES FOR SURRENDER FROM DAVIS

TO P. P. BLAIR, SR. 

WASHINGTON, January 18, 1865. 

F. P. BLAIR, ESQ. 

SIR:-You having shown me Mr. Davis's letter to you of the twelfthinstant, you may say to him that I have constantly been, am now, and shallcontinue, ready to receive any agent whom he or any other influentialperson now resisting the national authority may informally send to me withthe view of securing peace to the people of our one common country. 

Yours, etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 19, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

Please read and answer this letter as though I was not President, butonly a friend. My son, now in his twenty-second year, having graduated atHarvard, wishes to see something of the war before it ends. I do not wishto put him in the ranks, nor yet to give him a commission, to which thosewho have already served long are better entitled and better qualified tohold. Could he, without embarrassment to you, or detriment to the service, go into your military family with some nominal rank, I, and not thepublic, furnishing his necessary means? If no, say so without the leasthesitation, because I am as anxious and as deeply interested that youshall not be encumbered as you can be yourself. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DODGE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 19, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL DODGE, Saint Louis, Mo. :

If Mrs. Beattie, alias Mrs. Wolff, shall be sentenced to death, notify me, and postpone the execution till further order. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL ORD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 19, 1864

MAJOR-GENERAL ORD:

You have a man in arrest for desertion passing by the name of Stanley. William Stanley, I think, but whose real name is different. He is the sonof so close a friend of mine that I must not let him be executed. Pleaselet me know what is his present and prospective condition. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. M. DODGE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 24, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL DODGE, St. Louis, Mo. :

It is said an old lady in Clay County, Missouri, by name Mrs. WinifredB. Price, is about being sent South. If she is not misbehaving let herremain. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GOVERNOR JOHNSON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 24, 1865. 

HON. ANDREW JOHNSON, Nashville, Tennessee:

Several members of the Cabinet, with myself, considered the question, to-day, as to the time of your coming on here. While we fully appreciateyour wish to remain in Tennessee until her State government shall becompletely reinaugurated, it is our unanimous conclusion that it is unsafefor you to not be here on the 4th of March. Be sure to reach here by thattime. 

A. LINCOLN. 

REPLY TO A COMMITTEE, JANUARY 24, 1865. 

REVEREND SIR, AND LADIES AND GENTLEMEN:

I accept with emotions of profoundest gratitude, the beautiful gift youhave been pleased to present to me. You will, of course, expect that Iacknowledge it. So much has been said about Gettysburg and so well, thatfor me to attempt to say more may perhaps only serve to weaken the forceof that which has already been said. A most graceful and eloquent tributewas paid to the patriotism and self-denying labors of the Americanladies, on the occasion of the consecration of the National Cemetery atGettysburg, by our illustrious friend, Edward Everett, now, alas! departedfrom earth. His life was a truly great one, and I think the greatest partof it was that which crowned its closing years, I wish you to read, if youhave not already done so, the eloquent and truthful words which he thenspoke of the women of America. Truly, the services they have rendered tothe defenders of our country in this perilous time, and are yet rendering, can never be estimated as they ought to be. For your kind wishes to mepersonally, I beg leave to render you likewise my sincerest thanks. Iassure you they are reciprocated. And now, gentlemen and ladies, may Godbless you all. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 25, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point

If Newell W. Root, of First Connecticut Heavy Artillery, is under sentenceof death, please telegraph me briefly the circumstances. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL GRANT. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 25, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

Having received the report in the case of Newell W. Root, I do notinterfere further in the case. 

A. LINCOLN. 

EARLY CONSULTATIONS WITH REBELS

INSTRUCTIONS TO MAJOR ECKERT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 30, 1865. 

MAJOR T. T. ECKERT. 

SIR:-You will proceed with the documents placed in your hands, and onreaching General Ord will deliver him the letter addressed to him by theSecretary of War. Then, by General Ord's assistance procure an interviewwith Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, or any of them, deliver tohim or them the paper on which your own letter is written. Note on thecopy which you retain the time of delivery and to whom delivered. Receivetheir answer in writing, waiting a reasonable time for it, and which, ifit contain their decision to come through without further condition, willbe your warrant to ask General Ord to pass them through as directed in theletter of the Secretary of War to him. If by their answer they declineto come, or propose other terms, do not have them pass through. And thisbeing your whole duty, return and report to me. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM FROM SECRETARY OF WAR TO GENERAL ORD. 

(Cipher. )

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 30, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ORD, Headquarters Army of the James:

By direction of the President you are instructed to inform the threegentlemen, Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, that a messenger willbe dispatched to them at or near where they now are, without unnecessarydelay. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

INDORSEMENT ON A LETTER FROM J. M. ASHLEY. 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, January 31, 1865. 

DEAR SIR:--The report is in circulation in the House that PeaceCommissioners are on their way or in the city, and is being used againstus. If it is true, I fear we shall lose the bill. Please authorize me tocontradict it, if it is not true. 

Respectfully, J. M. ASHLEY. 

To the President. 

(Indorsement. )

So far as I know there are no Peace Commissioners in the city or likely tobe in it. 

A. LINCOLN. January 31, 1865

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 31, 1865

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

A messenger is coming to you on the business contained in your despatch. Detain the gentlemen in comfortable quarters until he arrives, and thenact upon the message he brings, as far as applicable, it having beenmade up to pass through General Ord's hands, and when the gentlemen weresupposed to be beyond our lines. 

A. LINCOLN. 

INSTRUCTIONS TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 31, 1865. 

HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State

You will proceed to Fortress Monroe, Virginia, there to meet andinformally confer with Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, on thebasis of my letter to F. P. Blair, Esq. , of January 18, 1865, a copyof which you have. You will make known to them that three things areindispensable to wit:

1. The restoration of the national authority throughout all the States. 

2. No receding by the Executive of the United States on the slaveryquestion from the position assumed thereon in the late annual message toCongress, and in preceding documents. 

3. No cessation of hostilities short of an end of the war and thedisbanding of all forces hostile to the Government. 

You will inform them that all propositions of theirs, not inconsistentwith the above, will be considered and passed upon in a spirit of sincereliberality. You will hear all they may choose to say and report it to me. You will not assume to definitely consummate anything. 

Yours, etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR THE ABOLISHING OF SLAVERY

PASSAGE THROUGH CONGRESS OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT FOR THEABOLISHING OF SLAVERY

RESPONSE TO A SERENADE, JANUARY 31, 1865. 

He supposed the passage through Congress of the Constitutional amendmentfor the abolishing of slavery throughout the United States was theoccasion to which he was indebted for the honor of this call. 

The occasion was one of congratulation to the country, and to the wholeworld. But there is a task yet before us--to go forward and consummate bythe votes of the States that which Congress so nobly began yesterday. Hehad the honor to inform those present that Illinois had already done thework. Maryland was about half through, but he felt proud that Illinois wasa little ahead. 

He thought this measure was a very fitting if not an indispensable adjunctto the winding up of the great difficulty. He wished the reunion ofall the States perfected, and so effected as to remove all causes ofdisturbance in the future; and, to attain this end, it was necessarythat the original disturbing cause should, if possible, be rooted out. Hethought all would bear him witness that he had never shirked from doingall that he could to eradicate slavery, by issuing an EmancipationProclamation. But that proclamation falls short of what the amendmentwill be when fully consummated. A question might be raised whether theproclamation was legally valid. It might be added, that it only aidedthose who came into our lines, and that it was inoperative as to thosewho did not give themselves up; or that it would have no effect upon thechildren of the slaves born hereafter; in fact, it would be urged that itdid not meet the evil. But this amendment is a king's cure for all evils. It winds the whole thing up. He would repeat, that it was the fitting ifnot the indispensable adjunct to the consummation of the great game we areplaying. He could not but congratulate all present--himself, the country, and the whole world upon this great moral victory. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, February 1, 1865

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point:

Let nothing which is transpiring change, hinder, or delay your militarymovements or plans. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MAJOR ECKERT. WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 1, 1865. 

MAJOR T. T. ECKERT, Care of General Grant, City Point, Va. :

Call at Fortress Monroe, and put yourself under direction of Mr. Seward, whom you will find there. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 2, 1865

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

Say to the gentlemen I will meet them personally at Fortress Monroe assoon as I can get there. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY SEWARD, WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 2, 1865. 

HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Fortress Monroe, Va. 

Induced by a despatch of General Grant, I join you at Fort Monroe, as soonas I can come. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ORDER TO MAKE CORRECTIONS IN THE DRAFT. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON CITY, February 6, 1865

Whereas complaints are made in some localities respecting the assignmentsof quotas and credits allowed for the pending call of troops to fillup the armies: Now, in order to determine all controversies in respectthereto, and to avoid any delay in filling up the armies, it is ordered, 1. That the Attorney-General, Brigadier-General Richard Delafield, andColonel C. W. Foster, be, and they are hereby constituted, a board toexamine into the proper quotas and credits of the respective States anddistricts under the call of December 19, 1864, with directions, if anyerrors be found therein, to make such corrections as the law and facts mayrequire, and report their determination to the Provost-Marshal-General. The determination of said board to be final and conclusive, and the draftto be made in conformity therewith. 

2. The Provost-Marshal-General is ordered to make the draft in therespective districts as speedily as the same can be done after thefifteenth of this month. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO PROVOST-MARSHAL-GENERAL. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 6, 1865. 

PROVOST-MARSHAL-GENERAL:

These gentlemen distinctly say to me this morning that what they want isthe means from your office of showing their people that the quota assignedto them is right. They think it will take but little time--two hours, theysay. Please give there double the time and every facility you can. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

February 6, 1865. 

The Provost-Marshal brings this letter back to me and says he cannot givethe facility required without detriment to the service, and thereupon heis excused from doing it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GLENN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 7, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-COLONEL GLENN, Commanding Post at Henderson, Ky. :

Complaint is made to me that you are forcing negroes into the militaryservice, and even torturing them--riding them on rails and the like toextort their consent. I hope this may be a mistake. The like must not bedone by you, or any one under you. You must not force negroes any morethan white men. Answer me on this. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GOVERNOR SMITH. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 8, 1865. 

HIS EXCELLENCY GOVERNOR SMITH, of Vermont:

Complaint is made to me, by Vermont, that the assignment of her quota forthe draft on the pending call is intrinsically unjust, and also inbad faith of the Government's promise to fairly allow credits for menpreviously furnished. To illustrate, a supposed case is stated as follows:

Vermont and New Hampshire must between them furnish six thousand men onthe pending call; and being equal, each must furnish as many as the otherin the long run. But the Government finds that on former calls Vermontfurnished a surplus of five hundred, and New Hampshire a surplus, offifteen hundred. These two surpluses making two thousand and added to thesix thousand, making eight thousand to be furnished by the two States, orfour thousand each less, by fair credits. Then subtract Vermont's surplusof five hundred from her four thousand, leaves three thousand five hundredas her quota on the pending call; and likewise subtract New Hampshire'ssurplus of fifteen hundred from her four thousand, leaves two thousandfive hundred as her quota on the pending call. These three thousand fivehundred and two thousand five hundred make precisely six thousand, whichthe supposed case requires from the two States, and it is just equal forVermont to furnish one thousand more now than New Hampshire, because NewHampshire has heretofore furnished one thousand more than Vermont, whichequalizes the burdens of the two in the long run. And this result, so farfrom being bad faith to Vermont, is indispensable to keeping good faithwith New Hampshire. By no other result can the six thousand men beobtained from the two States, and, at the same time deal justly andkeep faith with both, and we do but confuse ourselves in questioning theprocess by which the right result is reached. The supposed case is perfectas an illustration. 

The pending call is not for three hundred thousand men subject to faircredits, but is for three hundred thousand remaining after all faircredits have been deducted, and it is impossible to concede what Vermontasks without coming out short of three hundred thousand men, or makingother localities pay for the partiality shown her. 

This upon the case stated. If there be different reasons for making anallowance to Vermont, let them be presented and considered. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO CONGRESS. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 8, 1865. 

TO THE HONORABLE THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

The joint resolution entitled "Joint resolution declaring certain Statesnot entitled to representation in the electoral college" has been signedby the Executive in deference to the view of Congress implied in itspassage and presentation to him. In his own view, however, the two Housesof Congress, convened under the twelfth article of the Constitution, havecomplete power to exclude from counting all electoral votes deemed bythem to be illegal, and it is not competent for the Executive to defeat orobstruct that power by a veto, as would be the case if his action were atall essential in the matter. He disclaims all right of the Executive tointerfere in any way in the matter of canvassing or counting electoralvotes, and he also disclaims that by signing said resolution he hasexpressed any opinion on the recitals of the preamble or any judgment ofhis own upon the subject of the resolution. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February8, 1865

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point. Va. :

I am called on by the House of Representatives to give an account of myinterview with Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, and it is verydesirable to me to put your despatch of February 1, to the Secretary ofWar, in which, among other things, you say: "I fear now their goingback without any expression from any one in authority will have a badinfluence. " I think the despatch does you credit, while I do not see thatit can embarrass you. May I use it?

A. LINCOLN. 

RESULT OF THE ELECTORAL COUNT

REPLY TO A COMMITTEE OF CONGRESS, REPORTING THE RESULT OF THE ELECTORALCOUNT, FEBRUARY 9, 1865. 

With deep gratitude to my countrymen for this mark of their confidence;with a distrust of my own ability to perform the duty required underthe most favorable circumstances, and now rendered doubly difficult byexisting national perils; yet with a firm reliance on the strength ofour free government, and the eventual loyalty of the people to the justprinciples upon which it is founded, and above all with an unshakenfaith in the Supreme Ruler of nations, I accept this trust. Be pleased tosignify this to the respective Houses of Congress. 

CHRONOLOGIC REVIEW OF PEACE PROPOSALS

MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 10, 1865

TO THE HONORABLE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:

In response to your resolution of the eighth instant, requestinginformation in relation to a conference recently held in Hampton Roads, I have the honor to state that on the day of the date I gave Francis P. Blair, Sr. , a card, written on as follows, to wit:

December 28, 1864. 

Allow the bearer, F. P. Blair, Sr. , to pass our lines, go South, andreturn. 

A. LINCOLN. 

That at the time I was informed that Mr. Blair sought the card as a meansof getting to Richmond, Va. , but he was given no authority to speak or actfor the Government, nor was I informed of anything he would say or do onhis own account or otherwise. Afterwards Mr. Blair told me that he hadbeen to Richmond and had seen Mr. Jefferson Davis; and he (Mr. B. ) at thesame time left with me a manuscript letter, as follows, to wit:

RICHMOND, VA. , January 12, 1865. F. P. BLAIR, ESQ. 

SIR: I have deemed it proper, and probably desirable to you, to give youin this for in the substance of remarks made by me, to be repeated by youto President Lincoln, etc. , etc. 

I have no disposition to find obstacles in forms, and am willing, now asheretofore, to enter into negotiations for the restoration of peace, andam ready to send a commission whenever I have reason to suppose it will bereceived, or to receive a commission if the United States Governmentshall choose to send one. That notwithstanding the rejection of our formeroffers, I would, if you could promise that a commissioner, minister, orother agent would be received, appoint one immediately, and renew theeffort to enter into conference with a view to secure peace to the twocountries. 

Yours, etc. , JEFFERSON DAVIS. 

Afterwards, and with the view that it should be shown to Mr. Davis, Iwrote and delivered to Mr. Blair a letter, as follows, to wit:

WASHINGTON, January 18, 1865. 

P. P. BLAIR, ESQ. 

SIR:--Your having shown me Mr. Davis's letter to you of the twelfthinstant, you may say to him that I have constantly been, am now, andshall continue ready to receive any agent whom he or any other influentialperson now resisting the national authority may informally send to me withthe view of securing peace to the people of our one common country. 

Yours, etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

Afterwards Mr. Blair dictated for and authorized me to make an entry onthe back of my retained copy of the letter last above recited, which entryis as follows:

January 28, 1865

To-day Mr. Blair tells me that on the twenty-first instant he deliveredto Mr. Davis the original of which the within is a copy, and left it withhim; that at the time of delivering it Mr. Davis read it over twice in Mr. Blair's presence, at the close of which he (Mr. Blair) remarked that thepart about "our one common country" related to the part of Mr. Davis'letter about "the two countries, " to which Mr. Davis replied that he sounderstood it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Afterwards the Secretary of War placed in my hands the following telegram, indorsed by him, as appears:

OFFICE UNITED STATES MILITARY TELEGRAPH WAR DEPARTMENT. The followingtelegram received at Washington January 29, 1865, from headquarters Armyof James, 6. 30 P. M. , January 29, 1865:

"HON. EDWIN M. STANTON, " Secretary of War:

"The following despatch just received from Major-General Parke, who refersit to me for my action. I refer it to you in Lieutenant-General Grant'sabsence:

 "E. O. C. ORD, Major-General, Commanding. HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF POTOMAC, January 29, 1863. 4 P. M. "

 'MAJOR-GENERAL E. O. C. ORD, 'Headquarters Army of James: 'The following despatch is forwarded to you for your action. Since I have no knowledge of General Grant's having had any understanding of this kind, I refer the matter to you as the ranking officer present in the two armies. 'JNO. G. PARKE, Major-General, Commanding. '

 "'FROM HEADQUARTERS NINTH ARMY Cos, 29th. 'MAJOR-GENERAL JNO. G. PARKE, 'Headquarters Army of Potomac: 'Alexander H. Stephens, R. M. T. Hunter, and J. A. Campbell desire to cross my lines, in accordance with an understanding claimed to exist with Lieutenant-General Grant, on their way to Washington as peace commissioners. Shall they be admitted? They desire an early answer, to come through immediately. Would like to reach City Point tonight if they can. If they can not do this, they would like to come through at 10 A. M. To-morrow morning. 'O. B. WILCOX, 'Major-General, Commanding Ninth Corps. '

 "January 29, 8. 30 P. M. "Respectfully referred to the President for such instructions as he may be pleased to give. "EDWIN M. STANTON, "Secretary of War. "

It appears that about the time of placing the foregoing telegram in myhands the Secretary of War dispatched General Ord as follows, to wit:

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON CITY, January 29, 1865. 10 P. M. (Sent at 2A. M. , 30th. ) MAJOR-GENERAL ORD. 

SIR:--This Department has no knowledge of any understanding by GeneralGrant to allow any person to come within his lines as commissioner of anysort. You will therefore allow no one to come into your lines under suchcharacter or profession until you receive the President's instructions, towhom your telegraph will be submitted for his directions. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

Afterwards, by my direction, the Secretary of War telegraphed General Ordas follows, to wit:

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 30. 10. 30 A. M. 

MAJOR-GENERAL E. O. C. ORD, Headquarters Army of the James. 

SIR:--By direction of the President, you are instructed to inform thethree gentlemen, Messrs. Stephens, Hunter and Campbell, that a messengerwill be dispatched to them at or near where they now are withoutunnecessary delay. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

Afterwards I prepared and put into the hands of Major Thomas T. Eckert thefollowing instructions and message:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, MAJOR T. T. ECKERT. WASHINGTON, January 30, 1865

SIR:--You will proceed with the documents placed in your hands, and onreaching General Ord will deliver him the letter addressed to him by theSecretary of War; then, by General Ord's assistance, procure an interviewwith Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, or any of them. Deliver tohim or them the paper on which your own letter is written. Note on thecopy which you retain the time of delivery and to whom delivered. Receivetheir answer in writing, waiting a reasonable time for it, and which, ifit contain their decision to come through without further condition, willbe your warrant to ask General Ord to pass them through, as directed inthe letter of the Secretary of War to him. If by their answer they declineto come, or propose other terms, do not have them pass through. And thisbeing your whole duty, return and report to me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

CITY POINT, VA. . February 1, 1865. 

MESSRS. ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, J. A. CAMPBELL AND R. M. T. HUNTER. 

GENTLEMEN:--I am instructed by the President of the United States to placethis paper in your hands, with the information that if you pass throughthe United States military lines it will be understood that you do so forthe purpose of an informal conference on the basis of the letter a copy ofwhich is on the reverse side of this sheet, and that if you choose to passon such understanding, and so notify me in writing, I will procure thecommanding general to pass you through the lines and to Fortress Monroeunder such military precautions as he may deem prudent, and at which placeyou will be met in due time by some person or persons for the purpose ofsuch informal conference; and, further, that you shall have protection, safe conduct, and safe return in all events. 

THOMAS T. ECKERT, Major and Aide-de-Camp. 

WASHINGTON, January 18, 1865. F. P. BLAIR, ESQ. 

SIR:--Your having shown me Mr. Davis's letter to you of the twelfthinstant, you may say to him that I have constantly been, am now, andshall continue ready to receive any agent whom he or any other influentialperson now resisting the national authority may informally send to me withthe view of securing peace to the people of our one common country. 

Yours, etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

Afterwards, but before Major Eckert had departed, the following dispatchwas received from General Grant:

OFFICE UNITED STATES MILITARY TELEGRAPH, WAR DEPARTMENT. 

The following telegram received at Washington January 30, 1865, from CityPoint, Va. , 10. 30 A. M. , January 30, 1865:

 "His EXCELLENCY A. LINCOLN, President of the United States:

 "The following communication was received here last evening:

 "'PETERSBURG, VA. , January 30, 1865. 'LIEUTENANT-GENERAL U. S. GRANT, Commanding Armies United States. 'SIR: We desire to pass your lines under safe conduct, and to proceed to Washington to hold a conference with President Lincoln upon the subject of the existing war, and with a view of ascertaining upon what terms it may be terminated, in pursuance of the course indicated by him in his letter to Mr. Blair of January 18, 1865, of which we presume you have a copy; and if not, we wish to see you in person, if convenient, and to confer with you upon the subject. 'Very respectfully, yours, 'ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. 'J. A. CAMPBELL. 'R. M. T. HUNTER. '"

"I have sent directions to receive these gentlemen, and expect to havethem at my quarters this evening, awaiting your instructions. U. S. GRANT, Lieutenant-General, Commanding Armies United States. "

This, it will be perceived, transferred General Ord's agency in the matterto General Grant. I resolved, however, to send Major Eckert forward withhis message, and accordingly telegraphed General Grant as follows, to wit:

EXECUTIVE MANSION WASHINGTON, January 13, 1865 (Sent at 1. 30 P. M. )

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

A messenger is coming to you on the business contained in your despatch. Detain the gentlemen in comfortable quarters until he arrives, and thenact upon the message he brings as far as applicable, it having beenmade up to pass through General Ord's hands, and when the gentlemen weresupposed to be beyond our lines. 

A. LINCOLN. 

When Major Eckert departed, he bore with him a letter of the Secretary ofWar to General Grant, as follows, to wit:

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , January 30, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, Commanding, etc. 

GENERAL:--The President desires that you will please procure for thebearer, Major Thomas T. Eckert, an interview with Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, and if on his return to you he requests it pass themthrough our lines to Fortress Monroe by such route and under suchmilitary precautions as you may deem prudent, giving them protection andcomfortable quarters while there, and that you let none of this have anyeffect upon your movements or plans. 

By order of the President: EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

Supposing the proper point to be then reached, I dispatched the Secretaryof State with the following instructions, Major Eckert, however, goingahead of him:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, January 31, 1865. 

HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State:

You will proceed to Fortress Monroe, Va. , there to meet and informallyconfer with Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell on the basis of myletter to F. P. Blair, Esq. , of January 18, 1865, a copy of which youhave. 

You will make known to them that three things are indispensable, to Wit:

1. The restoration of the national authority throughout all the States. 

2. No receding by the Executive of the United States on the slaveryquestion from the position assumed thereon in the late annual message toCongress and in preceding documents. 

3. No cessation of hostilities short of an end of the war and thedisbanding of all forces hostile to the Government. 

You will inform them that all propositions of theirs not inconsistentwith the above will be considered and passed upon in a spirit of sincereliberality. You will hear all they may choose to say and report it to me. 

You will not assume to definitely consummate anything. 

Yours, etc. , A. LINCOLN. 

On the day of its date the following telegram was sent to General Grant:

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 1, 1865 (Sent at 9. 30 A. M. )

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

Let nothing which is transpiring change, hinder, or delay your militarymovements or plans. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Afterwards the following despatch was received from General Grant:

OFFICE UNITED STATES MILITARY TELEGRAPH WAR DEPARTMENT. The followingtelegram received at Washington, 2. 30 P. M. , February 1, 1865, from CityPoint, Va. , February 1, 12. 30 PM. , 1865:

"His EXCELLENCY A. LINCOLN, President United States:

"Your despatch received. There will be no armistice in consequence of thepresence of Mr. Stephens and others within our lines. The troops are keptin readiness to move at the shortest notice if occasion should justify it. 

"U. S. GRANT, Lieutenant-General. "

To notify Major Eckert that the Secretary of State would be at FortressMonroe, and to put them in communication, the following despatch was sent:

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 1, 1865. 

MAJOR T. T. ECKERT, Care of General Grant, City Point, Va. :

Call at Fortress Monroe and put yourself under direction of Mr. S. , whomyou will find there. 

A. LINCOLN. 

On the morning of the 2d instant the following telegrams were received byme respectively from the Secretary of State and Major Eckert:

FORT MONROE, VA. , February 1, 1865. 11. 30 PM. 

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:

Arrived at 10 this evening. Richmond party not here. I remain here. 

WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

CITY POINT, VA. , February 1, 1865. 10 P. M. 

HIS EXCELLENCY A. LINCOLN, President of the United States: I have thehonor to report the delivery of your communication and my letter at4. 15 this afternoon, to which I received a reply at 6 P. M. , but notsatisfactory. 

At 8 P. M. The following note, addressed to General Grant, was received:

CITY POINT, VA. , February 1, 1865

"LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT. 

"SIR:--We desire to go to Washington City to confer informally with thePresident personally in reference to the matters mentioned in his letterto Mr. Blair of the 18th January ultimo, without any personal compromiseon any question in the letter. We have the permission to do so from theauthorities in Richmond. 

Very respectfully yours, ALEX. H. STEPHENS R. M. T. HUNTER. J. A. CAMPBELL. "

At 9. 30 P. M. I notified them that they could not proceed further unlessthey complied with the terms expressed in my letter. The point of meetingdesignated in the above note would not, in my opinion, be insistedupon. Think Fort Monroe would be acceptable. Having complied with myinstructions, I will return to Washington to-morrow unless otherwiseordered. 

THOS. T. ECKERT, Major, etc. 

On reading this despatch of Major Eckert I was about to recall him and theSecretary of State, when the following telegram of General Grant to theSecretary of War was shown me:

OFFICE UNITED STATES MILITARY TELEGRAPH, WAR DEPARTMENT. 

The following telegram received at Washington 4. 35 A. M. , February 2, 1865, from City Point, Va. , February 1, 10. 30 P. M. , 1865:

"HON. EDWIN M. STANTON, "Secretary of War:

"Now that the interview between Major Eckert, under his writteninstructions, and Mr. Stephens and party has ended, I will stateconfidentially, but not officially to become a matter of record, that Iam convinced upon conversation with Messrs. Stephens and Hunter that theirintentions are good and their desire sincere to restore peace and union. I have not felt myself at liberty to express even views of my own or toaccount for my reticency. This has placed me in an awkward position, whichI could have avoided by not seeing them in the first instance. I fear nowtheir going back without any expression from anyone in authority will havea bad influence. At the same time, I recognize the difficulties in the wayof receiving these informal commissioners at this time, and do not knowwhat to recommend. I am sorry, however, that Mr. Lincoln can not have aninterview with the two named in this despatch, if not all three now withinour lines. Their letter to me was all that the President's instructionscontemplated to secure their safe conduct if they had used the samelanguage to Major Eckert. 

"U. S. GRANT "Lieutenant-General. "

This despatch of General Grant changed my purpose, and accordingly Itelegraphed him and the Secretary of State, respectively, as follows:

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 2, 1865. (Sent at 9 A. M. )

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

Say to the gentlemen I will meet them personally at Fortress Monroe assoon as I can get there. 

A. LINCOLN. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 2, 1865. (Sent at 9 A. M. )

HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Fortress Monroe, Va. :

Induced by a despatch from General Grant, I join you at Fort Monroe assoon as I can come. 

A. LINCOLN. 

Before starting, the following despatch was shown me. I proceeded, nevertheless:

OFFICE UNITED STATES MILITARY TELEGRAPH, WAR DEPARTMENT. 

The following telegram received at Washington, February 2, 1865, from CityPoint, Va. , 9 A. M. , February 2, 1865:

"HON. WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Fort Monroe:

"The gentlemen here have accepted the proposed terms, and will leave forFort Monroe at 9. 30 A. M. 

"U. S. GRANT, Lieutenant-General. "

(Copy to HON. Edwin M. Stanton, Secretary of War, Washington. )

On the night of the 2nd I reached Hampton Roads, found the Secretary ofState and Major Eckert on a steamer anchored offshore, and learned ofthem that the Richmond gentlemen were on another steamer also anchoredoffshore, in the Roads, and that the Secretary of State had not yet seenor communicated with them. I ascertained that Major Eckert had literallycomplied with his instructions, and I saw for the first time the answer ofthe Richmond gentlemen to him, which in his despatch to me of the 1st hecharacterizes as "not satisfactory. " That answer is as follows, to wit:

CITY POINT, VA. , February 1, 1865. THOMAS T. ECKERT, Major andAid-de-Camp. MAJOR:-Your note, delivered by yourself this day, has beenconsidered. In reply we have to say that we were furnished with a copy ofthe letter of President Lincoln to Francis P. Blair, Esq. , of the 18thof January ultimo, another copy of which is appended to your note. Ourinstructions are contained in a letter of which the following is a copy:

"RICHMOND, January 28, 1865. "In conformity with the letter of Mr. Lincoln, of which the foregoing is a copy, you are to proceed toWashington City for informal conference with him upon the issues involvedin the existing war, and for the purpose of securing peace to the twocountries. "With great respect, your obedient servant, "JEFFERSON DAVIS. "

The substantial object to be obtained by the informal conference is toascertain upon what terms the existing war can be terminated honorably. 

Our instructions contemplate a personal interview between PresidentLincoln and ourselves at Washington City, but with this explanation we areready to meet any person or persons that President Lincoln may appoint atsuch place as he may designate. 

Our earnest desire is that a just and honorable peace may be agreedupon, and we are prepared to receive or to submit propositions which maypossibly lead to the attainment of that end. 

Very respectfully, yours, ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS. R. M. T. HUNTER. JOHN A. CAMPBELL. 

A note of these gentlemen, subsequently addressed to General Grant, hasalready been given in Major Eckert's despatch of the 1st instant. 

I also here saw, for the first time, the following note, addressed by theRichmond gentlemen to Major Eckert:

CITY POINT, VA. , February 2, 1865. THOMAS T. ECKERT, Major andAid-de-Camp. MAJOR:--In reply to your verbal statement that yourinstructions did not allow you to alter the conditions upon which apassport could be given to us, we say that we are willing to proceed toFortress Monroe and there to have an informal conference with any personor persons that President Lincoln may appoint on the basis of his letterto Francis P. Blair of the 18th of January ultimo, or upon any other termsor conditions that he may hereafter propose not inconsistent with theessential principles of self-government and popular rights, upon which ourinstitutions are founded. 

It is our earnest wish to ascertain, after a free interchange of ideas andinformation, upon what principles and terms, if any, a just and honorablepeace can be established without the further effusion of blood, and tocontribute our utmost efforts to accomplish such a result. 

We think it better to add that in accepting your passport we are not tobe understood as committing ourselves to anything but to carry to thisinformal conference the views and feelings above expressed. 

Very respectfully, yours, etc. , ALEXANDER H. STEPHENS, J. A. CAMPBELL, R. M. T. HUNTER. 

Note. -The above communication was delivered to me at Fort Monroe at 4. 30P. M. February 2 by Lieutenant-Colonel Babcock, of General Grant's staff. 

THOMAS T. ECKERT Major and Aid-de-Camp. 

On the morning of the third the three gentlemen, Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell, came aboard of our steamer and had an interview with theSecretary of State and myself of several hours' duration. No questionof preliminaries to the meeting was then and there made or mentioned; noother person was present; no papers were exchanged or produced; and itwas in advance agreed that the conversation was to be informal andverbal merely. On our part the whole substance of the instructions to theSecretary of State hereinbefore recited was stated and insisted upon, andnothing was said inconsistent therewith; while by the other party it wasnot said that in any event or on any condition they ever would consentto reunion, and yet they equally omitted to declare that they never wouldconsent. They seemed to desire a postponement of that question and theadoption of some other course first, which, as some of them seemed toargue, might or might not lead to reunion, but which course we thoughtwould amount to an indefinite postponement. The conference ended withoutresult. 

The foregoing, containing, as is believed, all the information sought isrespectfully submitted. 

A. LINCOLN. 

MESSAGE TO THE SENATE. WASHINGTON, February 10, 1865

To THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:

In answer to the resolution of the Senate of the eighth instant, requesting information concerning recent conversations or communicationswith insurgents, under executive sanction, I transmit a report from theSecretary of State, to whom the resolution was referred. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO THE PRESIDENT:

The Secretary of State, to whom was referred a resolution of the Senateof the 8th instant, requesting "the President of the United States, if, inhis opinion, not incompatible with the public interests, to furnish to theSenate any information in his possession concerning recent conversationsor communications with certain rebels, said to have taken place underexecutive sanction, including communications with the rebel JeffersonDavis, and any correspondence relating thereto, " has the honor to reportthat the Senate may properly be referred to a special message of thePresident bearing upon the subject of the resolution, and transmitted tothe House this day. Appended to this report is a copy of an instructionwhich has been addressed to Charles Francis Adams, Esq. , envoyextraordinary and minister plenipotentiary of the United States at London, and which is the only correspondence found in this department touching thesubject referred to in the resolution. 

Respectfully submitted, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, February 10, 1865. 

MR. SEWARD TO MR. ADAMS. 

(Extract. ) No. 1258. 

DEPARTMENT OF STATE, WASHINGTON, February 7, 1865

On the morning of the 3d, the President, attended by the Secretary, received Messrs. Stephens, Hunter, and Campbell on board the UnitedStates steam transport River Queen in Hampton Roads. The conference wasaltogether informal. There was no attendance of secretaries, clerks, orother witnesses. Nothing was written or read. The conversation, althoughearnest and free, was calm, and courteous, and kind on both sides. TheRichmond party approached the discussion rather indirectly, and at no timedid they either make categorical demands, or tender formal stipulations orabsolute refusals. Nevertheless, during the conference, which lastedfour hours, the several points at issue between the Government and theinsurgents were distinctly raised, and discussed fully, intelligently, andin an amicable spirit. What the insurgent party seemed chiefly to favorwas a postponement of the question of separation, upon which the war iswaged, and a mutual direction of efforts of the Government, as well asthose of the insurgents, to some extrinsic policy or scheme for a seasonduring which passions might be expected to subside, and the armies bereduced, and trade and intercourse between the people of both sectionsresumed. It was suggested by them that through such postponement wemight now have immediate peace, with some not very certain prospect ofan ultimate satisfactory adjustment of political relations between thisGovernment and the States, section, or people now engaged in conflict withit. 

This suggestion, though deliberately considered, was nevertheless regardedby the President as one of armistice or truce, and he announced that wecan agree to no cessation or suspension of hostilities, except on thebasis of the disbandment of the insurgent forces, and the restorationof the national authority throughout all the States in the Union. Collaterally, and in subordination to the proposition which was thusannounced, the antislavery policy of the United States was reviewed in allits bearings, and the President announced that he must not be expected todepart from the positions he had heretofore assumed in his proclamationof emancipation and other documents, as these positions were reiterated inhis last annual message. It was further declared by the President thatthe complete restoration of the national authority was an indispensablecondition of any assent on our part to whatever form of peace might beproposed. The President assured the other party that, while he must adhereto these positions, he would be prepared, so far as power is lodged withthe Executive, to exercise liberality. His power, however, is limited bythe Constitution; and when peace should be made, Congress must necessarilyact in regard to appropriations of money and to the admission ofrepresentatives from the insurrectionary States. The Richmond partywere then informed that Congress had, on the 31st ultimo, adopted bya constitutional majority a joint resolution submitting to the severalStates the proposition to abolish slavery throughout the Union, and thatthere is every reason to expect that it will be soon accepted by threefourths of the States, so as to become a part of the national organic law. 

The conference came to an end by mutual acquiescence, without producingan agreement of views upon the several matters discussed, or any of them. Nevertheless, it is perhaps of some importance that we have been able tosubmit our opinions and views directly to prominent insurgents, and tohear them in answer in a courteous and not unfriendly manner. 

I am, sir, your obedient servant, WILLIAM H. SEWARD. 

TO ADMIRAL DAVID D. PORTER. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, February 10, 1865

REAR-ADMIRAL DAVID D. PORTER, Commanding North Atlantic Squadron, HamptonRoads, Va. 

SIR:--It is made my agreeable duty to enclose herewith the jointresolution approved 24th January, 1865, tendering the thanks of Congressto yourself, the officers and men under your command for their gallantryand good conduct in the capture of Fort Fisher, and through you to all whoparticipated in that brilliant and decisive victory under your command. 

Very respectfully, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL S. POPE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 12, 1865

MAJOR-GENERAL POPE, St. Louis, Missouri:

I understand that provost-marshals in different parts of Missouri areassuming to decide that the conditions of bonds are forfeited, andtherefore are seizing and selling property to pay damages. This, if true, is both outrageous and ridiculous. Do not allow it. The courts, andnot provost-marshals, are to decide such questions unless when militarynecessity makes an exception. Also excuse John Eaton, of Clay County, andWesley Martin, of Platte, from being sent South, and let them go East ifanywhere. 

A. LINCOLN

TO THE COMMANDING OFFICERS IN WEST TENNESSEE

WASHINGTON, February 13, 1865. 

TO THE MILITARY OFFICERS COMMANDING IN WEST TENNESSEE:

While I cannot order as within requested, allow me to say that it is mywish for you to relieve the people from all burdens, harassments, andoppressions, so far as is possible consistently with your militarynecessities; that the object of the war being to restore and maintainthe blessings of peace and good government, I desire you to help, and nothinder, every advance in that direction. 

Of your military necessities you must judge and execute, but please do soin the spirit and with the purpose above indicated. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. POPE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 14, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL POPE, St. Louis, Missouri:

Yours of yesterday about provost-marshal system received. As part ofthe same subject, let me say I am now pressed in regard to a pendingassessment in St. Louis County. Please examine and satisfy yourselfwhether this assessment should proceed or be abandoned; and if youdecide that it is to proceed, please examine as to the propriety of itsapplication to a gentleman by the name of Charles McLaran. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL POPE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON February 15, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL POPE, St. Louis, Missouri:

Please ascertain whether General Fisk's administration is as good as itmight be, and answer me. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION CONVENING THE SENATE IN EXTRA SESSION, FEBRUARY 17, 1865. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation

Whereas objects of interest to the United States require that the Senateshould be convened at twelve o'clock on the fourth of March next toreceive and act upon such communications as may be made to it on the partof the Executive;

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, haveconsidered it to be my duty to issue this, my proclamation, declaringthat an extraordinary occasion requires the Senate of the United Statesto convene for the transaction of business at the Capitol, in the city ofWashington, on the fourth day of March next, at twelve o'clock at noonon that day, of which all who shall at that time be entitled to act asmembers of that body are hereby required to take notice. 

Given under my hand and the seal of the United States, atWashington. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 

A. LINCOLN. By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

TELEGRAM TO OFFICER IN COMMAND AT HARPER'S FERRY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 17, 1865

OFFICER IN COMMAND AT HARPER'S FERRY:

Chaplain Fitzgibbon yesterday sent me a despatch invoking Clemency forJackson, Stewart, and Randall, who are to be shot to-day. The despatch isso vague that there is no means here of ascertaining whether or not theexecution of sentence of one or more of them may not already have beenordered. If not suspend execution of sentence m their cases until furtherorders and forward records of trials for examination. 

A. LINCOLN

MAJOR ECKERT: Please send above telegram JNO. G. NICOLAY. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 24, 1865

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Virginia:

I am in a little perplexity. I was induced to authorize a gentleman tobring Roger A. Pryor here with a view of effecting an exchange of him;but since then I have seen a despatch of yours showing that you speciallyobject to his exchange. Meantime he has reached here and reported tome. It is an ungracious thing for me to send him back to prison, and yetinadmissible for him to remain here long. Cannot you help me out with it?I can conceive that there may be difference to you in days, and I can keephim a few days to accommodate on that point. I have not heard of my son'sreaching you. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL POPE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, February 24, 1865

MAJOR-GENERAL POPE, Saint Louis, Mo. :

Please inquire and report to me whether there is any propriety of longerkeeping in Gratiott Street Prison a man said to be there by the name ofRiley Whiting. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, February 25, 1865

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Virginia:

General Sheridan's despatch to you, of to-day, in which he says he "willbe off on Monday, " and that he "will leave behind about two thousand men, "causes the Secretary of War and myself considerable anxiety. Have youwell considered whether you do not again leave open the Shenandoah Valleyentrance to Maryland and Pennsylvania, or, at least, to the Baltimore andOhio Railroad?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, D. C. , February 27, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Virginia:

Subsequent reflection, conference with General Halleck, your despatch, andone from General Sheridan, have relieved my anxiety; and so I beg that youwill dismiss any concern you may have on my account, in the matter of mylast despatch. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO T. W. CONWAY. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 1, 1865. 

MR. THOMAS W. CONWAY, General Superintendent Freedmen, Department of theGulf. 

SIR:--Your statement to Major-General Hurlbut of the condition of thefreedmen of your department, and of your success in the work of theirmoral and physical elevation, has reached me and given me much pleasure. 

That we shall be entirely successful in our efforts I firmly believe. 

The blessing of God and the efforts of good and faithful men will bring usan earlier and happier consummation than the most sanguine friends of thefreedmen could reasonably expect. 

Yours, A. LINCOLN, TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 2, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va. :

You have not sent contents of Richmond papers for Tuesday or Wednesday. Did you not receive them? If not, does it indicate anything?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM FROM SECRETARY STANTON TO GENERAL GRANT. 

WASHINGTON, March 3, 1865. 12 PM. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

The President directs me to say to you that he wishes you to have noconference with General Lee unless it be for the capitulation of GeneralLee's army, or on some minor and purely military matter. He instructs meto say that you are not to decide, discuss, or confer upon any politicalquestion. Such questions the President holds in his own hands, and willsubmit them to no military conferences or conventions. Meantime you are topress to the utmost your military advantages. 

EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War. 

SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS, MARCH 4, 1865. 

FELLOW-COUNTRYMEN:--At this second appearing to take the oath of thepresidential office there is less occasion for an extended address thanthere was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a courseto be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of fouryears, during which public declarations have been constantly called forthon every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs theattention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is newcould be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chieflydepends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for thefuture, no prediction in regard to it is ventured. 

On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts wereanxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all soughtto avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from thisplace, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgentagents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war seeking todissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both partiesdeprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nationsurvive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and thewar came. 

One eighth of the whole population was colored slaves, not distributedgenerally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. Theseslaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that thisinterest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, andextend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rendthe Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do morethan to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expectedfor the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with oreven before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easiertriumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read thesame Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against theother. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God'sassistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could notbe answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has Hisown purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needsbe that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh. " Ifwe shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continuedthrough His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives toboth North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whomthe offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divineattributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of warmay speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all thewealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequitedtoil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lashshall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousandyears ago, so still it must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are trueand righteous altogether. "

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the rightas God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work weare in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall haveborne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which mayachieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with allnations. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL JOHN POPE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 7, 1865

MAJOR-GENERAL POPE, St. Louis, Missouri:

Please state briefly, by telegraph, what you concluded about theassessments in St. Louis County. Early in the war one Samuel B. Churchillwas sent from St. Louis to Louisville, where I have quite satisfactoryevidence that he has not misbehaved. Still I am told his property at St. Louis is subjected to the assessment, which I think it ought not to be. Still I wish to know what you think. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 8, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, City Point, Va:

Your two despatches to the Secretary of War, one relating to supplies forthe enemy going by the Blackwater, and the other to General Singleton andJudge Hughes, have been laid before me by him. As to Singleton and Hughes, I think they are not in Richmond by any authority, unless it be from you. I remember nothing from me which could aid them in getting there, except aletter to you, as follows, to wit:

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON CITY, February 7, 1865. LIEUTENANT-GENERALGRANT, City Point, Va. : General Singleton, who bears you this, claims thathe already has arrangements made, if you consent, to bring a large amountof Southern produce through your lines. For its bearing on our finances, I would be glad for this to be done, if it can be, without injuriouslydisturbing your military operations, or supplying the enemy. I wish youto be judge and master on these points. Please see and hear him fully, and decide whether anything, and, if anything, what, can be done in thepremises. Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

I believe I gave Hughes a card putting him with Singleton on the sameletter. However this may be, I now authorize you to get Singleton andHughes away from Richmond, if you choose, and can. I also authorize you, by an order, or in what form you choose, to suspend all operations on theTreasury trade permits, in all places southeastward of the Alleghenies. If you make such order, notify me of it, giving a copy, so that I can givecorresponding direction to the Navy. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION OFFERING PARDON TO DESERTERS, MARCH 11, 1865

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

A Proclamation

Whereas, the twenty-first section of the act of Congress, approved on the3d instant, entitled "An Act to amend the several acts heretofore passedto provide for the enrolling and calling out the national forces and forother purposes, " requires that in addition to the other lawful penaltiesof the crime of desertion from the military or naval service, all personswho have deserted the military or naval service of the United States whoshall not return to said service or report themselves to a provost-marshalwithin sixty days after the proclamation hereinafter mentioned, shallbe deemed and taken to have voluntarily relinquished and forfeited theircitizenship and their right to become citizens, and such deserters shallbe forever incapable of holding any office of trust or profit under theUnited States, or of exercising any rights of citizens thereof; and allpersons who shall hereafter desert the military or naval service, and allpersons who, being duly enrolled, shall depart the jurisdiction of thedistrict in which they are enrolled, or go beyond the limits of the UnitedStates with intent to avoid any draft into the military or naval serviceduly ordered, shall be liable to the penalties of this section; and thePresident is hereby authorized and required forthwith, on the passage ofthis act, to issue his proclamation setting forth the provisions of thissection, in which proclamation the President is requested to notify alldeserters returning within sixty days as aforesaid that they shall bepardoned on condition of returning to their regiments and companies, or tosuch other organizations as they may be assigned to, until they shall haveserved for a period of time equal to their original term of enlistment:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States, do issue this my proclamation as required by said act, ordering and requiring all deserters to return to their proper posts; andI do hereby notify them that all deserters who shall within sixty daysfrom the date of this proclamation, viz. , on or before the 10th day ofMay, 1865, return to service or report themselves to a provost-marshal, shall be pardoned on condition that they return to their regiments orcompanies or to such other organization as they may be assigned to, andserve the remainder of their original terms of enlistment, and in additionthereto a period equal to the time lost by desertion. 

In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State

TELEGRAM TO H. T. BLOW. 

WASHINGTON, March 13, 1865. 

HON. HENRY T. BLOW, Saint Louis, Mo. :

A Miss E. Snodgrass, who was banished from Saint Louis in May, 1863, wishesto take the oath and return home. What say you?

A. LINCOLN. 

LETTER TO THURLOW WEED, MARCH 15, 1865. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, D. C. 

DEAR Mr. WEED:

Every one likes a compliment. Thank you for yours on my littlenotification speech and on the recent inaugural address. I expect thelatter to wear as well as perhaps better than--anything I have produced;but I believe it is not immediately popular. Men are not flattered bybeing shown that there has been a difference of purpose between theAlmighty and them. To deny it, however, in this case, is to deny thatthere is a God governing the world. It is a truth which I thought neededto be told, and, as whatever of humiliation there is in it falls mostdirectly on myself, I thought others might afford for me to tell it. 

Truly yours, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO COLONEL ROUGH AND OTHERS. 

WAR DEPARTMENT, WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 17, 1865. 

COL. R. M. ROUGH AND OTHERS, Chicago, Ill. :

Yours received. The best I can do with it is, to refer it to theWar Department. The Rock Island case referred to, was my individualenterprise; and it caused so much difficulty in so many ways that Ipromised to never undertake another. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ADDRESS TO AN INDIANA REGIMENT, MARCH 17, 1865. 

FELLOW-CITIZENS:--It will be but a very few words that I shall undertaketo say. I was born in Kentucky, raised in Indiana, and lived in Illinois;and now I am here, where it is my business to care equally for the goodpeople of all the States. I am glad to see an Indiana regiment on thisday able to present the captured flag to the Governor of Indiana. I am notdisposed, in saying this, to make a distinction between the States, forall have done equally well. 

There are but few views or aspects of this great war upon which I havenot said or written something whereby my own opinions might be known. But there is one--the recent attempt of our erring brethren, as they aresometimes called, to employ the negro to fight for them. I have neitherwritten nor made a speech on that subject, because that was theirbusiness, not mine, and if I had a wish on the subject, I had not thepower to introduce it, or make it effective. The great question with themwas whether the negro, being put into the army, will fight for them. I donot know, and therefore cannot decide. They ought to know better than me. I have in my lifetime heard many arguments why the negroes ought to beslaves; but if they fight for those who would keep them in slavery, itwill be a better argument than any I have yet heard. He who will fight forthat, ought to be a slave. They have concluded, at last, to take one outof four of the slaves and put them in the army, and that one out of thefour who will fight to keep the others in slavery, ought to be a slavehimself, unless he is killed in a fight. While I have often said that allmen ought to be free, yet would I allow those colored persons to be slaveswho want to be, and next to them those white people who argue in favor ofmaking other people slaves. I am in favor of giving an appointment to suchwhite men to try it on for these slaves. I will say one thing in regardto the negroes being employed to fight for them. I do know he cannot fightand stay at home and make bread too. And as one is about as important asthe other to them, I don't care which they do. I am rather in favor ofhaving them try them as soldiers. They lack one vote of doing that, and Iwish I could send my vote over the river so that I might cast it in favorof allowing the negro to fight. But they cannot fight and work both. Wemust now see the bottom of the enemy's resources. They will stand out aslong as they can, and if the negro will fight for them they must allow himto fight. They have drawn upon their last branch of resources, and we cannow see the bottom. I am glad to see the end so near at hand. I have saidnow more than I intended, and will therefore bid you good-by. 

PROCLAMATION CONCERNING INDIANS, MARCH 17, 1865. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas reliable information has been received that hostile Indians, within the limits of the United States, have been furnished with arms andmunitions of war by persons dwelling in conterminous foreign territory, and are thereby enabled to prosecute their savage warfare upon the exposedand sparse settlements of the frontier;

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States of America, do hereby proclaim and direct that all personsdetected in that nefarious traffic shall be arrested and tried bycourt-martial at the nearest military post, and if convicted, shallreceive the punishment due to their deserts. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

ORDER ANNULLING THE SENTENCE

AGAINST BENJAMIN G. SMITH AND FRANKLIN W. SMITH, MARCH 18, 1865. 

I am unwilling for the sentence to stand, and be executed, to any extentin this case. In the absence of a more adequate motive than the evidencediscloses, I am wholly unable to believe in the existence of criminalor fraudulent intent on the part of men of such well established goodcharacter. If the evidence went as far to establish a guilty profit of oneor two hundred thousand dollars, as it does of one or two hundred dollars, the case would, on the question of guilt, bear a far different aspect. That on this contract, involving some twelve hundred thousand dollars, thecontractors would plan, and attempt to execute a fraud which, at the most, could profit them only one or two hundred, or even one thousand dollars, is to my mind beyond the power of rational belief. That they did not, insuch a case, make far greater gains, proves that they did not, withguilty or fraudulent intent, make at all. The judgment and sentence aredisapproved, and declared null, and the defendants are fully discharged. 

A. LINCOLN March 18, 1865. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL J. POPE. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 19, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL POPE, St. Louis, Missouri:

Understanding that the plan of action for Missouri contained in yourletter to the Governor of that State, and your other letter to me, isconcurred in by the Governor, it is approved by me, and you will besustained in proceeding upon it. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL ORD. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, May [March] 20, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL ORD, Army of the James

Is it true that George W. Lane is detained at Norfolk without any chargeagainst him? And if so why is it done?

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO JUDGE SCATES. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 21, 1865. 

HON. WALTER B. SCATES, Centralia, Illinois:

If you choose to go to New Mexico and reside, I will appoint you chiefjustice there. What say you? Please answer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL W. S. HANCOCK. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , March 22, 1865. MAJOR-GENERAL HANCOCK, Winchester, Va. :

Seeing your despatch about General Crook, and fearing that throughmisapprehension something unpleasant may occur, I send you below twodespatches of General Grant, which I suppose will fully explain GeneralCrook's movements. 

A. LINCOLN. 

ANOTHER FEMALE SPY

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL DODGE. EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, March 23, 1865. 

GENERAL DODGE, Commanding, &c, Saint Louis, Mo. :

Allow Mrs. R. S. Ewell the benefit of my amnesty proclamation on hertaking the oath. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, VIRGINIA, March 25, 1865. 8. 30 A. M. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR, Washington, D. C. :

Arrived here all safe about 9 P. M. Yesterday. No war news. General Grantdoes not seem to know very much about Yeatman, but thinks very well of himso far as he does know. 

I like Mr. Whiting very much, and hence would wish him to remain or resignas best suits himself. Hearing this much from me, do as you think best inthe matter. General Lee has sent the Russell letter back, concluding, asI understand from Grant, that their dignity does not admit of theirreceiving the document from us. Robert just now tells me there was alittle rumpus up the line this morning, ending about where it began. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

(Cipher. )

HEADQUARTERS ARMY OF THE POTOMAC, March 25, 1865. (Received 5 P. M. )

HON. EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War:

I am here within five miles of the scene of this morning's action. I havenothing to add to what General Meade reports except that I have seenthe prisoners myself and they look like there might be the number hestates--1600. 

A. LINCOLN

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, VA. , March 26, 1865. (Received 11. 30 A. M. )

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR:

I approve your Fort Sumter programme. Grant don't seem to know Yeatmanvery well, but thinks very well of him so far as he knows. Thinks itprobable that Y. Is here now, for the place. I told you this yesterdayas well as that you should do as you think best about Mr. Whiting'sresignation, but I suppose you did not receive the dispatch. I am on theboat and have no later war news than went to you last night. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, VIRGINIA, March 27, 1865. 3. 35 P. M. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR, Washington, D. C. :

Yours inclosing Fort Sumter order received. I think of but one suggestion. I feel quite confident that Sumter fell on the 13th, and not on the 14thof April, as you have it. It fell on Saturday, the 13th; the first callfor troops on our part was got up on Sunday, the 14th, and given date andissued on Monday, the 15th. Look up the old almanac and other data, andsee if I am not right. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, VIRGINIA, March 28, 1865. 12 M. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR, Washington, D. C. : After your explanation, I thinkit is little or no difference whether the Fort Sumter ceremony takes placeon the 13th or 14th. 

General Sherman tells me he is well acquainted with James Yeatman, andthat he thinks him almost the best man in the country for anything he willundertake. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, VA. , March 30, 1865. 7. 30 P. M. (Received 8. 30 P. M. )

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR:

I begin to feel that I ought to be at home and yet I dislike to leavewithout seeing nearer to the end of General Grant's present movement. He has now been out since yesterday morning and although he has not beendiverted from his programme no considerable effort has yet been producedso far as we know here. Last night at 10. 15 P. M. When it was dark as arainy night without a moon could be, a furious cannonade soon joined in bya heavy musketry fire opened near Petersburg and lasted about two hours. The sound was very distinct here as also were the flashes of the gunsup the clouds. It seemed to me a great battle, but the older hands herescarcely noticed it and sure enough this morning it was found that verylittle had been done. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, VIRGINIA, March 31, 1865. 3 P. M. 

SECRETARY STANTON:

At 12. 30 P. M. To-day General Grant telegraphed me as follows: "There hasbeen much hard fighting this morning. The enemy drove our left from nearDabney's house back well toward the Boydton plank road. We are now aboutto take the offensive at that point, and I hope will more than recover thelost ground. "

Later he telegraphed again as follows:

"Our troops, after being driven back to the Boydton plank road, turned anddrove the enemy in turn, and took the White Oak road, which we now have. This gives us the ground occupied by the enemy this morning. I will sendyou a rebel flag captured by our troops in driving the enemy back. Therehave been four flags captured to-day. "

Judging by the two points from which General Grant telegraphs, I inferthat he moved his headquarters about one mile since he sent the first ofthe two despatches. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

CITY POINT, April 1, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

Yours to Colonel Bowers about the Secretary of War is shown to me. He isnot here, nor have I any notice that he is coming. I presume the mistakecomes of the fact that the Secretary of State was here. He started back toWashington this morning. I have your two despatches of this morning, andam anxious to hear from Sheridan. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, April 1, 1865. 12. 50 P. M. 

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR, Washington, D. C. :

I have had two despatches from General Grant since my last to you, butthey contain little additional, except that Sheridan also had pretty hotwork yesterday, that infantry was sent to his support during the night, and that he (Grant) has not since heard from Sheridan. 

Mrs. Lincoln has started home, and I will thank you to see that ourcoachman is at the Arsenal wharf at eight o'clock to-morrow morning, thereto wait until she arrives. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

CITY POINT, VA. , April, 1865. 5. 30?. M. 

HON. W. H. SEWARD, Secretary of State, Fort Monroe:

Despatch just received, showing that Sheridan, aided by Warren, had, at 2P. M. , pushed the enemy back, so as to retake the Five Forks and bring hisown headquarters up to J. Boisseau's. The Five Forks were barricaded bythe enemy and carried by Devin's division of cavalry. This part of theenemy seem to now be trying to work along the White Oak road, to join themain force in front of Grant, while Sheridan and Warren are pressing themas closely as possible. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. CITY POINT, April 1, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

Yours showing Sheridan's success of to-day is just received and highlyappreciated. Having no great deal to do here, I am still sending thesubstance of your despatches to the Secretary of War. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. 

CITY POINT, VA. , April 2, 1865. 8. 30 A. M. (Received 9 A. M. )

MRS. A. LINCOLN, Executive Mansion:

Last night General Grant telegraphed that General Sheridan with hiscavalry and the Fifth Corps had captured three brigades of infantry, atrain of wagons, and several batteries, prisoners amounting to severalthousand. This morning General Grant having ordered an attack along thewhole line telegraphs as follows. 

Robert yesterday wrote a little cheerful note to Captain Penrose, which isall he has heard of him since you left. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAMS TO SECRETARY STANTON. CITY POINT, VIRGINIA, April 2, 1865. 8. 30A. M. 

HON. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War:

Last night General Grant telegraphed that General Sheridan, with hiscavalry and the Fifth Corps, had captured three brigades of infantry, atrain of wagons, and several batteries; the prisoners amounting to severalthousand. 

This morning General Grant, having ordered an attack along the whole line, telegraphs as follows:

"Both Wright and Parke got through the enemy's lines. The battle nowrages furiously. General Sheridan, with his cavalry, the Fifth corps, andMiles's Division of the Second Corps, which was sent to him this morning, is now sweeping down from the west. 

"All now looks highly favorable. General Ord is engaged, but I have notyet heard the result in his front. "

A. LINCOLN. 

CITY POINT, April 1. 11. 00 A. M. 

Despatches are frequently coming in. All is going on finely. GeneralsParke, Wright, and Ord's lines are extending from the Appomattox toHatcher's Run. They have all broken through the enemy's intrenched lines, taking some forts, guns, and prisoners. Sheridan, with his own cavalry, the Fifth Corps, and part of the Second, is coming in from the west on theenemy's flank. Wright is already tearing up the Southside Railroad. 

A. LINCOLN

CITY POINT, VIRGINIA, April 2. 2 P. M. 

At 10. 45 A. M. General Grant telegraphs as follows:

"Everything has been carried from the left of the Ninth Corps. The SixthCorps alone captured more than three thousand prisoners. The Second andTwenty-fourth Corps captured forts, guns, and prisoners from the enemy, but I cannot tell the numbers. We are now closing around the works of theline immediately enveloping Petersburg. All looks remarkably well. Ihave not yet heard from Sheridan. His headquarters have been moved upto Banks's house, near the Boydton road, about three miles southwest ofPetersburg. "

A. LINCOLN. 

CITY POINT, VIRGINIA, April 2. 8. 30 P. M. 

At 4. 30 P. M. To-day General Grant telegraphs as follows:

"We are now up and have a continuous line of troops, and in a few hourswill be intrenched from the Appomattox below Petersburg to the riverabove. The whole captures since the army started out will not amount toless than twelve thousand men, and probably fifty pieces of artillery. Ido not know the number of men and guns accurately, however. A portion ofFoster's Division, Twenty Fourth Corps, made a most gallant charge thisafternoon, and captured a very important fort from the enemy, with itsentire garrison. All seems well with us, and everything is quiet justnow. "

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO MRS. LINCOLN. CITY POINT, VA. , April 1, 1865. 

MRS. LINCOLN:

At 4. 30 P. M. To-day General Grant telegraphs that he has Petersburgcompletely enveloped from river below to river above, and has captured, since he started last Wednesday, about twelve thousand prisoners and fiftyguns. He suggests that I shall go out and see him in the morning, which Ithink I will do. Tad and I are both well, and will be glad to see you andyour party here at the time you name. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

CITY POINT, April 2, 1865

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

Allow me to tender to you and all with you the nation's grateful thanksfor this additional and magnificent success. At your kind suggestion Ithink I will meet you to-morrow. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, VIRGINIA, April 3, 1865. 8. 30 A. M. 

HON. E. M. STANTON, Secretary of War:

This morning Lieutenant-General Grant reports Petersburg evacuated, and heis confident that Richmond also is. He is pushing forward to cut off, ifpossible, the retreating rebel army. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, VA. , April 3, 1865. 5 P. M. 

HON. EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War:

Yours received. Thanks for your caution, but I have already been toPetersburg. Staid with General Grant an hour and a half and returned here. It is certain now that Richmond is in our hands, and I think I will gothere to-morrow. I will take care of myself. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, VA. , April 4, 1865 (Received 8. 45 A. M. )

HON. EDWIN M. STANTON, Secretary of War:

General Weitzel telegraphs from Richmond that of railroad stock he foundthere twenty-eight locomotives, forty-four passenger and baggage cars, andone hundred and six freight cars. At 3. 30 this evening General Grant, from Sutherland's Station, ten miles from Petersburg toward Burkevllle, telegraphs as follows:

"General Sheridan picked up twelve hundred prisoners to-day, and fromthree hundred to five hundred more have been gathered by other troops. Themajority of the arms that were left in the hands of the remnant of Lee'sarmy are now scattered between Richmond and where his troops are. Thecountry is also full of stragglers; the line of retreat marked withartillery, ammunition, burned or charred wagons, caissons, ambulances, etc. "

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY SEWARD. 

CITY POINT, APRIL 5, 1865. (Received 11. 55 PM. )

HON. SECRETARY OF STATE:

Yours of to-day received. I think there is no probability of my remaininghere more than two days longer. If that is too long come down. I passedlast night at Richmond and have just returned. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, CITY POINT, April 6, 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT, in the Field:

Secretary Seward was thrown from his carriage yesterday and seriouslyinjured. This, with other matters, will take me to Washington soon. I wasat Richmond yesterday and the day before, when and where Judge Campbell, who was with Messrs. Hunter and Stephens in February, called on me, andmade such representations as induced me to put in his hands an informalpaper, repeating the propositions in my letter of instructions to Mr. Seward, which you remember, and adding that if the war be now furtherpersisted in by the rebels, confiscated property shall at the least bearthe additional cost, and that confiscation shall be remitted to the peopleof any State which will now promptly and in good faith withdraw its troopsand other support from resistance to the Government. 

Judge Campbell thought it not impossible that the rebel legislature ofVirginia would do the latter if permitted; and accordingly I addressed aprivate letter to General Weitzel, with permission to Judge Campbell tosee it, telling him (General Weitzel) that if they attempt this, to permitand protect them, unless they attempt something hostile to the UnitedStates, in which case to give them notice and time to leave, and to arrestany remaining after such time. 

I do not think it very probable that anything win come of this, but Ihave thought best to notify you so that if you should see signs you mayunderstand them. 

From your recent despatches it seems that you are pretty effectuallywithdrawing the Virginia troops from opposition to the Government. Nothingthat I have done, or probably shall do, is to delay, hinder, or interferewith your work. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. WEITZEL. 

HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES CITY POINT, April 6, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL WEITZEL, Richmond, Va. :

It has been intimated to me that the gentlemen who have acted as thelegislature of Virginia in support of the rebellion may now desire toassemble at Richmond and take measures to withdraw the Virginia troops andother support from resistance to the General Government. If they attemptit, give them permission and protection, until, if at all, they attemptsome action hostile to the United States, in which case you will notifythem, give them reasonable time to leave, and at the end of which timearrest any who remain. Allow Judge Campbell to see this, but do not makeit public. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

CITY POINT, VA. , April 7, 1865 (Received 10. 30 AM. )

HON. SECRETARY OF WAR:

At 11. 15 P. M. Yesterday at Burkesville Station, General Grant sends me thefollowing from General Sheridan:

"April 6, 11. 15 P. M. 

"LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

I have the honor to report that the enemy made a stand at the intersectionof the Burks Station road with the road upon which they were retreating. I attacked them with two divisions of the Sixth Army Corps and routed themhandsomely, making a connection with the cavalry. I am still pressing onwith both cavalry and infantry. Up to the present time we have capturedGenerals Ewell, Kershaw, Button, Corse, DeBare, and Custis Lee, severalthousand prisoners, fourteen pieces of artillery with caissons and a largenumber of wagons. If the thing is pressed I think Lee will surrender. 

"P. H. SHERIDAN, "Major-General, Commanding. "

A. LINCOLN. 

LET THE THING BE PRESSED. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL U. S. GRANT. 

HEADQUARTERS ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES, CITY POINT, April 7, 11 A. M. , 1865. 

LIEUTENANT-GENERAL GRANT:

Gen. Sheridan says:

"If the thing is pressed I think that Lee will surrender. "

Let the thing be pressed. 

A. LINCOLN. 

NOTE ON A CARD TO SECRETARY STANTON. 

April 10, 1865. 

Tad wants some flags--can he be accommodated?

A. LINCOLN. 

RESPONSE TO A CALL, APRIL 10, 1865

If the company had assembled by appointment, some mistake had crept intheir understanding. He had appeared before a larger audience than thisone to-day, and he would repeat what he then said, namely, he supposedowing to the great, good news, there would be some demonstration. He wouldprefer to-morrow evening, when he should be quite willing, and he hopedready, to say something. He desired to be particular, because every thinghe said got into print. Occupying the position he did, a mistake wouldproduce harm, and therefore he wanted to be careful not to make a mistake. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. H. GORDON. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 11, 1865. 

BRIG. GEN. G. H. GORDON, Norfolk, Va. :

Send to me at once a full statement as to the cause or causes for which, and by authority of what tribunal George W. Lane, Charles Whitlock, EzraBaler, J. M. Renshaw, and others are restrained of their liberty. Do thispromptly and fully. 

A. LINCOLN. 

PROCLAMATION CLOSING CERTAIN PORTS, APRIL 11, 1865. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas by my proclamations of the 19th and 27th days of April, A. D. 1861, the ports of the United States in the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Florida, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, andTexas were declared to be subject to blockade; but

Whereas the said blockade has, in consequence of actual militaryoccupation by this Government, since been conditionally set aside orrelaxed in respect to the ports of Norfolk and Alexandria, in the Stateof Virginia; Beaufort, in the State of North Carolina; Port Royal, inthe State of South Carolina; Pensacola and Fernandina, in the State ofFlorida; and New Orleans, in the State of Louisiana; and

Whereas by the fourth section of the act of Congress approved on the 13thof July, 1861, entitled "An act further to provide for the collection ofduties on imports, and for other purposes, " the President, for the reasonstherein set forth, is authorized to close certain ports of entry:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln. President ofthe United States, do hereby proclaim that the ports of Richmond, Tappahannock, Cherrystone, Yorktown, and Petersburg, in Virginia; ofCamden (Elizabeth City), Edenton, Plymouth, Washington, Newbern, Ocracoke, and Wilmington in North Carolina; of Charleston, Georgetown, and Beaufort, in South Carolina; of Savannah, St. Marys, and Brunswick (Darien), inGeorgia; of Mobile, in Alabama; of Pearl River (Shieldsboro), Natchez andVicksburg, in Mississippi; of St. Augustine, Key West, St. Marks (PortLeon), St. Johns (Jacksonville), and Apalachicola, in Florida; of Teche(Franklin), in Louisiana; of Galveston, La Salle, Brazos de Santiago(Point Isabel), and Brownsville, in Texas, are hereby closed, and allright of importation, warehousing, and other privileges shall, in respectto the ports aforesaid, cease until they shall have again been opened byorder of the President; and if while said parts are so closed any shipor vessel from beyond the United States or having on board any articlessubject to duties shall attempt to enter any such port, the same, togetherwith its tackle, apparel, furniture, and cargo, shall be forfeited to theUnited States. 

In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of theUnited States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this eleventh day of April, A. D. , 1865, and of the independence of the United States of America, the eighty-ninth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

PROCLAMATION OPENING THE PORT OF KEY WEST, APRIL 11, 1865. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas by my proclamation of this date the port of Key West, in the Stateof Florida, was inadvertently included among those which are not open tocommerce:

Now, therefore, be it known that I, Abraham Lincoln, President of theUnited States, do hereby declare and make known that the said port of KeyWest is and shall remain open to foreign and domestic commerce upon thesame conditions by which that commerce has there hitherto been governed. 

In testimony whereof I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. 

Done at the city of Washington, this eleventh day of April, A. D. 1865, andof the independence of the United States of America the eighty-ninth. 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

PROCLAMATION CLAIMING EQUALITY OF RIGHTS WITH ALL MARITIME NATIONS, APRIL 11, 1865. 

BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

A Proclamation. 

Whereas for some time past vessels of war of the United States have beenrefused in certain foreign ports, privileges and immunities to which theywere entitled by treaty, public law, or the community of nations, at thesame time that vessels of war of the country wherein the saidprivileges and immunities have been withheld have enjoyed them fully anduninterruptedly in ports of the United States, which condition of thingshas not always been forcibly resisted by the United States, although, onthe other hand, they have not at any time failed to protest against anddeclare their dissatisfaction with the same. In the view of the UnitedStates, no condition any longer exists which can be claimed to justify thedenial to them by any one of such nations of customary naval rights as hasheretofore been so unnecessarily persisted in. .. .. .. 

Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, dohereby make known that if, after a reasonable time shall have elapsed forintelligence of this proclamation to have reached any foreign country inwhose ports the said privileges and immunities shall have been refused asaforesaid, they shall continue to be so refused, then and thenceforth thesame privileges and immunities shall be refused to the vessels of war ofthat country in the ports of the United States, and this refusal shallcontinue until war vessels of the United States shall have been placedupon an entire equality in the foreign ports aforesaid with similarvessels of other countries. The United States, whatever claim or pretensemay have existed heretofore, are now, at least, entitled to claim andconcede an entire and friendly equality of rights and hospitalities withall maritime nations. 

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal ofthe United States to be affixed. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . 

A. LINCOLN. 

By the President: WILLIAM H. SEWARD, Secretary of State. 

LAST PUBLIC ADDRESS, APRIL 11, 1865

FELLOW-CITIZENS--We meet this evening not in sorrow, but in gladness ofheart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of theprincipal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace, whosejoyous expression cannot be restrained. In the midst of this, however, Hefrom whom blessings flow must not be forgotten. 

A call for a national thanksgiving is being prepared, and will be dulypromulgated. Nor must those whose harder part gives us the cause ofrejoicing be overlooked. Their honors must not be parceled out withothers. I myself was near the front, and had the pleasure of transmittingmuch of the good news to you. But no part of the honor for plan orexecution is mine. To General Grant, his skillful officers, and brave men, all belongs. The gallant navy stood ready, but was not in reach to takeactive part. By these recent successes, the reinauguration of the nationalauthority--reconstruction which has had a large share of thought from thefirst, is pressed much more closely upon our attention. It is fraught withgreat difficulty. Unlike a case of war between independent nations, thereis no authorized organ for us to treat with--no one man has authority togive up the rebellion for any other man. We simply must begin withand mould from disorganized and discordant elements. Nor is it a smalladditional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselvesas to the mode, manner, and measure of reconstruction. As a general rule, I abstain from reading the reports of attacks upon myself, Wishing not tobe provoked by that to which I cannot properly offer an answer. In spiteof this precaution, however, it comes to my knowledge that I am muchcensured for some supposed agency in setting up and seeking to sustain thenew State government of Louisiana. In this I have done just so much and nomore than the public knows. In the Annual Message of December, 1863, andthe accompanying proclamation, I presented a plan of reconstruction, as the phrase goes, which I promised, if adopted by any State, would beacceptable to and sustained by the Executive Government of the nation. Idistinctly stated that this was not the only plan that might possibly beacceptable, and I also distinctly protested that the Executive claimedno right to say when or whether members should be admitted to seats inCongress from such States. This plan was in advance submitted to the thenCabinet, and approved by every member of it. One of them suggested that Ishould then and in that connection apply the Emancipation Proclamation tothe theretofore excepted parts of Virginia and Louisiana; that I shoulddrop the suggestion about apprenticeship for freed people, and that Ishould omit the protest against my own power in regard to the admissionof members of Congress. But even he approved every part and parcel of theplan which has since been employed or touched by the action of Louisiana. The new constitution of Louisiana, declaring emancipation for the wholeState, practically applies the proclamation to the part previouslyexcepted. It does not adopt apprenticeship for freed people, and issilent, as it could not well be otherwise, about the admission of membersto Congress. So that, as it applied to Louisiana, every member of theCabinet fully approved the plan. The message went to Congress, and Ireceived many commendations of the plan, written and verbal, and nota single objection to it from any professed emancipationist came to myknowledge until after the news reached Washington that the people ofLouisiana had begun to move in accordance with it. From about July, 1862, I had corresponded with different persons supposed to be interested inseeking a reconstruction of a State government for Louisiana. When themessage of 1863, with the plan before mentioned, reached New Orleans, General Banks wrote me that he was confident that the people, with hismilitary co-operation, would reconstruct substantially on that plan. Iwrote to him and some of them to try it. They tried it, and the resultis known. Such has been my only agency in getting up the Louisianagovernment. As to sustaining it my promise is out, as before stated. But, as bad promises are better broken than kept, I shall treat this as a badpromise and break it, whenever I shall be convinced that keeping it isadverse to the public interest; but I have not yet been so convinced. Ihave been shown a letter on this subject, supposed to be an able one, in which the writer expresses regret that my mind has not seemed to bedefinitely fixed upon the question whether the seceded States, so called, are in the Union or out of it. It would perhaps add astonishment tohis regret were he to learn that since I have found professed Union menendeavoring to answer that question, I have purposely forborne any publicexpression upon it. As appears to me, that question has not been nor yetis a practically material one, and that any discussion of it, while itthus remains practically immaterial, could have no effect other than themischievous one of dividing our friends. As yet, whatever it may become, that question is bad as the basis of a controversy, and good for nothingat all--a merely pernicious abstraction. We all agree that the secededStates, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with theUnion, and that the sole object of the Government, civil and military, inregard to those States, is to again get them into their proper practicalrelation. I believe that it is not only possible, but in fact easier, todo this without deciding or even considering whether those States haveever been out of the Union, than with it. Finding themselves safely athome, it would be utterly immaterial whether they had been abroad. Letus all join in doing the acts necessary to restore the proper practicalrelations between these States and the Union, and each forever afterinnocently indulge his own opinion whether, in doing the acts hebrought the States from without into the Union, or only gave them properassistance, they never having been out of it. The amount of constituency, so to speak, on which the Louisiana government rests, would be moresatisfactory to all if it contained fifty thousand, or thirty thousand, oreven twenty thousand, instead of twelve thousand, as it does. It is alsounsatisfactory to some that the elective franchise is not given to thecolored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the veryintelligent, and on those who serve our cause as soldiers. Still, thequestion is not whether the Louisiana government, as it stands, is quiteall that is desirable. The question is, Will it be wiser to take it asit is and help to improve it, or to reject and disperse? Can Louisiana bebrought into proper practical relation with the Union sooner by sustainingor by discarding her new State government? Some twelve thousand votersin the heretofore Slave State of Louisiana have sworn allegiance to theUnion, assumed to be the rightful political power of the State, held elections, organized a State government, adopted a Free Stateconstitution, giving the benefit of public schools equally to black andwhite, and empowering the Legislature to confer the elective franchiseupon the colored man. This Legislature has already voted to ratify theConstitutional Amendment recently passed by Congress, abolishing slaverythroughout the nation. These twelve thousand persons are thus fullycommitted to the Union and to perpetuate freedom in the State--committedto the very things, and nearly all things, the nation wants--and they askthe nation's recognition and its assistance to make good this committal. Now, if we reject and spurn them, we do our utmost to disorganize anddisperse them. We, in fact, say to the white man: You are worthless orworse; we will neither help you nor be helped by you. To the blacks wesay: This cup of liberty which these, your old masters, held to yourlips, we will dash from you, and leave you to the chances of gathering thespilled and scattered contents in some vague and undefined when, where, and how. If this course, discouraging and paralyzing both white and black, has any tendency to bring Louisiana into proper practical relations withthe Union, I have so far been unable to perceive it. If, on the contrary, we recognize and sustain the new government of Louisiana, the converseof all this is made true. We encourage the hearts and nerve the arms oftwelve thousand to adhere to their work, and argue for it, and proselytefor it, and fight for it, and feed it, and grow it, and ripen it to acomplete success. The colored man, too, in seeing all united for him, isinspired with vigilance, and energy, and daring to the same end. Grantthat he desires the elective franchise, will he not attain it sooner bysaving the already advanced steps towards it, than by running backwardover them? Concede that the new government of Louisiana is only to whatit should be as the egg is to the fowl, we shall sooner have the fowl byhatching the egg than by smashing it. Again, if we reject Louisiana, wealso reject one vote in favor of the proposed amendment to the NationalConstitution. To meet this proposition, it has been argued that no morethan three fourths of those States which have not attempted secession arenecessary to validly ratify the amendment. I do not commit myself againstthis, further than to say that such a ratification would be questionable, and sure to be persistently questioned, while a ratification by threefourths of all the States would be unquestioned and unquestionable. I repeat the question, Can Louisiana be brought into proper practicalrelation with the Union sooner by sustaining or by discarding her newState government? What has been said of Louisiana will apply to otherStates. And yet so great peculiarities pertain to each State, and suchimportant and sudden changes occur in the same State, and withal so newand unprecedented is the whole case, that no exclusive and inflexible plancan safely be prescribed as to details and collaterals. Such exclusiveand inflexible plan would surely become a new entanglement. Importantprinciples may and must be inflexible. In the present situation as thephrase goes, it may be my duty to make some new announcement to the peopleof the South. I am considering, and shall not fail to act, when satisfiedthat action will be proper. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. WEITZEL. 

WASHINGTON, D. C. , April 12, 1865. MAJOR-GENERAL WEITZEL, Richmond, Va. :

I have seen your despatch to Colonel Hardie about the matter of prayers. I do not remember hearing prayers spoken of while I was in Richmond; but Ihave no doubt you have acted in what appeared to you to be the spiritand temper manifested by me while there. Is there any sign of the rebellegislature coming together on the understanding of my letter to you? Ifthere is any such sign, inform me what it is; if there is no such sign, you may withdraw the offer. 

A. LINCOLN. 

TELEGRAM TO GENERAL G. WEITZEL. WASHINGTON, D. C. , April 12, 1865. 

MAJOR-GENERAL WEITZEL, Richmond, Va. :

I have just seen Judge Campbell's letter to you of the 7th. He assumes, as appears to me, that I have called the insurgent legislature ofVirginia together, as the rightful legislature of the State, to settle alldifferences with the United States. I have done no such thing. I spoke ofthem, not as a legislature, but as "the gentlemen who have acted asthe legislature of Virginia in support of the rebellion. " I did thison purpose to exclude the assumption that I was recognizing them as arightful body. I deal with them as men having power de facto to do aspecific thing, to wit: "To withdraw the Virginia troops and other supportfrom resistance to the General Government, " for which, in the paper handedJudge Campbell, I promised a specific equivalent, to wit: a remission tothe people of the State, except in certain cases, of the confiscation oftheir property. I meant this, and no more. Inasmuch, however, as JudgeCampbell misconstrues this, and is still pressing for an armistice, contrary to the explicit statement of the paper I gave him, andparticularly as General Grant has since captured the Virginia troops, sothat giving a consideration for their withdrawal is no longer applicable, let my letter to you and the paper to Judge Campbell both be withdrawn, or countermanded, and he be notified of it. Do not now allow them toassemble, but if any have come, allow them safe return to their homes. 

A. LINCOLN. 

INTERVIEW WITH SCHUYLER COLFAX ON THE MORNING OF APRIL 14, 1865. 

Mr. Colfax, I want you to take a message from me to the miners whom youvisit. I have very large ideas of the mineral wealth of our nation. Ibelieve it practically inexhaustible. It abounds all over the Westerncountry, from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific, and its developmenthas scarcely commenced. During the war, when we were adding a couple ofmillions of dollars every day to our national debt, I did not care aboutencouraging the increase in the volume of our precious metals. We had thecountry to save first. But now that the rebellion is overthrown, and weknow pretty nearly the amount of our national debt, the more gold andsilver we mine, we make the payment of that debt so much the easier. "Now, " said he, speaking with more emphasis, "I am going to encourage thatin every possible way. We shall have hundreds of thousands of disbandedsoldiers, and many have feared that their return home in such greatnumbers might paralyze industry, by furnishing, suddenly, a greater supplyof labor than there will be demand for. I am going to try to attract themto the hidden wealth of our mountain ranges, where there is room enoughfor all. Immigration, which even the war has not stopped, will land uponour shores hundreds of thousands more per year from overcrowded Europe. I intend to point them to the gold and silver that wait for them in theWest. Tell the miners for me, that I shall promote their interests to theutmost of my ability; because their prosperity is the prosperity of thenation; and, " said he, his eye kindling with enthusiasm, "we shall prove, in a very few years, that we are indeed the treasury of the world. "

TO GENERAL VAN ALLEN. 

EXECUTIVE MANSION, WASHINGTON, April 14, 1865

GENERAL VAN ALLEN:

I intend to adopt the advice of my friends and use due precaution. .. . I thank you for the assurance you give me that I shall be supported byconservative men like yourself, in the efforts I may make to restore theUnion, so as to make it, to use your language, a Union of hearts and handsas well as of States. 

Yours truly, A. LINCOLN. 

LINCOLN'S LAST WRITTEN WORDS

Allow Mr. Ashmer and friend to come in at 9 A. M. To-morrow. 

A. LINCOLN. April 14, 1865