Among the great number of opinions of Lincoln's rank as a lawyer,
expressed by his professional brethren, a few may properly be given in
closing this chapter, which is devoted chiefly to Mr. Lincoln's
professional career. First we may quote the brief but emphatic words of
the distinguished jurist, Judge Sidney Breese, Chief Justice of
Illinois, who said: "For my single self, I have for a quarter of a
century regarded Mr. Lincoln as the finest lawyer I ever knew, and of a
professional bearing so high-toned and honorable, as justly, and without
derogating from the claims of others, entitling him to be presented to
the profession as a model well worthy of the closest imitation."
Another distinguished Chief Justice, Hon. John Dean Caton; says: "In
1840 or 1841, I met Mr. Lincoln, and was for the first time associated
with him in a professional way. We attended the Circuit Court at
Pontiac, Judge Treat presiding, where we were both engaged in the
defense of a man by the name of Lavinia. That was the first and only
time I was associated with him at the bar. He practiced in a circuit
that was beyond the one in which I practiced, and consequently we were
not brought together much in the practice of the law. He stood well at
the bar from the beginning. I was a younger man, but an older lawyer. He
was not admitted to the bar till after I was. I was not closely
connected with him. Indeed, I did not meet him often, professionally,
until I went on the bench in 1842; and he was then in full practice
before the Supreme Court, and continued to practice there regularly at
every term until he was elected President. Mr. Lincoln understood the
relations of things, and hence his deductions were rarely wrong from any
given state of facts. So he applied the principles of law to the
transactions of men with great clearness and precision. He was a close
reasoner. He reasoned by analogy, and enforced his views by apt
illustration. His mode of speaking was generally of a plain and
unimpassioned character, and yet he was the author of some of the most
beautiful and eloquent passages in our language, which, if collected,
would form a valuable contribution to American literature. The most
punctilious honor ever marked his professional and private life."
The Hon. Thomas Drummond, for many years Judge of the United States
District Court at Chicago, said: "It is not necessary to claim for Mr.
Lincoln attributes or qualities which he did not possess. He had enough
to entitle him to the love and respect and esteem of all who knew him.
He was not skilled in the learning of the schools, and his knowledge of
the law was acquired almost entirely by his own unaided study and by the
practice of his profession. Nature gave him great clearness and
acuteness of intellect and a vast fund of common-sense; and as a
consequence of these he had much sagacity in judging of the motives and
springs of human conduct. With a voice by no means pleasing, and,
indeed, when excited, in its shrill tones sometimes almost disagreeable;
without any of the personal graces of the orator; without much in the
outward man indicating superiority of intellect; without great quickness
of perception,--still, his mind was so vigorous, his comprehension so
exact and clear, and his judgments so sure, that he easily mastered the
intricacies of his profession, and became one of the ablest reasoners
and most impressive speakers at our bar. With a probity of character
known to all, with an intuitive insight into the human heart, with a
clearness of statement which was itself an argument, with an uncommon
power and facility of illustration, often, it is true, of a plain and
homely kind, and with that sincerity and earnestness of manner to carry
conviction, he was perhaps one of the most successful jury lawyers we
have ever had in the State. He always tried a case fairly and honestly.
He never intentionally misrepresented the testimony of a witness or the
arguments of an opponent. He met both squarely, and, if he could not
explain the one or answer the other, substantially admitted it. He never
misstated the law according to his own intelligent view of it. Such was
the transparent candor and integrity of his nature that he could not
well or strongly argue a side or a cause that he thought wrong. Of
course, he felt it his duty to say what could be said, and to leave the
decision to others; but there could be seen in such cases the inward
struggle in his own mind. In trying a cause he might occasionally dwell
too long or give too much importance to an inconsiderable point; but
this was the exception, and generally he went straight to the citadel of
a cause or a question, and struck home there, knowing if that were won
the outwork would necessarily fall. He could hardly be called very
learned in his profession, and yet he rarely tried a cause without fully
understanding the law applicable to it. I have no hesitation in saying
he was one of the ablest lawyers I have ever known. If he was forcible
before the jury he was equally so with the court. He detected with
unerring sagacity the marked points of his opponents' arguments, and
pressed his own views with overwhelming force. His efforts were quite
unequal, and it may have been that he would not on some occasions strike
one as at all remarkable; but let him be thoroughly aroused, let him
feel that he was right and that some great principle was involved in his
case, and he would come out with an earnestness of conviction, a power
of argument, and a wealth of illustration, that I have never seen
surpassed.... Simple in his habits, without pretensions of any kind, and
distrustful of himself, he was willing to yield precedence and place to
others, when he ought to have claimed them for himself. He rarely, if
ever, sought office except at the urgent solicitations of his friends.
In substantiation of this, I may be permitted to relate an incident
which now occurs to me. Prior to his nomination for the Presidency, and,
indeed, when his name was first mentioned in connection with that high
office, I broached the subject upon the occasion of meeting him here.
His response was, 'I hope they will select some abler man than myself.'"
Mr. C.S. Parks, a lawyer associated with Lincoln for some years,
furnishes the following testimony concerning his more prominent
qualities: "I have often said that for a man who was for a quarter of a
century both a lawyer and a politician he was the most _honest_ man I
ever knew. He was not only morally honest, but intellectually so. He
could not reason falsely; if he attempted it, he failed. In politics he
would never try to mislead. At the bar, when he thought he was wrong, he
was the weakest lawyer I ever saw."
Hon. David Davis, afterwards Associate Justice U.S. Supreme Court and
U.S. Senator, presided over the Eighth Judicial Circuit of Illinois
during the remaining years of Lincoln's practice at the bar. He was
united to Lincoln in close bonds of friendship, and year after year
travelled with him over the circuit, put up with him at the same hotels,
and often occupied the same room with him. "This simple life," says
Judge Davis, "Mr. Lincoln loved, preferring it to the practice of the
law in the city. In all the elements that constitute the great lawyer,
he had few equals. He seized the strong points of a cause, and presented
them with clearness and great compactness. He read law-books but
little, except when the cause in hand made it necessary; yet he was
unusually self-reliant, depending on his own resources, and rarely
consulting his brother lawyers either on the management of his case or
the legal questions involved. He was the fairest and most accommodating
of practitioners, granting all favors which he could do consistently
with his duty to his client, and rarely availing himself of an unwary
oversight of his adversary. He hated wrong and oppression everywhere,
and many a man, whose fraudulent conduct was undergoing review in a
court of justice, has withered under his terrific indignation and
rebuke."
Mr. Speed says: "As a lawyer, after his first year he was acknowledged
to be among the best in the State. His analytical powers were
marvellous. He always resolved every question into its primary elements,
and gave up every point on his own side that did not seem to be
invulnerable. One would think, to hear him present his case in the
court, he was giving his case away. He would concede point after point
to his adversary. But he always reserved a point upon which he claimed a
decision in his favor, and his concessions magnified the strength of his
claim. He rarely failed in gaining his cases in court."
The special characteristics of Lincoln's practice at the bar are thus
ably summed up: "He did not make a specialty of criminal cases, but was
engaged frequently in them. He could not be called a great lawyer,
measured by the extent of his acquirement of legal knowledge; he was not
an encyclopædia of cases; but in the clear perception of legal
principles, with natural capacity to apply them, he had great ability.
He was not a case lawyer, but a lawyer who dealt in the deep philosophy
of the law. He always knew the cases which might be quoted as absolute
authority, but beyond that he contented himself in the application and
discussion of general principles. In the trial of a case he moved
cautiously. He never examined or cross-examined a witness to the
detriment of his side. If the witness told the truth, he was safe from
his attacks; but woe betide the unlucky and dishonest individual who
suppressed the truth or colored it against Mr. Lincoln's side. His
speeches to the jury were very effective specimens of forensic oratory.
He talked the vocabulary of the people, and the jury understood every
point he made and every thought he uttered. I never saw him when I
thought he was trying to make an effort for the sake of mere display;
but his imagination was simple and pure in the richest gems of true
eloquence. He constructed short sentences of small words, and never
wearied the minds of the jury by mazes of elaboration."
CHAPTER IX
Lincoln and Slavery--The Issue Becoming More Sharply
Defined--Resistance to the Spread of Slavery--Views Expressed by
Lincoln in 1850--His Mind Made Up--Lincoln as a Party Leader--The
Kansas Struggle--Crossing Swords with Douglas--A Notable Speech by
Lincoln--Advice to Kansas Belligerents--Honor in Politics--Anecdote
of Lincoln and Yates--Contest for the U.S. Senate in
1855--Lincoln's Defeat--Sketched by Members of the Legislature.
At the death of Henry Clay, in June, 1852, Lincoln was invited to
deliver a eulogy on Clay's life and character before the citizens of
Springfield. He complied with the request on the 16th of July. The same
season he made a speech before the Scott Club of Springfield, in reply
to the addresses with which Douglas had opened his extended campaign of
that summer, at Richmond, Virginia. Except on these two occasions,
Lincoln took but little part in politics until the passage of the
Nebraska Bill by Congress in 1854. The enactment of this measure
impelled him to take a firmer stand upon the question of slavery than he
had yet assumed. He had been opposed to the institution on grounds of
sentiment since his boyhood; now he determined to fight it from
principle. Mr. Herndon states that Lincoln really became an anti-slavery
man in 1831, during his visit to New Orleans, where he was deeply
affected by the horrors of the traffic in human beings. On one occasion
he saw a slave, a beautiful mulatto girl, sold at auction. She was felt
over, pinched, and trotted around to show bidders she was sound. Lincoln
walked away from the scene with a feeling of deep abhorrence. He said to
John Hanks, "_If I ever get a chance to hit that institution, John, I'll
hit it hard_!" Again, in the summer of 1841, he was painfully impressed
by a scene witnessed during his journey home from Kentucky, described in
a letter written at the time to the sister of his friend Speed, in which
he says: "A fine example was presented on board the boat for
contemplating the effect of conditions upon human happiness. A man had
purchased twelve negroes in different parts of Kentucky, and was taking
them to a farm in the South. They were chained six and six together; a
small iron clevis was around the left wrist of each, and this was
fastened to the main chain by a shorter one, at a convenient distance
from the others, so that the negroes were strung together like so many
fish upon a trot-line. In this condition they were being separated
forever from the scenes of their childhood, their friends, their fathers
and mothers, brothers and sisters, and many of them from their wives and
children, and going into perpetual slavery."
Judge Gillespie records a conversation which he had with Lincoln in 1850
on the slavery question, remarking by way of introduction that the
subject of slavery was the only one on which he (Lincoln) was apt to
become excited. "I recollect meeting him once at Shelbyville," says
Judge Gillespie, "when he remarked that something must be done or
slavery would overrun the whole country. He said there were about six
hundred thousand non-slaveholding whites in Kentucky to about
thirty-three thousand slaveholders; that in the convention then recently
held it was expected that the delegates would represent these classes
about in proportion to their respective numbers; but when the convention
assembled, there was not a single representative of the non-slaveholding
class; everyone was in the interest of the slaveholders; 'and,' said he,
'the thing is spreading like wildfire over the country. In a few years
we will be ready to accept the institution in Illinois, and the whole
country will adopt it.' I asked him to what he attributed the change
that was going on in public opinion. He said he had recently put that
question to a Kentuckian, who answered by saying, 'You might have any
amount of land, money in your pocket, or bank-stock, and while
travelling around nobody would be any wiser; but if you had a darkey
trudging at your heels, everybody would see him and know that you owned
a slave. It is the most ostentatious way of displaying property in the
world; if a young man goes courting, the only inquiry is as to how many
negroes he owns.' The love for slave property was swallowing up every
other mercenary possession. Its ownership not only betokened the
possession of wealth, but indicated the gentleman of leisure who scorned
labor. These things Mr. Lincoln regarded as highly pernicious to the
thoughtless and giddy young men who were too much inclined to look upon
work as vulgar and ungentlemanly. He was much excited, and said with
great earnestness that this spirit ought to be met, and if possible
checked; that slavery was a great and crying injustice, an enormous
national crime, and we could not expect to escape punishment for it. I
asked him how he would proceed in his efforts to check the spread of
slavery. He confessed he did not see his way clearly; but I think he
made up his mind that from that time he would oppose slavery actively. I
know that Lincoln always contended that no man had any right, other than
what mere brute force gave him, to hold a slave. He used to say it was
singular that the courts would hold that a man never lost his right to
property that had been stolen from him, but that he instantly _lost his
right to himself_ if he was stolen. Lincoln always contended that the
cheapest way of getting rid of slavery was for the nation to buy the
slaves and set them free."
While in Congress, Lincoln had declared himself plainly as opposed to
slavery; and in public speeches not less than private conversations he
had not hesitated to express his convictions on the subject. In 1850 he
said to Major Stuart: "The time will soon come when we must all be
Democrats or Abolitionists. When that time comes, _my mind is made up_.
The slavery question cannot be compromised." The hour had now struck in
which Lincoln was to espouse with his whole heart and soul that cause
for which finally he was to lay down his life. In the language of Mr.
Arnold, "He had bided his time. He had waited until the harvest was
ripe. With unerring sagacity he realized that the triumph of freedom was
at hand. He entered upon the conflict with the deepest conviction that
the perpetuity of the Republic required the extinction of slavery. So,
adopting as his motto, 'A house divided against itself cannot stand,' he
girded himself for the contest. The years from 1854 to 1860 were on his
part years of constant, active, and unwearied effort. His position in
the State of Illinois was central and commanding. He was now to become
the recognized leader of the anti-slavery party in the Northwest, and in
all the Valley of the Mississippi. Lincoln was a practical statesman,
never attempting the impossible, but seeking to do the best thing
practicable under existing circumstances. He knew that prohibition in
the territories would result in no more slave states and no slave
territory. And now, when the repeal of the Missouri Compromise shattered
all parties into fragments, he came forward to build up the Free Soil
party and threw into the conflict all his strength and vigor. The
conviction of his duty was deep and sincere. Hence he pleaded the cause
of liberty with an energy, ability, and power which rapidly gained for
him a national reputation. Conscious of the greatness of his cause,
inspired by a genuine love of liberty, animated and made strong by the
moral sublimity of the conflict, he solemnly announced his determination
to speak for freedom and against slavery until--in his own
words--wherever the Federal Government has power, 'the sun shall shine,
the rain shall fall, and the wind shall blow upon no man who goes forth
to unrequited toil.'"
The absorbing political topic in 1855 was the contest in Kansas, which
proved the battle-ground for the struggle over the introduction of
slavery into the territories north of the line established by the
"Missouri Compromise." Lincoln's views on the subject are defined in a
notable letter to his friend Joshua Speed, a resident of Kentucky. The
following passages show, in Lincoln's own words, where he stood on the
slavery question at this memorable epoch:
SPRINGFIELD, AUGUST 24, 1855.
Dear Speed:--You know what a poor correspondent I am. Ever since I
received your very agreeable letter of the twenty-second of May, I
have been intending to write you in answer to it. You suggest that
in political action now, you and I would differ. You know I dislike
slavery, and you fully admit 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, you would see the Union
dissolved. I am not aware that any one is bidding you yield that
right--very certainly I am not. I leave the matter entirely to
yourself. I also acknowledge your rights and my obligations under
the Constitution, in regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see
the poor creatures hunted down, and caught, and carried back to
their stripes and unrequited toil; but I bite my lip and keep
quiet. In 1841 you and I had together 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 mouth of the Ohio, there were on
board ten or a dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That
sight was a continual torment to me; and I see something like it
every time I touch the Ohio, or any other slave border. It is not
fair for you to assume that I have no interest in a thing which
has, and continually exercises, the power of making me miserable.
You ought rather to appreciate how much the great body of the
people of the North do crucify their feelings in order to maintain
their loyalty to the Constitution and the Union.
I do oppose the extension of slavery, because my judgment and
feelings 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 were President you would send an army and hang the
leaders of the Missouri outrages upon the Kansas elections; still,
if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave State, she must be admitted,
or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes herself a
slave State unfairly--that is, by the very means for which you
would hang men? Must she still be admitted, or the Union dissolved?
That will be the phase of the question when it first becomes a
practical one. In your assumption that there may be a fair decision
of the slavery question in Kansas, I plainly see you and I would
differ about the Nebraska law. I look upon that enactment not as a
law but a violence from the beginning. It was conceived in
violence, passed in violence, is maintained in violence, and is
being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in violence,
because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise under the
Constitution was nothing less than violence. It was passed in
violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes
of many members in violent disregard of the known will of their
constituents. It is maintained in violence, because the elections
since clearly demand its repeal; and the demand is openly
disregarded. That Kansas will form a slave constitution, and with
it will ask to be admitted into the Union, I take to be already a
settled question, and so settled by the very means you so pointedly
condemn. By every principle of law ever held by any court, North or
South, every negro taken to Kansas is free; yet in utter disregard
of this--in the spirit of violence merely--that beautiful
Legislature gravely passes a law to hang any man who shall venture
to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is the substance and
real object of the law. If, like Haman, they should hang upon the
gallows of their own building, I shall not be among the mourners
for their fate. In my humble sphere I shall advocate the
restoration of the Missouri Compromise so long as Kansas remains a
Territory; and, when, by all these foul means, it seeks to come
into the Union as a slave State, I shall oppose it.... You inquire
where I now stand. That is a disputed point. I think I am a Whig;
but others say there are no Whigs, and that I am an Abolitionist.
When I was in Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso as good as
forty times, and I never heard of any attempt to unwhig me for
that. I now do no more than oppose the extension of slavery. I am
not a Know-Nothing--that is certain. How could I be? How can anyone
who abhors the oppression of the negroes be in favor of degrading
classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears to me
to be pretty rapid. As a nation we began by declaring that 'all men
are created equal.' We now practically read it 'all men are created
equal, except negroes.' When the Know-Nothings get control, it will
read, 'all men are created equals, except negroes and foreigners
and Catholics.' When it comes to that, I should prefer emigrating
to some other country where they make no pretense of loving
liberty--to Russia for instance, where despotism can be taken pure,
and without the base alloy of hypocrisy.
Your friend forever,
A. LINCOLN.
Lincoln was soon accorded an opportunity to cross swords again with his
former political antagonist, Douglas, who had lately come from his place
in the Senate Chamber at Washington, where he had carried the obnoxious
Nebraska Bill against the utmost efforts of Chase, Seward, Sumner, and
others, to defeat it. As Mr. Arnold narrates the incident,--"When, late
in September, 1854, Douglas returned to Illinois he was received with a
storm of indignation which would have crushed a man of less power and
will. A bold and courageous leader, conscious of his personal power over
his party, he bravely met the storm and sought to allay it. In October,
1854, the State Fair being then in session at Springfield, with a great
crowd of people in attendance from all parts of the State, Douglas went
there and made an elaborate and able speech in defense of the repeal of
the Missouri Compromise. Lincoln was called upon by the opponents of
this repeal to reply, and he did so with a power which he never
surpassed and had never before equalled. All other issues which had
divided the people were as chaff, and were scattered to the winds by the
intense agitation which arose on the question of extending slavery, not
merely into free territory, but into territory which had been declared
free by solemn compact. Lincoln's speech occupied more than three hours
in delivery, and during all that time he held the vast crowd in the
deepest attention."
Mr. Herndon said of this event: "This anti-Nebraska speech of Mr.
Lincoln was the profoundest that he made in his whole life. He felt
burning upon his soul the truths which he uttered, and all present
felt that he was true to his own soul. His feelings once or twice came
near stifling utterance. He quivered with emotion. He attacked the
Nebraska Bill with such warmth and energy that all felt that a man of
strength was its enemy, and that he intended to blast it, if he could,
by strong and manly efforts. He was most successful, and the house
approved his triumph by loud and continued huzzas, while women waved
their white handkerchiefs in token of heartfelt assent. Douglas felt
the sting, and he frequently interrupted Mr. Lincoln; his friends felt
that he was crushed by the powerful argument of his opponent. The
Nebraska Bill was shivered, and, like a tree of the forest, was torn
and rent asunder by hot bolts of truth. At the conclusion of this
speech, every man, woman, and child felt that it was unanswerable." In
speaking of the same occasion, Mr. Lamon says: "Many fine speeches
were made upon the one absorbing topic; but it is no shame to any one
of these orators that their really impressive speeches were but
slightly appreciated or long remembered beside Mr. Lincoln's splendid
and enduring performance,--enduring in the memory of his auditors,
although preserved upon no written or printed page."
A few days after this encounter, Douglas spoke in Peoria, and was
followed by Lincoln with the same crushing arguments that had served him
at the State Fair, and with the same triumphant effect. His Peoria
speech was written out by him and published after its delivery. A few
specimens will show its style and argumentative power.
Argue as you will, and as long as you will, this is the naked front
and aspect of 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, in his love of justice. These principles
are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so
fiercely as slavery extension brings them, shocks, throes, and
convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri
Compromise; repeal all compromises; repeal the Declaration of
Independence; repeal all past history,--you still cannot repeal
human nature. It still will be the abundance of man's heart, that
slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart,
his mouth will continue to speak.... When Mr. Pettit, in connection
with his support of the Nebraska Bill, called the Declaration of
Independence 'a self-evident lie,' he only did what consistency and
candor require all other Nebraska men to do. Of the forty-odd
Nebraska Senators who sat present and heard him, no one rebuked
him.... If this had been said among Marion's men, Southerners
though they were, what would have become of the man who said it? If
this had been said to the men who captured Andre, the man who said
it would probably have been hung sooner than Andre was. If it had
been said in old Independence Hall seventy-eight years ago, the
very doorkeeper would have throttled the man, and thrust him into
the street.... Thus we see the plain, unmistakable spirit of that
early age towards slavery was hostility to the principle, and
toleration only by necessity. But now it is to be transformed into
a 'sacred right.' Nebraska brings it forth, places it on the high
road to extension and perpetuity, and with a pat on its back says
to it: 'Go, and God speed you.' Henceforth it is to be the chief
jewel of the nation, the very figurehead of the ship of state.
Little by little, but steadily as man's march to the grave, we have
been giving the old for the new faith. Nearly eighty years ago we
began by declaring that all men are created equal; but now from
that beginning we have run down to that other declaration, 'that
for _some_ men to enslave others is a sacred right of
self-government.' ... In our greedy chase to make profit of the
negro, let us beware lest we cancel and tear to pieces even the
white man's charter of freedom.... If all earthly power were given
me, I should not know what to do as to the existing institution. My
first impulse would be to free all the slaves, and send them to
Liberia--to their own native land. But, if they were all landed
there in a day, they would all perish in the next ten days; and
there are not surplus shipping and surplus money enough to carry
them there in many times ten days. What then? Free them all, and
keep them among us as underlings? Is it quite certain that this
betters their condition? I think I would not hold one in slavery at
any rate; 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 know that those of the great mass of white
people will not. A universal feeling, whether well or ill founded,
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 brethren of the South.
Our Republican robe is soiled--trailed in the dust. Let us repurify
it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not the blood,
of the Revolution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of 'moral
right,' back upon its existing legal rights and its arguments of
'necessity.' Let us return it to the position our fathers gave it,
and there let it rest in peace. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of
Independence, and with it the practices and policy which harmonize
with it. Let North and South--let all Americans--let all lovers of
liberty everywhere--join in the great and good work. If we do
this, we shall not only have saved the Union, but we shall have 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 and
happy people, the world over, shall rise up and call us blessed to
the latest generations.
It was in one of these speeches that Lincoln's power of repartee was
admirably illustrated by a most laughable retort made by him to Douglas.
Mr. Ralph E. Hoyt, who was present, says: "In the course of his speech,
Mr. Douglas had said, 'The Whigs are all dead.' For some time before
speaking, Lincoln sat on the platform with only his homely face visible
to the audience above the high desk before him. On being introduced, he
arose from his chair and proceeded to straighten himself up. For a few
seconds I wondered when and where his head would cease its ascent; but
at last it did stop, and 'Honest Old Abe' stood before us. He commenced,
'Fellow-citizens: My friend, Mr. Douglas, made the startling
announcement to-day that the Whigs are all dead. If this be so,
fellow-citizens, you will now experience the novelty of hearing a speech
from a dead man; and I suppose you might properly say, in the language
of the old hymn:
"Hark! from the tombs a doleful sound!"'
This set the audience fairly wild with delight, and at once brought them
into full confidence with the speaker."
Hating slavery though he did, Lincoln was steadily opposed to all forms
of unlawful or violent opposition to it. At about the time of which we
are speaking a party of Abolitionists in Illinois had become so excited
over the Kansas struggle that they were determined to go to the aid of
the Free-State men in that territory. As soon as Lincoln learned of this
project, he opposed it strongly. When they spoke to him of "Liberty,
Justice, and God's higher law," he replied in this temperate and
judicious strain:
Friends, you are in the minority--in a sad minority; and you can't hope
to succeed, reasoning from all human experience. You would rebel against
the Government, and redden your hands in the blood of your countrymen.
If you have the majority, as some of you say you have, you can succeed
with the ballot, throwing away the bullet. You can peaceably, then,
redeem the Government and preserve the liberties of mankind, through
your votes and voice and moral influence. _Let there be peace_. In a
democracy, where the majority rule by the ballot through the forms of
law, these physical rebellions and bloody resistances are radically
wrong, unconstitutional, and are treason. Better bear the ills you have
than fly to those you know not of. Our own Declaration of Independence
says that governments long established should not be resisted for
trivial causes. Revolutionize through the ballot-box, and restore the
Government once more to the affection and hearts of men, by making it
express, as it was intended to do, the highest spirit of justice and
liberty. Your attempt, if there be such, to resist the laws of Kansas by
force, will be criminal and wicked; and all your feeble attempts will be
follies, and end in bringing sorrow on your heads, and ruin the cause
you would freely die to preserve.
No doubt was felt of Lincoln's sympathies; indeed, he is known to have
contributed money to the Free-State cause. But it is noticeable that in
this exciting episode he showed the same coolness, wisdom, moderation,
love of law and order that so strongly characterized his conduct in the
stormier period of the Civil War, and without which it is doubtful if he
would have been able to save the nation.
Some interesting recollections of the events of this stirring period,
and of Lincoln's part in them, are given by Mr. Paul Selby, for a long
time editor of the "State Journal" at Springfield, and one of
Lincoln's old-time friends and political associates. "While Abraham
Lincoln had the reputation of being inspired by an almost unbounded
ambition," says Mr. Selby, "it was of that generous quality which
characterized his other attributes, and often led him voluntarily to
restrain its gratification in deference to the conflicting aspirations
of his friends. All remember his magnanimity towards Col. Edward D.
Baker, when the latter was elected to Congress from the Springfield
District in 1844, and the frankness with which he informed Baker of
his own desire to be a candidate in 1846--when for the only time in
his life, he was elected to that body. In 1852, Richard Yates of
Jacksonville, then recognized as one of the rising young orators and
statesmen of the West, was elected to Congress for the second time
from the Springfield District. It was during the term following this
election that the Kansas-Nebraska issue was precipitated upon the
country by Senator Douglas, in the introduction of his bill for the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise. Yates, in obedience to his
impulses, which were always on the side of freedom, took strong ground
against the measure--notwithstanding the fact that a majority of his
constituents, though originally Whigs, were strongly conservative, as
was generally the case with people who were largely of Kentucky and
Tennessee origin. In 1854 the Whig party, which had been divided on
the Kansas-Nebraska question, began to manifest symptoms of
disintegration; while the Republican party, though not yet known by
that name, began to take form. At this time I was publishing a paper
at Jacksonville, Yates's home; and although from the date of my
connection with it, in 1852, it had not been a political paper, the
introduction of a new issue soon led me to take decided ground on the
side of free territory. Lincoln at once sprang into prominence as one
of the boldest, most vigorous and eloquent opponents of Mr. Douglas's
measure, which was construed as a scheme to secure the admission of
slavery into all the new territories of the United States. At that
time Lincoln's election to a seat in Congress would probably have been
very grateful to his ambition, as well as acceptable in a pecuniary
point of view; and his prominence and ability had already attracted
the eyes of the whole State toward him in a special degree. Having
occasion to visit Springfield one day while the subject of the
selection of a candidate was under consideration among the opponents
of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, I encountered Mr. Lincoln on the street.
As we walked along, the subject of the choice of a candidate for
Congress to succeed Yates came up, when I stated that many of the
old-line Whigs and anti-Nebraska men in the western part of the
district were looking to him as an available leader. While he seemed
gratified by the compliment, he said: 'No; Yates has been a true and
faithful Representative, and should be returned.' Yates was
renominated; and although he ran ahead of his ticket, yet so far had
the disorganization of the Whig party then progressed, and so strong a
foothold had the pro-slavery sentiment obtained in the district, that
he was defeated by Major Thomas L. Harris, of Petersburg, whom he had
defeated when he first entered the field as a candidate four years
before. While it is scarcely probable that Lincoln, if he had been a
candidate, could have changed the result, yet the prize was one which
he would then have considered worth contending for; and if the
nomination could have been tendered him without doing injustice to his
friend, he would undoubtedly have accepted it gladly and thrown all
the earnestness and ability which he possessed into the contest. This
instance only illustrates a feature of his character which has so
often been recognized and commented upon--his generosity toward those
among his political friends who might be regarded as occupying the
position of rivals."
In 1854, during Lincoln's absence from Springfield, he was nominated as
a candidate for the State Legislature. It was in one of Lincoln's
periods of profound depression, and it was with the greatest difficulty
that he could be persuaded to accept the nomination. "I went to see
him," says one of his close political friends, Mr. William Jayne, "in
order to get his consent to run. This was at his house. He was then the
saddest man I ever saw--the gloomiest. He walked up and down the floor,
almost crying; and to all my persuasions to let his name stand in the
paper, he said, 'No, I can't. You don't know all. I say you don't begin
to know one-half; and that's enough.'" His name, however, was allowed to
stand, and he was elected by about 600 majority. But Lincoln was then
extremely desirous of succeeding General James Shields, whose term in
the United States Senate was to expire the following March. The Senate
Chamber had long been the goal of his ambition. He summed up his
feelings in a letter to Hon. N.B. Judd, some years after, saying, "I
would rather have a full term in the United States Senate than the
Presidency." He therefore resigned his seat in the Legislature--the fact
that a majority in both houses was opposed to the Nebraska Bill allowing
him to do so without injury to his party--and became a candidate for the
Senate. But the act was futile. When the Legislature met, in February,
1855, to make choice of a Senator, a clique of anti-Nebraska Democrats
held out so firmly against the nomination of Lincoln that there was
danger of the Whigs leaving their candidate altogether. In this dilemma
Lincoln was consulted. Mr. Lamon thus describes the incident: "Lincoln
said, unhesitatingly, 'You ought to drop me and go for Trumbull; that is
the only way you can defeat Matteson.' Judge Logan came up about that
time, and insisted on running Lincoln still; but the latter said, 'If
you do, you will lose both Trumbull and myself; and I think the cause in
this case is to be preferred to men.' We adopted his suggestion, and
took up Trumbull and elected him, although it grieved us to the heart to
give up Lincoln." Mr. Parks, a member of the Legislature at this time,
and one of Lincoln's intimate friends, said: "Mr. Lincoln was very much
disappointed, for I think it was the height of his ambition to get into
the United States Senate. Yet he manifested no bitterness toward Mr.
Judd or the other anti-Nebraska Democrats by whom politically he was
beaten, but evidently thought their motives were right. He told me
several times afterwards that the election of Trumbull was the best
thing that could have happened."
Hon. Elijah M. Haines, ex-Speaker of the Illinois Legislature, a
resident of the State for over half a century, and one of Lincoln's
early friends, was a member of the Legislature during the Senatorial
struggle just referred to. His familiarity with all its incidents lends
value to his distinct and vivid recollections. "Abraham Lincoln had been
elected a member of the House on the Fusion ticket, with Judge Stephen
T. Logan, for the district composed of Sangamon County," writes Mr.
Haines. "But it being settled that the Fusion party--which was an
anti-Douglas combination, including Whigs, Free-Soilers, Know-Nothings,
etc.--would have a majority of the two houses on ballot, Mr. Lincoln was
induced to become a candidate for United States Senator, for the support
of that party. He therefore did not qualify as a member. Although Mr.
Lincoln never acquired the reputation of being an office-seeker, yet it
happened frequently that his name would be mentioned in connection with
some important position. He became quite early in life one of the
prominent leaders of the Whig party of the State, and for a long time,
in connection with a few devoted associates, led the forlorn hope of
that party. During a period of about twenty years there was seldom more
than one Whig member in the Illinois delegation of Congressmen. The
Sangamon district, in which Mr. Lincoln lived, was always sure to elect
a Whig member when the party was united; but it contained quite a number
of aspiring Whig orators, and there was a kind of understanding between
them that no one who attained the position of Representative in Congress
should hold it longer than one term; that he would then give way for the
next favorite. Mr. Lincoln had held the position once, and its return to
him was far in the future. The Fusion triumph in the Legislature was
considered by the Whig element as a success, in which they acknowledged
great obligation to Mr. Lincoln. That element in the Fusion party
therefore urged his claims as the successor of General Shields. His old
associate and tried friend in the Whig cause, Judge Logan, became the
champion of his interests in the House of Representatives. I was present
and saw something of Mr. Lincoln during the early part of the session,
before the vote for Senator was taken. He was around among the members
much of the time. His manner was agreeable and unassuming; he was not
forward in pressing his case upon the attention of members, yet before
the interview would come to a close some allusion to the Senatorship
would generally occur, when he would respond in some such way as this:
'Gentlemen, that is rather a delicate subject for me to talk upon; but I
must confess that I would be glad of your support for the office, if you
shall conclude that I am the proper person for it.' When he had
finished, he would generally take occasion to withdraw before any
discussion on the subject arose. When the election of Senator occurred,
in February, Lincoln received 45 votes--the highest number of any of
the candidates, and within six votes of enough to secure his election.
This was on the first ballot, after which Lincoln's votes declined.
After the ninth ballot, Mr. Lincoln stepped forward--or, as Mr. Richmond
expresses it, _leaned_ forward from his position in the lobby--and
requested the committee to withdraw his name. On the tenth ballot Judge
Trumbull received fifty-one votes and was declared elected." Thus were
Lincoln's political ambitions again frustrated. But their realization
was only delayed for the far grander triumph that was so soon to come,
although no man then foresaw its coming.
CHAPTER X
Birth of the Republican Party--Lincoln One of Its Fathers--Takes
His Stand with the Abolitionists--The Bloomington
Convention--Lincoln's Great Anti-Slavery Speech--A Ratification
Meeting of Three--The First National Republican
Convention--Lincoln's Name Presented for the
Vice-Presidency--Nomination of Fremont and Dayton--Lincoln in the
Campaign of 1856--His Appearance and Influence on the
Stump--Regarded as a Dangerous Man--His Views on the Politics of
the Future--First Visit to Cincinnati--Meeting with Edwin M.
Stanton--Stanton's First Impressions of Lincoln--Regards Him as a
"Giraffe"--A Visit to Cincinnati.
The year 1856 saw the dissolution of the old Whig party. It had become
too narrow and restricted to answer the needs of the hour. A new
platform was demanded, one that would admit the great principles and
issues growing out of the slavery agitation. A convention of the Whig
leaders throughout the country met at Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, on the
22d of February of that year, to consider the necessity of a new
organization. A little later, Mr. Herndon, in the office of Lincoln,
prepared a call for a convention at Bloomington, Illinois, "summoning
together all those who wished to see the government conducted on the
principles of Washington and Jefferson." This call was signed by the
most prominent Abolitionists of Illinois, with the name of A. LINCOLN at
the head. The morning after its publication, Major Stuart entered Mr.
Herndon's office in a state of extreme excitement, and, as the latter
relates, demanded: "'Sir, did Mr. Lincoln sign that Abolition call which
is published this morning?' I answered, 'Mr. Lincoln did not sign that
call.' 'Did Lincoln authorize you to sign it?' 'No, he never authorized
me to sign it.' 'Then do you know that you have ruined Mr. Lincoln?' 'I
did not know that I had ruined Mr. Lincoln; did not intend to do so;
thought he was a made man by it; that the time had come when
conservatism was a crime and a blunder.' 'You, then, take the
responsibility of your acts, do you?' 'I do, most emphatically.'
However, I instantly sat down and wrote to Mr. Lincoln, who was then in
Pekin or Tremont--possibly at court. He received my letter, and
instantly replied, either by letter or telegraph--most likely by
letter--that he adopted _in toto_ what I had done, and promised to meet
the radicals--Lovejoy and such like men--among us." Mr. Herndon adds:
"Never did a man change as Lincoln did from that hour. No sooner had he
planted himself right on the slavery question than his whole soul seemed
burning. _He blossomed right out._ Then, too, other spiritual things
grew more real to him."
Mr. Herndon had been an Abolitionist from birth. It was an inheritance
with him; but Lincoln's conversion was a gradual process, stimulated and
confirmed by the influence of his companion. "From 1854 to 1860," says
Mr. Herndon, "I kept putting into Lincoln's hands the speeches and
sermons of Theodore Parker, Wendell Phillips, and Henry Ward Beecher. I
took 'The Anti-Slavery Standard' for years before 1856, 'The Chicago
Tribune,' and 'The New York Tribune'; kept them in my office, kept them
purposely on my table, and would read to Lincoln the good, sharp, solid
things, well put. Lincoln was a natural anti-slavery man, as I think,
and yet he needed watching,--needed hope, faith, energy; and I think I
_warmed him_."
It is stated that "when Herndon was very young--probably before Mr.
Lincoln made his first protest in the Legislature of the State in behalf
of liberty--Lincoln once said to him: 'I cannot see what makes your
convictions so decided as regards the future of slavery. What tells you
the thing must be rooted out?' 'I feel it in my bones,' was Herndon's
emphatic answer. 'This continent is not broad enough to endure the
contest between freedom and slavery!' It was almost in these very words
that Lincoln afterwards opened the great contest with Douglas. From this
time forward he submitted all public questions to what he called 'the
test of Bill Herndon's _bone philosophy_'; and their arguments were
close and protracted."
Lincoln's attitude on slavery aroused formidable opposition among his
friends, and even in his own family. Mrs. Lincoln was decidedly
pro-slavery in her views. Once while riding with a friend she said: "If
my husband dies, his spirit will never find me residing outside the
limits of a slave State." But opposition, whether from without or
within, could never swerve him from a course to which conscience and
reason clearly impelled him. Long before Mr. Herndon published the call
for the Bloomington convention, he had said to a deputation of men from
Chicago, in answer to the inquiry whether Lincoln could be trusted for
freedom: "Can you trust yourselves? If you can, you can trust Lincoln
forever."
The convention met at Bloomington, May 29, 1856. One of its chief
incidents was a speech by Lincoln. This speech was one of the great
efforts of his life, and had a powerful influence on the convention.
"Never," says one of the delegates, "was an audience more completely
electrified by human eloquence. Again and again his hearers sprang to
their feet, and by long continued cheers expressed how deeply the
speaker had aroused them." "It was there," says Mr. Herndon in one of
his lectures, "that Lincoln was baptized and joined our church. He made
a speech to us. I have heard or read all of Mr. Lincoln's great
speeches; and I give it as my opinion that the Bloomington speech was
the grand effort of his life. Heretofore, and up to this moment, he had
simply argued the slavery question on grounds of policy,--on what are
called the _statesman's_ grounds,--never reaching the question of the
radical and eternal right. Now he was newly baptized and freshly born;
he had the fervor of a new convert; the smothered flame broke out;
enthusiasm unusual to him blazed up; his eyes were aglow with
inspiration; he felt a new and more vital justice; his heart was alive
to the right; his sympathies burst forth; and he stood before the throne
of the eternal Right, in presence of his God, and then and there
unburdened his penitential and fired soul. This speech was fresh, new,
genuine, odd, original; filled with fervor not unmixed with a divine
enthusiasm; his head breathing out through his tender heart its truths,
its sense of right, and its feeling of the good and for the good. This
speech was full of fire and energy and force; it was logic; it was
pathos; it was enthusiasm; it was justice, equity, truth, right, and
good, set ablaze by the divine fires of a soul maddened by wrong; it was
hard, heavy, knotty, gnarly, edged, and heated. I attempted for about
fifteen minutes, as was usual with me then, to take notes; but at the
end of that time I threw pen and paper to the dogs, and lived only in
the inspiration of the hour. If Mr. Lincoln was six feet four inches
high usually, _at Bloomington he was seven feet_, and inspired at that.
From that day to the day of his death, he stood firm on the right. He
felt his great cross, had his great idea, nursed it, kept it, taught it to others, and in his fidelity bore witness of it to his death, and finally sealed it with his precious blood." |
|
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기