Lincoln as a social prophet; Freedom Fighter, 1860

I was ready and it was then yeah. Oh man I am in their hands now. Being on the following program is the fifth in a series of readings on Abraham Lincoln entitled Lincoln a social prophet. The readings and commemoration of Illinois sesquicentennial are done by Marvin saying our speech instructor at Northern Illinois University. Today's reading freedom fighter 1860. Mr. S. R. When I spoke to you last we dealt with Abraham Lincoln as a freedom fighter in 1858. Through an examination of his house divided speech we perceive that the social prophet from Illinois stood squarely behind the Declaration of Independence the right of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness

belongs to every man no matter what his color. February 27 1860 Lincoln again proved his vision in the Struggle for Racial Equality. This time the scene and the message were slightly different. And in the July 17 1858 address Lincoln was on the verge of assuming a full scale debate with Douglas February 20 seventh. Lincoln responded to an invitation from the Young Men's Republican union to speak at Cooper Institute in New York. In contrast to his mixed and probably rather ordinary audience in Springfield July 17th the Cooper Institute was liberally sprinkled with distinguished listeners. His preparation for the February 27 event was thorough with patient labor he combed the history of our early politics to ascertain fact from the numerous journals letters statutes and pamphlets. It was difficult work because of the lack of complete and accurate records and the virtual absence of indices and tables of contents. But with his usual care he produced another lasting

document and one amazingly free from the academic stiffness which often accompanies dates and details. What did Lincoln say. First he carefully documented his assertion that the framers of the Constitution had out of necessity tolerated slavery but that the eagerly anticipated the time when it would no longer blight the nations name turning from this historical evidence. He bluntly addressed the Southerners as if he actually sat in the audience. No matter if we come from the north or the south. Let us try to imagine ourselves listening to Lincoln in Cooper Institute New York February 27 1860 for the sake of time and probably your interest. I will delete non-essential portions of Lincoln's speech. Mr President and fellow citizens of New York the facts with which I showed you listen evening are mainly old and familiar. Nor is there anything new in the general use I shall make of them. If there shall be any novelty it will be in the mode of presenting the facts in the inferences and observations

following that presentation. In his speech last autumn at Columbus Ohio as reported in The New York Times 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 endorse this and I adopted as a text for this discourse. I still adopted because it furnishes a precise in and agreed starting point for discussion between Republicans and that wing of the democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry. What was the understanding of those 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. That Constitution consists of the original frame in 1787 and under which the present government first went into operation and 12 subsequently framed 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 called our fathers who framed that part of the present government.

It is almost exactly true to say they framed it and it is altogether true to say they fairly represented the pinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time. Their names being familiar to nearly all and accessible to quite all need not be repeated. I take the study 9 for the present as being our fathers who framed the government under which we live. What is the question which according to the text those fathers understood just as well and even better than we do now. It is this Does the proper division of local from federal authority or anything in the Constitution forbid our federal government to control as to slavery in our Federal Territories upon this Senator Douglas holds the affirmative and Republicans the negative. This affirmation and denial form an issue and this issue this question is precisely what the text declares our fathers understood better than we. Let us now inquire whether the thirty nine or any of them ever acted upon this question. And if they did how they acted upon it how they express that better understanding.

In 1784 three years before the Constitution the United States then owning the north western territory and no other. The Congress of the Confederation had before them the question of prohibiting slavery in that territory. And four of the thirty nine who afterward framed the Constitution were in that Congress and voted on that question. Of these Roger Sherman Thomas Mifflin and Hugh Williamson voted for the prohibition that showing that in their understanding no line dividing local from federal authority nor anything else. Properly for Bay the federal government to control as to slavery and federal territory the other of the four. James McHenry voted against the prohibition showing that for some cause he thought it improper to vote for it in 1787. Still before the concert constitution but while the convention was in session framing it and while the North-Western territory still was the only territory owned by the United States the same question of prohibiting slavery in the territory again came before the Congress of the Confederation and two more of the thirty nine who afterward signed the Constitution were in that Congress and voted on the

question. They were William Blum and William few and they both voted for the prohibition. In 1789 by the First Congress which sat under the Constitution an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of 87 including the prohibition of slavery in the northwestern territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the thirty nine Thomas FITZSIMMONS. Then a member of the House of Representatives from Pennsylvania. It went through all its stages without a word of opposition and finally passed both branches without yeas and nays which is equivalent to any unanimous passage. And this Congress there were 16 of the 39 fathers who framed the original Constitution. Again George Washington another of the thirty nine was then president of the United States and as such approved and signed the bill in 1798 Congress organized the territory of Mississippi. The act of organization they prohibited the bringing of slaves into the territory from any place without the United States. By fine and giving freedom to slaves so brought this Act passed both branches of

Congress without yeas and nays and that Congress were three of the thirty nine who framed the original Constitution. In 1830 the federal government purchased the Louisiana country. Slavery was extensively and thoroughly intermingled with the people. Congress did not in the territorial act prohibit slavery but they did interfere with it take control of it in a more marked and extensive way than they did in the case of Mississippi. This Act also was passed without yeas and nays in the Congress which passed it there were two of the thirty nine. They were Abraham Baldwin and Jonathan Dayton and 18 19 through 18 20 came and passed the Missouri question many votes were taken by yeas and nays in both branches of Congress upon the various phases of the general question. Two of the thirty nine Rufus King and Charles Pinckney were members of that Congress. Mr King steadily voted for slavery prohibition and against all compromises. While Mr. Pinkney is steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises.

Here then we have 23 out of our 39 fathers who framed the government under which we live who have upon their official responsibility and their corporate roles acted upon the very question which the texts affirm they understood just as well and even better than we do now. Two of the 23 voted against congressional prohibition of slavery in the federal territories. In the instances in which they acted upon the question before but for what reasons they so voted is not known. They may have done so because they thought a proper division of local from federal authority or some provision or principle of the Constitution stood in the way or they mean without any such question have voted against the prohibition on what appeared to them to be sufficient grounds of expediency. The remaining 16 of the thirty nine so far as I have discovered have left no record of their understanding upon the direct question of federal control of slavery in the federal territories. But there is much reason to believe that their understanding upon that question would not have appeared different from that of their 23 comperes. Had it been

manifested at all among that 16 were several of the most noted anti-slavery men of those times as Dr Franklin Alexander Hamilton and Governor Morris while there was not one now known to have been otherwise. And I said maybe John Rutledge of South Carolina. The sum of the whole is that of our 39 fathers who framed the original Constitution. 21. A clear majority of the whole. Certainly understood that no proper division of local from federal authority in any part of the Constitution forbade the federal government to control slavery in the federal territories. While all the rest probably had the same understanding such unquestionably was the understanding of our fathers who framed the original Constitution and the text affirms that they understood the question better than we. But so far I have been considering the understanding of the question manifested by the framers of the original Constitution and in by the original instrument a mode was provided for amending it. And as I have already stated the present frame of the government under which we live consists of that

original and 12 amended Tory articles framed and adopted since now it so happens that these amendments were framed by the First Congress which sat under the Constitution the identical Congress which passed the act already mentioned enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the northwestern territory. Not only was it the same Congress but they were the identical same individual men who had the same session and at the same time within the session had under consideration and in progress toward majority. These constitutional amendments and this Act prohibiting slavery in all the territory the nation then owned. The 76 members of that Congress including 16 of the framers of the original Constitution as before stated were preeminently our fathers who framed that part of the government under which we live which is now claimed us for bidding the federal government to control slavery in the federal territories. Is it not a little presumptuous in anyone at this state to affirm that the two things which that Congress deliberately framed and carried a majority at the same time are

absolutely inconsistent with each other. It is surely safe to assume that the thirty nine framers of the original Constitution and the 76 members of the Congress which framed the amendments there are two taken together do certainly include those who may be fairly 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 his whole life declared that in in his understanding any proper division of local from federal authority or any part of the Constitution for bade the federal government to control is to slavery in the federal territories. Now. And here let me guide a little against being misunderstood. I do not mean to say we are bound to follow implicitly in whatever our fathers did to do so would be to do to disguise all the lights of current experience to reject all progress on improvement. What I do say is that if we would supplant the opinions and policy of our fathers in any case we should do so upon evidence so conclusive an argument so clear that even their great authority fairly considered and

weighed cannot stand. And most surely not in a case where we ourselves declare they understood the question better than we. And now if they would listen as I suppose they will not I would address a few words to the Southern people. I would say to them you consider yourselves a reasonable and just people and I consider that in the general qualities of reason and justice. You are not inferior to any other people. Still when you speak of us Republicans you do so only to denounce us as reptiles or at the best is no better than outlaws. You will grant a hearing to pirates or murders but nothing like it to black Republicans. You say we are sectional. We deny it. That makes an issue and the burden of proof is upon you. You produce your proof. And what is it. Why that our 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 chains of principle begin to get votes in your section we should thereby cease to be sectional. You

cannot escape this conclusion and yet are you willing to abide by it. If you are you will probably soon find that we have ceased to be sectional for we shall get 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. The fact is we get no votes in your sector. Section is a fact of your making and not of ours. Some of you delight to flounder in our faces the warning against sectional parties given by Washington in his Farewell Address less than eight years before Washington gave that warning he had as president of the United States approved and signed an act of Congress enforcing the prohibition of slavery in the northwestern territory which act embodied the policy of the government upon that subject up to and at the very moment he penned that warning. And about one year after he penned it he wrote Lafayette that he considered that prohibition a wise measure expressing in the same connection his hope that we should at some time have a confederacy of free states. But you say you

are a conservative eminently conservative while we are revolutionary destructive or something of the sort. What is conservatism. Is it not adherents to the golden try it against the new and untried. We stick to contend for the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by our fathers who framed the government under which we live. Well you had one accord rejected scout and spit upon that old policy and insist upon substituting something new not one of all your various plants can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our government originated. Consider then whether your claim of conservatism for yourselves and your charge of destructiveness against us are based on the most clear and stable foundations. Again you say we have made the slavery question more prominent than it formerly was. We deny it. We admit that it is more prominent but we deny that we made it so it was not we but you who discarded the old policy of the fathers. We resisted and still resist your innovation. And then comes the greater

prominence of the question. Would you have the question reduced to its former proportions. Go back to that oral policy. What has been will be again under the same conditions. If you would have the peace of the old times re adopt the precepts and policy of the old times. You charge that we stir up insurrections among your slaves. We deny it. What is your proof. Harper's Ferry John Brown John Brown was no Republican. And you have failed to implicate a single Republican in his Harper's Ferry enterprise. Some of you admit that no Republican design Adly aided or encouraged the Harpers Ferry affair but still insist that our doctrines and declarations necessarily lead to such results. Republican doctrines and declarations are accompanied with a continual protest against any interference whatever with your slaves or with you about your slaves. Surely this does not encourage them to revolt. True we do in common with our fathers who framed the government under which we live. I declare I believe that slavery is wrong but the slaves do not hear

us declare even this for anything we say or do the slaves would scarcely know there is a Republican Party. I believe they would not in fact generally know what but for your misrepresentations of us in their hearing and your political contest among yourselves each faction charges the other with sympathy with black Republicanism and then to give point to the charge defines black Republican ism to simply be insurrection. Blood and Thunder among the slaves slave insurrections are no more common now than they were before the Republican party was organized. What in do is to Southampton Southampton insurrection 20 years ago in which at least three times as many lives were lost as at Harper's Ferry. You can scarcely stretch your very elastic fancy to the conclusion that Southampton was gonna buy black Republicanism in the present state of things in the United States. I do not think a general or even a very extensive slave insurrection is possible. The Indispensable concert of action cannot be attained. The Slaves have no means of rapid communication nor can incendiary freemen black or white supply of the explosive materials are everywhere

in parcels. But there neither I nor can be supplied the indispensable connecting trains. Much is said by Southern people about the affection of slaves for their masters and mistresses and a part of it at least is true. A plot for an uprising could scarcely be devised and communicated to 20 individuals before some one of them to save the life of a favored master or mistress would divulge it occasionally poisonings from the kitchen an open or stealthy assassinations in the field and local revolts extending to a score so well continue to occur as a natural result of slavery. But no general insurrection of slaves as I think can happen in this country for a long time who ever much fears or much hopes for such an event will be alike disappointed in the language of Mr. Jefferson. I did many years ago. It is still in our power to direct the process of emancipation and deportation peaceably and in such slow degrees as that the evil will wear off insensibly and their places be filled up by white free labors. If on the contrary it is left to force

itself on human nature much shudder at the prospect held up Mr. Jefferson did not mean to say nor do I that the power of emancipation is in the federal government. He spoke of Virginia. And as to the power of emancipation I speak of the slave holding states only the federal government however as we insist has the power of restraining the extension of the institution the power to insure that a slave insurrection shall never occur on any American soil which is now free from slavery. John Brown's effort was peculiar. It was not a slave insurrection. It was an attempt by white men to get up a revolt among slaves in which the slaves refused to participate. In fact it was so absurd that the slaves with all their ignorance saw plainly enough it could not succeed and how much would it avail you if you could by the use of John Brown helpers book and the like. Break up the Republican organization Human Action can be modified to some extent but human nature cannot be changed. There is a judgement and a feeling against slavery in this nation which cast at

least a million and a half of votes you cannot destroy that judgment and feeling that sentiment by breaking up the political organization which rallies around it you can scarcely scatter and disperse an army which has been formed into the order in the face of your heaviest fire. But if you could how much would you gain by forcing the sandmen which created it out of the peaceful channel of the ballot box into some other channel. What would that other channel probably be with a number of John Brown's be lessened or enlarged by the operation. Your purpose then plainly stated is that you will destroy the government unless you will be allowed to construe and enforce the Constitution as you pleased on all points in dispute between you and us. You will rule or ruin in all events. This plainly stated is your language. Perhaps you will say the Supreme Court has decided the disputed constitutional question in your favor. Not quite so but waving the lawyers distinction between dictum and decision. The courts have decided the question for you

in a sort of way. The court have substantially said it is your constitutional right to take slaves into the federal territories and to hold them there as property. When I do see it say the decision was made in a sort of way I mean it was made in a divided court by a bare majority of the judges and they not quite agreeing with one another in the reasons for making it that it is so made is that it's a valid supporters disagree with one another about its meaning and that it was mainly based upon a mistaken statement of fact. The statement in the opinion that the right of property in a slave is distinctly expressly affirmed in the Constitution. An inspection of the constitution will show that the right of property in a slave is not distinctly expressly affirmed in it. If the judges had only pledged their judicial opinion that such right is affirmed in the instrument by implication it would be open to others to show that neither the word slave or slavery is to be found in the Constitution nor the word property even in any connection with language

alluding to the thing slave or slavery. And that when ever in that instrument the slave is alluded to he is called a person. And wherever his master is legal right in relation to him is alluded to it is spoken of as service or labor which may be due as a debt payable in service or labor. Also it will be opened to show by contemporaneous history that this mode of alluding to slaves and slavery instead of speaking of them was employed on purpose to exclude from the Constitution the idea that there could be property in man. Sure all this is easy and certain when this obvious mistake of the judges shall be brought to their notice. Is it not reasonable to expect that they will withdraw the mistaken statement and reconsider the conclusion based upon it. And then it is to be remembered that our fathers who framed the government under which we live. The man who made the constitution decided this same constitutional question in our favor long ago decided it without division among themselves when making the decision without division among themselves about the meaning of it. After it was made

and so far as any evidence is left without basing it upon any mistaken statement of facts. Under all these circumstances do you really feel yourselves justified to break up this government unless such a court decision as yours is shall be at once submitted to as a conclusive and the final rule of political action. But you will not abide the election of a Republican president and that supposed event you say you will destroy the union. And then you say the great crime of having destroyed it will be upon us. That is cool. A highwayman holds a pistol to my ear and mutters through his teeth. Stand and Deliver or I shall kill you and then you will be a murderer. To be sure what the robber demanded of me my money was my own and I had a clear right to keep it. But it was no more my own than my vote is my own and the threat of death to me to extort my money and the threat of destruction to the union to start my vote can scarcely be distinguished in principle. If you were down to

Republicans it is exceedingly desirable that all parts of this great Confederacy shall be at peace and in harmony one with another. Let us Republicans do our part to have it so even though much provoked let us do nothing through passion and ill temper even though the Southern people will not so much as listen to us. Let us calmly consider their demands and yield to them. If in our deliberate view of our duty we possibly can. Judging by all they say and do and by the subject and nature of their controversy with us let us determine if we can what will satisfy them. Will they be satisfied if the territories be unconditionally surrendered to that we know they will not in all their present complaints against us the territories are scarcely mentioned invasions in insurrections are the rage now. Will it satisfy them if in the future we have nothing to do with invasions and insurrections. We know it will not we so know because we know we have never had anything to do with invasions and insurrections. Yet this total abstaining does not exempt us from the charge and the denunciation. The question recurs what will satisfy them. Simply this we must not only let them

alone but we must somehow convince them that we do let them alone. This we know by experience is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly contested our purpose to let them alone. But this is had no tendency to convince them alike on availing to convince them is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them. These natural and apparently adequate means all feeling. What will convince them this and this only cease to call slavery wrong and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly done in X as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated. We must place ourselves of voluntary with them. Senator Douglas is new sedition law must be enacted and enforced suppressing all declarations that slavery is wrong whether made in politics in presses in pulpits or in private. We must arrest and return their fugitive slaves with greedy pleasure. We must pull down our free state constitutions.

The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us. I am quite aware 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 have never disturbed them so that after all it is what we say which dissatisfy is them. They will continue to accuse us of doing until we cease saying. I am also aware that they have not as yet in terms demanded the overthrow of our free state constitutions. Yet those constitutions declare the wrongs of slavery with more solemn emphasis than do all other sayings against it. And when all these other sayings Shell have been silenced the overthrow of these constitutions will be demanded and nothing be left to resist the demand. It is nothing to the contrary that they do not demand the whole of this just now demanding what they do and for the reason they do they can voluntarily stop nowhere short of this consummation holding as they do that slavery is morally right and socially elevating. They cannot cease to

demand a full national recognition of it as a legal right and a social blessing. Nor can we justifiably withhold this on any grounds save our conviction that slavery is wrong if slavery is right all words x laws and constitutions against it are themselves wrong and should be silenced and swept away. If it is right we cannot justly object to its nationality its universe ality if it is wrong they cannot justly insist upon its extension its enlargement. All they ask we could readily grant if we thought slavery right. We asked they could as readily grant if they thought it wrong. They're thinking it right and I thinking it wrong is the precise fact upon which depends the whole controversy thinking it right as they do they are not to blame for desiring its full recognition as being right but thinking it wrong as we do can we you to them. Can we cast our votes with their view and against our own. In view of our moral social and political responsibilities can we do this wrong as we think slavery is. We can yet afford to let it

alone where it is because that much is due to the necessity arising from its actual presence in the nation. But can we while our votes will prevent it. Allow it to spread into the national territories and to overrun us here in these free states. If our sense of duty for bit is this then let us stand by our duty fearlessly and effectively. Let us be diverted by none of those sophistical contrivances wherewith we are so industriously plied and belabored contrivances such as groping for some middle ground between the right and the wrong. Then is this search for a man who should be neither a living man or a dead man. Such is a policy of don't care on a question about which all true men do care such as union appeals beseeching true union men to yield to disunion is reversing the divine rule and calling not the sinners but the righteous to repentance. Such as invocations to Washington employing men to on say what Washington said and on do what Washington did. Neither let us be slandered from my duty by

false accusations against us. You are fighting from it by menaces of destruction to the government. You have dungeons to ourselves. Let us have faith that right makes might and in that faith lead us to the end dare to do our duty as we understand it. Lincoln is a social prophet the fifth in a series of readings on Abraham Lincoln commemorating Illinois sesquicentennial. Today's reading by Northern Illinois University speech instructor Marvin saying R. was entitled freedom fighter 88 and 60 next week. Freedom Fighter. 1863. A production of WNYC Radio in Northern Illinois University. This program was distributed by the national educational radio network.