What Important Legal and Political Concept Can Be Traced to Abraham?

Representatives Hall Lecturn © Abraham Lincoln Online

House Divided Oral communication Springfield, Illinois June xvi, 1858

On June xvi, 1858 more than ane,000 delegates met in the Springfield, Illinois, statehouse for the Republican Land Convention. At five:00 p.m. they chose Abraham Lincoln every bit their candidate for the U.S. Senate, running against Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. At 8:00 p.m. Lincoln delivered this address to his Republican colleagues in the Hall of Representatives. The title reflects part of the speech's introduction, "A firm divided against itself cannot stand up," a concept familiar to Lincoln'south audience equally a statement by Jesus recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke).

Even Lincoln's friends regarded the speech equally besides radical for the occasion. His law partner, William H. Herndon, considered Lincoln as morally courageous only politically incorrect. Lincoln read the speech to him earlier delivering it, referring to the "house divided" language this way: "The suggestion is indisputably true ... and I will deliver it as written. I want to use some universally known figure, expressed in uncomplicated language as universally known, that it may strike home to the minds of men in order to rouse them to the peril of the times."

The speech communication created many repercussions, giving Lincoln's political opponent fresh ammunition. Herndon remarked, "when I saw Senator Douglas making such headway against Mr. Lincoln'due south firm divided speech I was nettled & irritable, and said to Mr. Lincoln one day this -- 'Mr. Lincoln -- why in the world exercise y'all non say to Mr. Douglas, when he is making capitol out of your oral communication, -- 'Douglas why whine and mutter to me because of that speech. I am non the writer of it. God is. Go and whine and complain to Him for its revelation, and utterance.' Mr. Lincoln looked at me one short quizzical moment, and replied 'I can't.'"

Reflecting on it several years later, Herndon said the speech did awaken the people, and despite Lincoln's defeat, he thought the speech fabricated him President. "Through logic inductively seen," he said, "Lincoln as a statesman, and political philosopher, announced an eternal truth -- non only equally wide as America, but covers the globe."

Another colleague, Leonard Swett, said the speech defeated Lincoln in the Senate campaign. In 1866 he wrote to Herndon complaining, "Nada could have been more than unfortunate or inappropriate; it was saying offset the wrong matter, yet he saw information technology was an abstract truth, merely standing by the voice communication would ultimately find him in the correct place."

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention.

If we could offset know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better estimate what to practice, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation.

Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not merely, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my stance, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

"A firm divided against itself cannot stand."

I believe this regime cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.

I do not look the Matrimony to be dissolved -- I exercise not wait the business firm to fall -- only I exercise look it will cease to be divided.

It will become all one matter or all the other.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public listen shall residue in the conventionalities that information technology is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it frontward, till information technology shall become alike lawful in all the States, old likewise as new -- North every bit well every bit South.

Accept we no tendency to the latter condition?

Allow any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of mechanism then to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to practice, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of pattern and concert of activity, amid its chief architects, from the beginning.

But, so far, Congress simply, had acted; and an indorsement past the people, real or credible, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give hazard for more.

The new year of 1854 constitute slavery excluded from more than than half usa by State Constitutions, and from well-nigh of the national territory by congressional prohibition.

4 days later, commenced the struggle, which concluded in repealing that congressional prohibition.

This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the get-go indicate gained.

This necessity had not been disregarded; merely had been provided for, as well as might exist, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful footing of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it equally to amount to just this: That if any one man, choose to enslave another, no third homo shall be allowed to object.

That statement was incorporated into the Nebraska nib itself, in the language which follows: "It existence the true intent and meaning of this deed non to legislate slavery into whatever Territory or state, not to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly gratuitous to class and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, bailiwick merely to the Constitution of the United States."

And so opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "Squatter Sovereignty," and "Sacred right of self-government."

"Only," said opposition members, "let us be more specific -- let us better the bill and then as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure out; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska Bill was passing through congress, a police force case involving the question of a negroe's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and and so a territory covered past the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave, for a long time in each, was passing through the U.Southward. Circuit Court for the Commune of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and constabulary suit were brought to a decision in the aforementioned calendar month of May, 1854. The negroe'south name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the conclusion finally made in the case.

Earlier the and so side by side Presidential election, the police case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Courtroom of the U.s.; only the decision of information technology was deferred until later the ballot. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requests the leading abet of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: "That is a question for the Supreme Court."

The ballot came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second bespeak gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a articulate popular majority by almost iv hundred thousand votes, and and so, perchance, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory.

The outgoing President, in his terminal annual bulletin, as impressively as possible, echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement.

The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their determination, but ordered a re-statement.

The Presidential inauguration came, and still no conclusion of the court; but the incoming President, in his countdown address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever might be.

Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early on occasion to make a speech at this majuscule indorsing the Dred Scott Decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it.

The new President, too, seizes the early on occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly metaphrase that decision, and to express his astonishment that whatever different view had ever been entertained.

At length a squabble springs upwardly between the President and the writer of the Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was non, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that squabble the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery exist voted downwardly or voted upwards. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to exist intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind -- the principle for which he declares he has suffered much, and is ready to suffer to the terminate.

And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle, is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of beingness, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding -- similar the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand -- helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late articulation struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was fabricated on a point, the correct of a people to make their ain constitution, upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas' "care-not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its nowadays land of advancement. This was the third betoken gained.

\ The working points of that machinery are:

Beginning, that no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States.

This betoken is made in club to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the do good of this provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that--

"The citizens of each Country shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities 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 from any Us Territory.

This point is made in order that individual men may fill up upward the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them every bit belongings, and thus to heighten the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Thirdly, that whether the holding a negro in bodily slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will non decide, but volition exit to exist decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the primary.

This signal is made, non to be pressed immediately; just, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an ballot, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott'due south master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free Land of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with whatsoever other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other complimentary State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working manus in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to brainwash and mould public stance, at least Northern public opinion, to not care whether slavery is voted down or voted up.

This shows exactly where nosotros now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional low-cal on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to exist left "perfectly complimentary" "field of study just to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not so come across. Manifestly plenty now, it was an exactly fitted niche, for the Dred Scott conclusion to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people, to be but no freedom at all.

Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people to exclude slavery, voted down? Plainly plenty now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision.

Why was the court conclusion held upwardly? Why even a Senator'due south individual opinion withheld, till after the presidential election? Plainly plenty now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried.

Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the filibuster of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision?

These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the passenger a fall.

And why the jerky afterward indorsements of the decision past the President and others?

We tin not absolutely know that all these verbal adaptations are the upshot of preconcert. But when nosotros see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at unlike times and places and by dissimilar workmen -- Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for case -- and when we encounter these timbers joined together, and run into they exactly make the frame of a house or a factory, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the unlike pieces exactly adjusted to their respective places, and not a piece as well many or too few -- not omitting even scaffolding -- or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to nonetheless bring such piece in -- in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood i another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common program or typhoon drawn up before the kickoff lick was struck.

It should non exist overlooked that, past the Nebraska Bill, the people of a State, as well as Territory, were to be left "perfectly free" "subject only to the Constitution."

Why mention a State? They were legislating for territories, and non for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the Usa; but why is mention of this lugged into this but territorial police? Why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as beingness precisely the same?

While the opinion of the Court, past Principal Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the split opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any The states territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state, or the people of a State, to exclude it.

Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who tin can exist quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to become into the opinion a declaration of unlimited ability in the people of a land to exclude slavery from their limits, merely equally Hunt and Macy sought to get such proclamation, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill -- I inquire, who can be quite sure that it would not accept been voted down, in the one case, as it had been in the other.

The nearest arroyo to the point of declaring the ability of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise thought, and almost the language as well, of the Nebraska human action. On 1 occasion his verbal language is, "except in cases where the power is restrained past the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the discipline of slavery within its jurisdiction."

In what cases the power of the states is and so restrained by the U.S. Constitution, is left an open up question, precisely as the same question, every bit to the restraint on the power of the territories was left open in the Nebraska human activity. Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court conclusion, declaring that the Constitution of the Us does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits.

And this may specially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted upwardly, shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision an exist maintained when made.

Such a determination is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the states.

Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will presently exist upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown.

We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.

To meet and overthrow the ability of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.

This is what we have to do.

But how can we best do it?

In that location are those who denounce the states openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest musical instrument at that place is, with which to effect that object. They wish united states to infer all, from the facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with united states, on a unmarried point, upon which, he and nosotros, have never differed.

They remind united states of america that he is a great man, and that the largest of united states are very small ones. Allow this be granted. Merely "a living dog is better than a dead lion." Estimate Douglas, if not a dead panthera leo for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How tin can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don't intendance anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to intendance goose egg almost it.

A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas' superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade.

Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is budgeted? He has not said so. Does he really call back and so? Simply if it is, how tin he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to have negro slaves into the new territories. Tin can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And, unquestionably they tin can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.

He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to i of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade -- how can he pass up that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free" -- unless he does it every bit a protection to the abode production? And as the home producers will probably non ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a human may rightfully exist wiser to-twenty-four hours than he was yesterday -- that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong.

Merely can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference?

Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas' position, question his motives, or exercise ought that tin can exist personally offensive to him.

Whenever, if ever, he and nosotros can come together on principle then that our peachy cause may accept assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle.

But conspicuously, he is not now with us -- he does not pretend to exist -- he does non promise to always be.

Our crusade, then, must exist intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends -- those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work -- who practise intendance for the upshot.

Ii years agone the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong.

We did this under the unmarried impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against u.s..

Of strange, discordant, and even, hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, nether the constant hot burn down of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy.

Did we dauntless all and so to falter at present? -- now -- when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and argumentative?

The consequence is not doubtful. Nosotros shall non fail -- if we stand up firm, nosotros shall not fail.

Wise councils may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later the victory is sure to come.

---

Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, edited past Roy P. Basler et al. Dwelling | News | Didactics | Timelines | Places | Resources | Books | Speeches | Index | Search

Lincoln's writings are in the public domain; photo and this introduction copyright © 2022 Abraham Lincoln Online. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy

gibsonshewit1957.blogspot.com

Source: http://www.abrahamlincolnonline.org/lincoln/speeches/house.htm