ABRAHAM LINCOLN

COOPER UNION SPEECH

Abraham Lincoln was born in Hardin County, Ky., in 1809, and living a humble life upon the frontiers of civilization, showed much energy and industry in self-education. In 1832 he was captain of a company in the Black Hawk War, afterwards kept a store; next became deputy surveyor of Sangamon County, Ill., and then began the study of law. At twenty-five he entered the Illinois legislature, and soon took the leadership of the Whig party. Settling at Springfield, he entered into various successive law partnerships. In 1846 he was elected to Congress as the Whig member from Illinois, and here he introduced a bill to abolish slavery in the District of Columbia. In 1855 he entered the field of public debate with Stephen A. Douglas on the question of admitting Kansas as a free or a slave state. The honors of the debate went to Lincoln. In February, 1860, Lincoln delivered a notable speech in Cooper Institute, New York City, on the attitude of the framers of the Constitution to the question of slavery. In May of the same year he was nominated for President by the Republican national convention, and chosen at the ensuing election. He was reëlected in 1864. He was assassinated at Ford's Theater, Washington, on the evening of April 14, 1865. The first of the following speeches was made at Cooper Union, New York City, in 1860; the second was made in Springfield, Ill., June 16, 1858. The second joint debate with Judge Douglas took place at Freeport, August 27, 1858. The Farewell Address at Springfield was delivered February 12, 1861. The Gettysburg address was delivered at the dedication of the National Cemetery at Gettysburg, Pa., November 19, 1863. The Second Inaugural was delivered from the steps of the Capitol in Washington, March 4, 1865. Another speech by Lincoln is given in Volume II.

Cooper Union, N.Y- 1860

MR. PRESIDENT, AND FELLOW CITIZENS OF NEW YORK:-The facts with which I shall deal this 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 and 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 adopt it as a text for this discourse. I so adopt it because it furnishes a precise and an agreed starting point for a discussion between Republicans and that wing of the Democracy headed by Senator Douglas. It simply leaves the inquiry: "What was the understanding 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, framed in 1787 (and under which the present government first went into operation), and twelve subsequently framed amendments, the first ten of which were framed in 1789.

I

Who were our fathers that framed the Constitution? 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 opinion and sentiment of the whole nation at that time.

Their names, being familiar to nearly all, and accessible to quite all, need not now be repeated.

I take these "thirty-nine" for the present as being our "fathers 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 Repub

licans 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 acted upon this question; and if they did how they acted upon it-how they expressed that better understanding.

In 1789, by the first Congress which sat under the Constitution, an act was passed to enforce the Ordinance of 1787, including the prohibition of slavery in the Northwestern Territory. The bill for this act was reported by one of the "thirtynine," 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 a unanimous passage. In this Congress there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Gilman, William S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thomas Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.

This shows that in their understanding no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, properly forbade Congress to prohibit slavery in the Federal territory; else both their fidelity to correct principles and their oath to support the Constitution would have constrained them to oppose the prohibition.

Again: George Washington, another of the "thirty-nine," was then President of the United States and, as such approved and signed the bill; thus completing its validity as a law and thus showing that in his understanding no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, forbade the Federal government to control as to slavery in Federal territory.

No great while after the adoption of the original Constitution North Carolina ceded to the Federal government the country now constituting the state of Tennessee; and a few years later Georgia ceded that which now constitutes the states of Mississippi and Alabama. In both deeds of cession it was

made a condition by the ceding states that the Federal government should not prohibit slavery in the ceded country. Besides this, slavery was then actually in the ceded country. Under these circumstances Congress on taking charge of these countries did not absolutely prohibit slavery within them. But they did interfere with it-take control of it—even there, to a certain extent. In 1798 Congress organized the territory of Mississippi. In 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. In that Congress were three of the "thirtynine" who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, George Read, and Abraham Baldwin. They all probably voted for it. Certainly they would have placed their opposition to it upon record if in their understanding any line dividing local from Federal authority or anything in the Constitution properly forbade the Federal government to control as to slavery in Federal territory.

In 1803 the Federal government purchased the Louisiana country. Our former territorial acquisitions came from certain of our own states, but this Louisiana country was acquired from a foreign nation. In 1804 Congress gave a territorial organization to that part of it which now constitutes the state of Louisiana. New Orleans, lying within that part, was an old and comparatively large city. There were other considerable towns and settlements, and 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. The substance of the provision therein made in relation to slaves was:

First. That no slave should be imported into the territory from foreign parts.

Second. That no slave should be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798.

Third. That no slave should be carried into it except by the owner and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in all

the cases being a fine upon the violator of the law and freedom to the slave.

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. As stated in the case of Mississippi, it is probable they both voted for it. They would not have allowed it to pass without recording their opposition to it, if in their understanding it violated either the line properly dividing local from Federal authority or any provision of the Constitution.

In 1819-20 came and passed the Missouri question. Many votes were taken, by yeas and nays, in both branches of Congress, upon the various 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. Pinckney as steadily voted against slavery prohibition and against all compromises. By this Mr. King showed that in his understanding no line dividing local from Federal authority, nor anything in the Constitution, was violated by Congress prohibiting slavery in Federal territory; while Mr. Pinckney by his vote showed that in his understanding there was some sufficient reason for opposing such prohibition in that case.

The cases I have mentioned are the only acts of the "thirtynine," or of any of them, upon the direct issue which I have been able to discover.

To enumerate the persons who thus acted, as being four in 1784, two in 1787, seventeen in 1789, three in 1798, two in 1804 and two in 1819-20, there would be thirty of them. But this would be counting John Langdon, Roger Sherman, William Few, Rufus King, and George Read each twice, and Abraham Baldwin three times. The true number of those of the "thirtynine" whom I have shown to have acted upon the question which by the text they understood better than we is twentythree, leaving sixteen not shown to have acted upon it in any way.

Here, then, we have twenty-three out of our thirty-nine fathers "who framed the government under which we live," who have, upon their official responsibility and their corporal