Abraham Lincoln
- -
- 100%
- +
Mr. William Cullen Bryant presided at the meeting; and a number of the first and ablest citizens of New York were present, among them Horace Greeley. Mr. Greeley was pronounced in his appreciation of the address; it was the ablest, the greatest, the wisest speech that had yet been made; it would reassure the conservative Northerner; it was just what was wanted to conciliate the excited Southerner; it was conclusive in its argument, and would assure the overthrow of Douglas. Mr. Horace White has recently written: "I chanced to open the other day his Cooper Institute speech. This is one of the few printed speeches that I did not hear him deliver in person. As I read the concluding pages of that speech, the conflict of opinion that preceded the conflict of arms then sweeping upon the country like an approaching solar eclipse seemed prefigured like a chapter of the Book of Fate. Here again he was the Old Testament prophet, before whom Horace Greeley bowed his head, saying that he had never listened to a greater speech, although he had heard several of Webster's best." Later, Mr. Greeley became the leader of the Republican forces opposed to the nomination of Mr. Seward and was instrumental in concentrating those forces upon Mr. Lincoln. Furthermore, the great New York press on the following morning carried the address to the country, and before Mr. Lincoln left New York he was telegraphed from Connecticut to come and aid in the campaign of the approaching spring election. He went, and when the fateful moment came in the Convention, Connecticut was one of the Eastern States which first broke away from the Seward column and went over to Mr. Lincoln. When Connecticut did this, the die was cast.
It is difficult for younger generations of Americans to believe that three months before Mr. Lincoln was nominated for the Presidency he was neither appreciated nor known in New York. That fact can be better established by a single incident than by the opinions and assurances of a dozen men.
After the address had been delivered, Mr. Lincoln was taken by two members of the Young Men's Central Republican Union – Mr. Hiram Barney, afterward Collector of the Port of New York, and Mr. Nott, one of the subsequent editors of the address – to their club, The Athenæum, where a very simple supper was ordered, and five or six Republican members of the club who chanced to be in the building were invited in. The supper was informal – as informal as anything could be; the conversation was easy and familiar; the prospects of the Republican party in the coming struggle were talked over, and so little was it supposed by the gentlemen who had not heard the address that Mr. Lincoln could possibly be the candidate that one of them, Mr. Charles W. Elliott, asked, artlessly: "Mr. Lincoln, what candidate do you really think would be most likely to carry Illinois?" Mr. Lincoln answered by illustration: "Illinois is a peculiar State, in three parts. In northern Illinois, Mr. Seward would have a larger majority than I could get. In middle Illinois, I think I could call out a larger vote than Mr. Seward. In southern Illinois, it would make no difference who was the candidate." This answer was taken to be merely illustrative by everybody except, perhaps, Mr. Barney and Mr. Nott, each of whom, it subsequently appeared, had particularly noted Mr. Lincoln's reply.
The little party broke up. Mr. Lincoln had been cordially received, but certainly had not been flattered. The others shook him by the hand and, as they put on their overcoats, said: "Mr. Nott is going down town and he will show you the way to the Astor House." Mr. Lincoln and Mr. Nott started on foot, but the latter observing that Mr. Lincoln was apparently Walking with some difficulty said, "Are you lame, Mr. Lincoln?" He replied that he had on new boots and they hurt him. The two gentlemen then boarded a street car. When they reached the place where Mr. Nott would leave the car on his way home, he shook Mr. Lincoln by the hand and, bidding him good-bye, told him that this car would carry him to the side door of the Astor House. Mr. Lincoln went on alone, the only occupant of the car. The next time he came to New York, he rode down Broadway to the Astor House standing erect in an open barouche drawn by four white horses. He bowed to the patriotic thousands in the street, on the sidewalks, in the windows, on the house-tops, and they cheered him as the lawfully elected President of the United States and bade him go on and, with God's help, save the Union.
His companion in the street car has often wondered since then what Mr. Lincoln thought about during the remainder of his ride that night to the Astor House. The Cooper Institute had, owing to a snowstorm, not been full, and its intelligent, respectable, non-partisan audience had not rung out enthusiastic applause like a concourse of Western auditors magnetised by their own enthusiasm. Had the address – the most carefully prepared, the most elaborately investigated and demonstrated and verified of all the work of his life – been a failure? But in the matter of quality and ability, if not of quantity and enthusiasm, he had never addressed such an audience; and some of the ablest men in the Northern States had expressed their opinion of the address in terms which left no doubt of the highest appreciation. Did Mr. Lincoln regard the address which he had just delivered to a small and critical audience as a success? Did he have the faintest glimmer of the brilliant effect which was to follow? Did he feel the loneliness of the situation – the want of his loyal Illinois adherents? Did his sinking heart infer that he was but a speck of humanity to which the great city would never again give a thought? He was a plain man, an ungainly man; unadorned, apparently uncultivated, showing the awkwardness of self-conscious rusticity. His dress that night before a New York audience was the most unbecoming that a fiend's ingenuity could have devised for a tall, gaunt man – a black frock coat, ill-setting and too short for him in the body, skirt, and arms – a rolling collar, low-down, disclosing his long thin, shrivelled throat uncovered and exposed. No man in all New York appeared that night more simple, more unassuming, more modest, more unpretentious, more conscious of his own defects than Abraham Lincoln; and yet we now know that within his soul there burned the fires of an unbounded ambition, sustained by a self-reliance and self-esteem that bade him fix his gaze upon the very pinnacle of American fame and aspire to it in a time so troubled that its dangers appalled the soul of every American. What were this man's thoughts when he was left alone? Did a faint shadow of the future rest upon his soul? Did he feel in some mysterious way that on that night he had crossed the Rubicon of his life-march – that care and trouble and political discord, and slander and misrepresentation and ridicule and public responsibilities, such as hardly ever before burdened a conscientious soul, coupled with war and defeat and disaster, were to be thenceforth his portion nearly to his life's end, and that his end was to be a bloody act which would appall the world and send a thrill of horror through the hearts of friends and enemies alike, so that when the woeful tidings came the bravest of the Southern brave should burst into tears and cry aloud, "Oh! the unhappy South, the unhappy South!"
The impression left on his companion's mind as he gave a last glance at him in the street car was that he seemed sad and lonely; and when it was too late, when the car was beyond call, he blamed himself for not accompanying Mr. Lincoln to the Astor House – not because he was a distinguished stranger, but because he seemed a sad and lonely man.
February 12, 1908.
CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. LINCOLN
69 Wall St., New York,
February 9, 1860.
Dear Sir:
The "Young Men's Central Republican Union" of this city very cordially desire that you should deliver during the ensuing month – what I may term —a political lecture. The peculiarities of the case are these – A series of lectures has been determined upon – The first was delivered by Mr. Blair of St. Louis a short time ago – the second will be in a few days by Mr. C.M. Clay, and the third we would prefer to have from you, rather than from any other person. Of the audience I should add that it is not that of an ordinary political meeting. These lectures have been contrived to call out our better, but busier citizens, who never attend political meetings. A large part of the audience would also consist of ladies. The time we should prefer, would be about the middle of March, but if any earlier or later day will be more convenient for you we would alter our arrangements.
Allow me to hope that we shall have the pleasure of welcoming you to New York. You are, I believe, an entire stranger to your Republican brethren here; but they have, for you, the highest esteem, and your celebrated contest with Judge Douglas awoke their warmest sympathy and admiration. Those of us who are "in the ranks" would regard your presence as very material aid, and as an honor and pleasure which I cannot sufficiently express.
Respectfully,
Charles C. Nott.
To Hon. Abram Lincoln.
69 Wall St., New York,
May 23, 1860.
Dear Sir:
I enclose a copy of your address in New York.
We (the Young Men's Rep. Union) design to publish a new edition in larger type and better form, with such notes and references as will best attract readers seeking information. Have you any memoranda of your investigations which you would approve of inserting?
You and your Western friends, I think, underrate this speech. It has produced a greater effect here than any other single speech. It is the real platform in the Eastern States, and must carry the conservative element in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.
Therefore I desire that it should be as nearly perfect as may be. Most of the emendations are trivial and do not affect the substance – all are merely suggested for your judgment.
I cannot help adding that this speech is an extraordinary example of condensed English. After some experience in criticising for Reviews, I find hardly anything to touch and nothing to omit. It is the only one I know of which I cannot shorten, and – like a good arch – moving one word tumbles a whole sentence down.
Finally – it being a bad and foolish thing for a candidate to write letters, and you having doubtless more to do of that than is pleasant or profitable, we will not add to your burden in that regard, but if you will let any friend who has nothing to do, advise us as to your wishes, in this or any other matter, we will try to carry them out.
Respectfully,
Charles C. Nott.
To Hon. Abraham Lincoln.
Springfield, Ills., May 31, 1860.
Charles C. Nott, Esq.
My Dear Sir:
Yours of the 23rd, accompanied by a copy of the speech delivered by me at the Cooper Institute, and upon which you have made some notes for emendations, was received some days ago – Of course I would not object to, but would be pleased rather, with a more perfect edition of that speech.
I did not preserve memoranda of my investigations; and I could not now re-examine, and make notes, without an expenditure of time which I can not bestow upon it – Some of your notes I do not understand.
So far as it is intended merely to improve in grammar, and elegance of composition, I am quite agreed; but I do not wish the sense changed, or modified, to a hair's breadth – And you, not having studied the particular points so closely as I have, can not be quite sure that you do not change the sense when you do not intend it – For instance, in a note at bottom of first page, you propose to substitute "Democrats" for "Douglas" – But what I am saying there is true of Douglas, and is not true of "Democrats" generally; so that the proposed substitution would be a very considerable blunder – Your proposed insertion of "residences" though it would do little or no harm, is not at all necessary to the sense I was trying to convey – On page 5 your proposed grammatical change would certainly do no harm – The "impudently absurd" I stick to – The striking out "he" and inserting "we" turns the sense exactly wrong – The striking out "upon it" leaves the sense too general and incomplete – The sense is "act as they acted upon that question " – not as they acted generally.
After considering your proposed changes on page 7, I do not think them material, but I am willing to defer to you in relation to them.
On page 9, striking out "to us" is probably right – The word "lawyer's" I wish retained. The word "Courts" struck out twice, I wish reduced to "Court" and retained – "Court" as a collection more properly governs the plural "have" as I understand – "The" preceding "Court," in the latter case, must also be retained – The words "quite," "as," and "or" on the same page, I wish retained. The italicising, and quotation marking, I have no objection to.
As to the note at bottom, I do not think any too much is admitted – What you propose on page 11 is right – I return your copy of the speech, together with one printed here, under my own hasty supervising. That at New York was printed without any supervision by me – If you conclude to publish a new edition, allow me to see the proof-sheets.
And now thanking you for your very complimentary letter, and your interest for me generally, I subscribe myself.
Your friend and servant,
A. Lincoln.
69 Wall Street, New York.
August 28, 1860.
Dear Sir:
Mr. Judd insists on our printing the revised edition of your Cooper Ins. speech without waiting to send you the proofs.
If this is so determined, I wish you to know, that I have made no alterations other than those you sanctioned, except —
1. I do not find that Abraham Baldwin voted on the Ordinance of '87. On the contrary he appears not to have acted with Congress during the sitting of the Convention. Wm. Pierce seems to have taken his place then; and his name is recorded as voting for the Ordinance. This makes no difference in the result, but I presume you will not wish the historical inaccuracy (if it is such) to stand. I will therefore (unless you write to the contrary) strike out his name in that place and reduce the number from "four" to "three" where you sum up the number of times he voted.
2. In the quotations from the Constitution I have given its exact language; as "delegated" instead of "granted," etc. As it is given in quo. marks, I presume the exact letter of the text should be followed.
If these are not correct please write immediately.
Our apology for the delay is that we have been weighed down by other matters; mine that I have but to-day returned to town.
Respectfully,
Charles C. Nott.
To Hon. Abraham Lincoln.
69 WALL STREET, N.Y.
Sept. 17, 1860.
Dear Sir:
We forward you by this day's express 250 copies, with the last corrections. I delayed sending, thinking that you would prefer these to those first printed.
The "Abraham Baldwin letter" referred to in your last I regret to say has not arrived. From your not touching the proofs in that regard, I inferred (and hope) that the correction was not itself an error.
Should you wish a larger number of copies do not hesitate to let us know; it will afford us much pleasure to furnish them and no inconvenience whatever.
Respectfully, etc.,
CHARLES C. NOTT.
Hon. A. Lincoln.
SPRINGFIELD, ILLS., Sept. 22, 1860.
CHARLES C. NOTT, Esq.,
My Dear Sir:
Yours of the 17th was duly received – The 250 copies have not yet arrived – I am greatly obliged to you for what you have done, and what you propose to do.
The "Abraham Baldwin letter" in substance was that I could not find the Journal of the Confederation Congress for the session at which was passed the Ordinance of 1787 – and that in stating Mr. Baldwin had voted for its passage, I had relied on a communication of Mr. Greeley, over his own signature, published in the New York Weekly Tribune of October 15, 1859. If you will turn to that paper, you will there see that Mr. Greeley apparently copies from the Journal, and places the name of Mr. Baldwin among those of the men who voted for the measure.
Still; if the Journal itself shows differently, of course it is right.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
The Address ofTHE HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN,In Vindication of the Policy of the Framers of the Constitution and the Principles of the Republican Party.Delivered at Cooper Institute, February 27th, 1860Issued by the Young Men's Republican UnionWith Notes byCHARLES C. NOTT and CEPHAS BRAINERD,Members of the Board of ControlOFFICERS OF THE UNIONCHARLES T. RODGERS, PresidentDEXTER A. HAWKINS, Vice-PresidentERASMUS STERLING, SecretaryWILLIAM M. FRANKLIN, TreasurerEXECUTIVE COMMITTEECEPHAS BRAINERD, ChairmanBENJAMIN P. MANIERRE,RICHARD C. McCORMICK,CHARLES C. NOTT,CHARLES H. COOPER,P.G. DEGRAW,JAMES H. WELSH,E.C. JOHNSON,LEWIS M. PECKADVISORY BOARDWM. CULLEN BRYANT,DANIEL DREW,HIRAM BARNEY,WILLIAM V. BRADY,JOHN JAY,GEORGE W. BLUNT,HENRY A. HURLBUT,ABIJAH MANN, JR.,HAMILTON FISH,FRANCIS HALL,HORACE GREELEY,CHARLES A. PEABODY,EDGAR KETCHUM,JAMES KELLY,GEORGE FOLSOM,WILLIAM CURTIS NOYES,BENJAMIN F. MANIERREPREFACE
This edition of Mr. Lincoln's address has been prepared and published by the Young Men's Republican Union of New York, to exemplify its wisdom, truthfulness, and learning. No one who has not actually attempted to verify its details can understand the patient research and historical labor which it embodies. The history of our earlier politics is scattered through numerous journals, statutes, pamphlets, and letters; and these are defective in completeness and accuracy of statement, and in indices and tables of contents. Neither can any one who has not travelled over this precise ground appreciate the accuracy of every trivial detail, or the self-denying impartiality with which Mr. Lincoln has turned from the testimony of "the Fathers," on the general question of slavery, to present the single question which he discusses. From the first line to the last – from his premises to his conclusion, he travels with swift, unerring directness which no logician ever excelled – an argument complete and full, without the affectation of learning, and without the stiffness which usually accompanies dates and details. A single, easy, simple sentence of plain Anglo-Saxon words contains a chapter of history that, in some instances, has taken days of labor to verify and which must have cost the author months of investigation to acquire. And, though the public should justly estimate the labor bestowed on the facts which are stated, they cannot estimate the greater labor involved on those which are omitted – how many pages have been read – how many works examined – what numerous statutes, resolutions, speeches, letters, and biographies have been looked through. Commencing with this address as a political pamphlet, the reader will leave it as an historical work – brief, complete, profound, impartial, truthful – which will survive the time and the occasion that called it forth, and be esteemed hereafter, no less for its intrinsic worth than its unpretending modesty.
NEW YORK, September, 1860.
ADDRESS
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 indorse 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 1789.4
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 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.5
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 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 expressed that better understanding.
In 1784, three years before the Constitution – the United States then owning the Northwestern Territory, and no other,6 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,7 thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. The other of the four – James M'Henry – voted against the prohibition, showing that, for some cause, he thought it improper to vote for it.8
In 1787, still before the Constitution, but while the Convention was in session framing it, and while the Northwestern Territory still was the only territory owned by the United States, the same question of prohibiting Slavery in the Territories 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 Blount and William Few9; and they both voted for the prohibition – thus showing that, in their understanding, no line dividing local from federal authority, nor anything else, properly forbade the Federal Government to control as to slavery in federal territory. This time, the prohibition became a law, being part of what is now well known as the Ordinance of '87.10
The question of federal control of slavery in the territories, seems not to have been directly before the Convention which framed the original Constitution; and hence it is not recorded that the "thirty-nine," or any of them, while engaged on that instrument, expressed any opinion on that precise question.11
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 an unanimous passage.12 In this Congress, there were sixteen of the thirty-nine fathers who framed the original Constitution. They were John Langdon, Nicholas Oilman, Wm. S. Johnson, Roger Sherman, Robert Morris, Thos. Fitzsimmons, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, Rufus King, William Paterson, George Clymer, Richard Bassett, George Read, Pierce Butler, Daniel Carroll, James Madison.13