Abraham Lincoln Speech in the Lincoln-Douglas Debate (on slavery)

Son of the South ^ | 8/21/1858 | Abraham Lincoln

[Loud Mime]

Abraham Lincoln's Birthday is this Thursday. I thought it fitting to quote from the first Republican president's debates against Stephen Douglas. Each had an hour to present their case, hardly what the mainstream media would like.

I think, and shall try to show, that it is wrong; wrong in its direct effect, letting slavery into Kansas and Nebraska and wrong in its prospective principle, allowing it to spread to every other part of the wide world where men can be found inclined to take it.

This declared indifference, but, as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world; enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites; causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty - criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.

Before proceeding, let me say I think I have no prejudice against the Southern people. They are just what we would be in their situation. If slavery did not now exist among them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist among us, we should not instantly give it up. This I believe of the masses North and South. Doubtless there are individuals on both sides who would not hold slaves under any circumstances; and others who would gladly introduce slavery anew, if it were out of existence. We know that some Southern men do free their slaves, go North, and become tip-top Abolitionists; while some Northern ones go South, and become most cruel slave-masters.

When Southern people tell us they are no more responsible for the origin of slavery than we, I acknowledge the fact. When it is said that the institution exists, and that it is very difficult to get rid of it in any satisfactory way, I can understand and appreciate the saying. I surely will not blame them for not doing what I should not know how to do myself. 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 a moment's reflection would convince me that whatever of high hope (as I think there is) there may be in this in the long run, its sudden execution is impossible. 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 in the world 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 to 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. Whether this feeling accords with justice and sound judgment is not the sole question, if indeed, it is any part of it. A universal feeling, whether well or ill-founded, cannot be safely disregarded. We cannot 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.

When they remind us of their constitutional rights, I acknowledge them, not grudgingly, but fully and fairly; and I would give them any legislation for the reclaiming of their fugitives, which should not, in its stringency, be more likely to carry a free man into slavery, than our ordinary criminal laws are to hang an innocent one.

But all this, to my judgment, furnishes no more excuse for permitting slavery to go info our own free territory, than it would for reviving the African slave trade by law. The law which forbids the bringing of slaves from Africa, and that which has so long forbidden the taking of them to Nebraska, can hardly be distinguished on any moral principle; and the repeal of the former could find quite as plausible excuses as that of the latter.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>Sumter was built by the federal government on land deeded to it free and clear by an act of the South Carolina legislature. What rule of law magically transferred ownership to the confederacy?<<<

A deed is a contract, and that contract was broken when the United States Government denied the Southern states their retained right to secede from the Union as guaranteed by the 9th Amendment to the Constitution. The instant the contract was broken, the “Federal Government” became the Confederate Government, and the right to all “federal” property in its boundaries was inherited.

>>>As commander of the army forces in the Charleston area, Major Anderson had authority of all the army facilities in the area. That included Moultrie and Castle Pinkney as well as Sumter. Under instructions given him by Major Buell in December, he was well under authority to move his troops to Sumter if their safety required it.<<<

When Anderson occupied Fort Sumter, property that belonged to the federal government of the Confederate States, he committed an act of war, as did his superiors who were in collusion with him.

[SeeSharp]

OK, for the sake of argument let's take a look at that assertion. In the absence of an escape clause, it is not legal for one party to unilaterally withdraw from a contract; nor is it permissible for a party to withdraw on any basis not covered by the escape clause. The Constitution contains no such escape clause. Your "legal" argument fails.

In that case we're all guilty of treason since the Articles of Confederation explicitly declares itself perpetual and since unanimous consent of all the states is required to change it. The Current constitution came into effect after only three fourths of the states ratified - and it was four years before all the stragglers came in. How'd they do that?

It is a mistake to confuse a sovereign action with constitutionalism or law. To secede is, by definition, to operate outside of the previous constitution and legal system. We seceded from the British Empire in the 18th century even though it was illegal to do so. We did it as a sovereign act.

That said, the tenth amendment reserves the right of secession to the states.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it. (Madison, 1832)<<<

Right on, James Madison! According to you, the day the U.S. Government abused its compact with the Southern states, secession became a right (and, of course, a duty)!

Thank you so much for your quote by Madison, Non-Sequitur.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>A rightful secession requires the consent of the others, or an abuse of the compact, absolving the seceding party from the obligations imposed by it. (Madison, 1832)<<<

Right on, James Madison! According to you, the day the U.S. Government abused its compact with the Southern states, secession became a right (and, of course, a duty)!

Thank you so much for your quote by Madison, Non-Sequitur.

[PhilipFreneau]

>>>And, of course, the general opinion was enshrined in more than one declaration of secession...<<<

Help me out here. Where in the declarations of secession of the states is the general opinion enshrined?

[mojitojoe]

so sick of your anti American rhetoric. Why aren’t you over trolling the birth certificate posts today?

[mojitojoe]

Rebellion is defined as open, armed, and usually unsuccessful defiance of or resistance to an established government.

It wasn’t too unsuccessful in Cuba, Haiti, Germany, Venezuala and others.

[mojitojoe]

rue, but there was no rebellion by the Southern states. They left the Union peaceably, as was their right.

exactly!

[mojitojoe]

To: Vaquero; Darkwolf377

Lincoln’s oath of office, like all presidents before and after him, included the vow to “defend the constitution”. That oath does NOT include a vow to “preserve the union”. Lincoln chose to walk all over the constitution to preserve the union with the belief that the “ends” justified the “means. It is my humble opinion that as of December 21, 1860 (the day after South Carolina voted to leave the union), the union was, in fact dissolved. Faced with this dilemna, Lincoln COULD have chosen to preserve the constitution, or preserve the union; and he made the choice to trash the constitution. In fact, Lincoln could no more “restore the union” any more than all the kings horses could re-assemble humpty dumpty. What Lincoln did was to create (by force) a “new” united states. The “original” united states of the founding fathers was gone. I compare it to a married couple where the wife declares the marriage over and leaves the house; then the husband chases her down the street and beats the hell out of her and drags her screaming and kicking back to the house; claiming all the while that he has “saved” the marriage.

EXCELLENT RESPONSE!

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

Lincoln was no abolishionist.

Right, so when South Carolina, in it's "Declaration of Causes" said:

"A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the states north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common government, because he has declared that that "government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free," and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction."

they didn't know what they were talking about, huh?

[Bubba Ho-Tep]

According to you, the day the U.S. Government abused its compact with the Southern states, secession became a right (and, of course, a duty)!

So what abuses of the compact had the US government committed when South Carolina announced it was seceding? That means you can't list anything Lincoln did or anything they thought he might do. Now, what were the abuses so great they abrogated the Constitution?

[r9etb]

In that case we're all guilty of treason since the Articles of Confederation explicitly declares itself perpetual and since unanimous consent of all the states is required to change it.

We must begin with recognizing that the Constitutional Convention was called after it had become abundantly clear that the Articles of Confederation were inadequate to the task of governing the several states or, as Federalist 1 put it, "after an unequivocal experience of the inefficiency of the subsisting federal government...." The flaws of the current system were obvious to the Founders.(See the Federalist Papers, especially 15-22.)

The Current constitution came into effect after only three fourths of the states ratified - and it was four years before all the stragglers came in. How'd they do that?

The easiest answer is probably the right one: the Articles of Confederation granted much more leeway to the individual states than the Constitution does, and it was only right and proper to allow each state to surrender that measure of sovereignty on its own decision, rather than by force.

In any case, the question is not how the states came to place themselves under the Constitution, but rather whether or not they had the right to leave once they had done so.

A state's vote to ratify, was an explicit surrender of some degree of state sovereignty to the Union of states, and to the ultimate supremacy of federal government where matters of multi-state concern were involved. Among other things, requiring an explicit state ratification as part of agreeing to join the union, rather obviously carries with it the burden of prohibiting a decision for dis-union.

It is a mistake to confuse a sovereign action with constitutionalism or law. To secede is, by definition, to operate outside of the previous constitution and legal system. We seceded from the British Empire in the 18th century even though it was illegal to do so. We did it as a sovereign act.

This is dizzying ... you defend secession as a "sovereign" act and therefore "legal," on the basis of its being illegal in the case of the Revolution. That is nonsensical. The Founders freely acknowledged the formal illegality of their declaration of independence, and fully expected to be hanged if they did not prevail.

You also seem to be saying that declaring a law invalid, or declaring oneself to be immune from that law, actually makes it so. The only way to validate such an action would be for the existing authorities to refuse to enforce such a claim -- which was clearly not what happened when it came to the American Revolution, or the Confederate secession.

One must expect the authorities take exception to your claim to be beyond their power -- such a claim is explicitly to invite a response. It is silly to complain when such a response is actually carried out.

[mojitojoe]

Well let’s make this real simple. The divide in this country is HUGE! It’s not going to change, it’s going to get worse. They hate us, we hate them. The cultural divide is like 2 countries within a country. It’s reached the boiling point, there is no common ground, the divide too wide. What is the solution? Peaceful solution?

[wardaddy]

I guess the manner in which you and your posse have run around here for years denigrating the most reliable conservative voting block here year after year says plenty too.

You don’t have to sell me the fact that slavery was bad. I’m from Mississippi, we live with the disastrous consequences day in day out 150 years later.

course maybe you’d have preferred to have had yer kin remain in Ghana or Nigeria, Sierra Leone or maybe Senegal if your Louisiana based African, .....having been there too I can tell you you didn’t miss much

[r9etb]

Where in the declarations of secession of the states is the general opinion enshrined?

Now you're just being silly. You think that such declarations, by which states formally decided and declared their secessions, were not an expression of public sentiment? No rational person could make such a claim.

I would also point to the example of Texas, in which state the declaration of secession was subjected to, and prevailed, in a special state-wide election called to approve it.

Unless, sir, you're prepared to argue that the declarations of secession did not represent the general opinions within those states -- in which case the act of secession would something quite bad, indeed.

[wardaddy]

pray tell...what is a neoconfederate?

your and yer crew post that ad nauseum.

please point to an example whereby I advocate secession or more slavery

i would simply like to move on

the issues in the black community transcend slavery......worldwide

let's fix that shall we rather than getting our rocks off making slavery and mean crackers (ignoring others culpable)a convenient excuse for what has boiled down to cultural slide for which said culture should take some responsibility

this is where Obama really pisses me off....where he in his God status to approach curing black illegitimacy and thuggism and corruption he could make a difference...blacks idolize him like a.....nothing I've seen since King.

but does he do that?

no, just more of the same crap that helped create the problem....surrounding himself with asshats like Jayzee and his black racism...

all of which is a lot more important of an issue to me as a middle aged peckerwood than flagellating over the past ills of western civilization with regards to the sub saharan African

[wardaddy]

how convenient that you missed all the fun

/s

one could worse than sunning off the Appian way....speaking of which...let's bring up Roman atrocities shall we senator?

[r9etb]

You don’t have to sell me the fact that slavery was bad. I’m from Mississippi, we live with the disastrous consequences day in day out 150 years later.

Mississippi happens to be the state that declared its secession on the basis that "Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery."

Mississippi -- or at least its leading citizens -- faced economic ruin if slavery were abolished, and they knew it. The "disastrous consequences" were real enough, but they were ultimately precipitated by Mississippi's reliance on a moral abomination.

course maybe you’d have preferred to have had yer kin remain in Ghana or Nigeria, Sierra Leone or maybe Senegal if your Louisiana based African, .....having been there too I can tell you you didn’t miss much

Which statement merely marks you as an ignoramus as well as an out-and-out racist. I seriously doubt that the "most reliable conservative voting bloc" is willing to accept, much less defend, your racism.

[MamaTexan]

In the absence of an escape clause,

Wrong:

The great Bacon observes, "that as exception strengthens the force of a law, in cases not excepted, so enumeration weakens it, in cases not enumerated." The powers vested in congress, the privileges of the members, and of each house, are severally enumerated in the constitution; not made exceptions from general powers, not enumerated.
George Tucker

The first legal treatise written after ratification and at the request of Congress says otherwise.

Your illegal argument fails.

-----

Ah, yes, but the problem was that the legal, political, and Constitutional process of ending slavery was well underway, and by the mid 1850s it was clear that the abolition of slavery was not only certain, but also would happen sooner rather than later.

LOL! Exactly what part of Madison's No power is given to the general government to interpose with respect to the property in slaves now held by the states. did you not understand?

The only 'legal, political, and Constitutional process of ending slavery' was for the owners to release the slaves.

------

There's very little that is honorable about what the south did, and why they did it. Their position is understandable, but it is not honorable.

If you think upholding the Constitution isn't honorable, then the very concept of the word escapes you.

The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government, are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several States will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people, and the internal order, improvement, and prosperity of the State.
The Federalist No. 45 January 1788, James Madison

[r9etb]

The first legal treatise written after ratification and at the request of Congress says otherwise.

A lovely quote that says precisely nothing about the ability of a party to unilaterally withdraw from a legal contract (your words) willingly entered into. Sorry, ma'am, but you're still out of luck.

The only 'legal, political, and Constitutional process of ending slavery' was for the owners to release the slaves.

In other words, as long as the individual slave holders thought slavery was OK, then it was OK for them to hold deny other human beings their unalienable rights.... Which is a rather ugly position for you to attempt to defend, I'm sure you'll agree.

If you think upholding the Constitution isn't honorable, then the very concept of the word escapes you.

You're the one who is explicitly defending slavery, ma'am. I'd be rather amazed if you find that at all honorable.