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

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.

The constitution of South Carolina and the principle of sovereignty.

OK, what clause? Surely you can provide that, can't you?

Yes. The tenth amendment.

Oh give me a break. The 10th Amendment allows you to steal federal property? Where do you find that?

For the umpteenth time, I've never once said that a state cannot secede. They cannot secede unilaterally, and I've quoted the parts of the Constitution that I used to reach that conclusion, Supreme Court cases that back me up, and writings from James Madison which support it.

No court decision prior to the war says a state cannot secede. And the writings of Madison are not law.

Neither are your opinions. But since nobody tried secession before the South rebelled then it stands to reason that no court could have ruled on it before the Chase court did in 1869. And the decisions I did quote support the concept of implied powers.

Details please. Who gave the order to fire on the “Nashville?” What was the chain of command that ultimately authorized the action? If a standing order, who wrote it, and when? Did the “Harriet Lane” give the “Nashville” a warning before firing, as required under maritime law? Or did it violate maritime law? If it did signal the “Nashville”, what specifically did the warning state? Was it by semiphore? Did the warning comply with maritime law? Was “Harriet Lane’s” action a war crime? If not, why not? You see how ridiculous this can get? We can play this idiot game forever.

Now, now, now, it's not nice to sulk. The Lane's captain fired a warning shot to stop the Nashville and get her to identify herself. As a revenue cutter, the Lane was tasked with preventing smuggling and requesting the Nashville stop and identify herself was well within the scope of her duties. It did not violate international law or maritime law because the Lane was a U.S. Revenue Cutter and the Nashville was an unidentified ship trying to enter a U.S. port. Firing a shot across the bow was an internationally recognized sign requesting a ship stop and identify and was the warning; no other warning was required. The Lane wouldn't signal by semaphore because there would be no reason to expect a merchant ship to be able to understand it; semaphone was used by the military for communications, not civilians. The Lane's act was certainly not a war crime as defined by Vatel or U.S. law or any other recognized international law of the time.

You see how ridiculous this can get? We can play this idiot game forever.

And you have been playing the idiot game for some time. All I want is the date of the proclamation you claim Lincoln issued before Sumter. Is that too much to ask?

For the umpteenth time, show me the text of the constitution that says a state cannot secede. Why can't you? The text you cite does not say a state cannot secede and it does not imply it either. You have not cited any court cases before the war which say a state cannot secede either.

But since nobody tried secession before the South rebelled then it stands to reason that no court could have ruled on it before the Chase court did in 1869.

That was after the fact victor's justice. Chase was a Lincoln cabinet member. BTW that same Chase court also ruled in another case that it had jurisdiction over persons and property but not over political rights.

And the decisions I did quote support the concept of implied powers.

But not a requirement for Congress to approve secession. You're just making that up.

The Southern economy depended almost entirely on the export of cotton and, to a lesser extent, tobacco and other crops. And they depended on slave labor to produce them. The prospect of abolition directly threatened the South with economic ruin.

I don't think that argument holds much water.

The Southern economy would continue just fine if they simply changed the status of slaves to paid laborers. Prevailing wages for farm hands at the time were very low, so it is doubtful such a move would drive the planters into ruin. Certainly, this would have involved a big transfer of wealth from the planter class to everyone else, including the majority of white Southerners who weren't planters. Forcing planters them to pay their slaves prevailing wages would have increased wages to all landless people.

The planter class still obviously had an interest in maintaining slavery in order to avoid this transfer of wealth, but that does not explain why secession received such widespread support from the non-slaveholding white population (which was a majority).

It was aspirational identification.

Even though the great majority of southern whites had essentially no prospect of rising to the wealth and status of the planter families, they were the ideal to which the rest of the workers in the economy aspired.

That’s why the spread of slavery was such an incendiary one after the Mexican-American War: working whites couldn’t hope to displace the entrenched planter families—they owned the good land in the existing slave states—the aspirations of the lower classes required the spread of slavery for the model to be sustained.

Freeholding northern whites, in turn, understood that this expansionist imperative was a direct threat to their aspirations, and they formed (with railroad financial support) the core supporters of the nascent Republican Party.

Excellent post. You hit the nail on the head. The reasoning above explains virtually all the facts surrounding the politics of secession.

For the umpteenth time, show me the text of the constitution that says a state cannot secede.

And for the umpteenth and first time, no such restriction exists. I cannot put it any more plainly than that.

The text you cite does not say a state cannot secede and it does not imply it either. You have not cited any court cases before the war which say a state cannot secede either.

Because no state had tried it before. And for those unclear on the workings of the judiciary, courts deal with things that have happened, not theoretical issues of what might happen. If the courts had not dealt with secession in any form it's because no state had attempted it. And once a state did try it the courts ruled that while secession was not illegal, but secession without the consent of the other states is. So not it's your turn to jump in with the same old tired complaint of a biased Supreme Court. Go ahead, it won't be anything I haven't seen before.

I spoke too soon, you went right ahead with that very complaint. I should have read ahead first.

But not a requirement for Congress to approve secession. You're just making that up.

Not hardly. You're making up the legal justification for stealing Sumter, but my opinions are based on the opinions of others, like John Marshall and James Madison, who would know.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.