such a government –

Nothing could be more incompatible with our Constitution than a mere emanation of Spanish despotism. . . . . . . It was a royal despotic Government, and every body knew it ; and no one thought of testing it by the Constitution (some few new members in the House excepted) than by the Koran.

...

As early as November 28th, Mr. Breckenridge, always a coadjutor of Mr. Jefferson, submitted a resolution in the Senate to raise a committee to prepare a form of government for Louisiana. . . . This [bill] contains three provisions on the subject of slaves: 1. That no one shall be imported into the Territory from foreign parts. 2. That no one shall be carried into it who had been imported into the United States since the first day of May, 1798. 3. That no one shall be carried into it except by the owner, and for his own use as a settler; the penalty in every instance being a fine upon the violator of the law, and freedom to the slave. . .

These three prohibitions certainly amount to legislating upon slavery in a Territory, and that a new Territory, acquired since the formation of the Constitution, and without the aid of compacts with any State. . . .

. . . The Supreme Court makes a great difference between these two classes of territories, and a corresponding difference in the power of Congress with respect to them, and to the prejudice of the new Territory. The Congress of 1803-'4 did not see this difference; and acting upon a sense of plenary authority, it extended the ordinance across the Mississippi — sent the governor and judges of Indiana (for Indiana had then become a Territory) — sent this governor (William Henry Harrison) and the three Indiana judges across the Mississippi river, to administer the ordinance of '87 in that upper half of Louisiana. . . .

Strong as was the course of Congress in the act taking possession of Louisiana, and continuing therein the Spanish government under American officers, it was repeated, in all its extent, sixteen years afterwards, on the acquisition of Florida. . . .

...

It was at the session of 1818-'19 that the Missouri Territory applied through her Territorial Legislature for an Act of Congress to enable her to hold a convention for the formation of a State Constitution, preparatory to the formal application for admission into the Union. The bill had been perfected, its details adjusted, and was upon its last reading, when a motion was made by Mr. James Tallmadge, of New York, to impose a restriction on the State in relation to slavery, to restrain her from the future admission of slavery within her borders. . . ... the eventful question was called, and resulted 134 for the com

promise to 42 against it a majority of three to one, and eight over. Such a vote was a real compromise! a surrender on the part of the restrictionists, of strong feeling to a sense of duty to the country! a settlement of a distracting territorial question upon the basis of mutual concession, and according to the principles of the ordinance of 1787. Such a measure may appear on the statute book as a mere act of Congress; and lawyers may plead its repealability: but to those who were cotemporary with the event, and saw the sacrifice of feeling, or prejudice, which was made, and the loss of popularity incurred, and how great was the danger of the country from which it saved us, it becomes a national compact, founded on considerations higher than money: and which good faith and the harmony and stability of the Union deserved. to be cherished next after the Constitution.

Of the 42 who voted against the compromise, there was not one who stated a constitutional objection: all that stated reasons for their votes, gave those of expediency — among others that it was an unequal division, which was true, but the fault of the South; for, while contending for their share in Louisiana, they were giving away nearly all below 36° 30' to the King of Spain. There being no tie, the speaker (Mr. Clay) could not vote; but his exertions were as zealous and active in support of it, as indispensable to the pacification of the country.

From Congress the bill went to the President for his approval; and there it underwent a scrutiny which brought out the sense both of the President and his cabinet upon the precise point which has received the condemnation of the Supreme Court, and exactly contrary to the Court's decision. There was a word in the restrictive clause which, taken by itself and without reference to its context, might be construed as extending the slavery prohibition beyond the territorial condition of the country to which it attached - might be understood to extend it to the State form. It was the word "forever." Mr. Monroe took the opinion of his cabinet upon the import of this word, dividing his inquiry into two questions - whether the word would apply the restriction to Territories after they became States? and whether Congress had a right to impose the restriction upon a Territory? Upon these two questions, the opinion of the cabinet was unanimous — negatively, on the first; affirmatively, on the other. . .

[Thomas H. Benton], Historical and Legal Examination

of the Decision of the Supreme Court of the United States in the Dred Scott Case (New York, 1857), 4–96 passim.

Lincoln was scarcely known outside of Illinois when he delivered the oration from which this extract is taken. The occasion was his nomination to the United States Senate by the Republican state convention. The simplicity, cogency, and fitness of this speech, and of his speeches in the joint debates with Douglas, made him not only a national character but a candidate for the Republican nomination for president. Of all the party leaders in 1858 he saw most clearly the inevitable trend of events, and gave it expression in a radical doctrine. — For Lincoln, see Henry Matson, References for Literary Workers, 116–117. — Bibliography: Channing and Hart, Guide, § 203.

.

F we could first know where we are, and whither we are tend

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 only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved — I do not expect the house to fall - but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination- piece of machinery, so to speak-compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, 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 evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the

struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of " squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. . . . Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty" and "sacred right of self-government." "But," said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment. While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of a negro's freedom. . . was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri. . . . Before the then next presidential election, the law case came to and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States. . .

...

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. . . . The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. The presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President in his inaugural address fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained!

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted

down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up to be 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 so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. 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 existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding, —like the mold 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. . . .

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen, Stephen, Franklin, Roger,

and James, for instance, and we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding - or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to 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 one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

Abraham Lincoln, Complete Works (edited by John G. Nicolay and John Hay, New York, 1894), I, 240–243 passim.

1

45.

"The Irrepressible Conflict" (1858)

BY SENATOR WILLIAM HENRY SEWARD

Seward's term, "irrepressible conflict," was another way of expressing Lincoln's idea of "a house divided against itself" (see No. 44 above); but Seward was a man of national prominence and a representative Republican, and his phrase exerted an immediate and a lasting influence. - For Seward, see No. 22 above. - Bibliography as No. 44 above.

UR country is a theatre, which exhibits, in full operation, two radically different political systems; the one resting on the basis

OUR