Lincoln and the Slavery Question

An Ancient Institution—The Evils of Slavery—Lincoln Always Opposed to Slavery—Relic of "Cruel Slavery Days"—Discussions, Laws, and Compromises—The Missouri Compromise—The Fugitive Slave Law—The Kansas-Nebraska Bill—Lincoln Aroused—He Answers Douglas—R. L. McCord Names Lincoln His Candidate for President—A New Political Party—"Bleeding Kansas"—The Dred Scott Decision—"The Underground Railroad"—The John Brown Raid—The Approaching Crisis.

It may be wondered what future generations will think when they read the history of our country and learn that within the memory of many of those who now live this Government tolerated and protected that "sum of all villainies"—human slavery. Slavery arose at an early period in the world's history out of the accident of capture in war. As an institution it has existed in many countries for ages. Unfortunately, in the first settling of the United States, slavery was tolerated, and allowed to spread as the country developed. This was especially true of the Southern States.

The many attendant evils of slavery cannot here be mentioned. Slaves were largely kept in ignorance. In some States it was considered a crime, with heavy penalties, for any white person to teach a colored person to read or write.

The traffic in human beings, as it then existed, is awful to think of. Husbands and wives, parents and children, brothers and sisters were often sold and separated never to meet again. When the master died, his negroes were sold to the highest bidder, just like other property.

Abraham Lincoln was always opposed to slavery. When a young man he witnessed the cruelties of a slave market in New Orleans, where men, women, and children were sold like brutes. He then and there said, "If I ever have a chance to hit that institution, I will hit it hard." In 1837, when he was only twenty-eight years old, he heard a sermon preached by a noted minister, in Illinois, on the interpretation of prophecy in its relation to the breaking down of civil and religious tyranny. The sermon greatly impressed Mr. Lincoln, and he at that time said to a friend, "Odd as it may seem, when he described those changes and revolutions, I was deeply impressed that I would be somehow strangely mixed up with them."

Many slaveholders were otherwise good people, and their slaves were well treated. Ministers of the gospel and church-members held slaves. Some of the author's maternal relatives were slaveholders. He remembers, when a small boy, during "cruel slavery days," hearing his grandfather relate a conversation he had with a slave while on a late visit to his slaveholding brothers in Kentucky. The slave, a young man, was entering some complaint against slavery. Grandfather asked him, "Is your master kind to you?" "Yes, sir," answered the slave. "Do you have plenty to eat and wear?" "Oh, yes, sir." "Then why are you not satisfied?" "Oh, Mr. Todd, freedom, freedom."

I have a letter, dated June 2, 1861, written to my grandfather by one of his Kentucky brothers. I remember seeing this great uncle in 1865, when he was visiting in Indiana. He had administered on a brother's estate. The letter contains the following: "You wrote to know what I had done with the negroes. I sold them last March, one year ago. William Hocker bought Dicey and her youngest boy for $1,100. Franklin Todd, the son of brother Peter, bought the oldest boy for $700. I bought the second boy, the one born when you were here, for $535." My great-uncle says, in the same letter, that, on account of governmental affairs, "property" is not bringing its full value.

The people of the North were generally opposed to slavery, and great bitterness of feeling was engendered between the Northern and Southern States. Among the great leaders in the anti-slavery movement were William Lloyd Garrison, Gerrit Smith, Wendell Phillips, John G. Whittier, Joshua R. Giddings, William H. Seward, and Charles Sumner. The institution of slavery had become a great power, and had interwoven itself into the social, moral, religious, and political fabrics of the country.

Whenever a territory sought admission into the Union as a State, a great controversy arose as to whether it should be admitted as a free or a slave State. The halls of Congress resounded with the eloquence of great statesmen on both sides of the question, because "there were giants in those days." A good portion of the time of Congress was taken in discussing some phase of the slavery question. Bad temper was often exhibited, and great interests were at stake. On some occasions Henry Clay would propose a compromise, which being accepted, would have a tendency to lull the storm which, sooner or later, was to burst forth in all its fury. Anti-slavery, abolition, and various organizations were formed.

In the North various opinions existed on the subject of slavery. Some were opposed to its extension, but did not wish to interfere with it where it already existed. Others were more ultra, chief of whom was William Lloyd Garrison, whose motto was to destroy slavery or destroy the Union. He finally came to the conclusion that the Constitution of the United States favored slavery, and declared it to be "a covenant with death and an agreement with hell."

In 1820 the territory of Missouri sought admission into the Union. The question as to whether it should be admitted as a free or a slave State was so warmly and violently discussed in Congress that many were alarmed lest it would lead to the dissolution of the Union. The territory was finally admitted as a slave State, but on the express condition that slavery would forever be excluded from all that part of the territory of the United States lying north of 36 degrees and 30 minutes. This provision was known as "the Missouri Compromise."

In 1850 the "Fugitive Slave Law" was passed by Congress, which was, in part, to the effect that it was a penal offense to render any accommodations, assistance, or show any favors whatever to runaway slaves; also that officers were empowered to compel citizens, in the North as well as in the South, to assist in the capture of such slaves.

As the Missouri Compromise forever excluded slavery from the northwestern territories, the "forever" terminated when Congress, in May, 1854, passed the celebrated Kansas-Nebraska Bill, introduced by Stephen A. Douglas, the Democratic Senator from Illinois. Its main provision was that each territory seeking admission into the Union might decide by vote of its inhabitants whether it should be admitted as a free or a slave State. This virtually repealed the Missouri Compromise, which Douglas had declared "to be sacred," and a law which "no human hand should destroy." This act was considered such a flagrant violation of a trust, breaking down all legal barriers to the possible spread of slavery, that it aroused great indignation throughout the North.

Mr. Lincoln, just prior to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill, as already stated by Mr. Merwin in the last chapter, had become inactive in politics, and had given himself more fully to the practice of law. In furnishing a short biography of himself for a friend, in 1859, he said, "I was losing interest in politics when the repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused me again." He now saw the great danger of slavery enlarging its territory indefinitely, and was alarmed at the serious nature of the situation.

When Mr. Douglas discovered the unpopularity of his famous bill, he hastened to Springfield and other places in Illinois, to explain matters. On the 4th of October, 1854, he spoke in the State House at the time of the State Fair. It was expected that Lyman Trumbull, a noted Whig politician of Illinois, would reply, but he did not appear. Seeing the coast clear, Mr. Douglas spread himself, and made a great speech. He was small in stature and somewhat bombastic in his style of delivery. He was popularly known among his friends as the "Little Giant." Mr. Lincoln had been urged to reply to Mr. Douglas, and, after some persuasion, consented to do so. That day he made his first great political speech. It is stated that "all the smothered fires of his broody days and nights and years burst forth in a power and with an eloquence which even those who knew him best had not so much as hoped for." Among other things, he said:

I now introduce to my readers one who heard Mr. Douglas and Mr. Lincoln on that occasion, fifty-four years ago. It is Rev. R. L. McCord, now in his seventy-ninth year. He is an intelligent and highly-respected citizen of Lake City, Iowa, and one of my most valued parishioners. I shall let Mr. McCord speak for himself:

This speech of Mr. Lincoln's was a noted one, and nearly all his biographers mention it, but it has not been left on record, except in small extracts. Mr. McCord's statement, made for this book, is interesting, and all will be glad to see the picture of his friendly and intellectual face as it now appears.

The passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Bill and its effects was the means of the destruction of the Whig party, to which Mr. Lincoln belonged, the disruption of other party lines, and the organization of a new party with Abraham Lincoln as its acknowledged leader, which in a few years was to decide the destinies of the United States Government. It also had the effect of bringing about a state of civil war in Kansas. Thousands of pro- and anti-slavery people flocked to Kansas to help decide the destiny of that territory. Illegal votes, bogus legislatures, mobs, murders, incendiary acts, and general lawlessness were some of the fruits of Mr. Douglas' famous bill for popular sovereignty, better known as "squatter sovereignty."

In 1857, Chief-Justice Taney of the United States Supreme Court, with a majority of his associates, decided on a test case, known as the "Dred Scott Case," that when the Constitution of the United States was formed and adopted, a negro slave was not a person, but simply a piece of property,—a thing,—and that his master could lawfully take his slaves anywhere he pleased, just as he could his horses and his cattle.

The Kansas-Nebraska Bill, the Fugitive Slave Law, and the Dred Scott Decision greatly aroused the North. Some declared that the latter two laws should not be carried out. This increased the hostility of the South. Many persons in the North assisted in what was called the "underground railroad"—secretly assisting slaves on their way to Canada for freedom.

When a small boy, just beginning to read, I remember seeing at my Grandfather Todd's, in southern Indiana, copies of the Louisville Journal (now the Courier-Journal) with whole columns of short advertisements, offering rewards for runaway slaves. Such advertisements could easily be recognized at a glance, for each one had a small picture of a slave with a carpet-sack on his back making long strides for liberty.

The leading opponents of slavery were bitterly hated and persecuted. William Lloyd Garrison was mobbed in the city of Boston, and it was with great difficulty that his life was saved. Elijah P. Lovejoy, who published an anti-slavery paper at Alton, Illinois, was shot down by a mob while defending his property and pleading for free speech. Charles Sumner, because of a speech he made, was brutally assaulted while sitting in his chair in the United States Senate, and was so beaten that he was compelled to give up his seat in Congress for four years.

It was well known that neither moral suasion nor the ordinary political methods would ever do away with the curse of slavery. The people of the North debated, prayed, preached, and voted against slavery, while the people of the South were equally zealous in defending slavery, contending it was a divine institution.

While matters were in such an unsettled condition a great explosion occurred in the fall of 1859 which startled the entire nation. John Brown, who had rendered valuable service in keeping slavery out of Kansas, with an armed force of seventeen men, made a raid upon Harper's Ferry, Virginia, captured the United States arsenal, and for some time held the United States army at bay before he was captured. He had planned for a general insurrection among the slaves, believing that their emancipation depended largely upon themselves. Brown's plans were forced before he was ready. It was a rash act, and was not approved by the North, but strongly condemned. Brown and others who survived the conflict were executed for inciting an insurrection, murder, and treason. Brown was a brave and sincere man, but fanatical. As the explosion of the Maine hastened the Spanish-American War, so the John Brown raid was an important link in the chain of events to hasten the downfall of slavery. Seward's "irrepressible conflict" was at hand, and his "higher law" was soon to prevail.