Abraham
Lincoln
Speech
on the Kansas-Nebraska Act
October 16, 1854
... It is argued that slavery will not go to Kansas and Nebraska, in any event. This is a palliation--a lullaby. I have some hope that it will not; but let us not be too confident. As to climate, a glance at the map shows that there are five slave States--Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, Kentucky, and Missouri--and also the District of Columbia, all north of the Missouri compromise line. The census returns of 1850 show that,within these, there are 867,276 slaves--being more than one-fourth of all the slaves in the nation.
It is not climate, then, that will keep
slavery out of these territories. Is there any thing in the peculiar
nature
of the country? Missouri adjoins these territories, by her entire western
boundary, and slavery is already within every one of her western counties.
I have even heard it said that there are more slaves, in proportion to
whites, in the north western county of Missouri, than within any county of
the State. Slavery pressed entirely up to the old western boundary of the
State, and when, rather recently, a part of that boundary, at the
north-west was,moved out a little farther west, slavery followed on quite
up to the new line. Now, when the restriction is removed, what is to
prevent
it from going still further? Climate will not. No peculiarity of the
country will--nothing in nature will. Will the disposition of the
people prevent it? Those nearest the scene, are all in favor of the
extension. The yankees, who are opposed to it may be more numerous; but in
military phrase, the battle-field is too far from their base of
operations.
But it is said, there now is no law in
Nebraska on the subject of slavery; and that, in such case, taking a slave
there, operates his freedom. That is good book-law; but is not the rule of
actual practice. Wherever slavery is, it has been first introduced without
law. The oldest laws we find concerning it,are not laws introducing it;
but regulating it, as an already existing thing. A white man takes
his slave to Nebraska now; who will inform the Negro that he is free? Who
will take him before court to test the question of his freedom? In
ignorance of his legal emancipation, he is kept chopping, splitting
and plowing. Others are brought, and move on in the same track. At last,
if
ever the time for voting comes, on the question of slavery, the
institution
already in fact exists in the country,and cannot well be removed. The
facts of its presence, and the difficulty of its removal will carry the
vote in its favor. Keep it out until a vote is taken, and a vote in favor
of it, can not be got in any population of forty thousand, on earth, who
have been drawn together by the ordinary motives of emigration
and settlement. To get slaves into the country simultaneously with the
whites, in the incipient stages of settlement, is the precise stake played
for, and won in this Nebraska measure.
The question is asked
us, “If slaves will go in,notwithstanding the general principle of
law liberates them, why would they not equally go in against positive
statute law?--going, even if the Missouri restriction were
maintained?” I answer, because it takes a much bolder man to venture
in, with his property, in the latter case, than in the former--because
the positive congressional enactment is known to, and respected by all, or
nearly all; whereas the negative principle that no law is free law, is not
much known except among lawyers. We have some experience of this practical
difference. In spite of the Ordinance of `87, a few Negroes were brought
into Illinois,and held in a state of quasi slavery; not enough, however to
carry a vote of the people in favor of the institution when they came
to form a constitution. But in the adjoining Missouri country, where there
was no ordinance of `87--was no restriction--they were carried ten times,
nay a hundred times, as fast, and actually made a slave State. This is
fact--naked fact.
Another LULLABY argument is, that taking
slaves to new countries does not increase their number-alms not make any
one slave who otherwise would be free. There is some truth in this, and I
am glad of it, but it [is] not WHOLLY true. The African slave trade is not
yet effectually suppressed; and if we make a reasonable deduction for the
white people amongst us, who are foreigners,and the descendants of
foreigners, arriving here since 1808, we shall find the increase of the
black population out-running that of the white, to an extent
unaccountable,
except by supposing that some of them too, have been coming from Africa.
If
this be so, the opening of new countries to the institution, increases the
demand for, and augments the price of slaves, and so does, in fact, make
slaves of freemen by causing them to be brought from Africa, and sold into
bondage.
But, however this may be, we know the opening of new
countries to slavery, tends to the perpetuation of the institution, and
so does KEEP men in slavery who otherwise would be free. This result we do
not FEEL like favoring, and we are under no legal obligation to suppress
our feelings in this respect.
Equal justice to the south, it is
said, requires us to consent to the extending of slavery to new countries.
That is to say,inasmuch as you do not object to my taking my hog to
Nebraska,therefore I must not object to you taking your slave. Now, I
admit
this is perfectly logical, if there is no difference between hogs and
Negroes. But while you thus require me to deny the humanity of the Negro,
I
wish to ask whether you of the south yourselves, have ever been willing to
do as much? It is kindly provided that of all those who come into the
world, only a small percentage are natural tyrants. That percentage is no
larger in the slave States than in the free. The great majority, south
as well as north, have human sympathies, of which they can no more divest
themselves than they can of their sensibility to physical pain. These
sympathies in the bosoms of the southern people,manifest in many ways,
their sense of the wrong of slavery, and their consciousness that, after
all, there is humanity in the Negro. If they deny this, let me address
them
a few plain questions. In 1820 you joined the north, almost unanimously,
in declaring the African slave trade piracy, and in annexing to it the
punishment of death. Why did you do this? If you did not feel that it was
wrong, why did you join in providing that men should be hung for it? The
practice was no more than bringing wild Negroes from Africa, to sell to
such as would buy them. But you never thought of hanging men for catching
and selling wild horses, wild buffaloes or wild bears.
Again,
you have amongst you, a sneaking individual, of the class of native
tyrants, known as the “SLAVE-DEALER.” He watches your
necessities, and crawls up to buy your slave, at a speculating price. If
you cannot help it, you sell to him; but if you can help it, you drive him
from your door. You despise him utterly. You do not recognize him as a
friend, or even as an honest man. Your children must not play with his;
they may rollick freely with the little Negroes, but not with
the"slave-dealers" children. If you are obliged to deal with
him,
you try to get through the job without so much as touching him. It is
common with you to join hands with the men you meet; but with the slave
dealer you avoid the ceremony-instinctively shrinking from the snaky
contact. If he grows rich and retires from business, you still remember
him, and still keep up the ban of non-intercourse upon him and his
family.Now why is this? You do not so treat the man who deals in
corn,cattle or tobacco.
And yet again; there are in the United
States and territories,including the District of Columbia, 433,643 free
blacks. At $500per head they are worth over two hundred millions of
dollars. How comes this vast amount of property to be running about
without owners? We do not see free horses or free cattle running at large.
How is this? All these free blacks are the descendants of slaves, or have
been slaves themselves, and they would be slaves now, but for SOMETHING
which has operated on their white owners,inducing them, at vast pecuniary
sacrifices, to liberate them. What is that SOMETHING? Is there any
mistaking it? In all these cases it is your sense of justice, and human
sympathy,continually telling you, that the poor Negro has some
natural right to himself-that those who deny it, and make mere merchandise
of him, deserve kickings, contempt and death.
And now, why will
you ask us to deny the humanity of the slave?and estimate him only as the
equal of the hog? Why ask us to do what you will not do yourselves? Why
ask
us to do for nothing,what two hundred million of dollars could not
induce you to do?
But one great argument in the support of the
repeal of the Missouri Compromise, is still to come. That argument is
“the sacred right of self government.” It seems our
distinguished Senator has found great difficulty in getting his
antagonists,even in the Senate to meet him fairly on this argument-some
poet has said
“Fools rush in where angels fear to tread.”
At the hazzard of being thought one of the fools of this quotation, I meet that argument--I rush in, I take that bull by the horns.
I trust I understand, and truly estimate the right
of self-government. My faith in the proposition that each man should do
precisely as he pleases with all which is exclusively his own,lies at the
foundation of the sense of justice there is in me. I extend the principles
to communities of men, as well as to individuals. I so extend it, because
it is politically wise, as well as naturally just: politically wise, in
saving us from broils about matters which do not concern us. Here, or
at Washington, I would not trouble myself with the oyster laws of
Virginia,
or the cranberry laws of Indiana.
The doctrine of self
government is right--absolutely and eternally right--but it has no just
application, as here attempted. Or perhaps I should rather say that
whether
it has such just application depends upon whether a Negro is notor
is a man. If he is not a man, why in that case, he who is a man
may,
as a matter of self-government, do just as he pleases with him. But if the
Negro is a man, is it not to that extent, a total destruction of
self-government, to say that he too shall not govern himself? When
the white man governs himself, and also governs another man, that
is
morethan self-government--that is despotism. If the Negro is a
man,why then my ancient faith teaches me that “all men
are created equal;” and that there can be no moral right in
connection
with one man's making a slave of another.
Judge Douglas
frequently, with bitter irony and sarcasm,paraphrases our argument by
saying “The white people of Nebraska are good enough to govern
themselves, but they are not good enough to govern a few miserable
Negroes!!”
Well I doubt not that the people of
Nebraska are, and will continue to be as good as the average of people
elsewhere. I do not say the contrary. What I do say is, that no man is
good enough to govern another man, without the other's consent.I
say
this is the leading principle--the sheet anchor of American republicanism.
Our Declaration of Independence says:
“We hold these
truths to be self evident: that all men are created equal; that they are
endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these
rights,governments are instituted among men, DERIVING THEIR JUST
POWERS FROM THE CONSENT OF THE GOVERNED.”
I have quoted so
much at this time merely to show that according to our ancient faith, the
just powers of governments are derived from the consent of the governed.
Now the relation of masters and slaves is, PRO TANTO, a total violation of
this principle. The master not only governs the slave without his consent;
but he governs him by a set of rules altogether different from those which
he prescribes for himself. Allow ALL the governed an equal voice in the
government, and that, and that only is self-government.
Let it
not be said I am contending for the establishment of political and social
equality between the whites and blacks. I have already said the contrary.
I
am not now combating the argument of NECESSITY, arising from the fact that
the blacks are already amongst us; but I am combating what is set up as
MORAL argument for allowing them to be taken where they have never
yet been--arguing against the EXTENSION of a bad thing, which where it
already exists, we must of necessity, manage as we best can.
In
support of his application of the doctrine of self-government,Senator
Douglas has sought to bring to his aid the opinions and examples of our
revolutionary fathers. I am glad he has done this. I love the sentiments
of
those old-time men; and shall be most happy to abide by their opinions. He
shows us that when it was in contemplation for the colonies to break off
from Great Britain, and set up a new government for themselves, several
of the states instructed their delegates to go for the measure PROVIDED
EACH
STATE SHOULD BE ALLOWED TO REGULATE ITS DOMESTIC CONCERNS IN ITS OWN WAY.
I
do not quote; but this in substance.This was right. I see nothing
objectionable in it. I also think it probable that it had some reference
to
the existence of slavery amongst them. I will not deny that it had. But
had
it, in any reference to the carrying of slavery into NEW COUNTRIES? That
is
the question; and we will let the fathers themselves answer it.
This same generation of men, and mostly the same individuals
of the generation, who declared this principle-who
declared independence--who fought the war of the revolution
through--who afterwards made the constitution under which we still
live-these same men passed the ordinance of `87, declaring that
slavery should never go to the north-west territory. I have no doubt Judge
Douglas thinks they were very inconsistent in this. It is a question of
discrimination between them and him. But there is not an inch of ground
left for his claiming that their opinions--their example--their
authority--
are on his side in this controversy.
Again, is not Nebraska,
while a territory, a part of us? Do we not own the country? And if we
surrender the control of it, do we not surrender the right of
self-government? It is part of ourselves. If you say we shall not control
it because it is ONLY part, the same is true of every other part; and when
all the parts are gone, what has become of the whole? What is then left of
us? What use for the general government, when there is nothing left for it
[to] govern?
But you say this question should be left to the
people of Nebraska, because they are more particularly interested. If
this be the rule, you must leave it to each individual to say for himself
whether he will have slaves. What better moral right have thirty-one
citizens of Nebraska to say, that the thirty-second shall not hold slaves,
than the people of the thirty-one State shave to say that slavery shall
not
go into the thirty-second State at all?
But if it is a sacred
right for the people of Nebraska to take and hold slaves there, it is
equally their sacred right to buy them where they can buy them cheapest;
and that undoubtedly will be on the coast of Africa; provided you will
consent to not hang them for going there to buy them. You must remove
this restriction too, from the sacred right of self-government. I am aware
you say that taking slaves from the States to Nebraska,does not make
slaves of freemen; but the African slave-trader can say just as much. He
does not catch free Negroes and bring them here. He finds them already
slaves in the hands of their black captors, and he honestly buys them at
the rate of about a red cotton handkerchief a head. This is very cheap,
and
it is a great abridgement of the sacred right of self-government to hang
men for engaging in this profitable trade!
Another important
objection to this application of the right of self-government, is that it
enables the first FEW, to deprive the succeeding MANY, of a free exercise
of the right of self-government. The first few may get slavery IN, and
the subsequent many cannot easily get it OUT. How common is the remark now
in the slave States-- “If we were only clear of our slaves, how much
better it would be for us.” They are actually deprived of the
privilege of governing themselves as they would, by the action of a very
few, in the beginning. The same thing was true of the whole nation at the
time our constitution was formed.
Whether slavery shall go into
Nebraska, or other new territories,is not a matter of exclusive concern to
the people who may go there. The whole nation is interested that the best
use shall be made of these territories. We want them for the homes of
free white people. This they cannot be, to any considerable extent,
if slavery shall be planted within them. Slave States are places for poor
white people to remove FROM; not to remove TO. New free States are the
places for poor people to go to and better their condition. For this use,
the nation needs these territories.
Still further; there are
constitutional relations between the slave and free States, which are
degrading to the latter. We are under legal obligations to catch and
return
their runaway slaves to them-a sort of dirty, disagreeable job, which I
believe, as a general rule the slave-holders will not perform for one
another.Then again, in the control of the government the management of the
partnership affairs--they have greatly the advantage of us.By the
constitution, each State has two Senators--each has a number of
Representatives; in proportion to the number of its people-and each has a
number of presidential electors, equal to the whole number of its Senators
and Representatives together.But in ascertaining the number of the people,
for this purpose,five slaves are counted as being equal to three whites.
The slaves do not vote; they are only counted and so used, as to swell the
influence of the white people's votes. The practical effect of this is
more
aptly shown by a comparison of the States of South Carolina and Maine.
South Carolina has six representatives, and so has Maine; South Carolina
has eight presidential electors, and so has Maine. This is precise
equality so far; and, of course they are equal in Senators, each having
two.
Thus in the control of the government, the two States are equals
precisely.
But how are they in the number of their white people? Maine has 581,813--
while South Carolina has 274,567.Maine has twice as many as South
Carolina, and 32,679 over. Thus each white man in South Carolina is more
than the double of any man in Maine. This is all because South Carolina,
besides her free people, has 384,984 slaves. The South Carolinian
has precisely the same advantage over the white man in every other free
State, as well as in Maine. He is more than the double of any one of us in
this crowd. The same advantage, but not to the same extent, is held by all
the citizens of the slave States,over those of the free; and it is an
absolute truth, without an exception, that there is no voter in any slave
State, but who has more legal power in the government, than any voter in
any free State. There is no instance of exact equality; and the
disadvantage
is against us the whole chapter through. This principle, in the aggregate,
gives the slave States, in the present Congress, twenty additional
representatives-being seven more than the whole majority by which they
passed the Nebraska bill.
Now all this is manifestly unfair;
yet
I do not mention it to complain of it, in so far as it is already settled.
It is in the constitution; and I do not, for that cause, or any other
cause,propose to destroy, or alter, or disregard the constitution. I stand
to it, fairly, fully, and firmly.
But when I am told I must
leave it altogether to OTHER PEOPLE to say whether new partners are to be
bred up and brought into the firm, on the same degrading terms against me,
I respectfully demur. I insist, that whether I shall be a whole man, or
only,the half of one, in comparison with others, is a question in which I
am somewhat concerned; and one which no other man can have a sacred right
of deciding for me. If I am wrong in this-if it really be a sacred right
of
self-government, in the man who shall go to Nebraska, to decide whether he
will be the EQUAL of me or the DOUBLE of me, then after he shall have
exercised that right, and thereby shall have reduced me to a still
smaller fraction of a man than I already am, I should like for
some gentleman deeply skilled in the mysteries of sacred rights, to
provide
himself with a microscope, and peep about, and find out, if he can, what
has become of my sacred rights! They will surely be too small for
detection
with the naked eye.
Finally, I insist, that if there is ANY
THING which it is the duty of the WHOLE PEOPLE to never entrust to any
hands but their own, that thing is the preservation and perpetuity, of
their own liberties, and institutions. And if they shall think, as I
do, that the extension of slavery endangers them, more than any, or all
other causes, how recreant to themselves, if they submit the question, and
with it, the fate of their country, to a mere hand-full of men, bent only
on temporary self-interest. If this question of slavery extension were an
insignificant one having no power to do harm--it might be shuffled aside
in
this way. But being, as it is, the great Behemoth of danger, shall the
strong gripe of the nation be loosened upon him, to entrust him to the
hands
of such feeble keepers? . . .