legislature (1834-1842), he worked himself into so distinguished a position in the party that he the only Whig in Illinois 1—was elected by a great majority to the Thirtieth Congress (1847-1849), although the opposing candidate was the popular preacher, Cartwright. According to the customs of the party at the time, in Illinois, a re-election was absolutely excluded, and on that account alone the part he played on this, his first appearance on the national stage, had to be a modest one. Notwithstanding this, he had the courage to take the initiative in a step in the slavery question which might have had far-reaching consequences if it had been crowned with success. And it seemed for a moment that this was not impossible; for his propositions were not only unquestionably capable of being carried out, but were so evidently drawn up in the spirit of a really "honest broker" that the representatives of the two opposing camps, who first obtained information of it, considered it acceptable. The bill introduced by him on the 16th of January, 1849, for the gradual abolition of slavery in the District of Columbia, met with the approval of the mayor of Washington as well as of Giddings.2 As it not only assured full compensation to the owners of the slaves, but provided that the law should not go into force until after it had been established by a vote that the population of the District was in favor of it, it must seem at the first glance less surprising that Colonel Seaton agreed to it than that Giddings did. Since Lincoln, as appears from Seaton's questions, did not wish merely to make a demonstration, but actually hoped for success, his bill really only proved how deeply sunk in optimistic illusion he still was as to the nature of the struggle. Had not even the most moderate representatives of the south for years declared the abolition of slavery in the District, without the consent of Maryland and Virginia, a breach of good faith? Did

1 Meaning the only Whig elected to Congress from Illinois. 2 Joshua R. Giddings, an anti-slavery man, Representative from Ohio in Congress.

not the slavocrats know how greatly all their successes hitherto had been facilitated by the fact that the federal capital was situated in the domain of slavery, or had they lost all sense of the importance of moral defeats? Was it not a presupposition of every project of emancipation that slavery was an evil? And how far were the great majority of slaveholders still from admitting this in words! The bill was an invitation to the District to give its consent to a terrible blow at the interests of the slavocracy, and wanted to pay for it out of the federal treasury; that is, in part with the money of the south. It must, therefore, have been unacceptable to the representatives of the south in proportion as it offered more to the people of the District, and especially to the slaveholders in it.

The struggles of the next six years made Lincoln understand that his bill was a chase, and why it was a chase, after an intangible shadow. In the remarkable letter of August 15, 1855, to which reference was made above, he says: The hope of a peaceful extinction of slavery is a delusion, because the south will not give it up. The fact that this was the attitude of the south towards the question had long been well known to the whole people. The point of significance was that Lincoln had the courage of the truth to admit to himself that from that fact it followed directly that the peaceful extinction of slavery was impossible. While Seward, three years later, in his Rochester speech, still endeavored to deceive himself and the people on this subject, Lincoln even now declared the irrepressibleness of the conflict in words from which it was clearly evident what would be the final issue. "Our

3 Seward, Senator from New York and, later, Secretary of State in Lincoln's Cabinet, declared in a speech in Rochester, in 1858, referring to the struggle between slavery and freedom: "It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slave-holding nation or entirely a free-labor nation."

political problem is, 'Can we, as a nation, continue together permanently forever-half slaves and half free?'" that is: Is the permanent preservation of the Union, under the present constitution, possible?

But what was gained by the fact that Lincoln saw farther than Seward, if his two concluding sentences, "The problem is too mighty for me. May God in His mercy superintend the solution," were intended to announce that he was resigned to let the inevitable take its course? The most important thing was not whether what was right was recognized, but whether it was done. Even some months before Seward had cast the fire-brand term “irrepressible conflict" among the people, Lincoln had proven that in this respect he would be a much more reliable leader of the Republicans than many of the most notable men in the party, who were not very far from believing that its whole political judgment and conscience were personified in themselves, and who saw this bold assumption generally recognized by a large circle of the people.

H. von Holst: Constitutional and Political History of the United States, Vol. VI, pp. 269-278. Callaghan and Co., Chicago, 1889.

QUESTIONS

Describe Lincoln's early life and his struggle to get knowledge. What is said of the moral character of the struggle for knowledge? Where and how did he first get his impression of the wrongfulness of slavery? Did these impressions reach maturity in conviction at once? Give the connection between law and politics in the new country. What is said of the source of all power in the United States? How can one obtain real leadership? What of Lincoln's success at the bar? When was he in Congress? What measure of significance did he propose there? Did he come to realize that the conflict between slavery and freedom was irrepressible?

4 Lincoln, in a speech delivered in Springfield, Illinois, June 17, 1858, declared that he did not believe that the nation could permanently endure half slave and half free. See in this book Selection No. 41. This was four months before Seward's "Irrepressible Conflict" speech.

What, do you think, if you judge from this extract, was the source of Lincoln's power and greatness?

B

LINCOLN'S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE UNITED STATES:

In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States to be taken by the President before he enters on the execution of his office.

I do not consider it necessary, at present, for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement. Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the southern States, that, by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches, when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists." I believe I have no lawful right to do so; and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me, did so with the full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them.

A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. I hold that in the contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own

termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of a contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself.

The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued in the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation, in 1778; and finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was to form a more perfect Union. But if the destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less than before, the Constitution having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect, are legally void; and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.

I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken, and, to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union shall be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this, which