This, like the letter of George Washington preceding the 4th of July post, is
provided by Professor
Emeritus Brad Delong.
Here's how Brad introduces one of the most important speeches Abraham Lincoln
ever made Lincoln refused cynicism, and refused self-congratulatory moral
posturing as well. He granted that he does not know “what to do… as to the
existing institution” of slavery. He acknowledgeed the weight of prejudice and
the political difficulty of genuine equality. And yet he insisted that there
is a bright line between self-government and despotism: when one man governs
another without that other’s consent, that is not self-government, but its
negation.
Read this speech, therefore, as an early, groping attempt to articulate a
politics of non-domination in an actually existing, deeply compromised
republic. Lincoln’s target is not just the expansion of slavery into Kansas
and Nebraska, but the larger slide from the “Spirit of ’76” into a world in
which exploitation clothes itself in the language of liberty. It is to recall
that Americans are defined as a people who have fled the Old World and its
society-of-domination mistakes in order to work together to create, in this
New World, a prosperous and free society. That requires, in the words of
Æneas’s father Anchises: “pacisque imponere morem, parcere subiectis, et
debellare superbos”—impose the ways of peace, be merciful to the subjected,
and permanently subdue the haughty. Lincoln’s remedy is disarmingly simple and
radically demanding: re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it,
the practices, and policy, which harmonize with it:
Abraham Lincoln (1854): Peoria Speech (October 16)
: ‘[Thomas]
Jefferson… was, is, and perhaps will continue to be, the most distinguished
politician of our history; a Virginian by birth and continued residence, and
withal, a slave-holder; conceived the idea… to prevent slavery ever going into
the north-western territory. He prevailed on the Virginia Legislature to adopt
his views, and to cede the territory, making the prohibition of slavery
therein, a condition of the deed. Congress accepted the cession, with the
condition; and in the first Ordinance (which the acts of Congress were then
called) for the government of the territory, provided that slavery should
never be permitted therein. This is the famed ordinance of ‘87 so often spoken
of.… Thus, with the author of the Declaration of Independence, the policy of
prohibiting slavery in new territory originated. Thus, away back of the
constitution, in the pure fresh, free breath of the revolution, the State of
Virginia, and the National Congress put that policy in practice….
The repeal of the Missouri Compromise… 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… covert
real zeal for the spread of slavery, I can not 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—criticising the Declaration of
Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but
self-interest….
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 amongst
them, they would not introduce it. If it did now exist amongst 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…. What then?… I think I would not hold
one in slavery, at any rate; yet the point is not clear enough for 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…. A universal
feeling, whether well or ill-founded, can not be safely disregarded…. 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….
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…. The doctrine of self government is right—absolutely and
eternally right—but… just application depends upon whether a negro is not or is
a man…. 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 that is self-government; but when he governs himself, and also
governs another man, that is more than 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….
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…”
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…. Slavery is founded in
the selfishness of man’s nature—opposition to it, in his love of justice.
These principles are an eternal antagonism; and when brought into collision so
fiercely, as slavery extension brings them, shocks, and throes, and
convulsions must ceaselessly follow. Repeal the Missouri compromise—repeal all
compromises—repeal the Declaration of Independence—repeal all past history,
you still can not repeal human nature. It still will be the abundance of man’s
heart, that slavery extension is wrong; and out of the abundance of his heart,
his mouth will continue to speak….
Near eighty years ago we began by declaring that all men are created equal;
but now from that beginning we have run down to the other declaration, that
for SOME men to enslave OTHERS is a “sacred right of self-government.” These
principles can not stand together. They are as opposite as God and mammon; and
whoever holds to the one, must despise the other.
When Pettit, in connection with his support of the Nebraska bill, called the
Declaration of Independence “a self-evident lie” he only did what consistency
and candor require all other Nebraska [Bill-supporting] men to do. Of the
forty odd Nebraska Senators who sat present and heard him, no one rebuked him.
Nor am I apprized that any Nebraska newspaper, or any Nebraska orator, in the
whole nation, has ever yet rebuked him….
Let no one be deceived. The spirit of seventy-six and the spirit of Nebraska,
are utter antagonisms; and the former is being rapidly displaced by the
latter. Fellow countrymen---Americans south, as well as north, shall we make
no effort to arrest this? Already the liberal party throughout the world,
express the apprehension “that the one retrograde institution in America, is
undermining the principles of progress, and fatally violating the noblest
political system the world ever saw.” This is not the taunt of enemies, but
the warning of friends. Is it quite safe to disregard it—to despise it? Is
there no danger to liberty itself, in discarding the earliest practice, and
first precept of our ancient faith? In our greedy chase to make profit of the
negro, let us beware, lest we “cancel and tear to pieces” even the white man’s
charter of freedom. Our republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust.
Let us repurify it. Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not the
blood, of the Revolution. Let us turn slavery from its claims of “moral
right,” back upon its existing legal rights, and its arguments of “necessity.”
Let us return it to the position our fathers gave it; and there let it rest in
peace. Let us re-adopt the Declaration of Independence, and with it, the
practices, and policy, which harmonize with it…