Letter from Lincoln to Joshua F. Speed
It
is always
difficult to figure out what a political leader really thinks on any
topic. One way might be to look at
private correspondence. Joshua Speed was
one of Lincoln’s closest friends as a young man, and I believe he was a
slaveholder from Kentucky. The two
remained friends as Lincoln’s political career took off.
It
would seem that
this letter was not intended for public consumption, so it does seem to
suggest
something about his private views.
August 24, 1855
Springfield,
[Illinois]
Dear
Speed:
You know what a poor correspondent I
am. Ever since
I received your very agreeable letter of the 22nd of May I have been
intending
to write you in answer to it. You suggest that in political action now,
you and
I would differ. I suppose we would; not quite as much, however, as you
may think.
You know I dislike slavery; and you fully admit the abstract wrong of
it. So
far there is no cause of difference. But you say that sooner than yield
your
legal right to the slave-especially at the bidding of those who are not
themselves interested, you would see the Union dissolved. I am not
aware that any one is bidding you to yield that
right; very certainly I am not. I leave that matter entirely to
yourself. I
also acknowledge your rights and my obligations, under the
constitution, in
regard to your slaves. I confess I hate to see the poor creatures
hunted down,
and caught, and carried back to their stripes, and unrewarded toils;
but I bite
my lip and keep quiet. In 1841 you and I had together a tedious
low-water trip,
on a Steam Boat from Louisville to St. Louis. You may remember, as I
well do,
that from Louisville to the mouth of the Ohio there were, on board, ten
or a
dozen slaves, shackled together with irons. That sight was a continual
torment
to me; and I see something like it every time I touch the Ohio, or any
other
slave-border. It is hardly
fair for you to assume, that I have no interest in a thing which has,
and
continually exercises, the power of making me miserable. You ought
rather to
appreciate how much the great body of the Northern people do crucify
their
feelings, in order to maintain their loyalty to the constitution and
the Union.
I do oppose the extension of slavery, because
my judgment and feelings so prompt me; and I am under no obligation to
the
contrary. If for this you and I must differ, differ we must. You say if
you
were President, you would send an army and hang the leaders of the
Missouri
outrages upon the Kansas elections [recent proslavery frauds against
the
antislavery settlers]; still, if Kansas fairly votes herself a slave
state, she
must be admitted, or the Union must be dissolved. But how if she votes
herself
a slave state unfairly--that is, by the very means for which you say
you would
hang men? Must she still be admitted, or the Union be dissolved? That
will be
the phase of the question when it first becomes a practical one. In
your
assumption that there may be a fair decision of the slavery question in
Kansas,
I plainly see you and I would differ about the Nebraska-law. I look
upon that
enactment not as a law,
but as violence from
the
beginning. It was conceived in violence, passed in violence, is
maintained in
violence, and is being executed in violence. I say it was conceived in
violence, because the destruction of the Missouri Compromise, under
the circumstances, was nothing less than violence. It was passed in
violence, because it could not have passed at all but for the votes
of many members, in violent disregard of the known will of their
constituents.
It is maintained in violence because the elections since, clearly
demand it's repeal, and this demand is openly disregarded. You say men
ought
to be hung for the way they are executing that law; and I say the way
it is
being executed is quite as good as any of its antecedents. It is being
executed
in the precise way which was intended from the first; else why does no
Nebraska
man express astonishment or condemnation? Poor [Kansas territorial
Governor]
Reeder is the only public man who has been silly enough to believe that
any
thing like fairness was ever intended; and he has been bravely
undeceived.
That
Kansas will form a Slave constitution, and, with it, will ask to be
admitted into the Union, I take to be an already settled question; and
so settled
by the very means you so pointedly condemn. By every principle of law,
ever
held by any court, North or South, every negro taken to Kansas is free;
yet in
utter disregard of this--in the spirit of violence merely--that
beautiful
[fraudulent pro-slavery] Legislature gravely passes a law to hang men
who shall
venture to inform a negro of his legal rights. This is the substance,
and real
object of the law. If, like Haman, they should
hang upon the gallows of their own
building, I shall not be among the mourners for their fate. [this being
a
Biblical reference]
In my humble sphere, I shall advocate
the
restoration of the Missouri Compromise [which banned slavery from that
area],
so long as Kansas remains a territory; and when, by all these foul
means, it
seeks to come into the Union as a Slave-state, I shall oppose it. I am
very
loth, in any case, to withhold my assent to the enjoyment of property acquired, or located, in good faith; but I do
not admit that good
faith, in taking a
negro to Kansas, to be held in slavery, is a possibility with
any man. Any man who has sense enough to be the controller of his own
property,
has too much sense to misunderstand the outrageous character of this
whole Nebraska
business. But I digress. In my opposition to the admission of Kansas I
shall
have some company; but we may be beaten. If we are, I shall not, on
that
account, attempt to dissolve the Union. On the contrary, if we succeed,
there
will be enough of us to take care of the Union. I think it probable,
however,
we shall be beaten. Standing as a unit among yourselves, you can,
directly, and
indirectly, bribe enough of our men to carry the day-as you could on an
open
proposition to establish monarchy. Get hold of some man in the North,
whose
position and ability is such, that he can make the support of your
measure-whatever it may be--a democratic party necessity, and the thing is done. Apropos of this, let me tell you
an anecdote. [Senator Steven] Douglas introduced the Nebraska bill in
January.
In February afterwards, there was a call session of the Illinois
Legislature.
Of the one hundred members composing the two branches of that body,
about
seventy were democrats. These latter held a caucus, in which the
Nebraska bill
was talked of, if not formally discussed.
It was thereby discovered that just three, and no more, were in
favor of
the measure. In a day or two Douglas' orders came on to have
resolutions
passed approving the bill; and they were passed by large majorities!!!
The
truth of this is vouched for by a bolting democratic member. The masses
too,
democratic as well as whig, were even, nearer unanamous against it but
as soon
as the party necessity of supporting it, became apparent, the way the
democracy [that is, the Democratic party] began
to see the wisdom
and justice
of it,
was perfectly astonishing.
You say if
Kansas fairly votes herself a free state, as a christian you will
rather
rejoice at it. All decent slave-holders talk that way; and I do not doubt their
candor. But they
never vote
that way.
Although in a private letter, or conversation, you will express your
preference
that Kansas shall be free, you would vote for no man for Congress who
would say
the same thing publicly. No such man could be elected from any district
in any
slave-state. You think Stringfellow & Co [violent proslavery
leaders in
Kansas] ought to be hung; and yet, at the next presidential election
you will
vote for the exact type and representative of Stringfellow. The
slave-breeders
and slave-traders, are a small, odious and detested class, among you;
and yet
in politics, they dictate the course of all of you, and are as
completely your
masters, as you are the masters of your own negroes.
You enquire where I now
stand. That is a disputed point. I think I am a whig; but others say
there are
no whigs, and that I am an abolitionist. When I was at Washington I
voted for
the Wilmot Proviso [preventing slavery’s
extension into the Mexican cession] as good as forty times, and I never
heard
of any one attempting to unwhig me for that. I now do no more than
oppose the extension of slavery.
I am not a Know-Nothing. That is
certain. How could
I be? How can any one who abhors the oppression of negroes, be in favor
of
degrading classes of white people? Our progress in degeneracy appears
to me to
be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created
equal" We now
practically read it "all men are created equal, except Negroes." When the Know-Nothings
get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and
catholics" When it
comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where
they make no pretence of loving liberty-to Russia, for instance, where
despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy.
[Lincoln’s wife] Mary will probably
pass a day or
two in Louisville in October. My kindest regards to Mrs. Speed. On the
leading
subject of this letter, I have more of her sympathy than I have of
yours.
And
yet let me say I am Your friend forever
A.
LINCOLN