Henry Clay to John Switzer
Ashland, Ohio, 19 May 1831
Sir
th
I recd. your letter of the 6 inst. requesting my opinion on certain questions stated by you in respect to the
African portion of our population. I have not time to discuss these at large and must therefore confine myself
to a brief reply, upon the condition, suggested by yourself that my letter shall not be a subject of publication….
I would refer you to a speech which I addressed to the Colonization Society of K[entucky] in Dec. 1929,
published in many of the prints, for my general views of the institution of slavery, and the remedy for the evils
incident to it. And to the part I acted on the Missouri question for my opinion of the powers of the genl.
government in regard to it.
The question of emancipation, immediate, or prospective, as a public measure, appertains, in my opinion,
exclusively to the several States, each judging and acting for itself, in what slavery exists. More than thirty
years ago I was in favor of the adoption in K[entucky] of a system similar to that which, at the instance of
Franklin, had been previously sanctioned by Penn[sylvani]a. I have never ceased to regret that the decision of
this State was adverse to the plan.
Slavery is undoubtedly a manifest violation of the rights of man. It can only be justified in America, if at all, by
necessity. That it entails innumerable mischiefs upon our Country I think is quite clear. It may become
dangerous in particular parts of the Union. But the slaves can never, I think, acquire permanent ascendancy in
any part.
Congress has no power, as I think, to establish any system of emancipation, gradual or immediate, on behalf of
the present or any future generation. The several states alone, according to our existing institutions, are
competent to make provision on that subject, as already intimated.
With great respect
I am Your ob. Serv.
H.Clay
Questions:
1. Why does Clay make the expression of his opinion on slavery conditional upon the letter not being
published?
2. Who does Clay believe has the exclusive right to decide upon the emancipation of the slaves as a
public measure?
3. How does Clay view slavery? What, if anything, does he believe can justify its existence?
1
William Lloyd Garrison, “On the Constitution and the Union”
December 29, 1832
There is much declamation about the sacredness of the compact which was formed between the free
and slave states, on the adoption of the Constitution. A sacred compact, forsooth! We pronounce it the
most bloody and heaven-daring arrangement ever made by men for the continuance and protection of a
system of the most atrocious villany [sic] ever exhibited on earth. Yes—we recognize the compact, but
with feelings of shame and indignation; and it will be held in everlasting infamy by the friends of justice
and humanity throughout the world. It was a compact formed at the sacrifice of the bodies and souls of
millions of our race, for the sake of achieving a political object—an unblushing and monstrous coalition
to do evil that good might come. Such a compact was, in the nature of things and according to the law of
God, null and void from the beginning. No body of men ever had the right to guarantee the holding of
human beings in bondage. Who or what were the framers of our government, that they should dare
confirm and authorise such high-handed villany—such a flagrant robbery of the inalienable rights of
man-such a glaring violation of all the precepts and injunctions of the gospel-such a savage war upon a
sixth part of our whole population? —They were men, like ourselves—as fallible, as sinful, as weak, as
ourselves. By the infamous bargain which they made between themselves, they virtually dethroned the
Most High God, and trampled beneath their feet their own solemn and heaven-attested Declaration,
that all men are created equal, and endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights — among
which are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. They had no lawful power to bind themselves, or
their posterity, for one hour-for one moment — by such an unholy alliance. It was not valid then—it is
not valid now. Still they persisted in maintaining it — and still do their successors, the people of
Massachusetts, of New-England, and of the twelve free States, persist in maintaining it. A sacred
compact! a sacred compact! What, then, is wicked and ignominious?
This, then, is the relation in which we of New-England stand to the holders of slaves at the south, and
this is virtually our language toward them—“Go on, most worthy associates, from day to day, from
month to month, from year to year, from generation to generation, plundering two millions of human
beings of their liberty and the fruits of their toil—driving them into the fields like cattle—starving and
lacerating their bodies—selling the husband from his wife, the wife from her husband, and children from
their parents—spilling their blood—withholding the bible from their hands and all knowledge from their
minds—and kidnapping annually sixty thousand infants, the offspring of pollution and shame! Go on, in
these practices—we do not wish nor mean to interfere, for the rescue of your victims, even by
expostulation or warning-we like your company too well to offend you by denouncing your conduct—
’although we know that by every principle of law which does not utterly disgrace us by assimilating us to
pirates, that they have as good and as true a right to the equal protection of the law as we have; and
although we ourselves stand prepared to die, rather than submit even to a fragment of the intolerable
load of oppression to which we are subjecting them—yet, never mind-let that be-they have grown old in
suffering and we iniquity—and we have nothing to do now but to speak peace, peace, to one another in
our sins. We are too wicked ever to love them as God commands us to do—we are so resolute in our
wickedness as not even to desire to do so—and we are so proud in our iniquity that we will hate and
revile whoever disturbs us in it. We want, like the devils of old, to be let alone in our sin. We are
unalterably determined, and neither God nor man shall move us from this resolution, that our colored
fellow subjects never shall be free or happy in their native land.’ Go on, from bad to worse-add link to
link to the chains upon the bodies of your victims—add constantly to the intolerable burdens under
which they groan—and if, goaded to desperation by your cruelties; they should rise to assert their rights
and redress their wrongs, fear nothing-we are pledged, by a sacred compact, to shoot them like dogs
and rescue you from their vengeance! Go on—we never will forsake you, for ’there is honor among
2
thieves’—our swords are ready to leap from their scabbards, and our muskets to pour forth deadly
vollies, as soon as you are in danger. We pledge you our physical strength, by the sacredness of the
national compact—a compact by which we have enabled you already to plunder, persecute and destroy
two millions of slaves, who now lie beneath the sod; and by which we now give you the same piratical
license to prey upon a much larger number of victims and all their posterity. Go on—and by this sacred
instrument, the Constitution of the United States, dripping as it is with human blood, we solemnly
pledge you our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor, that we will stand by you to the last.”
People of New-England, and of the free States! is it true that slavery is no concern of yours? Have you no
right even to protest against it, or to seek its removal? Are you not the main pillars of its support? How
long do you mean to be answerable to God and the world, for spilling the blood of the poor innocents?
Be not afraid to look the monster SLAVERY boldly in the face. He is your implacable foe—the vampyre
who is sucking your life-blood—the ravager of a large portion of your country, and the enemy of God
and man. Never hope to be a united, or happy, or prosperous people while he exists. He has an appetite
like the grave—a spirit as malignant as that of the bottomless pit—and an influence as dreadful as the
corruption of death. Awake to your danger! the struggle is a mighty one—it cannot be avoided—it
should not be, if it could.
It is said that if you agitate this question, you will divide the Union. Believe it not; but should disunion
follow, the fault will not be yours. You must perform your duty, faithfully, fearlessly and promptly, and
leave the consequences to God: that duty clearly is, to cease from giving countenance and protection to
southern kidnappers. Let them separate, if they can muster courage enough—and the liberation of their
slaves is certain. Be assured that slavery will very speedily destroy this Union, if it be let alone; but even
if the Union can be preserved by treading upon the necks, spilling the blood, and destroying the souls of
millions of your race, we say it is not worth a price like this, and that it is in the highest degree criminal
for you to continue the present compact. Let the pillars thereof fall—let the superstructure crumble into
dust—if it must be upheld by robbery and oppression.
John C. Calhoun, "Slavery a Positive Good,"
February, 6 1837
I do not belong, said Mr. C., to the school which holds that aggression is to be met by concession. Mine
is the opposite creed, which teaches that encroachments must be met at the beginning, and that those
who act on the opposite principle are prepared to become slaves. In this case, in particular. I hold
concession or compromise to be fatal. If we concede an inch, concession would follow concession compromise would follow compromise, until our ranks would be so broken that effectual resistance
would be impossible. We must meet the enemy on the frontier, with a fixed determination of
maintaining our position at every hazard. Consent to receive these insulting petitions, and the next
demand will be that they be referred to a committee in order that they may be deliberated and acted
upon. At the last session we were modestly asked to receive them, simply to lay them on the table,
without any view to ulterior action. . . . I then said, that the next step would be to refer the petition to a
committee, and I already see indications that such is now the intention. If we yield, that will be followed
3
by another, and we will thus proceed, step by step, to the final consummation of the object of these
petitions. We are now told that the most effectual mode of arresting the progress of abolition is, to
reason it down; and with this view it is urged that the petitions ought to be referred to a committee.
That is the very ground which was taken at the last session in the other House, but instead of arresting
its progress it has since advanced more rapidly than ever. The most unquestionable right may be
rendered doubtful, if once admitted to be a subject of controversy, and that would be the case in the
present instance. The subject is beyond the jurisdiction of Congress - they have no right to touch it in
any shape or form, or to make it the subject of deliberation or discussion. . . .
As widely as this incendiary spirit has spread, it has not yet infected this body, or the great mass of the
intelligent and business portion of the North; but unless it be speedily stopped, it will spread and work
upwards till it brings the two great sections of the Union into deadly conflict. This is not a new
impression with me. Several years since, in a discussion with one of the Senators from Massachusetts
(Mr. Webster), before this fell spirit had showed itself, I then predicted that the doctrine of the
proclamation and the Force Bill - that this Government had a right, in the last resort, to determine the
extent of its own powers, and enforce its decision at the point of the bayonet, which was so warmly
maintained by that Senator, would at no distant day arouse the dormant spirit of abolitionism. I told him
that the doctrine was tantamount to the assumption of unlimited power on the part of the Government,
and that such would be the impression on the public mind in a large portion of the Union. The
consequence would be inevitable. A large portion of the Northern States believed slavery to be a sin,
and would consider it as an obligation of conscience to abolish it if they should feel themselves in any
degree responsible for its continuance, and that this doctrine would necessarily lead to the belief of
such responsibility. I then predicted that it would commence as it has with this fanatical portion of
society, and that they would begin their operations on the ignorant, the weak, the young, and the
thoughtless, - and gradually extend upwards till they would become strong enough to obtain political
control, when he and others holding the highest stations in society, would, however reluctant, be
compelled to yield to their doctrines, or be driven into obscurity. But four years have since elapsed, and
all this is already in a course of regular fulfilment.
Standing at the point of time at which we have now arrived, it will not be more difficult to trace the
course of future events now than it was then. They who imagine that the spirit now abroad in the North,
will die away of itself without a shock or convulsion, have formed a very inadequate conception of its
real character; it will continue to rise and spread, unless prompt and efficient measures to stay its
progress be adopted. Already it has taken possession of the pulpit, of the schools, and, to a considerable
extent, of the press; those great instruments by which the mind of the rising generation will be formed.
However sound the great body of the non-slaveholding States are at present, in the course of a few
years they will be succeeded by those who will have been taught to hate the people and institutions of
nearly one-half of this Union, with a hatred more deadly than one hostile nation ever entertained
towards another. It is easy to see the end. By the necessary course of events, if left to themselves, we
must become, finally, two people. It is impossible under the deadly hatred which must spring up
between the two great nations, if the present causes are permitted to operate unchecked, that we
should continue under the same political system. The conflicting elements would burst the Union
asunder, powerful as are the links which hold it together. Abolition and the Union cannot coexist. As the
friend of the Union I openly proclaim it, - and the sooner it is known the better. The former may now be
controlled, but in a short time it will be beyond the power of man to arrest the course of events. We of
the South will not, cannot, surrender our institutions. To maintain the existing relations between the
two races, inhabiting that section of the Union, is indispensable to the peace and happiness of both. . . .
But let me not be understood as admitting, even by implication, that the existing relations between the
4
two races in the slaveholding States is an evil: - far otherwise; I hold it to be a good, as it has thus far
proved itself to be to both, and will continue to prove so if not disturbed by the fell spirit of abolition. I
appeal to facts. Never before has the black race of Central Africa, from the dawn of history to the
present day, attained a condition so civilized and so improved, not only physically, but morally and
intellectually.
In the meantime, the white or European race, has not degenerated. It has kept pace with its brethren in
other sections of the Union where slavery does not exist. It is odious to make comparison; but I appeal
to all sides whether the South is not equal in virtue, intelligence, patriotism, courage, disinterestedness,
and all the high qualities which adorn our nature.
But I take higher ground. I hold that in the present state of civilization, where two races of different
origin, and distinguished by color, and other physical differences, as well as intellectual, are brought
together, the relation now existing in the slaveholding States between the two, is, instead of an evil, a
good - a positive good. I feel myself called upon to speak freely upon the subject where the honor and
interests of those I represent are involved. I hold then, that there never has yet existed a wealthy and
civilized society in which one portion of the community did not, in point of fact, live on the labor of the
other. Broad and general as is this assertion, it is fully borne out by history. This is not the proper
occasion, but, if it were, it would not be difficult to trace the various devices by which the wealth of all
civilized communities has been so unequally divided, and to show by what means so small a share has
been allotted to those by whose labor it was produced, and so large a share given to the non-producing
classes. The devices are almost innumerable, from the brute force and gross superstition of ancient
times, to the subtle and artful fiscal contrivances of modern. I might well challenge a comparison
between them and the more direct, simple, and patriarchal mode by which the labor of the African race
is, among us, commanded by the European. I may say with truth, that in few countries so much is left to
the share of the laborer, and so little exacted from him, or where there is more kind attention paid to
him in sickness or infirmities of age. Compare his condition with the tenants of the poor houses in the
more civilized portions of Europe - look at the sick, and the old and infirm slave, on one hand, in the
midst of his family and friends, under the kind superintending care of his master and mistress, and
compare it with the forlorn and wretched condition of the pauper in the poorhouse. But I will not dwell
on this aspect of the question; I turn to the political; and here I fearlessly assert that the existing relation
between the two races in the South, against which these blind fanatics are waging war, forms the most
solid and durable foundation on which to rear free and stable political institutions. It is useless to
disguise the fact. There is and always has been in an advanced stage of wealth and civilization, a conflict
between labor and capital. The condition of society in the South exempts us from the disorders and
dangers resulting from this conflict; and which explains why it is that the political condition of the
slaveholding States has been so much more stable and quiet than that of the North.
William Lloyd Garrison
John C. Calhoun
Does he uphold the
“sacredness” or inviolability of
the compact?
5
Does he believe that people
have a right to hold slaves?
What does he claim to be the
condition of the slaves? How
does he believe slaves are
treated?
How many races does he think
there are?
Does he appeal to an authority
higher than himself? Who or
what is it?
John L. O’Sullivan, Manifest Destiny
1839
The American people having derived their origin from many other nations, and the Declaration of
National Independence being entirely based on the great principle of human equality, these facts
demonstrate at once our disconnected position as regards any other nation; that we have, in reality, but
little connection with the past history of any of them, and still less with all antiquity, its glories, or its
crimes. On the contrary, our national birth was the beginning of a new history, the formation and
progress of an untried political system, which separates us from the past and connects us with the
future only; and so far as regards the entire development of the natural rights of man, in moral, political,
and national life, we may confidently assume that our country is destined to be the great nation of
futurity.
It is so destined, because the principle upon which a nation is organized fixes its destiny, and that of
equality is perfect, is universal. It presides in all the operations of the physical world, and it is also the
conscious law of the soul — the self-evident dictates of morality, which accurately defines the duty of
man to man, and consequently man’s rights as man. Besides, the truthful annals of any nation furnish
abundant evidence, that its happiness, its greatness, its duration, were always proportionate to
the democratic equality in its system of government. . . .
What friend of human liberty, civilization, and refinement, can cast his view over the past history of the
monarchies and aristocracies of antiquity, and not deplore that they ever existed? What philanthropist
6
can contemplate the oppressions, the cruelties, and injustice inflicted by them on the masses of
mankind, and not turn with moral horror from the retrospect?
America is destined for better deeds. It is our unparalleled glory that we have no reminiscences of battle
fields, but in defence of humanity, of the oppressed of all nations, of the rights of conscience, the rights
of personal enfranchisement. Our annals describe no scenes of horrid carnage, where men were led on
by hundreds of thousands to slay one another, dupes and victims to emperors, kings, nobles, demons in
the human form called heroes. We have had patriots to defend our homes, our liberties, but no
aspirants to crowns or thrones; nor have the American people ever suffered themselves to be led on by
wicked ambition to depopulate the land, to spread desolation far and wide, that a human being might
be placed on a seat of supremacy.
We have no interest in the scenes of antiquity, only as lessons of avoidance of nearly all their examples.
The expansive future is our arena, and for our history. We are entering on its untrodden space, with the
truths of God in our minds, beneficent objects in our hearts, and with a clear conscience unsullied by the
past. We are the nation of human progress, and who will, what can, set limits to our onward march?
Providence is with us, and no earthly power can. We point to the everlasting truth on the first page of
our national declaration, and we proclaim to the millions of other lands, that “the gates of hell” — the
powers of aristocracy and monarchy — “shall not prevail against it.”
The far-reaching, the boundless future will be the era of American greatness. In its magnificent domain
of space and time, the nation of many nations is destined to manifest to mankind the excellence of
divine principles; to establish on earth the noblest temple ever dedicated to the worship of the Most
High — the Sacred and the True. Its floor shall be a hemisphere — its roof the firmament of the starstudded heavens, and its congregation an Union of many Republics, comprising hundreds of happy
millions, calling, owning no man master, but governed by God’s natural and moral law of equality, the
law of brotherhood — of “peace and good will amongst men.”. . .
Yes, we are the nation of progress, of individual freedom, of universal enfranchisement. Equality of
rights is the cynosure of our union of States, the grand exemplar of the correlative equality of
individuals; and while truth sheds its effulgence, we cannot retrograde, without dissolving the one and
subverting the other. We must onward to the fulfilment of our mission — to the entire development of
the principle of our organization — freedom of conscience, freedom of person, freedom of trade and
business pursuits, universality of freedom and equality. This is our high destiny, and in nature&#146s
eternal, inevitable decree of cause and effect we must accomplish it. All this will be our future history, to
establish on earth the moral dignity and salvation of man — the immutable truth and beneficence of
God. For this blessed mission to the nations of the world, which are shut out from the life-giving light of
truth, has America been chosen; and her high example shall smite unto death the tyranny of kings,
hierarchs, and oligarchs, and carry the glad tidings of peace and good will where myriads now endure
an existence scarcely more enviable than that of beasts of the field. Who, then, can doubt that our
country is destined to be the great nation of futurity?
Questions:
1. Why does O’Sullivan feel we are unlike any people or nation that has existed to date?
7
2. Why does O’Sullivan feel the United States is destined for better deeds than the monarchies and
aristocracies of European history?
3. What does O’Sullivan feel is the destiny of the United States? And, who or what does he believe
ordained that destiny?
4. What aspects of John Winthrop’s “City Upon the Hill” sermon are present with the concept of
Manifest Destiny?
James Knox Polk, First Inaugural Address
March 4, 1845
… The Republic of Texas has made known her desire to come into our Union, to form a part of our
Confederacy and enjoy with us the blessings of liberty secured and guaranteed by our Constitution.
Texas was once a part of our country — was unwisely ceded away to a foreign power — is now
independent, and possesses an undoubted right to dispose of a part or the whole of her territory and
to merge her sovereignty as a separate and independent state in ours. I congratulate my country that
by an act of the late Congress of the United States the assent of this Government has been given to the
reunion, and it only remains for the two countries to agree upon the terms to consummate an object
so important to both.
I regard the question of annexation as belonging exclusively to the United States and Texas. They are
independent powers competent to contract, and foreign nations have no right to interfere with them
or to take exceptions to their reunion. Foreign powers do not seem to appreciate the true character of
our Government. Our Union is a confederation of independent States, whose policy is peace with each
other and all the world. To enlarge its limits is to extend the dominions of peace over additional
territories and increasing millions. The world has nothing to fear from military ambition in our
Government. While the Chief Magistrate and the popular branch of Congress are elected for short
terms by the suffrages of those millions who must in their own persons bear all the burdens and
miseries of war, our Government can not be otherwise than pacific. Foreign powers should therefore
look on the annexation of Texas to the United States not as the conquest of a nation seeking to extend
her dominions by arms and violence, but as the peaceful acquisition of a territory once her own, by
adding another member to our confederation, with the consent of that member, thereby diminishing
the chances of war and opening to them new and ever—increasing markets for their products.
To Texas the reunion is important, because the strong protecting arm of our Government would be
extended over her, and the vast resources of her fertile soil and genial climate would be speedily
8
developed, while the safety of New Orleans and of our whole southwestern frontier against hostile
aggression, as well as the interests of the whole Union, would be promoted by it.
In the earlier stages of our national existence the opinion prevailed with some that our system of
confederated States could not operate successfully over an extended territory, and serious objections
have at different times been made to the enlargement of our boundaries. These objections were
earnestly urged when we acquired Louisiana. Experience has shown that they were not well founded.
The title of numerous Indian tribes to vast tracts of country has been extinguished; new States have
been admitted into the Union; new Territories have been created and our jurisdiction and laws
extended over them. As our population has expanded, the Union has been cemented and
strengthened. As our boundaries have been enlarged and our agricultural population has been spread
over a large surface, our federative system has acquired additional strength and security. It may well be
doubted whether it would not be in greater danger of overthrow if our present population were
confined to the comparatively narrow limits of the original thirteen States than it is now that they are
sparsely settled over a more expanded territory. It is confidently believed that our system may be
safely extended to the utmost bounds of our territorial limits, and that as it shall be extended the
bonds of our Union, so far from being weakened, will become stronger.
None can fail to see the danger to our safety and future peace if Texas remains an independent state or
becomes an ally or dependency of some foreign nation more powerful than herself. Is there one among
our citizens who would not prefer perpetual peace with Texas to occasional wars, which so often occur
between bordering independent nations? Is there one who would not prefer free intercourse with her
to high duties on all our products and manufactures which enter her ports or cross her frontiers? Is
there one who would not prefer an unrestricted communication with her citizens to the frontier
obstructions which must occur if she remains out of the Union? Whatever is good or evil in the local
institutions of Texas will remain her own whether annexed to the United States or not. None of the
present States will be responsible for them any more than they are for the local institutions of each
other. They have confederated together for certain specified objects. Upon the same principle that
they would refuse to form a perpetual union with Texas because of her local institutions our
forefathers would have been prevented from forming our present Union. Perceiving no valid objection
to the measure and many reasons for its adoption vitally affecting the peace, the safety, and the
prosperity of both countries, I shall on the broad principle which formed the basis and produced the
adoption of our Constitution, and not in any narrow spirit of sectional policy, endeavor by all
constitutional, honorable, and appropriate means to consummate the expressed will of the people and
Government of the United States by the reannexation of Texas to our Union at the earliest practicable
period.
Nor will it become in a less degree my duty to assert and maintain by all constitutional means the right
of the United States to that portion of our territory which lies beyond the Rocky Mountains. Our title to
the country of the Oregon is "clear and unquestionable," and already are our people preparing to
perfect that title by occupying it with their wives and children. But eighty years ago our population was
confined on the west by the ridge of the Alleghanies. Within that period — within the lifetime, I might
say, of some of my hearers — our people, increasing to many millions, have filled the eastern valley of
the Mississippi, adventurously ascended the Missouri to its headsprings, and are already engaged in
establishing the blessings of self—government in valleys of which the rivers flow to the Pacific. The
world beholds the peaceful triumphs of the industry of our emigrants. To us belongs the duty of
protecting them adequately wherever they may be upon our soil. The jurisdiction of our laws and the
9
benefits of our republican institutions should be extended over them in the distant regions which they
have selected for their homes. The increasing facilities of intercourse will easily bring the States, of
which the formation in that part of our territory can not be long delayed, within the sphere of our
federative Union. In the meantime every obligation imposed by treaty or conventional stipulations
should be sacredly respected.
Questions:
1. How does Polk believe foreign powers should view the annexation of Texas by the United States?
2. What dangers does Polk see in not annexing Texas? Why does he view annexation as a necessity?
3. What are Polk’s opinion regarding the Oregon Territory?
Abraham Lincoln, Letter to Williamson Durley
October 03, 1845
Friend Durley:
When I saw you at home, it was agreed that I should write to you and your brother Madison. Until I then
saw you, I was not aware of your being what is generally called an abolitionist, or, as you call yourself, a
Liberty man; though I well knew there were many such in your county. I was glad to hear you say that
you intend to attempt to bring about, at the next election in Putnam, a union of the whigs proper, and
such of the liberty men, as are whigs in principle on all questions save only that of slavery. So far as I can
perceive, by such union, neither party need yield any thing on the point in difference between them. If
the whig abolitionists of New York had voted with us last fall, Mr. Clay would now be president, whig
principles in the ascendant, and Texas not annexed; whereas by the division, all that either had at stake
in the contest, was lost. And, indeed, it was extremely probable, beforehand, that such would be the
result. As I always understood, the Liberty—men deprecated the annexation of Texas extremely; and,
this being so, why they should refuse to so cast their votes as to prevent it, even to me seemed
wonderful. What was their process of reasoning, I can only judge from what a single one of them told
me. It was this:
“We are not to do evil that good may come.” This general proposition is doubtless correct; but did it
apply? If by your votes you could have prevented the extension [sic], &c., of slavery, would it not have
been good and not evil so to have used your votes, even though it involved the casting of them for a
slaveholder? By the fruit the tree is to be known. An evil tree can not bring forth good fruit. If the fruit of
electing Mr. Clay would have been to prevent the extension of slavery, could the act of electing have
been evil?
10
But I will argue farther. I perhaps ought to say that individually I never was much interested in the Texas
question. I never could see much good to come of annexation; inasmuch, as they were already a free
republican people on our own model; on the other hand, I never could very clearly see how the
annexation would augment the evil of slavery. It always seemed to me that slaves would be taken there
in about equal numbers, with or without annexation. And if more were taken because of annexation,
still there would be just so many the fewer left, where they were taken from. It is possibly true, to some
extent, that with annexation, some slaves may be sent to Texas and continued in slavery, that otherwise
might have been liberated. To whatever extent this may be true, I think annexation an evil. I hold it to be
a paramount duty of us in the free states, due to the Union of the States, and perhaps to liberty itself
(paradox though it may seem) to let the slavery of the other states alone; while, on the other hand, I
hold it to be equally clear, that we should never knowingly lend ourselves directly or indirectly, to
prevent that slavery from dying a natural death—to find new places for it to live in, when it can no
longer exist in the old. Of course I am not now considering what would be our duty, in cases of
insurrection among the slaves.
To recur to the Texas question, I understand the Liberty men to have viewed annexation as a much
greater evil than I ever did; and I would like to convince you if I could, that they could have prevented it,
without violation of principle if they had chosen.
I intend this letter for you and Madison together; and if you and he or either shall think fit to drop me a
line, I shall be pleased.
Yours with respect
A. Lincoln
Questions:
1. How does Lincoln explain to Durley, an abolitionist, that voting for Clay, a slaveholder, in the last
presidential election would have been a positive end?
2. Explain Lincoln’s view on slavery within the states that it already exists and beyond the states it
currently exists.
Henry Clay, Speech on the Mexican-American War
1847
The day is dark and gloomy, unsettled and uncertain, like the condition of our country, in regard to the
unnatural war with Mexico. The public mind is agitated and anxious, and is filled with serious
apprehensions as to its indefinite continuance, and especially as to the consequences which its
termination may bring forth, menacing the harmony, if not the existence, of our Union.
11
… How did we unhappily get involved in this war? It was predicted as the consequence of the
annexation of Texas to the United States. If we had not Texas, we should have no war. The people were
told that if that event happened, war would ensue. They were told that the war between Texas and
Mexico had not been terminated by a treaty of peace; that Mexico still claimed Texas as a revolted
province: and that, if we received Texas in our Union, we took along with her, the war existing between
her and Mexico. And the Minister of Mexico [Juan N. Almonte] formally announced to the Government
at Washington, that his nation would consider the annexation of Texas to the United States as
producing a state of war. But all this was denied by the partisans of annexation. They insisted we
should have no war, and even imputed to those who foretold it, sinister motives for their groundless
prediction.
But, notwithstanding a state of virtual war necessarily resulted from the fact of annexation of one of
the belligerents to the United States, actual hostilities might have been probably averted by prudence,
moderation and wise statesmanship. If General Taylor had been permitted to remain, where his own
good sense prompted him to believe he ought to remain, at the point of Corpus Christi; and, if a
negotiation had been opened with Mexico, in a true spirit of amity and conciliation, war possibly might
have been prevented. But, instead of this pacific and moderate course, whilst Mr. Slidell was bending
his way to Mexico with his diplomatic credentials, General Taylor was ordered to transport his cannon,
and to plant them, in a warlike attitude, opposite to Matamoras, on the east bank of the Rio Bravo;
within the very disputed territory, the adjustment of which was to be the object of Mr. Slidell’s mission.
What else could have transpired but a conflict of arms?
… Among the resolutions, which it is my intention to present for your consideration, at the conclusion
of this address, one proposes, in your behalf and mine, to disavow, in the most positive manner, any
desire, on our part, to acquire any foreign territory whatever, for the purpose of introducing slavery
into it. I do not know that any citizen of the United States entertains such a wish. But such a motive has
been often imputed to the slave States, and I therefore think it necessary to notice it on this occasion.
My opinions on the subject of slavery are well known. They have the merit, if it be one, of consistency,
uniformity, and long duration. I have ever regarded slavery as a great evil, a wrong, for the present, I
fear, an irremediable wrong to its unfortunate victims. I should rejoice if not a single slave breathed the
air or was within the limits of our country. But here they are, to be dealt with as well as we can, with a
due consideration of all circumstances affecting the security, safety and happiness of both races. Every
State has the supreme, uncontrolled and exclusive power to decide for itself whether slavery shall
cease or continue within its limits, without any exterior intervention from any quarter. In States, where
the slaves outnumber the whites, as is the case with several, the blacks could not be emancipated and
invested with all the rights of freemen, without becoming the governing race in those States. Collisions
and conflicts, between the two races, would be inevitable, and, after shocking scenes of rapine and
carnage, the extinction or expulsion of the blacks would certainly take place. In the State of Kentucky,
near fifty years ago, I thought the proportion of slaves, in comparison with the whites, was so
inconsiderable that we might safely adopt a system of gradual emancipation that would ultimately
eradicate this evil in our State. That system was totally different from the immediate abolition of
slavery for which the party of the Abolitionists of the present day contend. Whether they have
intended it or not, it is my calm and deliberate belief, that they have done incalculable mischief even to
the very cause which they have espoused, to say nothing of the discord which has been produced
between different parts of the Union. According to the system, we attempted, near the close of the last
12
century, all slaves in being were to remain such, but, all who might be born subsequent to a specified
day, were to become free at the age of twenty-eight, and, during their service, were to be taught to
read, write, and cypher. Thus, instead of being thrown upon the community, ignorant and unprepared,
as would be the case by immediate emancipation, they would have entered upon the possession of
their freedom, capable, in some degree, of enjoying it. After a hard struggle, the system was defeated,
and I regret it extremely, as, if it had been then adopted, our State would be now nearly rid of that
reproach.
… It is a philanthropic and consoling reflection that the moral and physical condition of the African race
in the United States, even in a State of slavery, is far better than it would have been if their ancestors
had never been brought from their native land. And if it should be the decree of the Great Ruler of the
Universe that their descendants shall be made instruments in His hands in the establishment of
Civilization and the Christian Religion throughout Africa, our regrets on account of the original wrong,
will be greatly mitigated.
It may be argued, that, in admitting the injustice of slavery, I admit the necessity of an instantaneous
reparation of that injustice. Unfortunately, however, it is not always safe, practicable or possible, in the
great movements of States and public affairs of nations, to remedy or repair the infliction of previous
injustice. In the inception of it, we may oppose and denounce it, by our most strenuous exertions, but,
after its consummation, there is often no other alternative left us but to deplore its perpetration, and
to acquiesce as the only alternative, in its existence, as a less evil that the frightful consequences which
might ensue from the vain endeavor to repair it. Slavery is one of those unfortunate instances. The evil
of it was inflicted upon us, by the parent country of Great Britain, against all the entreaties and
remonstrances of the colonies. And here it is among us, and we must dispose of it, as best we can
under all the circumstances which surround us. It continued, by the importation of slaves from Africa,
in spite of Colonial resistance, for a period of more than a century and a half, and it may require an
equal or longer lapse of time before our country is entirely rid of the evil. And, in the meantime,
moderation, prudence and discretion among ourselves, and the blessings of Providence may be all
necessary to accomplish our ultimate deliverance from it. Examples of similar infliction of irreparable
national evil and injustice might be multiplied to an indefinite extent. The case of the annexation of
Texas to the United States is a recent and obvious one where, if it were wrong, it cannot now be
repaired. Texas is now an integral part of our Union, with its own voluntary consent. Many of us
opposed the annexation with honest zeal and most earnest exertions. But who would now think of
perpetrating the folly of casting Texas out of the confederacy and throwing her back upon her own
independence, or into the arms of Mexico? Who would now seek to divorce her from this Union?
… But I forbear, I will no longer trespass upon your patience or further tax my own voice, impaired by a
speech of more than three hours duration, which professional duty required me to make only a few
days ago. If I have been at all successful in the exposition of the views and opinions which I entertain I
have shown—
1st. That the present war was brought about by the annexation of Texas and the subsequent order of
the President, without the previous consent and authority of Congress.
13
2d. That the President, being unenlightened and uninstructed, by any public declaration of Congress, as
to objects for which it ought to be prosecuted, in the conduct of it is, necessarily, left to his own sense
of what the national interests and honor may require.
3d. That the whole war making power of the nation, as to motives, causes and objects, is confided by
the constitution to the discretion and judgment of Congress.
4th. That it is, therefore, the right of Congress, at the commencement or during the progress of any
war, to declare for what objects and purposes the war ought to be waged and prosecuted.
5th. That it is the right and duty of Congress to announce to the nation for what objects the present
war shall be longer continued; that it is the duty of the President, in the exercise of all his official
functions, to conform to and carry out this declared will of Congress, by the exercise, if necessary, of all
the high powers with which he is clothed; and that, if he fail or refuse to do so, it becomes the
imperative duty of Congress to arrest the further progress of the war by the most effectual means in its
power.
Let Congress announce to the nation the objects for which this war shall be further protracted and
public suspense and public inquietude will no longer remain. If it is to be a war of conquest of all, or any
part of Mexico, let the people know it, and they will be no longer agitated by a dark and uncertain
future. But, although I might have foreborne to express any opinion whatever as to purposes and
objects for which the war should be continued, I have not thought proper to conceal my opinions,
whether worth anything or not, from the public examination. Accordingly I have stated.
6th. That it seems to me that it is the duty of our country, as well on the score of moderation and
magnanimity, as with the view of avoiding discord and discontent at home, to abstain from seeking to
conquer and annex to the United States Mexico or any part of it; and, especially, to disabuse the public
mind in any quarter of the Union of the impression, if it anywhere exists, that a desire for such a
conquest, is cherished for the purpose of propagating or extending slavery.
Questions:
1. What event does Clay believe to be the cause of the war with Mexico?
2. Regarding causes or motivation behind the war, what does Clay disavow?
3. Did Clay believe the annexation of Texas was wrong? Explain.
4. What specific part does Clay attribute to Polk as a contributing factor to the war with Mexico?
14
5. Is Clay in favor of the annexation of Mexican territories or the extension of slavery into territories
beyond the United States?
"The 'Mudsill' Theory," James Henry Hammond
March 4, 1858
In all social systems there must be a class to do the menial duties, to perform the drudgery of life. That
is, a class requiring but a low order of intellect and but little skill. Its requisites are vigor, docility,
fidelity. Such a class you must have, or you would not have that other class which leads progress,
civilization, and refinement. It constitutes the very mud-sill of society and of political government; and
you might as well attempt to build a house in the air, as to build either the one or the other, except on
this mud-sill. Fortunately for the South, she found a race adapted to that purpose to her hand. A race
inferior to her own, but eminently qualified in temper, in vigor, in docility, in capacity to stand the
climate, to answer all her purposes. We use them for our purpose, and call them slaves. We found
them slaves by the common "consent of mankind," which, according to Cicero, "lex naturae est." The
highest proof of what is Nature's law. We are old-fashioned at the South yet; slave is a word discarded
now by "ears polite;" I will not characterize that class at the North by that term; but you have it; it is
there; it is everywhere; it is eternal.
The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole world had abolished slavery. Aye, the name,
but not the thing; all the powers of the earth cannot abolish that. God only can do it when he repeals
the fiat, "the poor ye always have with you;" for the man who lives by daily labor, and scarcely lives at
that, and who has to put out his labor in the market, and take the best he can get for it; in short, your
whole hireling class of manual laborers and "operatives," as you call them, are essentially slaves. The
difference between us is, that our slaves are hired for life and well compensated; there is no starvation,
no begging, no want of employment among our people, and not too much employment either. Yours
are hired by the day, not cared for, and scantily compensated, which may be proved in the most painful
manner, at any hour in any street in any of your large towns. Why, you meet more beggars in one day,
in any single street of the city of New York, than you would meet in a lifetime in the whole South. We
do not think that whites should be slaves either by law or necessity. Our slaves are black, of another
and inferior race. The status in which we have placed them is an elevation. They are elevated from the
condition in which God first created them, by being made our slaves. None of that race on the whole
face of the globe can be compared with the slaves of the South. They are happy, content, unaspiring,
and utterly incapable, from intellectual weakness, ever to give us any trouble by their aspirations. Yours
are white, of your own race; you are brothers of one blood. They are your equals in natural endowment
of intellect, and they feel galled by their degradation. Our slaves do not vote. We give them no political
power. Yours do vote, and, being the majority, they are the depositories of all your political power. If
they knew the tremendous secret, that the ballot-box is stronger than "an army with banners," and
could combine, where would you be? Your society would be reconstructed, your government
overthrown, your property divided, not as they have mistakenly attempted to initiate such proceedings
by meeting in parks, with arms in their hands, but by the quiet process of the ballot-box. You have been
15
making war upon us to our very hearthstones. How would you like for us to send lecturers and
agitators North, to teach these people this, to aid in combining, and to lead them?
Questions:
1. What component does Hammond claim to be necessary to all social and political systems? Why?
2. What point is Hammond trying to make regarding the use of the word slavery, when he states,
“The Senator from New York said yesterday that the whole of the world has abolished slavery. Aye,
the name, but not the thing; all powers of the earth cannot abolish that.”?
3. Does Hammond believe the North to have a mudsill? Who does he believe it to be?
4. What key differences does Hammond see when comparing the southern and northern mud sills?
5. Hammond claims that northern agitators have made “war upon us (southerners) to our very
hearthstones.” What threat does he offer in return?
Abraham Lincoln, Letter to J. N. Brown
October 18, 1858
Hon. J. N. Brown
My dear Sir
I do not perceive how I can express myself, more plainly, than I have done in the foregoing extracts. In
four of them I have expressly disclaimed all intention to bring about social and political equality
between the white and black races, and, in all the rest, I have done the same thing by clear implication
I have made it equally plain that I think the negro is included in the word “men” used in the Declaration
of Independence.
I believe the declara-[sic] that “all men are created equal” is the great fundamental principle upon
which our free institutions rest; that negro slavery is violative of that principle; but that, by our frame
of government, that principle has not been made one of legal obligation; that by our frame of
government, the states which have slavery are to retain it, or surrender it at their own pleasure; and
16
that all others-individuals, free-states and national government-are constitutionally bound to leave
them alone about it.
I believe our government was thus framed because of the necessity springing from the actual presence
of slavery, when it was framed.
That such necessity does not exist in the teritories [sic], when slavery is not present.
In his Mendenhall speech Mr. Clay says “Now, as an abstract principle, there is no doubt of the
truth of that declaration (all men created equal) and it is desire-able [sic], in the original construction of
society, and in organized societies, to keep it in view, as a great fundamental principle”
Again, in the same speech Mr. Clay says: “If a state of nature existed, and we were about to lay the
foundations of society, no man would be more strongly opposed than I should to incorporate the
institution of slavery among it’s elements”
Exactly so. In our new free teritories [sic], a state of nature does exist. In them Congress lays the
foundations of society; and, in laying those foundations, I say, with Mr. Clay, it is desireable [sic] that
the declaration of the equality of all men shall be kept in view, as a great fundamental principle; and
that Congress, which lays the foundations of society, should, like Mr. Clay, be strongly opposed to the
incorporation of slavery among it’s elements.
But it does not follow that social and political equality between whites and blacks, must be
incorporated, because slavery must not. The declaration does not so require.
Yours as ever
A. Lincoln
Questions
1. Lincoln asserts that slavery is violative of what great fundamental principle found within the
Declaration of Independence?
2. How does Lincoln differ in his view of slavery (legal or not) as it exists within the states and slavery
within the territories not yet made states?
3. What does Lincoln mean when he says, “But it does not follow that social and political equality
between white and blacks, must be incorporated, because slavery must not. The declaration does
not so require.”?
17