1
Lincoln vs. Garrison vs. Frederick Douglass vs. Davis vs. Yawncey
Annotation
By the end of 1856, the nation’s political landscape had shifted. The Whig Party had split over the issue of slavery, and the
Democratic Party was weak. In summary, Northern Whigs opposed the Fugitive Slave Act and gave only mild support of the
Compromise of 1850. The Southern Whigs supported both. Once the Kansas-Nebraska Act was up for a vote in 1854, it led to the
ultimate demise of the Whigs.
In February 1854, at a schoolhouse in Wisconsin, some discontented Northern Whigs had a meeting with antislavery
Northern Democrats and a smaller party known as Free-Soilers to form a new political party – the Republican Party. The founder
was Horace Greeley, and Abraham Lincoln was among their members. The Republican Party was united in their rejection of the
Kansas-Nebraska Act, and to end expansion of slavery into new territories. In the 1858 Illinois Senatorial race, Lincoln was the
Republican challenger to Stephen Douglas, who was finishing up his second term.
Abraham Lincoln was a former Illinois Whig congressman and 1860 Republican presidential nominee who believed the
following about slavery, the Constitution, and the American union: (1) anti-slavery in principle and in practice, who argued against
slavery's extension into federal territories but tolerated it where it already existed in American states as a domestic (i.e., non-federal)
institution, but emphatically not an abolitionist because they elevated emancipation [slave freedom] above preserving the Constitution;
(2) pro-Constitution, which he saw as a pro-liberty document, and pro-Union as long as it operated according to the principles of the
Declaration of Independence.
Against the view of southern Democrats, Lincoln believed in restricting the extension of slavery in hopes that this would put
slavery "on the course of ultimate extinction." Specifically, he supported Congress' right to do so under the federal constitution and
made this a central claim of the newly formed Republican Party's platform. But he acknowledged the legal right to own slaves under
state constitutions that already permitted it. Lincoln did not seek the repeal of the notorious fugitive slave act of 1850, which was part
of the Great Compromise of 1850.
Analysis 1 - Abraham Lincoln (Republican – former Whig), May 18, 1858 (Draft of speech on Popular Sovereignty)
http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mal:@field(DOCID+@lit(d4339400))
Center, Knox College. Galesburg, Illinois.
...If [there can be]… a fair vote in… Kansas… I think republican members of congress ought to support it. They believe congress
ought to prohibit slavery wherever it can be done, without violation of the constitution …and actually knowing that a majority of the
people of Kansas are against slavery, passing an act of congress to secure them a fair vote, is … prohibiting slavery in Kansas, by act
of congress-Congress can not dictate a constitution to a new state-- All it can do, at that point, is to secure the people a fair chance to form one for
themselves, and then to accept, or reject it, when they ask admission into the union-… Republicans claim no more than this-- But they do claim, that congress can, and ought to keep slavery out of a territory, up to the
time of its people forming a state constitution…
I am glad … Douglas has, at last…told us, that he cares not whether slavery be voted down, or voted up…I am glad, because it affords
such a true and excellent a definition of the Nebraska policy itself-- That policy, honestly administered, is exactly that-- It seeks to
bring the people of the nation to not care any thing about slavery-- This is Nebraskaism, in it's … purity…
Now, I take it, nearly every body does care something about slavery -- is either for it, or against it; and … [neutrality on the issue of
slavery should] be doubted in advance-But Nebraskaism …still persists in … [the] calling … [for the] "sacred right of self-government"-Well, I too, believe in self-government as I understand it; but I do not understand, that the privilege one man takes of making a slave
of another, or holding him as such, is any part of "self government"-- To call it so is, to mind, simply absurd, and ridiculous-I am for the people of the whole nation doing just as they please, in all matters which concern the whole nation; for those of each part,
doing just as they choose, in all matters which concern no other part; and for each individual doing just as he chooses in all matters
which concern no body else-But neither the principle [of self-government, as I understand it], nor the exception, will admit the indefinite spread … of human
slavery-… [In the last] four years, there has really been more angry agitation of the subject [of slavery], both, in and out of congress, than ever
before…
2
Question
According to Lincoln - Does
Congress have the authority to ban
slavery form the federal territories?
What authority do they have?
Answer
What does Lincoln think of Douglas’s
position on slavery (i.e.
Nebraskaism)?
What does Lincoln define as ―selfgovernment?‖ In other words, when
does this right to “popular
sovereignty” apply?
Does Lincoln address the question of
slavery as it already exists in the
Southern states?
Speech of Hon. Abraham Lincoln, delivered in Springfield, Saturday evening, July 17, 1858.
Type of document: Pamphlet http//:www.gilderlehman.org/collection/document.php?id=34
Although I have… [always] been opposed to slavery… [I also believed it was headed for] ultimate extinction. For that reason, it had
been a minor question with me. I might have been mistaken; but the … great majority… [agreed] up to the repeal of the Missouri
Compromise [in 1854, as part of the Kansas-Nebraska Act]. … I became convinced that either I had been resting in a delusion
[hallucination, fantasy], or the institution [of slavery] was being … [made permanent]…I believe that [Kansas-Nebraska] bill to be the
beginning of a conspiracy for that purpose....
So believing, I thought the… [issue of slavery] will never rest till [either] the power of Congress to restrict the spread of it [slavery]
shall again be … exercised … or all resistance [to slavery] be entirely crushed out.... when this Constitution was formed, it was the
belief of no man that slavery would last to the present day. … the framers of our Constitution … [believed] slavery …was in course of
ultimate extinction…
[It is argued] the invention of the cotton gin had made … slavery a necessity in this country.... I have said that I do not understand
the Declaration to mean that all men are created equal in all respects. They are not our equal in color; but I suppose that it does
mean that all men are equal in some respects; they are equal in their right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Certainly
the Negro is not our equal in color--perhaps not in many other respects; still, in the right to put into his mouth the bread that his own
hands have earned, he is the equal of every other man, white or black.
All I ask for the Negro is that if you do not like him, let him alone. If God gave him but little, that little let him enjoy. When our
Government was established we had the institution of slavery among us. We were in a certain sense compelled to tolerate its
existence. It was a sort of necessity. We had gone through our struggle and secured our own independence. The framers of the
Constitution found the institution of slavery amongst their other institutions at the time. They found that by an effort to eradicate [end]
it, they might lose much of what they had already gained [i.e. the union] … They gave power to Congress to abolish the slave trade at
the end of twenty years. They also prohibited it in the Territories where it did not exist [If you remember way back to when we studied
THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE]. They did what they could and … [gave in] to the necessity for the rest....
One more point.... I expressed my belief in the existence of a conspiracy to … [spread and make permanent] slavery.... I showed the
part … Douglas had played … to my mind the proof of that conspiracy… [the conspiracy is they knew that th Supreme] Court was to
decide that neither Congress nor the people could … exclude slavery.... I charge him [Douglas] with having been a party to that
conspiracy and to the deception for the sole purpose of … [spreading and making] slavery [permanent].
3
Question
How long has Lincoln been
personally opposed to slavery?
Why was it ―a minor question‖
in his mind until the KansasNebraska Act?
Answer
How does he think the
American Founders viewed the
future of slavery in the U.S.?
What made slavery seem
necessary again?
Does Lincoln believe the
Declaration of Independence
applies to black Americans –
even slaves?
What is the conspiracy that
Lincoln claims Stephen
Douglas is participating in?
Analysis 2 - William Lloyd Garrison, “The American Union” (The Liberator - January 10, 1845):
―Tyrants of the old world! condemners of the rights of man! disbelievers in human freedom and equality! enemies of mankind! … [do
not fool yourselves] with the delusion, that REPUBLICANISM [freedom] and the AMERICAN UNION are synonymous terms
[similar in meaning]—or that the downfall of the … [union] will be the … [end of freedom] … Your thrones must crumble to dust;
your rod of oppression be broken…
Tyrants! know that the rights of man are … unalienable, and therefore, not to be … [taken by] any form of government, however
democratic. Let the American Union perish [end] … If nations perish, it is not because of their devotion to liberty, but for their
disregard of its requirements. Man is superior to all political compacts, all governmental arrangements, all religious institutions.
… [The purpose of an arrangement/compact/government] must always be the freedom and happiness of man, INDIVIDUAL MAN. It
can never be true that the public good requires the violent sacrifice of any, even the humblest citizen…To do evil … [so] good may
come, is equally absurd and criminal. The time for the overthrow of any government, the abandonment of any alliance , the
subversion [rebellion against] of any institution, is, whenever it justifies the … [sacrifice] of the individual to secure the general
welfare; for the welfare of the many cannot be hostile to the safety of the few. …[At all times], in all political or religious
enterprises, in all attempts to redeem the human race, man, as an individual, is to be held paramount [supreme, the most
important]…
Tyrants! … the AMERICAN UNION - will forever demonstrate the necessity of whips for the backs, and chains for the limbs of the
people… It was conceived in sin, and … its career has been marked by unparalleled hypocrisy, by … tyranny, by a bold defiance of
… God… for within its borders are three millions of Slaves, whose blood constitutes its cement, whose flesh forms a large and
flourishing branch of its commerce, and who are ranked with four-footed beasts and creeping things.
To secure the adoption of the Constitution of the United States, it was agreed, first, that the African slave-trade …should for at least
twenty years … [exist for the] national interest under the American flag, and protected by the national … [military]; —secondly, that a
slaveholding oligarchy [government by the wealthy few – in the South], created by allowing 3/5 of the slave population to be
represented by their taskmasters, should be allowed a permanent seat in Congress;—thirdly, that the slave system should be secured
against internal revolt and external invasion, by the united physical force of the country; —fourthly, that … [all] territory …on which
the panting fugitive [escaped] from Slavery might stand, and be safe from his pursuers—thus making every citizen a slave-hunter and
slave-catcher. To say that this ―covenant with death‖ shall not be annulled—that this ―agreement with hell‖ shall continue to stand—
that this ―refuge of lies‖ shall not be swept away—is to hurl defiance at the eternal throne[God]… It is an attempt…to blend the light
of heaven with the darkness of the bottomless pit, to unite the living with the dead, to associate the Son of God with the prince of evil.
Accursed be the AMERICAN UNION, as a stupendous republican imposture!
4
Accursed be it, as the most frightful despotism, with regard to three millions of the people, ever exercised over any portion of the
human family!
Accursed be it, as the most subtle and atrocious compromise ever made to gratify power and selfishness!
Henceforth, the watchword [motto, outcry] of every uncompromising abolitionist, of every friend of God and liberty, must be, both in
a religious and political sense—―NO UNION WITH SLAVEHOLDERS!‖
Question
Why is Garrison not hesitant to argue
for the end of the union/compact?
According to Garrison, why have
governments in the past eventually
perished? And what is the purpose of
government?
What is more important to Garrison
than even political or religious
institutions?
Why does he argue that the U.S.
Constitution is not worthy of respect?
(2 reasons – paragraphs 2,3)
In the 4th paragraph, Garrison lists 4
things that the Federal government
and the people have done to aid the
system of slavery. In your own
words, what is each referring to?
What slogan does he proclaim as the
motto of any serious abolitionist?
Answer
5
Analysis 3: Frederick Douglass, “The Constitution of the United States: Is it Pro-Slavery or Anti-Slavery?” (March 26, 1860):
The way to abolish slavery in America is to vote such men into power, as will use their powers for the abolition of slavery. . . .
My argument against the … [ending] of the American Union is this: It would place the slave system more exclusively under the
control of the slave-holding States, and withdraw it from the power in the Northern States which is opposed to slavery.
I have much confidence in the instincts of the slave-holders. They see that the Constitution will … [provide] slavery no
protection…They see, moreover, that if … the people of America [desire] to abolish slavery, there is no word, no syllable in the
Constitution to forbid that result. They see that the Constitution has not saved slavery in Rhode Island, in Connecticut, in New York,
or Pennsylvania; that the Free States have increased from one up to eighteen in number, while the slave States have only added
three to their original number…
The … [ending] of the Union would not give the North a single advantage over slavery…Within the Union we have a firm basis of
opposition to slavery. It is opposed to all the great objects of the Constitution. The … [ending] of the Union is not only an unwise but
a cowardly measure—fifteen millions running away from three hundred and fifty thousand slave-holders. Mr. Garrison and his friends
tell us that while in the Union we are responsible for slavery. He and they sing out ―No union with slave-holders,‖ and refuse to vote.
I admit our responsibility for slavery while in the Union; but I deny that going out of the Union would free us from that
responsibility….If a man were on board of a pirate ship, and, in company with others, had robbed and plundered, his whole duty
would not be performed simply by taking … [another boat] and singing out, ―No union with pirates.‖ His duty would be to restore the
stolen property. The American people in the Northern States have helped to enslave the black people. Their duty will not have been
done until they give them back their plundered rights.
My position now is one of reform, not of revolution; I would act for the abolition of slavery through the Government—not over its
ruins. If slave-holders have ruled the American Government for the last fifty years, let the anti-slavery men rule for the next fifty
years. If the South has made the Constitution bend to the purposes of slavery, let the North now make that instrument bend to the
cause of freedom and justice.
Question
Does Douglass think preserving
or dissolving the Union if the
best way to end slavery? What
is his logic/reasoning?
What does Douglass say to
argue that the Constitution is
not a pro-slavery document? (2
things)
Why does Douglass think
leaving the Union would be
irresponsible on the part of the
northern states?
How is it cowardly?
Does Douglass think the
Constitution needs to be
amended to abolish slavery?
Answer
6
Analysis 4 – Jefferson Davis, “Resolutions on the Relations of States,” Excerpt (February 2, 1860):
Mr. DAVIS submitted the following resolutions:
1. Resolved, That in the adoption of the Federal Constitution, the States … acted …as free and independent sovereignties, delegating a
portion of their powers to … the Federal Government for the increased security of each, against dangers domestic as well as foreign;
and that any intermeddling by any one or more States, or by a combination of their citizens, with the domestic institutions of the
others… with the view to their disturbance or subversion, is in violation of the Constitution… endangers their domestic peace and
tranquillity—objects for which the Constitution was formed—and, by necessary consequence, serves to weaken and destroy the Union
itself.
2. Resolved, That negro slavery, as it exists in fifteen States of this Union, composes an important portion of their domestic
institutions, inherited from their ancestors, and existing at the adoption of the Constitution…and that no change of opinion or feeling
on the part of the non-slaveholding States of the Union in relation to this institution can justify them or their citizens in open and
systematic attacks … with a view to its overthrow; and that all such attacks are in … violation of the mutual and solemn pledges to
protect and defend each other, given … on entering into the constitutional compact which formed the Union, and are …a violation of
the most solemn obligations.
3. Resolved, That the union of these States rests on the equality of rights and privileges among its members, and that it is especially the
duty of the Senate, which represents the States … to resist all attempts to discriminate … in relation to … property, so as, in the
Territories—which are the common possession of the United States—to give advantages to the citizens of one State which are not
equally secured to those of every other State.
4. Resolved, That neither Congress, nor a Territorial Legislature…possess the power to annul or impair the constitutional right of any
citizen of the United States to take his slaver property into the common Territories; but it is the duty of the Federal Government there
to [provide]…, as for other species of property, the needful protection…
5. Resolved, That the inhabitants of an organized Territory of the United States, when they rightfully form a constitution to be
admitted as a State into the Union, may then, for the first time, like the people of a State when forming a new constitution, decide for
themselves whether slavery… shall be maintained or prohibited within their jurisdiction…
6. Resolved, That the provision of the Constitution for the rendition of fugitives from service or labor [i.e. runaway slaves – my
notation], ―without the adoption of which the Union could not have been formed,‖ and the laws of 1793 and 1850, which were
enacted to secure its execution, …have unquestionable claim to the respect and observance of all who enjoy the benefits of our
compact of Union; and that the acts of State Legislatures to defeat the purpose, or nullify the requirements of that provision [the
Fugitive Slave Act] … are hostile in character, subversive of the Constitution, revolutionary in their effect, and if persisted in, must
sooner or later lead the States injured by such breach of the compact to exercise their judgment as to the proper mode and measure of
redress.
Question
According to Davis, did
the American states or
American people establish
the U.S. Constitution?
List at least three reasons
that Davis gives to show
the importance of ―negro
slavery‖ to the southern
states.
Does Congress or a
territorial legislature have
authority to discourage or
prohibit the carrying of
slaves into federal
territory?
Does the federal
government have any
obligation (in 1860) to
protect slavery in the
federal territories?
Answer
7
When can the inhabitants
of a federal territory
decide to prohibit or
maintain slavery?
If a state prevents the
enforcement of the federal
fugitive slave laws, what
has happened to the
constitutional compact
between the states?
What right do
slaveholding states have if
free states continue to
interfere with the return of
fugitive slaves?
Analysis 5 - William Lowndes Yancey, “Protest in the Charleston Convention,” Excerpt (April 28, 1860):
Let the murmur of the hustings be stilled—let the voices of individual citizens, no matter how great and respected in their appropriate
spheres, be hushed, while the law, as expounded by the constituted authority of the country, emotionless, passionless and just, rolls in
its silvery cadence over the entire realm, from the Atlantic to the Pacific, and from the ice-bound regions of the North to the glittering
waters of the Gulf. What says that decision [i.e., the 1857 Dred Scott decision of the Supreme Court]? That decision tells you,
gentlemen, that the Territorial Legislature has no power to interfere with the rights of the slave-owner in the Territory while in a
Territorial condition. That decision tells you that this government is a union of sovereign States…It tells you that the people of those
coequal States have a right to go into these Territories… with every species of property which is recognized as property by the States
in which they live, or by the Constitution of the United States.
Question
What does Yancey believe
the Supreme Court
guarantees to slaveowners
who travel to a federal
territory?
Where does Yancey
believe political
sovereignty lies in the
United States, the states or
the union as a whole?
Answer
8
What did each of the
figures below believe
about the subjects to the
right?
The American Union
The US Constitution
The Future of Slavery
Abraham Lincoln
William Lloyd Garrison
Jefferson Davis
William Lowndes
Yancey
End Annotation
Jefferson Davis (1808-1889) and William Lowndes Yancey (1814-1863) were southern, slaveholding, Democratic senators
who believed in a pro-slavery Constitution to the point of demanding in 1860 that Congress protect the property right of a slaveholder
to take his slaves into a federal territory. In addition, they supported the Constitution, but believed that states retained their
sovereignty within this compact. This "states' rights" view held that each state gave up only a portion of its powers to the national
government and thus could leave or "secede" from the union if it believed that sufficient violations of the federal compact were
committed by other states: for example, a few free states passed personal liberty laws to prevent local enforcement of the Fugitive
Slave Act of 1850.
When Lincoln emerged as the winner of the Presidential election in 1860, the South felt as if they had lost all power in the
national government. In other words, the split between the North and South was a result of their disagreement over slavery – but it
was also about the issue of state rights vs. national government rights (which the South hid behind in order to keep slavery).
9
Essentially, even though Lincoln was not an abolitionist, did not threaten to end slavery, went to great lengths to promise he would not
threaten slavery where it existed, he and his Republican Party were frightening to the Southern slaveholders. They knew that Lincoln
and the Republicans did not approve of slavery, and preferred a gradual end of slavery. It was this core belief of the Republicans
which made the Southern slaveholders tremble. South Carolina seceded first, followed by Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia,
Louisiana, and Texas. Delegates from each of these states met in Alabama, and formed the Confederacy (or Confederate States of
America). A constitution was created, and Jefferson Davis was unanimously elected president by the delegates. President Buchanan
(Lincoln was not yet inaugurated) declared secession to be illegal, but did nothing else.