BOSTON, June 18,1860.
MY DEAR MR. SENIOR, — Thinking you may be interested in the antecedents of our promised ruler Lincoln, I send through my bookseller a copy of his speeches (and Douglas's) during their great fight for the Illinois senatorship — which form his chief record.
From such of them as I have read I get the idea that he is an earnest, rough, quick-witted man, — persistent and determined, half educated, but self-reliant and self-taught. These speeches, made before Seward's, show that Lincoln originated in these latter days the utterance of the “irrepressible conflict,” — and what is more, stuck to it manfully. Those who know him assure me that he is honest and straightforward and owned by no clique of hackneyed politicians.
Seward was killed by his association with the politicians who joined in the plundering of the last New York legislature, and by his speech in the Senate ignoring the irrepressible conflict and smoothing over his supposed radicalism.
The first evil lost him the confidence of the right sort of men, not because they believed him corrupt, but from the bad company he had been in and would probably be in again! His latter-day conservatism conciliated his enemies, who would not, however, vote for him, happen what might; and cooled the zeal of his radical supporters, and especially of the country people. I think on the whole the actual nominee will run better and be quite as likely to administer well when in. We shall elect him, I think, triumphantly, by the people; and avoid that abominable expedient, an election by the House, — filled as it is with so large a proportion of mere politicians. There is some danger that we shall be disgusted with a repetition of the log-cabin and hard-cider style of campaigning which was so successful in the Harrison election, but this is a minor evil compared with either having Douglas, with his filibustering crew, or a set of Albany wire-pullers under a Republican administration. . . .
Although you say nothing about it, I still hope you will come out this summer and take care of your young prince and see our heir apparent!
J. M. FORBES.
SOURCE: Sarah Forbes Hughes, Letters and recollections of John Murray Forbes, Volume 1, p.183-4
Grand are the liberators of mankind! Let them hear the grateful applause of the nations, whatever their fortune! Yesterday we gave our tears; to-day our hosannas are heard. Providence deals in these compensations. John Brown failed in America, but Garibaldi has triumphed in Europe. Mankind, shuddering at the infamous gallows of Charlestown, takes courage once more at the flashing sword of Catalafimi.1
_______________
1 Victor Hugo's “Actes et Paroles pendant l'Exil” (1859-60). In the Édition Definitive of his complete works, which was still going through the press at his death, in 1885, the author added this note to the passages cited above: "Victor Hugo avait, à propos de John Brown, prédit la guerre civile à l’Amérique, et, a propos de Garibaldi, prédit 1'unité à l’ltalie. Ces dcux prédictions se réalisèrent.” He had a right to claim this.
SOURCE: Franklin B. Sanborn, The Life and Letters of John Brown, p. 631
Good afternoon Teach.
Interesting describing Lincoln as, “half educated,” meaning didn’t go far enough in the system at the time, or not the “right” schools?
Almost like the caste system in India.
5.56mm
“A Difference” - column 2. [rb: A long discussion about two different interpretations of the Supreme Court’s Dred Scott decision.]
“The Express says that the language of the Supreme Court, in the Dred Scott case, is too plain to be misunderstood, and that it distinctly denies the power of a Territorial Legislature to regulate the question of slavery.”
”Hon. Reverdy Johnson, the late Attorney General of the United States, Attorney for the Southern Side of the question in the Dred Scott case, and present head of the American Bar, differs from the Express very materially, for he emphatically declares that the Supreme Court has decided no such thing. He says, speaking of the power to regulate slave property:”
“It has, however, been thought, and this too by gentlemen of unquestionable ability, that the Supreme Court in the case so often referred to, has decided that such power does not reside in a territorial government. This, it is submitted, is a misconception of the decision. The single question before the Court, in this connection, was, whether Congress possesses the power to prohibit the introduction of slave property in a territory. In rulling it adversely, the Court does not say or intimate that such property in a territory has other safe-guards, or that the owner is entitled to any further protection in its enjoyment, than exists in regard to other kinds of property.”
“Reverdy Johnson is of the opinion, therefore, that Judge Douglas is right, when he says that, according to the Constitution of the United States, slave property stands upon precisely the same footing in the territories as any other property does, and that it is to be treated in the same manner. He goes on:”
“It had been contended, that there was a peculiarity in slave property, that placed it on a different footing from other property. For this the laws and usages of other nations, and reasoning of statesmen and jurists upon the relation of master and slave, had been referred too [to?]. “
“ ‘These,’ says the Chief Justice, ‘cannot enlarge the powers of the government, or take from the citizens the rights they have received;’ and as ‘the Constitution recognizes the right of property owned by a citizen, no tribunal, acting under the authority of the United States, whether it be legislative, executive or judicial, has a right to draw such distinction, or to deny it to the benefit of the provisions and guarantees which have been provided for the protection of private property against the encroachments of government;’ and after referring to the fugitive clause as expressly ‘affirming the right of property in a slave,’ the Chief Justice thus concludes: “
“ ‘And no word can be found in the Constitution WHICH GIVES CONGRESS GREATER POWER OVER SLAVE PROPERTY, OR WHICH ENTITLES PROPERTY OF THAT KIND TO LESS PROTECTION THAN PROPERTY OF ANY OTHER DESCRIPTION.’ [rb: all capital letters in the proceeding as it appeared in the newspaper article] . . .
“ . . . whatever a constitutional government can do in regard to any other kind of property, it can do in regard to this. If any other kind can be excluded, this may be excluded; if any other kind may be more, or less, or not at all protected by legislation, the same is true as to this. If any other, after its legal introduction, can be, upon public grounds, excluded or abolished, it is also the case as to this. [rb: italics as in the newspaper[
. . .
” . . . Reverdy Johnson gives it one construction and the Express another. Which is right? We lean to the side of the great jurist.”