P5 | APUSH | Ms. Wiley |Sources on Lincoln, D___
Name:
Instructions:
1.
2.
3.
A.
Actively read the primary sources that follow, including the background context.
On a blank sheet of lined paper, keep track of the issues listed below. Indicate which
source you took the note from.
 Lincoln’s key thoughts/actions with regards to slavery and race (note
changes/evolution; include dates)
 Lincoln’s thoughts/actions with regards to secession
 Lincoln’s use of war powers
 Lincoln’s thoughts with regards to Reconstruction
 Any questions you have relating to the documents
After reading all sources, respond to the following question on your lined paper:
How did the documents change or reinforce your view of Lincoln?
Source: A Letter from Lincoln to Joshua Speed, 1855
Background: Abraham Lincoln and Joshua Speed met in Springfield, Illinois, during the 1830s and remained friends throughout their lives. In
this letter, Lincoln expresses his thinking about slavery, which contrasted with Speed, who grew up on a plantation and owned slaves. The
year before Lincoln wrote this letter, 1854, the Kansas-Nebraska Act passed Congress, repealing the Missouri Compromise of 1820, and
opened the territories to slavery according to the doctrine of popular sovereignty. The passage of this bill proved a turning point in Lincoln's
career. As he observed, "I was losing interest in politics, when the repeal of the Missouri Compromise aroused me again."
Dear Speed: . . . . 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 . . . 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 continued 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.
. . . . 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 master of your own negroes. You inquire where I now stand. That is a
disputed point -- I think I am a whig; but others say . . . that I am an abolitionist. When I was in Washington I voted for the Wilmot Proviso
as good as forty times . . . . 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 or 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 [sic].
. . . . And yet let me say I am
Your friend forever,
A. Lincoln
B.
Source: The First Lincoln and Douglass Debate, 1858
Background: The Lincoln-Douglas debates were a series of formal political debates between the challenger, Abraham Lincoln, and the
incumbent, Stephen A. Douglas, in a campaign for one of Illinois' two United States Senate seats. Although Lincoln lost the election, these
debates launched him into national prominence which eventually led to his election as President of the United States in 1860.
I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States
where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social
1
equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably
forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a
difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to
the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights
enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to
these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects —certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or
intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and
the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man.
C.
Source: Lincoln’s First Inaugural, 1861
Background: In composing his first inaugural address, Lincoln focused on shoring up his support in the North without further alienating the
South, where he was almost universally hated or feared. The address denied any plan on the part of the Lincoln administration to interfere
with the institution of slavery in states where it existed. But to Lincoln, the Union, which he saw as older even than the Constitution, was
perpetual and unbroken, and secession legally impossible. Until the final draft, Lincoln's address had ended with a question for the South:
"Shall it be peace or sword?" In the famous concluding paragraph, Lincoln, following the suggestion of Seward, moderated his tone
dramatically and ended on a memorable note of conciliation.
. . . . Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their
property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension.
Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the
published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful
right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and
many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to
themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the . . . right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is
essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless
invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes. [The last part of this
sentence alluded to and condemned John Brown’s raid of Harper’s Ferry of 1859.]
. . . . There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the
Constitution as any other of its provisions: “No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another,
shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may be due.” . . . . In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized
and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? [Lincoln sought to reassure the
South concerning the Fugitive Slave Act, although his vague language also seemed to affirm he was intent on making sure that alleged
fugitive slaves enjoyed due process, which would have negated his reassurances as far as the slave states were concerned.]
. . . . I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not
expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its
organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure
forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again: If the United States be not a
government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all
the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the
history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed . . . by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It
was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles
of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a
more perfect Union." But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect
than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that
effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or
revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to
the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully
executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part . . . . I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only
as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
2
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The
power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the
duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the
people anywhere. . . .
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the
Constitution has been denied? I think not. . . . Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution
has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it
might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of
minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them . . . in the Constitution . . . . But no organic law can ever be framed with a
provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any
document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national
or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not
expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the
minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the
Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent
which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by
such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as
portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? . . . Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a
new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and
always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever
rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. . . .
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be
extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign
slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly
supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I
think, cannot be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave
trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially
surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
. . . . In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail
you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government,
while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must
not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from
every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union,
when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.
D. Source: Proclamation Suspending Source the Writ of Habeas Corpus, 1862
Background: The doctrine of habeas corpus is the right of any person under arrest to appear in
person before the court, to ensure that they have not been falsely accused. The Constitution
specifically protects this right in Article I, Section 9: “The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus
shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may
require it.” Lincoln initially suspended habeas corpus in the volatile border state of Maryland in
1861 in order to try large numbers of civilian rioters in military courts and to prevent the
movement of Confederate troops on Washington. The order was eventually extended in
response to different threats. In the summer of 1862, President Lincoln had called up the state
militias, leading to increased opposition to the Civil War within the Union. By General Orders
No. 141, September 25, 1862, Lincoln subjected protestors to martial law (an extreme and rare
measure used to control society during war or periods of civil unrest or chaos) and the
suspension of habeas corpus. The suspension of habeas corpus was one of Lincoln’s most
controversial decisions.
Proclamation Suspending the Writ of Habeas Corpus
BY THE PRESIDNET OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A PROCLAMATION:
3
Whereas, it has become necessary to call into service not only volunteers but also portions of the militia of the United States by draft in
order to suppress the insurrection existing in the United States, and disloyal persons are not adequately restrained by the ordinary
processes of law from hindering this measure and from giving aid and comfort in various ways to the insurrection;
Now, therefore, be it ordered, first, that during the existing insurrection and as a necessary measure for suppressing the same, all Rebels
and Insurgents, their aiders and abettors within the United States, and all persons discouraging volunteer enlistments, resisting militia
drafts, or guilty of any disloyal practice, affording aid and comfort to Rebels against the authority of the United States, shall be subject to
martial law and liable to trial and punishment by the Courts Martial or Military Commission:
Second. That the Writ of Habeas Corpus is suspended in respect to all persons arrested, or who are now, or hereafter during the rebellion
shall be, imprisoned in any fort, camp, arsenal, military prison, or other place of confinement by any military authority by the sentence of
any Court Martial or Military Commission.
In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand, and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed. . . .
E.
Source: Lincoln’s Address to a Group of African Americans, 1862
Background: Lincoln addressed a committee of colored men at the White House in 1862. Having all been seated, the President, after a few
preliminary observations, informed them that a sum of money had been appropriated by Congress, and placed at his disposition for the
purpose of aiding the colonization in some country of the people, or a portion of them, of African descent.
Your race are(sic) suffering, in my judgment, the greatest wrong inflicted on any people. But even when you cease to be slaves, you are yet
far removed from being placed on equality with the white race. You are cut off from many of the advantages which the other race enjoy.
The aspiration of men is to enjoy equality with the best when free, but on this broad continent, not a single man of your race is made the
equal of single man of ours. Go where are treated the best, and the ban is till upon you.
Nevertheless, I repeat, without the institution of slavery and the colored race as a basis the war could not have an existence.
It is better for us both therefore; to be separated. . . . I suppose one of the principal difficulties in the way of colonization is that the free
colored man cannot see that his comfort would be advanced by it . . . .
One reason for an unwillingness to do so is that some of you would rather remain with reach of the country of your nativity. I do not know
the attachment you may have toward our race. It does not strike me that you have the greatest reason to love. But still you are attached
to them at all events.
The place I am thinking about having a colony is in Central America. It is nearer to us than Liberia.
F.
Source: A Letter from Lincoln to Horace Greeley, 1862
Background: Written during the heart of the Civil War, this is one of Abraham Lincoln's most famous letters. Greeley, editor of the influential
New York Tribune, had just addressed an editorial to Lincoln called "The Prayer of Twenty Millions," making demands and implying that
Lincoln's administration lacked direction and resolve. President Lincoln wrote his reply when a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation
already lay in his desk drawer. His response revealed his concentration on preserving the Union. A few years after the president's death,
Greeley wrote an assessment of Lincoln. He stated that Lincoln did not actually respond to his editorial but used it instead as a platform to
prepare the public for his "altered position" on emancipation.
. . . . As to the policy I "seem to be pursuing" as you say, I have not meant to leave any one in doubt. I would save the Union. I would save it
the shortest way under the Constitution. The sooner the national authority can be restored; the nearer the Union will be "the Union as it
was." If there be those who would not save the Union, unless they could at the same time save slavery, I do not agree with them. If there
be those who would not save the Union unless they could at the same time destroy slavery, I do not agree with them. My paramount object
in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I
would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I
would also do that. What I do about slavery, and the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union; and what I forbear, I
forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union. . . . I shall try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt
new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views. I have here stated my purpose according to my view of official duty; and I intend no
modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men every where could be free.
Yours,
A. Lincoln.
4
G. Source: Emancipation Proclamation, 1863
Background: In 1862, Lincoln issued a preliminary proclamation that stipulated that if the Confederacy did not cease their rebellion by
January 1st, 1863, then his Emancipation Proclamation would go into effect. When the Confederacy did not yield, the text below became
official. Careful to respect the limits of his authority, Lincoln applied the proclamation only to the Southern states in rebellion and justified its
issuance in general as a power he possessed as Commander in Chief. Up until the proclamation, the main focus of the war [for Northerners]
was to preserve the Union. With the issuance of the Emancipation Proclamation, freedom for slaves now became a legitimate war aim.
Lincoln justified the Emancipation Proclamation as a war measure intended to cripple the Confederacy by 1) taking Southern resources
(Southern states used slaves to support their armies on the field and to manage the home front so that more men could go off to fight), 2)
prevent Europeans from aiding the Confederacy (Britain and France had considered supporting the Confederacy in order to expand their
influence in the Western Hemisphere, but as opponents of slavery they could now no longer support the South), and 3) to help the Union
effort by allowing blacks to serve in the Union army (blacks had been prohibited from serving in the armed forces, though many tried to
enlist as soon as war broke out). Five months after the Proclamation took effect, the War Department of the United States issued General
Orders No. 143, establishing the United States Colored Troops (USCT). By the end of the war, over 200,000 African-Americans would serve in
the Union army and navy.
Lincoln famously said, “I never, in my life, felt more certain that I was doing right, than I do in signing this paper. If my name ever goes into
history it will be for this act, and my whole soul is in it."
And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated
States [the Confederate states—NOT the slave border states], are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the Executive government of
the United States, including the military and naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons. . . .And I
hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain from all violence, unless in necessary self-defence; and I recommend to
them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable wages. . . . And I further declare and make known, that such
persons of suitable condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to garrison forts, positions, stations, and other
places, and to man vessels of all sorts in said service. . . . And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted by the
Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God.
H. Source: The Gettysburg Address, 1863
Background: The Gettysburg Address is the most celebrated speech given by President Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln delivered it at the
dedication of the Soldiers' National Cemetery in Gettysburg, Pennsylvania following the Battle of Gettysburg (July 1–3, 1863) where between
46,000 and 51,000 Confederate and Union soldiers were killed, wounded, captured or missing. Lincoln was not the featured orator at the
event, yet his two-minute, 272-word Gettysburg Address remains one of the most famous presidential speeches of all time.
Four score and seven years ago our forefathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the
proposition that all men are created equal. [A score is a set of 20 things; 20 x 4 + 7 = 87 years ago  The Declaration of Independence,
1776.]
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We
are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as the final resting place for those who here
gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether and proper that we should do this.
But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate—we cannot consecrate—we cannot hallow—this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who
struggled here have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note not long remember what we say
here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who
fought here thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these
honored dead we take increased devotion; that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, under
God, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
I.
Source: Lincoln’s Second Inaugural, 1865
Background: Just 701 words long, Lincoln’s Second Inaugural Address contains many of the most memorable phrases in American political
oratory. The speech contained neither gloating nor rejoicing. Rather, it offered Lincoln’s most profound reflections on the causes and
meaning of the war. The “scourge of war,” he explained, was best understood as divine punishment for the sin of slavery, a sin in which all
Americans, North as well as South, were complicit. It describes a national moral debt that had been created by the “bondsmen’s 250 years
of unrequited toil,” and ends with a call for compassion and reconciliation. With its biblical allusions, alliteration, repetition, and its reliance
on one-syllable words, the address has the power of a sermon. It incorporates many of the themes of the religious revivals: sin, sacrifice, and
redemption. At a White House reception, President Lincoln encountered Frederick Douglass. “I saw you in the crowd today, listening to my
inaugural address,” the president remarked. “How did you like it?” “Mr. Lincoln,” Douglass answered, “that was a sacred effort.” In a
month’s time, the war would end (April 9) and Lincoln would be assassinated (April 15).
5
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. . . . Both parties
deprecated [condemned] war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather
than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it.
These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen,
perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object . . . [of] the insurgents . . . while the Government claimed no right to do more than to
restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. . . .
The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that
man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God,
must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and
South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine
attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of
war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of
unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said
three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work
we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which
may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.
J.
Source: Lincoln’s Last Public Address, 1865
Background: Two days after the surrender of Confederate General Robert E. Lee’s army, a jubilant crowd gathered outside the White House,
calling for President Lincoln. Reporter Noah Brooks wrote, “Outside was a vast sea of faces, illuminated by the lights that burned in the
festal array of the White House, and stretching far out into the misty darkness. It was a silent, intent, and perhaps surprised, multitude.
Within stood the tall, gaunt figure of the President, deeply thoughtful, intent upon the elucidation of the generous policy which should be
pursued toward the South. That this was not the sort of speech which the multitude had expected is tolerably certain."
Lincoln stood at the window over the building's main north door, a place where presidents customarily gave speeches. Brooks held a light so
Lincoln could read his speech, while young Tad Lincoln grasped the pages as they fluttered to his feet. The speech introduced the complex
topic of reconstruction; for the first time in a public setting, Lincoln expressed his support for black suffrage. This statement incensed John
Wilkes Booth, a member of the audience: “That means n----- citizenship. Now, by God, I’ll put him through. That is the last speech he will
ever make.” A white supremacist and Confederate activist, Booth made good on his threat three days later.
We meet this evening, not in sorrow, but in gladness of heart. The evacuation of Petersburg and Richmond, and the surrender of the
principal insurgent army, give hope of a righteous and speedy peace whose joyous expression can not be restrained. . . . myself, was near
the front, and had the high pleasure of transmitting much of the good news to you; but no part of the honor, for plan or execution, is mine.
To Gen. Grant, his skillful officers, and brave men, all belongs.
By these recent successes the re-inauguration of the national authority—reconstruction—which has had a large share of thought from the
first, is pressed much more closely upon our attention. It is fraught with great difficulty. . . . We simply must begin with, and mould from,
disorganized and discordant elements. Nor is it a small additional embarrassment that we, the loyal people, differ among ourselves as to
the mode, manner, and means of reconstruction. . . .
We all agree that the seceded States, so called, are out of their proper practical relation with the Union; and that the sole object of the
government, civil and military, in regard to those States is to again get them into that proper practical relation. It is also unsatisfactory to
some that the elective franchise is not given to the colored man. I would myself prefer that it were now conferred on the very intelligent,
and on those who serve our cause as soldiers.
K.
Source: Frederick Douglass’s Oration in Memory of Abraham Lincoln, 1876
Background: The following speech was delivered on the occasion of the unveiling of the freedmen's monument in memory of Abraham
Lincoln, in Lincoln Park, Washington, D. C. Frederick Douglass, a former slave and later, abolitionist, met Lincoln on several occasions. His
thoughts on Lincoln were complex and evolved over time, going from condemnation to reverence.
. . . . Abraham Lincoln was not, in the fullest sense of the word, either our man or our model. In his interests, in his associations, in his
habits of thought, and in his prejudices, he was a white man. . . . The race to which we belong were not the special object of his
considerations. . . . [M]y white fellow citizens[, y]ou are the children of Abraham Lincoln. We are at best only his step-children; children by
adoption, children by forces of circumstances and necessity. . . .
6
It mattered little to use what language he might employ on special occasions; it mattered little to us, when we fully knew him, whether he
was swift or slow in his movements; it was enough for us that Abraham Lincoln was the head of a great movement, and was in living and
earnest sympathy with that movement, which, in the nature of things, must go on until slavery should be utterly and forever abolished in
the United States. . . .
When, therefore, it shall be asked what we have to do with the memory of Abraham Lincoln, or what Abraham Lincoln had to do with us,
the answer is ready, full, and complete. . . . [U]nder his rule, and in due time, about as soon after all as the country could tolerate the
strange spectacle, we saw our brave sons and brothers laying off the rags of bondage, and being clothed all over in the blue uniforms of
soldiers of the United States; under his rule we saw two hundred thousand of our dark and dusky people responding to the call of Abraham
Lincoln, and with muskets on their shoulders, and eagles on their buttons, timing their high footsteps to liberty and union under the
national flag. . . . [U]nder his rule we saw for the first time the law enforced against the foreign slave trade, and the first slave-trader
hanged like any other pirate or murderer; under his rule, assisted by the greatest captain of our age, and his inspiration, we saw the
Confederate States, based upon the idea that our race must be slaves, and slaves forever, battered to pieces and scattered to the four
winds; under his rule, and in the fullness of time, we saw Abraham Lincoln, after giving the slave-holders three months’ grace in which to
save their hateful slave system, penning the immortal paper, which though special in its language, was general in its principles and effect,
making slavery forever impossible in the United States. Though we waited long, we saw all this and more.
Can any colored man, or any white man friendly to the freedom of all men, ever forget the night which followed the first day of January,
1863, when the world was to see if Abraham Lincoln would prove to be as good as his word? I shall never forget that night. . . . Nor shall I
ever forget the outburst of joy and thanksgiving that rent the air when the lightning brought to us the emancipation proclamation. In that
happy hour we forgot all delay, and forgot all tardiness . . . and we were thenceforward willing to allow the President all the latitude of
time, phraseology, and every honorable device that statesmanship might require for the achievement of a great and beneficent measure of
liberty and progress.
7