Abraham Lincoln had an incredible journey. Two of his speeches show how far he came in his thinking about this country.
Lincoln, the revolutionary
In January 1848, Congressman Abraham Lincoln gave a speech about the disputed boundary between Texas and Mexico. Lincoln said that the farthest reaches of Texas’s territory depended upon revolution.
Lincoln continued:
Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right – a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world.
Nor is this right confined to cases in which the whole people of an existing government may choose to exercise it. Any portion of such people that can, may revolutionize, and make their own of so much territory as they may inhabit. More than this, a majority of any portion of such people may revolutionize, putting down a minority, intermingled with, or near about them, who may oppose their movement. Such minority was precisely the case of the Tories of our own Revolution.
It is a quality of revolutions not to go by old lines, or old laws; but to break up both, and make new ones.[i]
Lincoln, the Conservative
Thirteen years later, in 1861, President Lincoln gave his first inaugural address. He said “the Union is perpetual.” He continued:
No State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; … resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and … acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.[ii]
A Democratic congressman asks: Encouragement to secede?
Ohio Congressman A.G. Thurman, discussed Lincoln’s 1848 remarks. Thurman asked in 1872:
[was] a word ever spoken, or line ever written, by a northern Democrat that was calculated to give a hundredth part as much encouragement to the secessionists of the South as were the utterances of Mr. Lincoln [?] …
Mr. Lincoln’s remarks were not confined to the case of Texas,, which he discussed, or to any particular time or revolution. In what he said he laid down rules that he considered applicable to all times, all countries, and all circumstances. And by these rules he said, in effect, to the southern people, in 1860 and 1861, ‘If you are inclined and have the power, you have the right to rise up and shake off the existing Government and form a new one that suits you better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right. Any portion of you has this right, and, if there is a minority among you who cling to the Union, you have a right to put those unionists down.’
This was what Mr. Lincoln said in substance to the southern people, and when he became President-elect of the United States, these opinions of his were circulated everywhere in the South as proof that secession would not be resisted by the North.[iii]
A historian weighs in
Historian David M. Potter stated:
Lincoln apparently thought that the preservation, by the use of force, of the Union formed in 1787 was more important for mankind than the purely voluntary self-determination of peoples. [iv]
# # #
Thanks for reading my blog! Please leave any comments and questions below.
[i] Harry Jaffa, A New Birth of Freedom: Abraham Lincoln and the Coming of the Civil War (Oxford, 2000), 347, quoting Abraham Lincoln, speech in House of Representatives, 1/12/1848, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, Thirtieth Congress, first session, volume 19, pg. 95.
[ii] “First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln,” the Avalon Project, the Lillian Goldman Law Library, Yale University, http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp (accessed 6/24/2016).
[iii] A.G. Thurman, speech in House of Representatives, “Extension of the Ku Klux Act,” 5/21/1872, Appendix to the Congressional Globe, Second Session, Forty-second Congress, 665-668.
[iv] David M. Potter, “The Historian’s Use of Nationalism and Vice Versa, ” The American Historical Review, July 1962, pp. 924-950.
Kathleen Parsons
28 Jun 2016‘How excellent and how timely!’ was my response to your article. Naturally, I say this after the ‘Brexit’ vote where Britain decided to leave the European Union due of unelected and unelectable officials, etc. on Thursday. I will think on Lincoln’s ideas and their potential results will remain for a very long time. Thanks for this incredible insight.
David Connon
28 Jun 2016Hi, Kathy. Thank you for your kind response. I hadn’t thought about the historic Brexit vote as I wrote this post, but I can see a connection.
Irene Hansen
28 Jun 2016I thought of the “Brexit” vote too, as I read this post. I also have thought a great deal about how much LIncoln’s views on this issue may or may have not changed over time, just as his views about slavery’s expansion. Remember when he supported resettling African Americans in Liberia? I do struggle with how much of Lincoln’s evolving or changing views were due perhaps to his growth as a man and a leader, and how much was due to his genius as a political pragmatist.
Any thoughts or comments? Thanks.
David Connon
28 Jun 2016Hi, Irene. Thank you for sharing your reflections. I’m still forming my impressions of President Lincoln and why he may have changed various views over time. I think you’re right in mentioning the categories of Lincoln’s “growth as a man and a leader” and “his genius as a political pragmatist.” Thanks for reading my blog!
Richard Pohorsky
28 Jun 2016The South had the right to leave the Union, but not the power. That is obvious. The Doctrine of Legislative Entrenchment allowed States to de-ratify the Constitution, or revolt against the central government. With sufficient military power, they would have been successful. It was, in fact, a war of aggression by the central government, and they had the power to enforce their will over the rights of the seceding States. Rights are worthless without the power to back them up.
David Connon
28 Jun 2016Hi, Dick. Thank you for your clear and thoughtful remarks. I agree, if the Confederate states had had sufficient military power, they might’ve obtained an armistice or perhaps even international recognition as a nation.
Jennifer Knight
1 Jul 2016I remember the first time I read Lincoln’s words that seemed to clearly support secession and a CSA as a recognized country…shocked! Lots of men lost their lives to protect the sanctity of one United States of America with Lincoln’s “blessing”. I always wonder: was their loss and the devastation of families on both sides worth what we have today? How might our world (and the global world) be different if there was a CSA and USA?? I’m a proud patriot still willing to die for my country, but having family that fought on both sides makes me wonder which of Lincoln’s words was for the best? Always like reading your blog as you make me think…thank you! Believe a Steve Berry novel explores this too.
David Connon
1 Jul 2016Hi, Jennifer. Thank you for your kind comments. I was also shocked the first time I read Lincoln’s 1848 words. You raise very good questions such as, how might our world be different if there was a CSA and a USA? This question allows us all to “write” our own version of Mackinlay Kantor’s If the South had won the Civil War. I suspect that if President Lincoln had followed editor Horace Greeley’s early 1861 call to let the seceded states “go in peace,” that those states eventually would’ve peacefully returned to the Union, although they still would’ve needed to work out the problem of whether to extend slavery to the Territories. And yes, Steve Berry wrote an interesting novel, The Lincoln Myth.