House Divided Speech

“Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new-North as well as South.”

Lincoln provides two stark alternatives for the future of the United States: it will be entirely free or entirely slave-holding. This stark contrast between two distinct alternatives is meant to discourage the naive opinion that slavery might endure in part of the Union while part of it remains free under a doctrine such as “popular sovereignty.” In a matter of such moral weight, one side must prevail.

“That if any one man, choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: ‘It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States.’”

The absurdity of Douglas’s position is demonstrated by its simplification. The third man represents a concerned citizen or abolitionist living in another state or territory. Citing the language of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, Lincoln demonstrates that its intention is to localize the issue of slavery, making it of no concern to a citizen of Massachusetts, for example, what happens in Nebraska.

“‘But,’ said opposition members, ‘let us be more specific- let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slavery.’ ‘Not we,’ said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.”

Imagining the conversation that occurred on the floor of the US Senate, Lincoln emphasizes the dishonesty of the pro-slavery Democrats. Even though they included language leaving states free to govern slavery, they refused to explicitly state that a territory could in fact exclude slavery under the Constitution. While Lincoln could have simply reported the proposal of the amendment, the imagined dialogue helps to dramatize the calculation with which Douglas and the Democrats pursued their objective.

“The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be.”

The incoming president, James Buchanan, asks the public to respect the forthcoming opinion of the Court, “whatever it might be.” The great irony is that, at least according to Lincoln’s theory, Buchanan knew exactly what the decision would be and in fact influenced it. Therefore, the feigned ignorance is nothing more than a fig leaf used to hide Buchanan’s abuse of power in influencing a separate branch of government.

“I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind - the principle for which he declares he has suffered much, and is ready to suffer to the end.”

The irony in this case lies in Douglas’s passion for “not caring” about slavery: in essence, a passion for no passion. Douglas’s insistence that he “cares not” is nothing more than a state of mind he hopes to impress upon the public, especially the northern public. If there is no energy to limit or eliminate slavery at a national level, then it would be very hard to do so at all, which is his true intention.

“His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point, the right of a people to make their own constitution, upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.”

Lincoln seeks to demonstrate that the effort against the Lecompton Constitution is only being used by Douglas to gain Republican support in the upcoming election. Douglas hopes to convince Republican legislators who were responsible for appointing each Senator (prior to the adoption of the 17th Amendment) that he is an independently minded politician who will passionately support democratic principles regardless of the politics.

“[T]hat whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott’s master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.”

Lincoln points out that since Dred Scott held that an enslaved person could not be a citizen of the United States, such an individual would have no recourse to claim her freedom if brought into a slave state, where she would be considered property by the state courts. Since the reach of a state court does not go beyond its own boundaries, the courts of a free state, such as Illinois, would have no jurisdiction to reclaim the individual as a citizen. Lincoln argues that this point, which is implied by the Dred Scott decision, requires some legal reasoning. Therefore, its advocates hope that it will remain unspoken at first until the reality has seeped into the public mind.

“Why was the court decision held up? Why, even a Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried.”

Buchanan and the Democrats argued in the 1856 campaign that each territory would be “perfectly free” to approve or disapprove slavery. That the Dred Scott decision was not announced, nor any opinion on its subject mentioned by Douglas or anyone else, hardly seems like a coincidence. The delay of the decision is revealed to be a political tactic used to avoid accountability in the election.

“While the opinion of the Court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state, or the people of a State to exclude it.”

Lincoln regards it as extremely suspicious and alarming that none of the opinions in the Dred Scott case mention whether a state should have the ability to exclude slavery under the Constitution. Given the Court’s ruling that territories may not exclude slavery, this issue would seem to be a pressing matter worthy of attention.

“Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill - I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down, in the one case, as it had been in the other?”

Just as the Senate refused to include language in the Kansas-Nebraska Act stating that slavery could be excluded from a territory, Lincoln speculates on whether the Court is divided on this matter. This would be concerning because it would indicate that with a slight change in the balance of power, there could be an unfavorable result in a subsequent decision. Because, unlike those of the Senate, the proceedings of the Supreme Court are not public, there is no way to know.

“We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.”

Republicans are too optimistic in their appraisal of the current state of affairs. By ignoring the urgency of the moment, Lincoln suggests that they are, metaphorically, asleep while a crisis is at hand. They do not realize the power that the Supreme Court holds to create a society in which slavery is permissible anywhere.

“Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And, unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.”

Lincoln warns that if something is not done to stop pro-slavery Democrats, it is even possible that the Atlantic slave trade, closed by an act of Congress in 1808, could be reopened. Lincoln uses a series of rhetorical questions to raise the convention’s awareness of Douglas’s silence on this matter. Lincoln argues that Douglas’s logic in supporting Dred Scott would suggest that he may very well support reopening the slave trade: If it is a sacred right to transport property between territories, why not then to import them from abroad?

“Whenever, if ever, [Douglas] and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle.”

Lincoln wants to assure the convention that he has no personal grudge against Douglas. His objections to Douglas’s politics are based on the senator’s lack of commitment to any principle other than “not caring.” If Douglas would make a commitment against slavery, then Lincoln would support his candidacy and bow out of the race. This is an important rhetorical tactic used by Lincoln to respond to the potential criticism that he is merely an opportunist intent on his own political success.