June 16 1858 House Divided Speech

### About this speech Abraham Lincoln June 16, 1858 Source National Archives Lincoln delivered his "House Divided" speech upon accepting the Republican nomination for Senate in Springfield, Illinois. In this speech he famously states "a house divided against itself cannot stand" in describing the coming national conflict over slavery. [Presidential Speeches](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches) | Abraham Lincoln Presidency ## June 16, 1858: "A House Divided" Speech ### Transcript Mr. PRESIDENT and Gentlemen of the Convention. If we could first know __where__ we are, and __whither__ we are tending, we could then better judge __what__ to do, and __how__ to do it. We are now far into the __fifth__ year, since a policy was initiated, with the __avowed__ object, and __confident__ promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, __not ceased__ , but has __constantly augmented__. In _my_ opinion, it _will_ not cease, until a _crisis_ shall have been reached and passed. "A house divided against itself cannot stand." I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half __slave__ and half __free__. I do not expect the Union to be __dissolved_ \--_I do not expect the house to __fall__ _\--_ but I __do__ expect it will cease to be divided. It will become __all__ one thing, or __all__ the other. 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__. Have we no __tendency__ to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination--piece of __machinery__ so to speak--compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only __what_ _work__ the machinery is adapted to do, and __how_ _well__ adapted; but also, let him study the __history__ of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather __fail__ , if he can, to trace the evidences of design, and concert of action, among its chief bosses, from the beginning. But, so far, __Congress__ only, had acted; and an __indorsement__ by the people, __real__ or apparent, was indispensable, to __save__ the point already gained, and give chance for more. The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Congressional prohibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of _"__squatter sovereignty,"_ otherwise called _"__sacred right of self g
overnment,"_ which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: 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, not 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."_ Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "Squatter Sovereignty," and "Sacred right of self government." "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. While the Nebraska bill was passing through congress, a _law case_ , involving the question of a negroe's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave, for a long time in each, was passing through the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. 
The negroe's name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. _Before_ the _then_ next Presidential election, the law case came _to_ , and was argued _in_ the Supreme Court of the United States; but the _decision_ of it was deferred until _after_ the election. Still, _before_ the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state _his opinion_ whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers, "That is a question for the Supreme Court." The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the _indorsement_ , such as it was, secured. That was the _second_ point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The _outgoing_ President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible _echoed back_ upon the people the _weight_ and _authority_ of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again; _did not_ announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. 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_. Then, in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speec
h at this capitol indorsing the Dred Scott Decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to _indorse_ and strongly _construe_ that decision, and to express his _astonishment_ that any different view had ever been entertained. At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the _mere_ question of _fact_ , whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that squabble the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he _cares_ not whether slavery be voted _down_ or voted _up_. 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. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle, is the only _shred_ left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding--like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand--helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late _joint_ struggle with the Republicans, agains
t 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. The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas' "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its _present_ state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The _working_ points of that machinery are: First, that no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a _citizen_ of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of this provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that-- "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Secondly, that "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither _Congress_ nor a _Territorial Legislature_ can exclude slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may _fill up_ the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of _permanency_ to the institution through all the future. Thirdly, that 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. Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to _educate_ and _mould_ public opinion, at least _Northern_ public opinion, to not _care_ whether slavery is voted _down_ or voted _up_. This shows exactly where we now _are_ ; and _partially_ also, whither we are tending. It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will _now_ appear less _dark_ and _mysterious_ than they did _when_ they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free" "subject only to the Constitution." What the _Constitution_ had to do with it, outsiders could not _then_ see. Plainly enough _now_ , it was an exactly fitted _niche_ , for the Dred Scott decision to afterwards come in, and declare the _perfect freedom_ of the people, to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the peo
ple to exclude slavery, voted down? Plainly enough _now_ , the adoption of it, would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. 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. Why the _outgoing_ President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's _advance_ exhortation in favor of the decision? These things _look_ like the cautious _patting_ and _petting_ a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after indorsements of the decision by the President and others? We can not absolutely _know_ that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen--Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance--and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few--not omitting even scaffolding--or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in 
the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in--in _such_ a case, we find it impossible to not _believe_ that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common _plan_ or _draft_ drawn up before the first lick was struck. It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of a _State_ as well as _Territory_ , were to be left _"__perfectly free" "__subject only to the Constitution."_ Why mention a _State_? They were legislating for _territories_ , and not _for_ or _about_ States. Certainly the people of a State _are_ and _ought to be_ subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this _lugged_ into this merely _territorial_ law? Why are the people of a _territory_ and the people of a _state_ therein _lumped_ together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being _precisely_ the same? 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. _Possibly_ , this was 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 Macy 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. The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and _almost_ the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is, "except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction." In what _cases_ the power of the _states is_ so restrained by the U.S. Constitution, is left an _open_ question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the _territories_ was left open in the Nebraska act. Put _that_ and _that_ together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a _state_ to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted _down_ or voted _up_ _,"_ shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made. Such a decision is 
all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome or unwelcome, such decision _is_ probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. 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. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is _what_ we have to do. But _how_ can we best do it? There are those who denounce us _openly_ to their _own_ friends, and yet whisper _us softly_ , that _Senator Douglas_ is the _aptest_ instrument there is, with which to effect that object. _They_ do _not_ tell us, nor has _he_ told us, that he _wishes_ any such object to be effected. They wish us to _infer_ all, from the facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us, on a single point, upon which, he and we, have never differed. They remind us that _he_ is a very _great man_ , and that the largest of _us_ are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a _living dog_ is better than a _dead lion_." Judge Douglas, if not a _dead_ lion _for this work_ , is at least a _caged_ and _toothless_ one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don't _care_ anything about it. His avowed 
_mission is impressing_ the "public heart" to _care_ nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas' superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade. 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_. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere _right of property_ ; and as such, how can _he_ oppose the foreign slave trade--how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free"--unless he does it as a _protection_ to the home production? And as the home _producers_ will probably not _ask_ the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be _wiser to-day_ than he was _yesterday_ \--that he may rightfully _change_ when he finds himself wrong. But, can we for that reason, run ahead, and _infer_ that he _will_ make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we _safely_ base _our_ action upon any such _vague_ inference? Now, as ever, I wish to not _misrepresent_ Judge Dougl
as' _position_ , question his _motives_ , or do ought that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, _if ever_ , he 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. But clearly, he is not _now_ with us--he does not _pretend_ to be--he does not _promise_ to _ever_ be. Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends--those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work--who _do care_ for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of _strange, discordant_ , and even, _hostile_ elements, we gathered from the four winds, and _formed_ and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all _then_ , to _falter_ now?--_now_ \--when that same enemy is _wavering_ , dissevered and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail--if we stand firm, we shall not fail. _Wise councils_ may _accelerate_ or _mistakes_ _delay_ it, but, sooner or later the victory is _sure_ to come. _The source for this text is:[The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln](http://www.hti.umich.edu/l/lincoln/)._ Previous [October 16, 1854: At Peoria, Illinois](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/october-16-1854-p
eoria-illinois) Next [February 27, 1860: Cooper Union Address](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/february-27-1860-cooper-union-address) ### More Abraham Lincoln speeches [View all Abraham Lincoln speeches](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches?field_president_target_id\[16\]=16) [February 27, 1860: Cooper Union Address](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/february-27-1860-cooper-union-address) transcript icon [February 11, 1861: Farewell Address](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/february-11-1861-farewell-address) transcript icon [March 4, 1861: First Inaugural Address](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/march-4-1861-first-inaugural-address) transcript icon [July 4, 1861: July 4th Message to Congress](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/july-4-1861-july-4th-message-congress) transcript icon [December 3, 1861: First Annual Message](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-3-1861-first-annual-message) transcript icon [December 1, 1862: Second Annual Message](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-1-1862-second-annual-message) transcript icon [January 1, 1863: Emancipation Proclamation](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/january-1-1863-emancipation-proclamation) transcript icon [August 26, 1863: Public Letter to James Conkling](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/august-26-1863-public-letter-james-conkling) transcript icon [November 19, 1863: Gettysburg Address](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/november-19-1863-gettysburg-address) transcrip
t icon [December 8, 1863: Third Annual Message](/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-8-1863-third-annual-message) transcript icon