The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1860-06-15
1olitital.

As ExrouSDED ny
HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN,
In a Speech Delivered at the Cooper Insti-
tute, New York, February. 1900. o
The announcement that Hon. Abraham Lin
coin Of Illinois, would "spcak" at the Cooper
Institute, New York city, drew together a
large assemblasc at that building on the
night of Tuesday, Febrdasy 2s, 1860. The
tax Of twenty-five cents per capita did not
as it very frequently does-act as a prevent
i've ON the visitors, but they continued on
the contrary. to pour in in considerable num-
bers until the large hall was about three
quarters filed. Among tho audience there
were as is usual among these Republican
asscmblagcs, goodly number Of ladies'
At about quarter to eight o'clock ES-
Governor King made his appearance on the
platform. and was greeted with great ap-
plause, which he seemed to enjoy nightly
as with smile of benevolent gravity, he
settled himself in chair.
The arrival of d. Dudley Field, accompan-
led BY William Cullen Bryant and the speak
or Of the evening, was the signal for the
most tumultuous applause.
ADDRESS ny HON. ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
When the applause which greeted Mr.
Lincoln had subsidized, he said:
Mr.. President and Fsllouo Citisens Of Neic
York The facts with which l shall deal
this evening are mainly, old and familiar |;
nor is there anything new in the general use
I shall mako of them. If there shall be any
novelty, it will be in the mode OF presenting
the facts, and the inierences and observations
following that presentation. In his Speech
last Autumn, at Columbus, Ohio, rs report
cd in SES New York Times, Senator Douglas
said:
sour fathers, when they framed the govern
mcpt under which we live, understood this
question just as well, and even better, than We
do now"
I fully endorse this, and I adopt it as a
text for this discourse. (ApRlause.) so
adopt il because il furnishes precise and an
agreed starting point for discussion between
tho Republicans and that wing Of the De-
mocracy headed by Senator Douglas. IL
simply leaves the inquiry-What was the
understanding those fathers had OF the ques-
tion mentioned? What is the frame OF gov
ernment under which we live? The answer
must bc-the Constitution Of the United
States. That Constitution consists OF the
original, framed in 1887, (and under which
the present government first went into opc-
ration,1 and twelve subsequently, framed
amendments, tho first ten Of which were
framed in 1889.
TIE FATHERS or TIE CONSTITUTION.
Who were our fathers that framed the
Constitution? The "thirty-nine" who sign
ed tho original instrument may be fairly
called our fathers who framed that part oil
the present government. 1t is almost exactly
true to saw they framed il, and it is altoseth-
er true to say they fairly represented tho
opinion and sentiment of the whole nation
nj that time. Their names being familiar
10 nearly all, and accessible to quite oil need
not now be repeated. take these "thirty-
ninc," for the present, as being sour fathers
who framed the government under which we
live" What is the question which, accord
inr TO the text, those fathers understood as
we'll and even better than we do now? IL
il this :-"Does the proper division OF local
from federal authority, or anything in the
Constitution, forbid our Federal Government
to control US to slavery in our Federal Terri
tories?"
DOUGLAS AND LINCOLN.
Upon this Douglas held the affirmative,
and Republicans the negative. The afhrma'
tive and denial form I'm issue and this issue,
this question, is precisely what the text do
clares our fathers understood better than We.
(Cheers.) Let us now inquire whether the
.thirty-nine," or any Of them ever acted
upon this question; and if they did, how
they acted upon it-how they expressed that
better understanding. In 1884, three years
before the Constitution, the United States
then owning the Northwestern territory
and no other, the Congress OF the coniedera'
ton had before them the question OF prohib.
itinr slavery in that Territory; and four OF
the "thirty-nine" who afterwards framed
the Constitution were in that Congress, and
voted ON that question. OF these, Roger
Sherman, Thomas MiGin and Hugh William
son voted for the prohibition, thus showing
that, in their understanding, no line dividing
local from federal authority, nor anything
else, properly forbade the Federal Govern
mcnt to control us to slavery in Federal Ter
ritory.
The other of the four, James Mcllcnry,
voted against the prohibition, showing that
for some cause he thought 1t improper to
vote for it. In 1857, still before the Consti-
tuition, but while the Convention was in ses-
sion framing it, and while the Northwestern
territory still was the only territory owned
by the United Statcs-the same question oil
prohibiting slavery in the territory again
came before tho Congress Of tho Confedera-
ton, and three more Of the "thirty-nine'
who afterwards signed the Constitution were
in that Congress and voted on that question.
They were William Blount, William Few
and Abraham Baldwin, and they all voted
for the prohibition, thus showing that, in
their understanding, no line dividing local
from federal authority, nor anything else,
properly forbade the Federal Government to
control Us to slavery in Federal Territory.
TIE ORDINANCE or 1887.
This time the prohibition became law,
being part of what is now well known as
the Ordinance Of 1857. The question OF
Federal control Of slavery in the territories
seems not to have been directly before the
Convention which framed the original Con.
stitution and hence 1t is not recorded that
the "thirty-ninc," or any Of them, while
engaged on that instrument, expressed any
oninion ON that precise question. In 1870,
br the FIRST Congress which sat under the
Constitution, an act was passed to cnforcS
the ordinance Of 1857, including tho prohi'
hilton of slavery in the Northwestern terri
tory. The bill for this act was reported by
one of the "thirty-nine," Thomas FitIsim'
mons, then member Of the House OF Rep
rcscntatiycs from Penn. IL went through
all its stages without word Of opposition
and finally passed both branches without yea,
and nays, which is sequiyalent to unaniinou'
II thts (slnOPxrnl tlcf(