Park Ranger

Toward the end of 1859, D. W. Bartlett published in New York Twenty-one Prominent Candidates for the Presidency in 1860, and in early 1860 a Philadelphia publishing house printed John Savage's Our Living Representative Men, Prepared for Presidential Purposes. Abraham Lincoln was not listed among the "prominent candidates" in the former, nor was he considered "prepared for Presidential purposes" in the latter (Freeman 1960, 76-77).

Yet, on May 18, 1860, he was chosen as the Republican Party's candidate for the Presidency. In a few short months he had been propelled from a relative unknown to winning the Republican Nomination.

The Cooper Union Address delivered in New York City on February 27, 1860, propelled Abraham Lincoln to the 1860 Republican Nomination.

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates are often cited as the instrument that thrust Abraham Lincoln into national prominence. But Lincoln did not win that 1858 Senate race.

In a letter to Dr. Anson G. Henry following his loss to Douglas, Lincoln wrote: "I am glad I made the late race. It gave me a hearing on the great and durable questions of the age, which I could have had in no other way, and though I now sink out of view, and shall be forgotten, I believe I have made some marks which tell for the cause of civil liberty long after I am gone" (Donald 1995, 229). In today's vernacular, in Lincoln's own estimation he had had his "15 minutes of fame."

Abraham Lincoln continued to make political appearances and his speeches were warmly received in Iowa, Ohio, Indiana, Wisconsin, and Kansas in 1859. However, only his staunchest supporters considered him a leading candidate for the 1860 Republican Nomination (Donald 1995, 235).

The leading candidates were William Henry Seward of New York, Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania, Salmon P. Chase of Ohio, and Edward Bates of Missouri. Among the leading candidates, Seward was the favorite.

Many Republicans thought Seward could not be elected. He was considered an extremist since his speeches proclaimed a higher law than the Constitution, and predicted an irrepressible conflict between slavery and freedom (Donald 1995, 236).

Seward also had substantial opposition in his own state. Thurlow Weed, Seward's benefactor and advisor, dominated Republican politics in New York. However, William Cullen Bryant, Horace Greeley, Hamilton Fish, and David Dudley Field were opposed to Weed. They, under the auspices of the Young Men's Central Republican Union of New York, decided to search for another, hopefully more moderate candidate, a candidate they thought could win (Nevins 1950, 183). The prospective candidates were invited to New York to give addresses. Abraham Lincoln's speech would be the third in a series, following the Missouri anti-slavery leader Frank Blair and the Kentucky abolitionist Cassius Clay (Freeman 1960, 52-53).

Abraham Lincoln knew why he had been invited to New York City to give a speech before the Young Men's Central Republican Union of New York. He was being "trotted out" as an alternative to Blair, Clay, and most importantly, Seward. Originally, the speech was to be delivered in Henry Ward Beecher's Plymouth Church in Brooklyn. At the last moment it was switched to the brand new Cooper Union in lower Manhattan, and was scheduled for Monday, February 27, 1860 (Freeman 1960, 13-17).

Lincoln made his address on a snowy night before about 1,500 persons. On the platform with Lincoln were many distinguished New York Republicans: David Dudley Field, a prominent New York lawyer; William Cullen Bryant, editor of the Evening Post; John A. King, former governor of New York; George Palmer Putnam, the publisher; Theodore Tilton, editor of The Independent; Henry M. Field; Charles Nott; and, Horace Greeley. William Cullen Bryant introduced the man from Illinois to the audience (Freeman 1960, 80-81).

Lincoln had been preparing his speech for months. His primary source had been the six-volume Debates on the Federal Constitution by Elliott. He also consulted the official record of the proceedings of Congress, the Congressional Globe, American history books, and other sources (Freeman 1960, 51).

Lincoln's speech can be divided into three parts. In the first, he showed that twenty-one of the thirty-nine signers of the Constitution were on record that the Federal Government could prohibit slavery in the national territories. In the second, Lincoln explained to the South that Republicans were no threat to slavery where it already existed. Finally, Lincoln spoke to the North. They must fearlessly persist in excluding slavery from the national territories, and therefore, confine it to the states where it already existed (Donald 1995, 238-239).

The text of Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Union Address was widely circulated. Lincoln himself supervised the proofs that were published in the New York Tribune (Freeman 1960, 92-93). Three other New York newspapers also printed the entire speech (Donald 1995, 239-240). The New York Tribune, Times, and Evening Post all ran complimentary headlines, articles, and editorials (Freeman 1960, 94-96). Later, the speech was reprinted in the Chicago Press and Tribune, the Detroit Tribune, and the Albany Evening Journal (Donald 1995, 239-240).

Inspired by the accounts of Lincoln's Cooper Union Address, Republicans from the New England states, asked Lincoln to speak in their states. He obliged them by making a whirlwind speaking tour through New England. Lincoln spoke in eleven cities in twelve days. See chart (Miers 1991, 274-275).

William Henry Seward sensed the conservative movement was against him and he knew he must strike a more moderate pose (Van Deusen 1967, 221). Many questioned whether Seward could win in the highly contested states of Illinois, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania (Taylor 1991, 110). He understood the questions of electability and knew he must deliver a major speech with a more conciliatory tone (Nevins 1950, 181). On February 21, 1860, he announced he would make an important address on Kansas statehood on February 29 (Bancroft 1967, 511).

Seward's address was made as much to the country as to the Senate. He said there was only one Republican principle, the exclusion of slavery from the territories. He spoke of "capital States" and "labor States," not "slave" and "free" states. He avoided any mention of a moral difference between the sections; he suggested the differences were merely economic. Seward condemned John Brown's raid and he contended the South misunderstood Republicans. Republicans only objected to the introduction of slavery into the territories by a surprise measure (Nevins 1950, 181-182).

Seward's and Lincoln's speeches went to the reading public at the same time (Nevins 1950, 187).

While Seward's address strengthened him and the Republicans, Lincoln's, given two days earlier, was clearly superior. It was more candid and had more intellectual arguments. It was based upon more research. Lincoln did not gloss over the issues, but confronted them. He expressed a positive conviction, rather than ignoring the moral issue (Nevins 1950, 187-188). This set the stage for the Republican Convention held two months later in Chicago.

The 1860 Republican Convention was held in Chicago and began on May 16. Balloting for the presidential nomination took place on May 18. It took 233 votes for a candidate to receive a majority.

On the first ballot, Seward had 173 votes, Lincoln 102, and most of the rest were scattered among several favorite sons. The Seward campaign managers had counted on all ten of the New Hampshire votes, but seven of New Hamsphire votes went to Lincoln on the first ballot.

On the second ballot, nine of the ten New Hampshire votes went to Lincoln. The whole Vermont delegation switched from favorite son Jacob Collamer to Lincoln. And a large percentage of the Connecticut and Rhode Island delegates switched to Lincoln. The whole Pennsylvania delegation also switched to Lincoln. At the end of the second ballot, Seward had 184-1/2 votes and Lincoln had 181 votes (Van Deusen 1967, 223).

On the third ballot, Massachusetts changed four votes to Lincoln, Ohio gave twenty-nine of its forty-eight votes to Lincoln, and Maryland swung all its votes to Lincoln. The result was Seward 180 and Lincoln 231-1/2. Lincoln was just 1-1/2 votes short of a majority (King 1960, 141). Before the results of the balloting were even announced, the chairman of the Ohio delegation rose to announce a shift of four votes to Lincoln. Others then rose to shift their votes to Lincoln, and finally, the chairman of the New York delegation rose to ask that the nomination be made unanimous. So on the third ballot, Abraham Lincoln became the Republican nominee for President (Van Deusen 1967, 224-225).

At the beginning of 1860 Abraham Lincoln was not considered as a major candidate for President. Rivals of New York Republican leader Thurlow Weed were looking for an alternative to William Henry Seward. These rivals set up a "test" to find this alternative candidate.

Abraham Lincoln traveled to New York City and made an address at Cooper Union on February 27, 1860. Consequently, he was invited to make speeches in New Hampshire, Rhode Island, and Connecticut. To many, his performance on this trip made him a viable alternative to William Henry Seward. Abraham Lincoln had passed "the test."

At the 1860 Republican Convention Abraham Lincoln gained unexpected first round support from the New Hampshire delegation. On the second ballot, the Vermont, Rhode Island, and Connecticut delegations were among the first to switch their votes to Lincoln. A tide of delegates then continued to switch their votes to Lincoln and he received the nomination on the third ballot.

There is a step by step correlation between Abraham Lincoln's Cooper Union Address, his subsequent speeches in New England, and the switch of the New England delegates votes to Lincoln during the balloting at the 1860 Republican Convention.

For a complete copy of the text of the Cooper Union Address go to: http://douglass.speech.nwu.edu/linc_a89.htm

For an outline of the points made by Abraham Lincoln in the Cooper Union Address click on the word "Summary" that follows. Summary of Abraham Lincoln's Arguments.

Other Links:

Cooper Union = http://www.cooper.edu/

Stephen Arnold Douglas = http://www.lib.uchicago.edu/e/spcl/excat/douglas1.html

Acknowledgements

Thanks to the following for their assistance:

Jeff Budny, Kathy DeHart, Tim Good, Susan Haake, Norm Hellmers, Ann Johnson, Christy Lindberg, Kip Lindberg, Cathy Mancuso, John Popolis, Jim Ranslow, Lynn Rempfer, Mike Starasta, Tim Townsend, and Kevin Weber.

Bibliography

Bancroft, Fredric. 1967. William H. Seward. Gloucester, Massachusetts: Peter Smith.

Donald, David Herbert. 1995. Lincoln. New York: Simon and Shuster.

Freeman, Andrew A. 1960. Abraham Lincoln Goes to New York. New York: Coward-McMann, Inc.

Miers, Earl Schenck. 1991. Lincoln Day by Day. Dayton, Ohio: Morningside House, Inc.

Nevins, Allan. 1950. The Emergence of Lincoln. New York: Charles Scribners' Sons.

King, Willard L. 1960. Lincoln's Manager: David Davis. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Taylor, John M. 1991. William Henry Seward: Lincoln's Right Hand. Washington: Brassey's.

Van Deusen, Gyldon G. 1967. William Henry Seward. New York: Oxford University Press.

Wiley, Earl Wellington. 1970. Abraham Lincoln: Portrait of a Speaker. New York: Vantage Press.

Part One

Abraham Lincoln agrees with Stephen Douglas's assertion that the Founding Fathers knew the issue as well or better than we do now. The issue was whether the National Government could regulate slavery in the territories. Lincoln asserts that Douglas had misled the people on what the Founding Fathers believed.

Lincoln makes his arguments based upon the Constitution. There were 39 signers of the Constitution, what evidence exists concerning their belief that the National Government could regulate slavery in the territories?

Four of the thirty-nine were in the "Pre-Constitution" Congress when in 1784 it failed to pass an Ordinance prohibiting slavery in the Northwest Territory (3 voted for the prohibition, one against). Two other of the thirty-nine were in the "Pre-Constitution" Congress when in 1787 it passed an Ordinance prohibiting slavery in the Northwest Territory (both voted for the prohibition). Sixteen of the thirty-nine were in the First Congress when it, in 1789, "unanimously" passed an Ordinance to enforce the 1787 Ordinance. "Unanimously" means it passed both branches of Congress without recording yeas and nays. President George Washington, another of the thirty-nine, signed this bill.

In 1798, when organizing the Territory of Mississippi, Congress forbade any slaves from outside the United States to be brought into the territory. Three of the thirty-nine were in Congress when this passed "unanimously" and none of the three placed into the record their opposition to its passage.

In 1804, when organizing the Territory of Louisiana, Congress placed three restrictions on slavery. One restriction forbade the importation of foreign slaves. The second forbade any slave brought into the United States after the 1st of May 1798 to be moved to Louisiana. And the third stated no slave could be taken into the territory, except by his owner, and then only for the purpose of aiding the owner's settlement (i.e., no slaves to be brought in to be bought and sold). Two of the thirty-nine were in Congress when this passed "unanimously" and neither of the two placed into the record their opposition to its passage.

During 1819-1820, Congress debated the Missouri Question. Two of the thirty-nine were in this Congress. Rufus King voted for the prohibition of slavery and against all compromises and Charles Pinckney voted against the prohibition of slavery and against all compromises.

This means twenty-one of the thirty-nine voted, in one form or another, to regulate slavery in the territories.

Two of the thirty-nine voted against regulation of slavery in the territories. This does not necessarily mean they thought the prohibition of slavery in the territories by the National Government was unconstitutional. They may have voted against the particular bills because they found them inexpedient (there is no record of them calling the Bills unconstitutional).

Sixteen of the thirty-nine leave no record as to their thoughts on the National Government regulating slavery in the territories. However, several, Ben Franklin, Alexander Hamilton, and Gouverneur Morris, were noted anti-slavery men. And only one, John Rutledge, was known to be pro-slavery, and remember, he leaves no record of his thoughts concerning the National Government regulating slavery in the territories.

Those opposed to the National Government regulating slavery in the territories often point to the Amendments to the Constitution to justify their position. The Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case used the Fifth Amendment (cannot deprive one of life, liberty, or property). Stephen Douglas and his cohorts use the 10th Amendment (all powers not delegated to the United States are reserved to the States or the people). Seventy-six members of the First Congress (including sixteen of the thirty-nine) framed the first ten Amendments at the very same time that they were passing the Ordinance that enforced the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Territory.

Knowing this, how could anyone argue that the National Government regulating slavery in the territories is inconsistent with the first ten Amendments?

Lincoln defies anyone to find anyone who prior to 1850 said it was unconstitutional for the National Government to regulate slavery in the territories. All Republicans ask is that the principals established by the Founding Fathers be followed: that the National Government be allowed to regulate slavery in the territories.

You will give hearings to pirates and murderers, but you will not give a hearing to "Black Republicans."

You say we are sectional. We deny it. The burden of proof is on you. You say President Washington warned against sectional parties. Yet, he signed the law that enforced the prohibition of slavery in the Northwest Territory and later he wrote to LaFayette saying he thought the prohibition was a wise decision. We say this makes you the sectional party.

You say you are conservative. We are the conservatives. We want to maintain things as they were. You advocate new and untried ideas.

You are divided on what you want. Some of you are for the "Gur-reat Pur-rinciple that if one man can enslave another, no third man should object, the Gur-reat Pur-rincipal of Popular Sovereignty." You can only unite on one thing, rejecting the old policy of our Fathers.

You say we stir up insurrections. Where is your proof? John Brown? John Brown was no Republican. No Republicans have been implicated in the plot.

You say our policies led to Harpers Ferry. We deny it. Our only policy is to hold to the doctrine our Fathers framed. Slave insurrections were just as common before the formation of the Republican Party.

"In the language of Mr. Jefferson, uttered many years ago, 'It is still in our power to direct emancipation, and deportation, peaceably, and in such slow degrees, as the evil will wear off insensibly; and their places be, pari passu, filled up by free white laborers. If, on the contrary, it is left to force itself on, human nature must shudder at the prospect held up.'" Lincoln went on to explain it was in the power of the individual states to emancipate and deport, not in the power of the Federal Government. The Federal Government has the power to resist the extension of slavery!

You say you will break up the Union rather than be denied your Constitutional Rights. You are talking about your right to take slavery to the Federal Territories. No such right exists or ever existed. You want to destroy the Government to create this new right.

You use the Dred Scott decision to justify your position. It was a divided decision, a five to four decision. The five in the majority could not agree on their reasons. You are divided on what it means.

You say you will destroy the Government if a Republican is elected President. And you say it will be our fault.

Lincoln urges calm. Asks them to listen and respond to reasonable demands.

He explains that appeasement will not work. The South will always want more.

So, what will satisfy them? We must stop calling slavery wrong. We must call it right. We cannot be silent. We must be with them. We must support Senator Douglas's sedition act, it must be enacted and enforced. We must suppress all declarations that slavery is wrong. We must pull down the Free State Constitutions. Yes, to outlaw slavery is to say it is wrong, so we must allow slavery. We must remove all taint of opposition to slavery. This, and this alone, will satisfy them.

So, Republicans, I say: Do not give in! Do not compromise! Do not seek some middle ground between right and wrong. "Let us have faith that right makes might, and in that faith, let us, to the end, dare to do our duty as we understand it."

Map of a Portion of New England

The map below shows the cities in Abraham Lincoln's 1860 New England speaking tour.