Lincoln's House Divided Speech

Table Of Content

• Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ speech teaches important lessons about today’s political polarization
• HISTORY Vault: Abraham Lincoln
• Why Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ Speech Was So Important
• Political Parties
• Abraham Lincoln's "House Divided" Speech
• "A record of the personal services of our American women in the late Civil War"

[37] 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. [36] Secondly, that “subject to the Constitution of theUnited States,” neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from anyUnited Statesterritory. [7] I do not expect theUnionto be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided.

Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ speech teaches important lessons about today’s political polarization

Certainly the people of aState are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the UnitedStates; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territoriallaw? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State thereinlumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treatedas being precisely the same? The nearestapproach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery ismade by Judge Nelson.

UT President Bill Powers: "We Are a House Divided" - The Texas Tribune

UT President Bill Powers: "We Are a House Divided".

Posted: Wed, 14 Sep 2011 07:00:00 GMT [source]

HISTORY Vault: Abraham Lincoln

On this guiding principle, Lincoln declared, there can be no partisan dispute and no bipartisan compromise. In his “House Divided” speech, Lincoln addressed a nation even more fiercely divided by partisan acrimony, regional differences and economic tensions than the U.S. of today. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us.

Why Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ Speech Was So Important

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 wish us to infer all, from the fact 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. 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. Party machinery and false political prophets divide the house of the people; the people have the power to stabilize that house if they choose to do so.

It retains a firm moral foundation by preserving commitments to principles of equality over region or party. My research examines how communities remember – and sometimes fail to remember – the lessons of the past. Lincoln’s description of the Union as a house divided is well-remembered today. But many Americans fail to heed its deeper lessons about equality and the moral foundations of popular government.

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. 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. The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. 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. Another colleague, Leonard Swett, said the speech defeated Lincoln in the Senate campaign.

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. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. In his “house divided” speech, Lincoln countered that the Dred Scott decision the previous year had already opened the doors for slavery to be legal in the north, as well as all territories that the U.S. expanded into. If the U.S. wanted to be a free country, he argued, it had to act now before it was too late. That principle, is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine.

Building and maintaining a house is familial and collaborative. Family conflicts are inevitable; households fall apart if families don’t resolve those conflicts. Lincoln’s speech still offers timely lessons about the costs of deep-seated political polarization.

(3) 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. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. 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 reargument.

That principle, is the only shred left of his originalNebraskadoctrine. 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, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the originalNebraskadoctrine. 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. Under the Dred Scott decision “squatter sovereignty” squatted out of existence,[11] 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.

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. 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? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him.

Secondly, that “subject to the Constitution of the United States,” neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory. 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 the 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 begins by addressing the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act, legislation thatallowed the people of the two newly organized territories to determine throughpopular vote (Lincoln calls it “squatter sovereignty”) whether slavery would bepermitted. The Kansas-Nebraska Act effectively overturned the MissouriCompromise, which had prohibited slavery north of the 36° 30’ line since 1820.Lincoln notes that while the legislation was presented as a measure to calm theslavery debate, it did quite the opposite. Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser today 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?

“All they heard was the ‘house divided’ part and they immediately assumed that what Lincoln was calling for was civil war, that the only way to resolve the slavery injustice was going to be civil conflict.” On the campaign trail, Douglas used the perception that Lincoln was advocating for war against him. 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." 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. 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.

[25] 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. [6] I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. [3] Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented. Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position,question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive tohim. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle, sothat our cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope tohave interposed no adventitious obstacle. But, clearly, he is not nowwith us--he does not pretend to be--he does not promise ever to be.