Source: Jon Meacham. And There Was Light -
Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle (2022)
Abraham Lincoln and the American Struggle (2022)
By the end of 1836, the governor of Illinois had received many letters from inside and outside the state from other politicians, citizens, and other state legislatures expressing alarm about the Abolitionist Movement. Officially, Illinois was a “Free State”, but white racism and de facto slavery had been a hallmark of the state since it was admitted in 1818. The Missouri Compromise (1820) had put the South on notice, in that anti-slavery forces were not to be ignored or dismissed. To the South, the most ominous aspect of the Missouri Compromise was the “36-30 Line” (36 degrees, 30 minutes North Latitude) in the Louisiana Territory, where there was to be no expansion of slavery (except in the slave state of Missouri).
Several years later the fledgling Abolitionist Movement started to form and grow, but for many years the movement, even in the North, was seen as being on the fringes of society, even as extremists. During 1831, William Lloyd Garrison published his first edition of “The Liberator” in Boston, which initially only had 400 or so subscribers. Garrison’s stance on slavery never wavered, calling slavery sin and slaveholders sinners. The Abolitionists had a far more radical view against slavery and for emancipation compared to the anti-slavery delegates from the North during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. James Madison and Congress eventually outlawed the Atlantic Slave Trade in 1808, while at the same time making it very difficult to officially discuss slavery in Congress.
Several years later the fledgling Abolitionist Movement started to form and grow, but for many years the movement, even in the North, was seen as being on the fringes of society, even as extremists. During 1831, William Lloyd Garrison published his first edition of “The Liberator” in Boston, which initially only had 400 or so subscribers. Garrison’s stance on slavery never wavered, calling slavery sin and slaveholders sinners. The Abolitionists had a far more radical view against slavery and for emancipation compared to the anti-slavery delegates from the North during the Constitutional Convention in 1787. James Madison and Congress eventually outlawed the Atlantic Slave Trade in 1808, while at the same time making it very difficult to officially discuss slavery in Congress.
A major obstacle to garnering more anti-slavery support in the North was the general belief, of which Lincoln was included, that the Constitution did not comment as to whether the federal government had the power to regulate or abolish slavery where it already existed - that belief was featured in the Republican Party’s platform in 1856 and 1860. That “Federal Consensus”, as it was known, held that states had the power to free slaves, not the federal government. At this point in his life, Lincoln’s approach was that if the South was surrounded by free states and free enterprise, slavery would by its own accord eventually decline to the point where gradual emancipation and compensation for slaveholders would occur (like with Great Britain).
It was an entirely different matter concerning the expansion of slavery in the West, where the Constitution gave Congress authority on slavery. It wasn’t until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865 that the Constitution explicitly became anti-slavery. During the 1830s, printing press technology increased, and so did the number of newspapers in the nation. With the development of the telegraph in 1844, and the subsequent systems network of the invention, information was spread faster than ever before (the telegraph was the first invention that separated communication from transportation). The improved communications technology proved to be unifying and divisive at the same time. Views and ideas of those in one region could be read by people in another region. It was during the era of improved communications technology that the Abolitionists were increasingly viewed as extremist radicals by a majority of the nation.
It was an entirely different matter concerning the expansion of slavery in the West, where the Constitution gave Congress authority on slavery. It wasn’t until the ratification of the 13th Amendment in 1865 that the Constitution explicitly became anti-slavery. During the 1830s, printing press technology increased, and so did the number of newspapers in the nation. With the development of the telegraph in 1844, and the subsequent systems network of the invention, information was spread faster than ever before (the telegraph was the first invention that separated communication from transportation). The improved communications technology proved to be unifying and divisive at the same time. Views and ideas of those in one region could be read by people in another region. It was during the era of improved communications technology that the Abolitionists were increasingly viewed as extremist radicals by a majority of the nation.
White Southerners became afraid that the world as they knew it, and treasured, was being threatened. Fear became a major motivator in the South: fear of losing political and economic power, of being told that they were wrong in what they believed to be true and natural. Before the mid-1830s, many whites in the South (and the North) quietly recognized the evils and problems with slavery, all the while supporting and perpetuating the system. Thomas Jefferson had equated slavery to holding on to a tiger by the tail, not daring to let go. As the 1820s moved to the early-1830s, more-and-more Northerners woke up to the disparity between “Liberty For All” and slavery, but a critical mass (North and South) was still settled in the view that slavery was a necessary evil, which made emancipation beyond-impractical and impossible.
However, by the mid-to-late-1830s, powerful voices in the South, such as John C. Calhoun, trumpeted that slavery was divinely sanctioned, and it should be defended as a religious tenet. So why was there such a drastic change in the view towards slavery in the South? The Missouri Compromise had positioned the federal government against the unchecked expansion of slavery in the West, and the South became far more protective and sensitive to what they called “The Peculiar Institution”. However, defending a necessary evil is very difficult to do, but defending what is “good and righteous” is much easier, especially if that “good” becomes intertwined with white supremacy and religion.
However, by the mid-to-late-1830s, powerful voices in the South, such as John C. Calhoun, trumpeted that slavery was divinely sanctioned, and it should be defended as a religious tenet. So why was there such a drastic change in the view towards slavery in the South? The Missouri Compromise had positioned the federal government against the unchecked expansion of slavery in the West, and the South became far more protective and sensitive to what they called “The Peculiar Institution”. However, defending a necessary evil is very difficult to do, but defending what is “good and righteous” is much easier, especially if that “good” becomes intertwined with white supremacy and religion.
The South believed that the slave uprisings, with the most significant being the Nat Turner Revolt (1831), were caused by anti-slavery forces in the North. Southern plantation owners, who had the power in the region, but were only 12% of the population, believed that even debating slavery was dangerous for their security and future. The Nullification Crisis during Jackson’s Presidency intensified and accelerated those Southern fears, in that submission to a tariff, albeit a compromise tariff which eased the burden on the South, was just one step away from the federal government freeing slaves. South Carolina, the instigator of the Nullification Crisis (who had followed former VP John C. Calhoun’s lead), learned the wrong lesson from the event, in that they believed that the threat of secession caused Jackson and Congress to back down and craft a compromise tariff (It was no historical accident that South Carolina was the first state to secede in 1860).
In the midst of all these events, plantation owners and political and religious leaders in the South started to cloak slavery in religious terms, going so far as claiming that slavery was ordained by God; that view became especially entrenched in the South. It was an era were the US was very much “churched”, in that organized religion had a huge reach and impact in the nation. However, religious denominations became split over the argument that slavery was sanctioned by scripture, and, so the thinking went, the nation would eventually split.
Back to 1837 in Illinois: The governor’s pro-slavery resolution passed the state legislature. Lincoln, with a friend, wrote a formal protest that was not Abolitionist in nature, but it was definitely anti-slavery. So the question is this: why, still in his early-20s and new to the state legislature, did Lincoln write the protest? In part, it was due to his experience, such as seeing the African Slave Market in New Orleans, as well as his allegiance to Henry Clay, who was at least rhetorically anti-slavery. Perhaps mostly, since childhood, Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong.
In the midst of all these events, plantation owners and political and religious leaders in the South started to cloak slavery in religious terms, going so far as claiming that slavery was ordained by God; that view became especially entrenched in the South. It was an era were the US was very much “churched”, in that organized religion had a huge reach and impact in the nation. However, religious denominations became split over the argument that slavery was sanctioned by scripture, and, so the thinking went, the nation would eventually split.
Back to 1837 in Illinois: The governor’s pro-slavery resolution passed the state legislature. Lincoln, with a friend, wrote a formal protest that was not Abolitionist in nature, but it was definitely anti-slavery. So the question is this: why, still in his early-20s and new to the state legislature, did Lincoln write the protest? In part, it was due to his experience, such as seeing the African Slave Market in New Orleans, as well as his allegiance to Henry Clay, who was at least rhetorically anti-slavery. Perhaps mostly, since childhood, Lincoln believed that slavery was morally wrong.
In 1837, Lincoln was admitted to the Illinois bar and started to practice law in Springfield, which became the state capital on 4 July 1837.. In 1837, Alton was the most important city in Illinois, being on the Mississippi River (Chicago’s railroads were not yet a reality), and its proximity to St. Louis. Southern Illinois, back then often referred to as “Cairo”, was a bastion for pro-slavery / white supremacy extremism. On 7 November 1837, Reverend Elijah P. Lovejoy
of Alton (IL) was murdered by pro-slavery thugs. Lovejoy had done his best to become the “William Lloyd Garrison” of Southern Illinois, with a state-of-the-art printing press that pumped out Abolitionist publications; Lovejoy was the first white person murdered over the issue of slavery.
Violence in the name of protecting slavery occurred in other locations in 1837 and 1838, which greatly disturbed Lincoln. The danger to America was coming from within the nation, from wild-and-furious passions that might overtake the Union, according to Lincoln. In 1836, the House instituted a “Gag Rule” that prohibited the discussion or debate concerning slavery. The South had reached a point where even anti-slavery petitions from the North were not acceptable in the House. The desire to silence free speech (e.g. Abolitionists publications in the South when Jackson was President) was driven by fear, as is all censorship. To Northerners such as Lincoln, those that suppressed free speech would also suppress democracy: to Lincoln, censorship was a form of tyranny, a dictatorship of opinion.
of Alton (IL) was murdered by pro-slavery thugs. Lovejoy had done his best to become the “William Lloyd Garrison” of Southern Illinois, with a state-of-the-art printing press that pumped out Abolitionist publications; Lovejoy was the first white person murdered over the issue of slavery.
Violence in the name of protecting slavery occurred in other locations in 1837 and 1838, which greatly disturbed Lincoln. The danger to America was coming from within the nation, from wild-and-furious passions that might overtake the Union, according to Lincoln. In 1836, the House instituted a “Gag Rule” that prohibited the discussion or debate concerning slavery. The South had reached a point where even anti-slavery petitions from the North were not acceptable in the House. The desire to silence free speech (e.g. Abolitionists publications in the South when Jackson was President) was driven by fear, as is all censorship. To Northerners such as Lincoln, those that suppressed free speech would also suppress democracy: to Lincoln, censorship was a form of tyranny, a dictatorship of opinion.
As the 1830s transitioned into the 1840s, pro-slavery forces had become engaged, energized, and hyper-sensitive, in that their world was under assault, and they hated it. The campaign of the Whig candidate for President, William Henry Harrison, was Lincoln’s first exposure to politics at the national level, and it was that experience that pushed Lincoln’s political ambition past the state of Illinois. The Campaign of 1840 was the first in which both political parties were organized at the national level, with the Whigs holding their first national convention, nominating Harrison.
Lincoln spoke on the floor of the Illinois state legislature in favor of Harrison, and against President Martin Van Buren. Harrison was easily elected President,
in large part due to the economic depression that had started at the beginning of Van Buren’s term, and was still refused to release the nation from its grip. Lincoln won reelection to the state legislature, and he sensed that he was on the rise as a politician. Lincoln wanted to increase his momentum and exposure, and to eventually become a politician in Washington, D.C.
Lincoln spoke on the floor of the Illinois state legislature in favor of Harrison, and against President Martin Van Buren. Harrison was easily elected President,
in large part due to the economic depression that had started at the beginning of Van Buren’s term, and was still refused to release the nation from its grip. Lincoln won reelection to the state legislature, and he sensed that he was on the rise as a politician. Lincoln wanted to increase his momentum and exposure, and to eventually become a politician in Washington, D.C.
Addendum: Abraham Lincoln and Mary Todd . . .