- Home
- About Us
- Contributors
- Departments
- Topics
- Back Issues
- Weekly Archives
- AmSpecBlog
- Subscribe
- Newsletter
- Advertise
- Donate
- Contact Us
- Daily Digest
- Templeton Essays
Books in Review
Lincoln's Decisive Switch
Lincoln at Peoria: The Turning Point
By Lewis E. Lehrman
(Stackpole Books, 412 pages, $29.95)
The first Lincoln-Douglas debates. The turning point. The political catalyst. The Peoria speech. These are some of the terms used to describe Abraham Lincoln's return to politics in 1854 after a five-year hiatus. It was a seminal turning point in American history, centered on, not surprisingly, slavery, and whether or not the future of the country would be ruled by the Slave Power. It was in this year that U.S. Senator Stephen A. Douglas's Kansas-Nebraska Act repealed the Missouri Compromise of 1820 and opened the western United States to the institution of human bondage. It was a moral outrage to Springfield lawyer and former Congressman Abraham Lincoln, and one that "aroused him as he had never been before." Lincoln's opposition to the Act and to the spread—even the government sanctioning—of slavery in the U.S. territories ultimately transformed him from a provincial, regional party politician to a national statesman. It is this transformation that Lewis E. Lehrman examines and explains in his book, Lincoln at Peoria: The Turning Point, a work that, likes its subject, will become indispensable to any study of Abraham Lincoln.
"To understand President Abraham Lincoln, one must understand the Peoria speech of October 16, 1854," Lehrman writes. "It forms the foundation of his politics and principles, in the 1850s and in his presidency."
The speech was, in fact, an extended, encore performance of a speech two weeks earlier in Springfield, made as a response to Sen. Douglas's promulgation of "popular sovereignty" in the Kansas and Nebraska Territories. It was the beginning of a series of debates between Lincoln and Douglas—a prelude to their great 1858 debates—that ranged over the state of Illinois and ended, like the later debates, with Lincoln's loss of the Illinois senatorship. Lincoln at Peoria is the first detailed examination of Lincoln's Peoria speech: its context, its rhetoric, and its consequences, and how it began Lincoln's preparation for the presidency.
Lincoln was against slavery, but he was not an abolitionist. He did not believe in the complete extirpation of slavery from America—either as a political or even a practical action. He believed the Constitution protected slavery in the states where it already existed, but that the Founders intended its containment in those states as a course to its ultimate extinction. In his Peoria speech, Lincoln outlined with the thoroughness and exactness of a trained historian the history of debate over the slavery issue, and exactly how and when the country's Founders showed themselves averse to slavery's expansion and even its existence. For Douglas to institute the "popular sovereignty" doctrine and to say it did not matter to him—and should not matter to anyone—how each state decided its own laws regarding slavery, was to Lincoln a dangerous and deceitful political ploy.
"This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I can not but hate," Lincoln said. "I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world—enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites— causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest."
To open up the country to slavery was not only directly against the historical evidence of the Founders' beliefs and intentions, Lincoln believed, but would eventually destroy the Union itself.
LINCOLN'S POLITICAL LIFE up until 1854 had been typical, and provincial. He voted and fought along party lines, and focused his time and energies on local and regional issues. "The Springfield-Peoria speeches marked Lincoln's decisive shift from the issue of economic growth— free markets, property rights, and nationalist economics— to the principles of the Declaration of Independence and the struggle for a republican Constitution," Lehrman states. The repeal of the Missouri Compromise put Lincoln on a moral crusade to prevent the expansion of slavery. It was not just morally wrong to the African slaves, but it also was offensive and hypocritical of a country based on freedom to utilize and support human bondage. "Our Republican robe is soiled, and trailed in the dust. Let us repurify it," Lincoln said at Peoria. "Let us turn and wash it white, in the spirit, if not the blood, of the Revolution." Lincoln's speech is a refutation of Douglas's assertions of slaves as property, of popular sovereignty as legitimate, and of the general moral equivocation by politicians.
As Lehrman deftly explains, the Peoria speech made Lincoln the central anti-Nebraska political figure in Illinois. It enhanced his reputation and focused his mind and philosophy on the great moral issue of the day, which he saw as a direct threat to American democracy and freedom. It also was the foundation of later moments in his political ascendancy such as the Lincoln-Douglas Debates in 1858, the Cooper Union Speech in 1860, and many of Lincoln's ideas and policies regarding slavery as president. Lincoln's 1854 rise not only propelled him upward, but also knocked Stephen Douglas backward and off balance on his meteoric ascension to what everyone assumed was his eventual presidency. "On these two occasions [in Springfield and Peoria], perhaps more than any other in his life...Douglas [was] disconcerted by the vigor and power of the reply to him," wrote Lincoln's friend and eventual biographer Isaac Arnold. "It was perfectly clear that Mr. Lincoln spoke from the most deep and earnest conviction of right, and his manner indicated this."
Lehrman's examination of Lincoln's Peoria speech and the events surrounding it is a missing piece in the vast puzzle of Lincoln scholarship. Scholars and historians have noted the importance of this speech, but have never given it the full attention or study it deserves. Lehrman, a businessman and co-founder of the Gilder-Lehrman Institute of American History, spent twenty years on this book, and it shows. He explains the speech without being pedantic; he steeps the reader in its context without being repetitive or soporific. What he offers is a thought-provoking analysis of Lincoln as political phoenix, rising anew from the ashes of his near political surrender. Lincoln at Peoria also includes the full text of the speech, significant milestones in the lives of Lincoln and Douglas, and even a chapter on "The Peoria Speech and the Historians' Record," showing what has and has not previously been said about it.
Lincoln at Peoria is an indispensable study on Lincoln's rise to greatness. It is fascinating and revelatory, and imbued with the care of a historian with a deep respect and reverence for—and adherence to— the historical record. One cannot imagine this book being improved upon.
Comments
Leave a Comment
- Barney and Friends
- Obama's Foreign Policy Problems, Personified
- An American Tragedy
Are you in a mob?
The Democrats say Obamacare opponents are a mob. Are they right?
Participating in this survey will subscribe you to the American Spectator email newsletter. You may unsubscribe at any time.
Red Phillips| 4.8.09 @ 8:58AM
"an indispensable study on Lincoln's rise to greatness."
Yeah, he was really great at trampling the Constitution, destroying the Old Republic as originally founded, engaging in genocidal total war, lying about the nature of the Union, jailing dissenters, committing war crimes, suppressing perfectly constitutional secession, etc.
When are you going to learn? The days are past when you can assert the "greatness" of America's worst President by far on a conservative website and have it go unchallenged.
I think they post this kind of hagiography because they know it will increase page views.
Eddie B.| 4.8.09 @ 10:04AM
The same arguments are going on today about the inherent powers of the Executive. By using all tools at his disposal in time of war, the Executive, by weilding those powers, actually fulfills the Constitution. One man in charge of the standing army is subject to many temptations. That is why CHARACTER was the number one trait the founders wanted in an executive.
What do you think Lincoln would have done had he survived, become a dictator? I think not. He would have done just as Washington did, relenquish power. In fact, his plan for reconcilliation with the South would have avoided the worst of the injustices the former slaves had to endure after the North abandonded the South and left democrats in charge.
Red Phillips| 4.8.09 @ 12:14PM
"By using all tools at his disposal in time of war, the Executive, by wielding those powers, actually fulfills the Constitution."
Oh good grief. Up is down. War is peace. The problem is he used tools that were not "at his disposal" constitutionally.
He would not have become a dictator. He WAS a dictator. He had no constitutional authority to prevent secession by force. Secession was an understood right (and an inherently peaceful one) at the time of the founding that three states expressly reserved when they ratified the Constitution. He invaded the South not to preserve the Old Republic the Founders had bequeathed us and he was sworn to defend, but to conserve a conception of the Union that existed only in his mind.
Give it up. Lincoln cannot be defended on conservative grounds. He most certainly can be defended on radical, revolutionary, liberal grounds, but this is American Spectator, not The New Republic.
JimP| 4.8.09 @ 1:53PM
To paraphrase one bigoted AS commenter, "Not another homage to Lincoln. When will the AS Lincoln hagiography end?" Where's Interloper the teacher-historian-attorney-jailhouse lawyer and legend in his own mind? He'll show up some time to blather that dissenting on Lincoln's 'greatness' is to be a neo-Confederate-bigot-nazi-yada, yada, yada. LOL Lincoln lovers, read 'The Real Lincoln' by Thomas DiLorenzo for a complete picture of Abe.
Eddie B.| 4.8.09 @ 3:22PM
Red, if I recall correctly, Lincoln stood for and won re-election. A dictator would have "suspended" elections. My point is that the constitution gives the Executive the power to protect the country, IN ANY MANNER HE SEES FIT. His conception of what to do is ALL we can rely upon. For instance, the Executive can drop a nuke on Hanoi or squander 58,000 boys lives. It is HIS choice.
And I agree, secession was understood to be a right by SOME, but obviously not all.
Lastly, I have NEVER read one word from the New Republic and will stack my conservative credentials up against yours, anyday.
Eddie B. | 4.8.09 @ 3:32PM
One further clarification Red, George W. Bush was lambasted over the "so-called" wiretapping issue. Leftists said he was spying on Americans without a warrant and on and on... the most recent court ruling noted, in time of war, the Executive has wide lattitude in using power granted by the constitution to protect the country.
Many military operations conducted by U.S. forces have been undertaken without a formal "We declare war" by the congress. Each time the Executive used HIS judgement that using force was in the interest of the U.S.
So, Lincoln used a few methods you do not like, have you EVER considered that YOU might be wrong?
Alan Brooks| 4.8.09 @ 4:22PM
i'm coming around to a modified view of Red Phillips position.
We 'liberated ' slaves so they can live in brave new world?
you dont believe it now, you think you can push it away from yourselves, but it's coming to a neighborhood near YOU.
Alan Brooks| 4.8.09 @ 4:47PM
gosh if this is progress we'd hate to see what devolution is, now wouldn't we!
Red Phillips| 4.8.09 @ 5:12PM
"My point is that the constitution gives the Executive the power to protect the country, IN ANY MANNER HE SEES FIT."
NO IT DOESN'T! Where? What Article and section? Where is support for that position in the Federalist Papers? The Anti-Federalist Papers? The Constitutional Convention debate? The State ratifying debates? The concept of complete executive supremacy in matters of war and peace and national security is of relatively recent vintage. (Cold War era)
But even if what he did was conceivably constitutional in time of war (I’m not conceding that, just playing along), his reason for GOING to war, to force reunification, was unconstitutional and an act of raw aggression. Your argument might apply if he had for example acted extra-constitutionally in a war with Mexico following a Mexican invasion of Texas, a war which few would have opposed. But that was not the case. He was attacking sovereign states, former fellow citizens, that had peacefully seceded as was their right.
William| 4.8.09 @ 6:16PM
It is no accident that our worst President in Training repeatedly invokes the heretofore worst President of the Unisted States. No accident at all.
Alan Brooks| 4.8.09 @ 6:20PM
my argument is largely ex post facto
if freeing the slaves delivered a substantial number into eventual dope/general assistance/child protection agency slavery, then they were, it now strongly appears, delivered from one hell to another.
Robert Pinkerton| 4.8.09 @ 10:32PM
Acknowledging going in that I may very well be mistaken, my understanding is that secession, whether or not it was lawful, was an open question before the 1861-65 war; and that it was settled by force of arms rather than any due process of law -- Thrasymachean rather than Socratic, in that the opinion of the more powerful, governed.
Eddie B. | 4.9.09 @ 10:19AM
So, red, are you saying the powers of the Executive are all ENUMERATED? Or that the Executive must get PERMISSION to act? The Constitution leaves his powers open, because every eventuality could not have been forseen. So NOWHERE in the Constitution is there a limitation on his power save getting a declaration of war. Since Lincoln considered the South to be in "insurrection", no formal declaration of war was needed. His ability to "repel sudden attacks", justified by James Madison in 1787, also came into play thanks to Ft. Sumter.
The Founders argued at length about the Bill of Rights. They did NOT want people thinking the ONLY rights were the ones in the Bill of Rights.
So, why don't you point out the exact prohibition by the Constitution on tossing a couple of loud mouth congressmen in jail or suspending Habeas Corpus, the most common "transgressions" cited by Lincoln dislikers?
I suggest you read Federalist 6, especially the last paragraph. Federalist 9, sentence 1 reads: " A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to peace and liberty of the states, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection". Do I need to go on?
Lastly, if you think the abomination of slavery could have been wished away without bloodshed, you are no student of history, or man. Blood is the "coin of the realm" in this world. And the North gave more blood than the South to settle the issue of salvery.
Eddie B. | 4.9.09 @ 10:56AM
Robert Pinkerton, agreed, force of arms. Lincoln's proclamation specifically said that normal court proceedings and use of Marshalls was out of the question because Ft. Sumter was BOMBARDED and CAPTURED. That does not sound like "peaceful" secession to me.
I would be willing to bet that had they not attacked Ft. Sumter, Lincoln would have had a difficult, if not impossible task rallying sentiment to go to war.
Mike Tuggle| 4.9.09 @ 10:58AM
Of course, when a once-sovereign State is forced to remain in a once-voluntary Union, it isn't voluntary any more.
And the Founders recognized this:
"To coerce a State would be more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts." -- James Madison, Records of the Debates on the Federal Constitution of 1787
Even the great-grandaddy of Neoconservatism acknowledged this:
"To coerce a State would be one of the maddest projects ever devised: no State would ever suffer itself to be used as the instrument of coercing another." - Alexander Hamilton, New York convention
So today we have an empire which claims the power to run industry and impose demographic revolution. Thank you, Mr. Lincoln.
Eddie B.| 4.9.09 @ 12:21PM
I guess that is why Hamilton argued for a vigorous Executive and against a "feeble" Executive. The fanciful notion that the Founders went to all the trouble of pointing out how weak the Articles of Confederation were, and then made a government which would be even weaker by letting States come and go as they pleased, does not make sense. The Constitution was made to run a Federal government which was more powerful than individual States. There would be NO need for a WEAKER Federal government.
The current and last Executives are trying to have it both ways. On the one hand they want to appear weak by not inforcing Immigration Laws, and they want to appear vigorous by bullying private companies. The Founders knew this was the common state of man. They envisioned men of CHARACTER occupying the Executive office. I guarantee Lincoln would enforce Immigration Law and would probably leave private companies alone. I find it unimaginable that Lincoln would authorize taking money from the Treasury and giving it to private business.
The current sad state of affairs comes from an un-educated populace, not from any unique failings of one man. The forced government education system foisted on our country from the STATES up has resulted in people being happy with lax immigration standards and "getting even" with private companies.
My earlier arguments simply point out that, in time of war, ALL the power of the Federal government is vested in ONE man. Like it or not. And for that reason, ABOVE ALL OTHERS, he stands for election EVERY 4 years.
MDGiles| 4.9.09 @ 12:45PM
The South seceding was a change in the Constitutional structure of the United States. Can anyone name which Amendment was submitted to bring this about? Did it receive the needed 75% for approval? Did they resort to arms, after all Constitutional means had been exhausted?
I'm always fascinated how some, so called Conservatives are quick to accuse Lincoln of all sorts of Constitutional crimes, while failing to note that the South made no attempt to change the situation by Constitutional means. The Southerners were no better then the radical leftists of the 60's. So convinced of their rightness, that they couldn't be bothered bringing their case to the people. And lauding the South for their defense of States Rights; how defensive of States Rights was the South when Taney attempted to forced the slave law of the South, on the rest of the Union in Dred Scott. Or when the South attempted to make the slave law of Mississippi superior to the laws of Massachusetts - in Massachusetts - with the Fugitive Slave Act? When they joined the union, it was made clear that the laws of the Constitution were the law of the land. Agreeing to abide by laws that have been arrived at in a democratic manner, seems to have been lost on the South. Their idea seems to have been to behave in the manner of a spoiled child, "pick up their ball, and go home", because the rest of the country had had the temerity to elect someone who displeased them.
The only thing wrong with Lincoln, is that he wanted to Confederates back into the union as returned "prodigal sons". He should have treated them as the British would have treated the founding fathers had they lost the Revolution. He should have taken them out, and hung them as the traitors they were.
Red Phillips| 4.9.09 @ 2:29PM
Mr. Giles, nothing in the Constitution PROHIBITS secession. And secession does not change the Constitutional structure of the United States. The Constitution is still perfectly in force in the States that remain in the Union. It simply changes the geographical boundaries of the United States.
Secession was an understood right as the Constitution was enacted. Three States specifically withheld the right to secede when they adopted it. (Can you name them? Hint: Two of them were in the North.) It was rumbled about on several occasions before 1861. By the New England States due to the War of 1812. By Virginia and Kentucky due to the Alien and Sedition Acts. By South Carolina due to the tariff. Ironically, New York was skeptical of ratifying the Constitution and the vote was very close. New York City, which favored ratification, threatened to secede from the rest of the State and ratify it if the whole state did not. This was part of what swayed New York to ratify it. So this document that supposedly prohibits secession was enacted partially as the result of a threat of secession. Hmmm...
"He should have taken them out, and hung them as the traitors they were."
This statement Mr. Giles, marks you as a complete nationalist tool as well as a barbarian. Nationalism is not conservatism. Authentic conservatism of the American strain and true patriotism favors localism and regionalism over nationalism. This is the natural human scale. Nationalism is a post French-Revolutionary left-wing ideology.
Red Phillips| 4.9.09 @ 2:41PM
Eddie, I prefer the Articles of Confederation, but the Federal government envisioned by the Founder's was not weaker than the AoC. There were strong nationalists among the Founders, Hamilton being one of them, but the point is they did not get what they wanted. They got something much weaker than what they wanted as the result of compromise. But what really ultimately matters the most is what the States thought they were getting when they ratified it. On this, the historical record is quite clear. Even the States that sent somewhat nationalistic delegations, such as New York and Virginia, ended up very skeptical of the final product because the Fed Gov was too strong. The Constitution had to be sold to those states based on the weaker, more federalistic understanding.
Unlike the deranged Mr. “hang the thought criminals” Giles, you seem teachable. Read the “Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution.”
“I find it unimaginable that Lincoln would authorize taking money from the Treasury and giving it to private business.”
You REALLY need to brush up on your Lincoln history and step away from the modern myth. Lincoln was an absolute whore for the railroad interests. This is a very plain matter of the historical record. Read DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln” for a particular understanding of Lincoln’s financial interests for the War.
Eddie B.| 4.9.09 @ 4:26PM
Red, I understand the concept that the Federal government was similar to an agent for the States and that many believed that if their agent was no longer acting in their best interest, they had the right to "fire" their agent. I get that. However, as the article we are linked to points out, all the compromises that held the States together were coming unraveled. And slavery appeared to be ready to expand into new territories/States. Lincoln had an epiffany, if you will, and took on the cause of restricting and ultimatelty abolishing slavery. Cynics say it was a politcal trick to get him votes. I think he could not have been elected had he been "faking" his stand on slavery.
As to being a "whore" for railroads, he did a lot of work for railroads as a lawyer, yes. He probably was well paid. His greatest victory in court was helping secure the railroad's right for a bridge over the Mississippi. But that hardly makes him a "whore". If I ran for office I would bring extensive knowlege of the industry I am in to the table. My industry is plagued by public dis-information, misconceptions and lack of understanding. If I tried to clarify my industry's benefit to the nation, would that make me a "whore"?
And, if I was President I would NEVER go along with forcing one American to serve the purposes of another. I meant directly giving cash to private companies from the treasury, I don't think Lincoln ever did that. I am very skeptical of books that try to convince me that EVERY politician is "bought and paid for". No doubt, many are. But not all.
Lincoln did not do all this in a vacuum, many, many people agreed with him. Most of the Northern newspapers made the case for war as well, if not better, than he. Was he 100% in "tune" with the Founders on everything he did? Probably not. Was he violating "carved in stone" rules by prosecuting and winning a war against the South? Probably not.
One question you must ask yourself, what if he said, as so many parents do today, oh go ahead and do whatever you want, don't bother me any more? Do you really think the divided States of America would have been ready to meet the Borsch, or beat Hitler or the Japanese? Having asked that, what about slavery? How much longer would it have lasted? How many more lives would it have cost if it continued into the 1880's or '90's, and into say, 10 more States? Terrible sins are costly.
Red Phillips| 4.9.09 @ 10:25PM
Eddie, Eddie, Eddie. I wasn't talking about Lincoln's career as a railroad lawyer. I was talking about his advocacy as a politician of the Whiggish program of federal monies for "internal improvements" meaning railroads. He clearly was enriching his friends even if he did have misguided ideological opinions that justified it. In fact, one Northern complaint about the South was that we were indifferent to internal improvements.
Mike Tuggle| 4.10.09 @ 5:23PM
Eddie B. wrote:
"Do you really think the divided States of America would have been ready to meet the Borsch, or beat Hitler or the Japanese?"
Problem is, the consolidated regime that Lincoln forged out of his war became the instrument for further imperial ambitions. Just ask the 300,000 Filipinos who died fighting the nascent American empire.
Worse, Woodrow Wilson continued Lincoln's centralizing revolution and forged it into an instrument for fighting for a global democratic revolution. America's wrong-headed intervention in WWI directly gave rise to communism, and the conditions that gave rise to Hitler and Round II of the Great War.
Eddie B. wrote:
"Having asked that, what about slavery? How much longer would it have lasted? How many more lives would it have cost if it continued into the 1880's or '90's, and into say, 10 more States? Terrible sins are costly. "
Slavery would have died a natural death, just as it had everywhere else in the world -- except maybe Africa, where it continues even today.
And as far as the number of lives lost because of slavery, do you really believe it would have cost over 600,000 lives, plus 50,000 civilians?
Yes, terrible sins are costly. Destroying a voluntary republic and replacing it with an aggressive empire is as terrible and costly as it gets.
Pingback| 4.14.09 @ 5:12AM
Misquoting an Ally links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.18.09 @ 1:38PM
Topics about Douglas-schools » Lincoln’s Decisive Switch links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 4.21.09 @ 11:27PM
Lincoln’s Decisive Switch - The Right Reads links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
mike| 5.13.09 @ 9:26PM
You guys need lives. Seriously...
Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 10:12PM
sexy lingerie lingerie
Wedding Dresses| 9.9.09 @ 8:50AM
are located in all major cities such Wedding Dresses
Designer Wedding Gowns
as Shanghai, New York, etc, you may travel to these cities and get one for yourself.