Lincoln, the Politician

by T. Aaron Levy

Though Lincoln returned to the practice of his profession with increased devotion, he kept his interest in local and national events. He still remained a student of the whims of individual voters as well as a keen observer of political affairs of general moment. A letter to Hardin at Washington illustrates this: "Knowing that you have correspondents enough, I have forborne to trouble you heretofore; and I now only do so, to get you to set a matter right which has got wrong with one of our best friends. It is old Uncle Thomas Campbell of Spring Creek—(Berlin, P. O.). He has received several documents from you, and he says that they are old newspapers and documents, having no sort of interest in them. He is, therefore, getting a strong impression that you treat him with disrespect. This, I know, is a mistaken impression; and you must correct it. The way, I leave to yourself. Robert W. Canfield says that he would like to have a document or two from you.

"The Locos here are in considerable trouble about Van Buren's letter on Texas, and the Virginia electors. They are growing sick of the Tariff question; and consequently are much confounded at V. B.'s cutting them off from the new Texas question. Nearly half the leaders swear they won't stand it."[190]

As early as 1837, Webster publicly declared that it could not be disguised that a desire, or an intention, was already manifested to annex Texas to the United States.[191] Under the nursing of Tyler and Calhoun, a treaty of annexation was concluded and the scheme almost consummated. The Senate, in 1844, alone stood in the way. The proposal of annexation overtopped all other issues in the campaign of that year. It proved at the time a dominating incident and left abundant traces on American history. Van Buren, rising to the solitary eminence of statesmanship, uttered a firm and subdued protest against the southern policy. But the edict of the Calhoun democracy, that Texas must be annexed was remorseless, and their old friend, Martin Van Buren, in the homely language of Lincoln, was "turned out to root."[192] It proved the beginning of the cleft on the slavery question that in less than twenty years hopelessly divided the successors of the triumphant Jackson party.

In June, 1844, Clay fairly represented the views of the Whigs declaring that the annexation of Texas, at this time, without the consent of Mexico, as a measure compromising the National character, involving war with Mexico, probably with other foreign powers, dangerous to the integrity of the Union, inexpedient in the present financial condition of the country, was not called for by any general expression of public opinion.[193] Later coquetting with southern sympathies on this issue, he modified his opposition to the present annexation of Texas with the fatal statement that he had no hesitation in saying that, far from having any personal objection to the annexation of Texas, he should be glad to see it—without dishonor, without war, with the common consent of the Union and upon just and fair terms.[194] This seeming retreat, despite all explanation, insured his defeat. The diversion gained him no strength in the South and alienated needed support in the North.

The Southern States openly put forth their reasons for annexation. To keep pace with the northern growth they needed new States, otherwise they saw the doom of the institution that they deemed the very palladium of their prosperity and happiness. The unresting Calhoun finally triumphed in awakening dormant fears and sentiments.[195]

The main contention in the famous letter of Jackson was better calculated, than this southern claim, to appeal to the northern democracy, and was more in harmony with the substantial trend of the national destiny. "I do not hesitate to say that the welfare and happiness of our Union require that it should be accepted. If, in a military point of view alone, the question be examined, it will be found to be most important to the United States to be in possession of the territory.

"Great Britain has already made treaties with Texas; and we know that far-seeing nation never omits a circumstance, in her extensive intercourse with the world, which can be turned to account in increasing her military resources. May she not enter into an alliance with Texas?"[196]

While the Texan issue stirred the Garrisonian Abolitionists, it did not allay their hostility to organized political action, they declared that they would open no road to political preferment; that the strength of their cause was in the humble, fervent prayer of the righteous man, which availeth much, and the blessing of that God who had chosen the weak things of the world to confound the mighty; that it was to be expected that some political wolves would put on the clothing of Abolitionism, and seek to elevate themselves and manage the anti-slavery organization for their own purposes.[D] The political Abolitionists, however, named James G. Birney for President.

There was then, already, a complexity of opinion on the slavery question that shadowed forth the future alignment of parties. While many were confounded by wavering lights, Lincoln picked his way with sure footed precision through maze and pitfall. His unprejudiced mind wondered at the conduct of the "Liberty men" that deprecating the annexation of Texas, deliberately promoted its success by indirection. Their application of the proposition "we are not to do evil that good may come of it" he reduced to plain sophistry, saying that if by their votes they could have prevented the extension of slavery, it would have been good, and not evil, so to have used their votes, even though it involved the casting of them for a slaveholder, and he earnestly asked if the fruit of electing Clay would have been to prevent the extension of slavery, could the act of electing him have been evil?[197] He held that it was a paramount duty of the free States to let the slavery of the other States alone, while it was equally clear that they should never knowingly lend themselves, directly or indirectly, to prevent slavery from dying a natural death—to find new places for it to live in, when it could no longer exist in the old.[198] Here, is clearly announced the seeming paradox that, though slavery was an evil, there still remained the duty to let it alone in the States where it then existed. This further piles up evidence that his views suffered little change with years.