Civil War History - Secession and PoliticsWas it Slavery, or was it States Rights? Perhaps it was the election of Lincoln? What were the real reasons for Southern Secession and what were the political issues in this time of war? Find your answers here in the Secession and Politics Disussion.
What I'm showing you is that everyone concerned knew going in there was a surrender of sovereignty involved.
This is an assertion. Mere repetition will not transform it into a demonstration of fact.
------------------------
I have been supporting it with excerpts from the debate that was going on at the time.
My last posting on that was from Richard Henry Lee's "Letters from a Federal Farmer." Timothy Pickering wrote a reply to Lee:
"Will no advantage arise from this controuling [sic] power of Congress? Yes, certainly. I say a controuling [sic] [Italics in original] power, because a candid interpretation of that section in the constitution will show that it is intended and expected that the times, places & modes of electing senators & representatives should be regulated by the state legislatures; but that if any particular state government should be refractory, and in the pride of sovereignty, or influenced by any other improper motive, should either make no such regulations, or improper ones, then the Congress will have power to make such regulations as will insure to the people their rights of election, and establish a uniformity in the mode of constituting the members of the Senate & House of Representatives. If we give a loose to our imaginations, we may suppose that the State governments may abuse their power, and regulate these elections in such manner as would be highly inconventient to the people, & injurious to the common interests of the States. And if such abuses should be attempted, will not the people rejoice that Congress have a constitutional power of correcting them?" [Timothy Pickering to Charles Tillinghast, "Refutation of the 'Federal Farmer'" 24 Dec 1787]
"The people of the United States form one nation--that tis evidently their interest and desire to continue one nation--altho' for the more easy and advantageous management of the affairs of particular districts, the people have formed themselves into 13 separate communities, or states; that the people of these distinct states, having certain common & general interests, it is obviously necessary that one common & general government should be erected, to manage those interests for the best good of the whole, that as all power resides originally in the people, they have a right to make such a distribution of it as they judge their true interests require. Consequently, they may constitute such officers as they think best, and with such powers as they think proper to confer, for the management of the affairs of their respective communities; and at the same time appoint another set of officers with general powers to conduct the common concerns of all the communities or states united." [Ibid.]
If the US Congress can overrule a state's election laws, how can that state be considered to be independent and sovereign?
The debate was held in every state, was held openly and very publicly, and was followed closely by the citizens.
"At a meeting of the inhabitants of Pittsburgh, at the house of Messrs. Tannehills, for the special purpose of taking the sense of this town with respect to the system of confederate government, proposed by the late convention at Philadelphia. General John Gibson in the Chair.
"It was considered that having had an opportunity of hearing on both sides the strictures which have been made upon this system of government, in conversation with the Gazettes, and in other writings, on mature deliberation, we are of opinion, that it is the result of much political wisdom, good sense and candour [sic] in those who framed it; that we have no reason to expect any thing better from any other body of men assembled in convention; that from the necessity of mutual concession with the different states, it is not probable that any thing more equal could be formed; that our prosperity depends on our speedy adoption of some mode of government more efficient than that which we now possess; that of all people it becomes us of the western country more especially to desire an object of this kind, as from the weakness of Congress to take proper measures with the courts of Spain and Britain, we are on the one hand deprived of the advantages of the Mississippi trade, which is our natural right, and on the other, are liable to the incursions of the savages, the posts on the lakes not being yet delivered up according to treaty.
"Resolved therefore unanimously. That it is our ardent wish and hope that this system of government may be speedily adopted.
Signed by order of the meeting,
JOHN GIBSON, Chairman"
["Resolution of the Inhabitants of Pittsburgh," Friday, 9 Nov 1787, published in Pittsburgh Gazette, 17 Nov 1787]
It is obviously impracticable in the foederal [sic] government of these States; to secure all rights of independent sovereignty to each, and yet provide for the interest and safety of all.
Washington’s argument is a cogent one. Some of the rights of independent sovereignty would, indeed, have to be sacrificed for as long as each state consented to remain part of the Union. That is what Article 2 effectively says.
------------------------
If you're speaking of Article II of the Constitution, it says nothing of the sort.
Can you cite me any other example in world history where it is deemed possible to commit treason against something which is less than an independent and sovereign entity? I confess I can't think of one.
---------------------
In 1844 Thomas Dorr was convicted of treason against Rhode Island and in 1859 John Brown was convicted of treason against Virginia.
The words “any other example” were meant to indicate that I was looking for a case outside of the United States.
-------------------
Hence the smiley face I put at the end of the sentence. I find that what other nations do is irrelevant because the United States was unique at the time.
I offer you the following definitions of the word “treason”:
violation of allegiance toward one's country or sovereign
a crime that undermines the offender's government
the crime of disloyalty to one's nation
criminal act of betraying one's country
a breach of allegiance to one's government,
usually committed through levying war against such government
the offence of attempting to overthrow
the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance
I found these in a Google search, and stopped when they began to be explicitly repetitive. I hope you would agree with me that none of them remotely suggest an offence against an instrument of merely local government;
-------------------
In fact, I vociferously disagree with that statement. Note the second definition you listed: "a crime that undermines the offender's government."
Last I saw, states had governments.
without exception they are worded so as to indicate a crime against ultimate authority.
--------------------
No, that is an incorrect statement. See "a crime that undermines the offender's government." As a state has a government that can be undermined, so treason against the state can be performed.
And I reiterate the import of the Supreme Court's Luther v. Bordan decision. How can a state be considered sovereign and independent if the United States Government has a veto over the form of government the state chooses to have for itself?
That would have to entail a bizarre definition of sovereign and independent.
There is no reasonable defense of the Confederacy outside of slavery. A matter of economics? I do not deny the disconnect of economic interests, principally the tariff. That sort of thing tends to happen when the economy of one region of the country is built on slave labor and the other is not. The founders believed slavery must be extinguished for this very reason.
To escape unbearable tyranny? Lincoln himself did not believe he had the right to interfere with the free exercise of slavery within the southern states, nor did he until they took up arms against the federal government. The Constitution did not prevent the congress from establishing a tariff system favoring the northern states over the southern. It went so far as the infamous three-fifths compromise, giving the southern states disproportionate representation in the federal government. In the years preceding the rebellion, the Supreme Court upheld the fugitive slave laws and issued the Dred Scott decision. What tyranny is this? No taxation without...over-representation? Truly, the spirit of '76 lived on in the sons of dixie. The south had no more cause for grievance than the north.
States rights? Indeed so- the right to maintain and EXPAND the practice of slave labor. While part of the union, the southern states pushed to expand slavery into the new territories. Are we expected to believe a CSA would have recognized the USAs territorial claim (which clearly would have been rendered utterly impracticable and ridiculous by the secession) to the entire remainder of the continent, along with the existing foreign sovereignties over Mexico, Latin America, the Carribean, etc? I think not. It would have been every bit as grabby as the US always was, and the two nations would have battled each other for mastery of the western hemisphere.
It might be argued on principle that any state or combination of states could exercise the sovereign right to secede from the union at any time on no pretext at all. It would take a determinedly creative interpretation of the Constitution to find a denial of this right, though our best evidence suggests many of the founders, including Washington himself, intended the union to be permanent, barring hideous federal abuses of the Constitution that did not, in fact, occur. But the confederacy was not formed on a whim to score points off constitutional lawyers. It was formed for a REASON, which is that the slave system had created a separate social and economic system best served by a second government.
From the book, The Slaveholding Republic, by Don E. Fehrenbacher, Chapter 1, page 5:
"I will not, in the most indirect manner, suffer an inference to be drawn from any word, or deed of mine, which, by the most strained construction, could be tortured into the semblance of an admission that the Congress of the United States has the shadow of the right to sit in judgment upon this question [the question of whether slaves were property or not]. If it were to assume this right, the Union would be no more...Much as we love our country, we would rather see our cities in flames, our plains drenched in blood--rather endure all the calaminties of civil war, than parley for an instant upon the right of any power than our own to interfere with the regulation of our slaves."
Congressman William Drayton of South Carolina, in Congress, 1828.
Chapter 1, page 11:
In February, 1848, "...an angry (congressman) Richard K. Meade warned northern congressmen that they must cease talking about slavery in order to preserve "the bonds of fraternity" between North and South. Otherwise, he said, the time would come "when no southern man could sleep in his bed without a guard at his door."
"Congress has no power to limit, restrain, or in any manner to imair slavery, but on the contrary, it is bound to protect and maintain it in the States where it exists, and wherever else the flag floats and its jurisdiction is paramount." Senator Robert Toombs of Georgia, 1856.
It still keeps coming back to the same, central theme, slavery, through the decades, never changing but always stirring the emotions far more than any other issue.
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
without exception they are worded so as to indicate a crime against ultimate authority. -------------------- No, that is an incorrect statement. See "a crime that undermines the offender's government." As a state has a government that can be undermined, so treason against the state can be performed.
Oh man, the platypus has just done a double backward flip. Are you seriously arguing that treason can be committed against any form of government? This intrigues me because, in this country, local government exists at county and even at parish level. The notion that I can commit treason against my county fills my heart with delight. The notion that I can commit it against my parish makes me want to go out and give it a try this afternoon.
And I reiterate the import of the Supreme Court's Luther v. Bordan decision. How can a state be considered sovereign and independent if the United States Government has a veto over the form of government the state chooses to have for itself?
There is a massive contradiction here. How can it be possible to commit treason against an entity which allegedly doesn’t even have control over its own form of government? And Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation (“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”) makes no sense whatever if the U.S. Government has the power of veto over each state’s form of government. If the states surrendered the right even to shape their own local governments they surrendered every shred of “sovereignty, freedom, and independence”. And Article 2 is, therefore, just so much gibberish. What exactly could the states retain which could not, theoretically, be taken away from them by future Constitutional amendments?
If you join a club you undertake to abide by the rules. The club has authority over your actions as a member and can change the rules as it pleases. And you are bound to adhere to them. But this does not, of course, effect your absolute right to resign from the club at any time. If the membership of each state in the Union is analogous to an individual’s membership of a club, Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation then makes perfect sense.
Bill
Last edited by bill_torrens; 03-11-2005 at 10:39 AM.
without exception they are worded so as to indicate a crime against ultimate authority. -------------------- No, that is an incorrect statement. See "a crime that undermines the offender's government." As a state has a government that can be undermined, so treason against the state can be performed.
Oh man, the platypus has just done a double backward flip. Are you seriously arguing that treason can be committed against any form of government?
-----------------------
You're the one who provided the definition, Bill. It simply specifies the offender's government. The fact that nobody has, to my knowledge, written a treason statute for any lower level of government to date does not necessarily mean, by that particular definition as worded, that they can't in the future.
This intrigues me because, in this country, local government exists at county and even at parish level. The notion that I can commit treason against my county fills my heart with delight. The notion that I can commit it against my parish makes me want to go out and give it a try this afternoon.
--------------------
Whatever you do, though, make sure you do it with panache.
And I reiterate the import of the Supreme Court's Luther v. Bordan decision. How can a state be considered sovereign and independent if the United States Government has a veto over the form of government the state chooses to have for itself?
There is a massive contradiction here. How can it be possible to commit treason against an entity which allegedly doesn’t even have control over its own form of government?
-----------------------
I refer you again to the definition you provided. I see no contradiction whatsoever based on the wording of that particular definition.
And Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation (“Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right, which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”) makes no sense whatever if the U.S. Government has the power of veto over each state’s form of government.
-----------------------
Apples and oranges, Bill. You are trying to compare the Articles of Confederation with a ruling made under the Constitution. The US Government's veto power came with the ratification of the Constitution.
If the states surrendered the right even to shape their own local governments they surrendered every shred of “sovereignty, freedom, and independence”. And Article 2 is, therefore, just so much gibberish. What exactly could the states retain which could not, theoretically, be taken away from them by future Constitutional amendments?
----------------------
I agree with your first sentence. But remember, this is under the Constitution, not the AoC.
To answer your question, nothing. This is what I have been saying. State sovereignty is a myth under the Constitution. It is a mirage, there one minute but capable of being taken away by the People of 3/4 of the states.
If you join a club you undertake to abide by the rules. The club has authority over your actions as a member and can change the rules as it pleases. And you are bound to adhere to them. But this does not, of course, effect your absolute right to resign from the club at any time. If the membership of each state in the Union is analogous to an individual’s membership of a club, Article 2 of the Articles of Confederation then makes perfect sense.
-------------------
A nation is not a club, and the analogy fails because of that. But be careful not to conflate the relationship of states and the central government under the AoC with the relationship of states and the central government under the Constitution. They are vastly different.
I apologize profusely for being so late in responding to your Post #424, but I'm trudging the streets these days with my knapsack, gathering enormous amounts of information for my Personal Manifesto!
I had asked for your definitions of "all men are created equal" and "conceived in liberty" because I'm curious to know how you think they would apply to President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address? I don't think there is a more brilliant or better example of Lincoln's ability to take the most succinct, emotionally charged words and turn them into a two minute work of art, than in the Gettysburg Address.
But I am much more impressed with your definition of "all men are created equal" than President Lincoln's, especially since the President had said only a few years prior, in a debate with Stephen Douglas (August 21, 1858). "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. Free them (slaves), and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this....We cannot, then, make them equals."
From the Gettysburg Address, this statement confuses me. "...Fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation..." I was under the impression that the "fathers" had formed a voluntary union, rather than a nation, but it's interesting to note that there is no reference to "Union" in the G.A....only nation. It also seems that there is a careful avoidance of the "slavery issue" in Lincoln's address which strikes me as odd since that was what the North was supposedly fighting over.
...that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." I have to admit Neil that I really struggle with this sentence. The first part appears to be very clever phrasing which in effect does not acknowledge the death of the Southern soldiers who died at Gettysburg. Then of course there is the latter part of that sentence, "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth" which is meaningless since it was the South who was fighting for the right to 'self-determination.' And perhaps it is a much too dichotomous thought process for me to even consider that a nation could be "conceived in liberty" when it is forced to do so by arms.
Dawna
"Since when was genius found respectable?" Elizabeth Barrett Browning
But I am much more impressed with your definition of "all men are created equal" than President Lincoln's, especially since the President had said only a few years prior, in a debate with Stephen Douglas (August 21, 1858). "I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. Free them (slaves), and make them politically and socially our equals? My own feelings will not admit of this....We cannot, then, make them equals."
-------------------------
Whoever gave you that quote, Dawna, took it out of context. I suspect this came from DiLorenzo, because that's his usual M.O.
Here it is in context:
"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]" [Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, Vol 3, p. 16]
and
"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together on the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I as well as Judge Douglas am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position.'' [Cheers, ``That's the doctrine.''] ``I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence---the right of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas that he is not my equal in many respects, certainly not in color---perhaps not in intellectual and moral endowments; but in the right to eat the bread without leave of anybody else which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every other man.'' [Loud cheers.]" [Ibid., p. 249]
and
"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two which in my judgment will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong, having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas, he is not my equal in many respects---certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowments. But in the right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas and the equal of every living man." [Ibid., p. 402]
From the Gettysburg Address, this statement confuses me. "...Fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation..." I was under the impression that the "fathers" had formed a voluntary union, rather than a nation,
-----------------
No. They brought forth a nation.
but it's interesting to note that there is no reference to "Union" in the G.A....only nation. It also seems that there is a careful avoidance of the "slavery issue" in Lincoln's address which strikes me as odd since that was what the North was supposedly fighting over.
-------------------
Perhaps you should read the whole speech, Dawna.
"---that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom---and that, government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth."
There it is, slavery and Union all tied up in one compact bundle. "A new birth of freedom:" the end of slavery. "Government of the people, by the people, for the people:" the Union.
...that these dead shall not have died in vain, that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom, and that the government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth." I have to admit Neil that I really struggle with this sentence. The first part appears to be very clever phrasing which in effect does not acknowledge the death of the Southern soldiers who died at Gettysburg.
-----------------
He was dedicating a national cemetery which would hold only Federal soldiers. But could not confederate soldiers be included as some of the brave men who struggled there?
Then of course there is the latter part of that sentence, "government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth" which is meaningless since it was the South who was fighting for the right to 'self-determination.'
-----------------
They were fighting for the exact opposite, in fact. They were fighting to perpetuate slavery, and if they had won not only would slavery be continued on this continent as far as the eye could see, but also any form of Republican Government would not be possible.
My quote did not come from Thomas DiLorenzo since I have no wish to cause further angst on this thread, but I have read the Lincoln/Stephens debates from The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln in their entirety and the complete passage from below along with the ones that you provided from your posting, still do not answer my question (s).
"Now, gentlemen, I don't want to read at any greater length, but this is the true complexion of all I have ever said in regard to the institution of slavery and the black race. This is the whole of it, and anything that argues me into his idea of perfect social and political equality with the negro, is but a specious and fantastic arrangement of words, by which a man can prove a horse-chestnut to be a chestnut horse. [Laughter.] I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so. I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality, and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary, but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man. I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment. But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]"
I honestly do not see the nobility in offering a race of people "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the "right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else" while at the same time admitting that your race is superior and that blacks are "morally, politically, intellectually, and socially" inferior, which will "probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality"...where is the freedom in that?
Are you under the impression that all wrongs can be corrected at once, with no struggle, no upheavel, no social discord? Then why isn't that Qubec secession thing fully settled yet? Why aren't the troubles in Northern Ireland over? Why isn't the Isreal and the Palestinians at peace yet?
For that matter, why is race still such an issue in the United States LONG after the Civil War? Lincoln was doing what he could at the pace he could with the understanding he had with the social conditions of the time. He was condemned by some by moving too fast on the issue of civil rights while radicals condemned him for being too slow on the very same issue.
Yet Frederick Douglass said the same thing above and then went on to comment that Lincoln was the right man at the right place at the right time. Who better to know that than a former slave and advocate of freedom for his own race?
Lincoln was grace under pressure and the one great ability that no leader in the South had, and that includes the 'Great Men' Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis. He could change, learn and move forward while these men where firmly rooted to their slave roots and could only look to the past.
Freedom is not given, it is earned, and it does not happen overnight, or England would have let the American colonies go at the first signs of desiring independence.
Sincerely,
Unionblue
__________________ "The American people and the Government at Washington may refuse to recognize it for a time but the inexorable logic of events will force it upon them in the end; that the war now being waged in this land is a war for and against slavery." Frederick Douglass
"Loyalty to our ancestors does not include loyalty to their mistakes." George Santayana
I honestly do not see the nobility in offering a race of people "the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and the "right to eat the bread, without leave of anybody else" while at the same time admitting that your race is superior and that blacks are "morally, politically, intellectually, and socially" inferior, which will "probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality"...where is the freedom in that?
---------------------
Dawna,
Lincoln was a moderate. Indeed, if he were a radical on the position of racial equality he could not have been elected to any position in Illinois. But, being a very good lawyer, Lincoln was very careful in his wording, and to read him correctly you have to read every word he says and take every word into account.
So, let's do so:
"I will say here, while upon this subject, that I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so."
------------------
Slavery was considered a state issue at the time, and as a senator he would have no business poking his nose into issues of slaveholding states. That is what he means by "no lawful right to do so." He has no inclination to do so because he knows that at that time slavery was a state issue, and he had no inclination to open up that can of worms by interfering in another state's issues. But Lincoln was against extending slavery into the territories. He wanted to see slavery put back on the road to eventual extinction, and he believed slavery needed expansion to survive. Cut off the expansion, and slavery will eventually die in place was his theory.
"I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and the black races."
-----------------
Again, if he did have such a purpose he could never get elected to anything. One must be elected to office before one can implement one's programs.
"There is a physical difference between the two, which, in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality,"
-------------------
Obviously, Blacks are physically different from Whites. They have black skin whereas Whites have white skin. There is such a pronounced difference that one can tell a black person from a white person. Now, there were Mulattoes who could "pass" for White, but these were the exception. The vast majority of Blacks could always be distinguished by their black skins. To Lincoln it seemed human nature for the majority to oppress a minority that was different--Blacks, Indians, Irish, etc. So he was doing nothing more than recognizing that because Blacks were different, it was human nature to deny them equality.
"and inasmuch as it becomes a necessity that there must be a difference, I, as well as Judge Douglas, am in favor of the race to which I belong having the superior position. I have never said anything to the contrary,"
-------------------
Notice: as much as it becomes necessary that there is a difference, and if one race has to be superior, Lincoln, being human, wants his own race to be superior. He's not completely altruistic in that he will not say, "Okay, let my race be subordinate." He's not saying whites are superior than blacks. He's saying if one race has to be superior, then he's in favor of it being the white race. What if one race does not have to be superior? He doesn't address that.
"but I hold that, notwithstanding all this, there is no reason in the world why the negro is not entitled to all the natural rights enumerated in the Declaration of Independence, the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. [Loud cheers.] I hold that he is as much entitled to these as the white man."
--------------------
Blacks have the same natural rights as Whites. They have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Slavery, of course, violates their natural rights.
"I agree with Judge Douglas he is not my equal in many respects-certainly not in color, perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment."
-----------------
Lincoln is white and Blacks are black. So they are not equal in color. He says "perhaps not in moral or intellectual endowment." He's not saying Blacks are morally or intellectually inferior, but he says it is possible that they are. This is Lincoln's standard legal tactic. In his cases before courts, Lincoln would often take the course of suggesting that perhaps his opponents were correct in what they alleged, then he would proceed to destroy their case. This is what he's doing here.
"But in the right to eat the bread, without the leave of anybody else, which his own hand earns, he is my equal and the equal of Judge Douglas, and the equal of every living man. [Great applause.]"
------------------
This is a condemnation of slavery. Slaves would grow the bread with the sweat of their brow and the work of their own hands, but it would be taken from them and enjoyed by the master. They have a right, Lincoln said, to enjoy the fruit of their own labor, to eat the bread their own hands earned, just as he and Douglas had that right. In other words, they had the right to not be slaves.
CivilWarTalk.com -
A free and friendly Civil War community. 
Linear Mode
