Adapted from a previous Quora post:

 

The Convention: An Unexpected Result

After the first ballot was cast on May 18th at the Republican National Convention of 1860, Abraham Lincoln did not win the nomination for President. In fact, few suspected he would. He didn’t win on the second ballot either.  William Henry Seward, former Governor and Senator from New York, appeared to be grasping the GOP nomination with a firm grip. Fortunately for Lincoln, Seward did not win by large enough margins to win on either of the first two ballots to claim victory. Seward had been the front-runner for the nomination leading in to the convention at the Wigwam in Chicago, Illinois where the convention was hosted; so much that Seward’s crew celebrated with 300 bottles of champagne the night before the votes were cast in anticipation for their “certain” victory.[i] With a third and final ballot set to seal the nomination for President of the United States, momentum had shifted, however, to the support of the “Rail-Splitter” from Illinois. Lincoln’s vote count increased significantly on the second ballot and the delegates in Chicago uncommitted to Seward, seemed to be throwing their support over to Lincoln. Unwilling to concede victory to Seward without one last “push” before the official votes were taken on the 18th of May, Lincoln’s camp had worked tirelessly to gain Lincoln support the day(s) before the voting occurred. With time running out to procure enough votes to sway the election over to Lincoln’s favor, and Seward’s men occupied with their celebrations, Lincoln’s men continued to work, and knew that the hard work was paying off as they watched Lincoln close the gap on Seward on the first two ballots.

 

In an era where corrupt politics were the norm, Lincoln’s team was ready and willing to cut side deals and make promises of future jobs in the Administration if votes for Lincoln were obtained in return; during the three-day convention (May 16-18), they would have several opportunities.[ii] However, Lincoln gave a clear directive to his team: “I agree with Seward in his ‘Irrepressible Conflict,’ but I do not endorse his ‘Higher Law’ doctrine. Make no contracts that will bind me.”[iii] Known as Lincoln’s “Endorsement,” this message was inscribed on the margin of a copy of the Missouri Democrat newspaper (likely as an annotation to something written in the newspaper), given to friend (and editor of the Illinois State Journal) Edward L. Baker, and delivered to David Davis, manager of Lincoln’s team in Chicago (and future Lincoln-appointed Supreme Court Justice).[iv] Lincoln, when telling his delegates to “make no contracts that [would bind him],” meant that he did not want to engage in dirty politics and promise jobs to men who could cause issues in a future administration. Essentially, he did not want people to examine his future appointments to cabinet (and other President-appointed political positions) in a Lincoln Administration and be able to (and perhaps, rightfully so) accuse him of corruption. Lincoln wanted to retain his reputation as an honest man, but also did not want to have to deal with men he did not want in Washington.

 

Despite Lincoln’s command to make no binding contracts, his followers (including men like Leonard Swett, George W. Lawrence, Norman Judd, Henry Smith Lane, Chicago Mayor John Wentworth, and Chicago Tribune Editor Joseph Medill) in Chicago seemingly ignored their boss; in fact, they were angry with him.[v] After Davis apparently quipped: “Lincoln ain’t here, and don’t know what we have to meet, so we will go ahead, as if we hadn’t heard from him…,” the Lincoln campaign went on to secure the necessary support to overtake Seward on the third ballot of May 18th.[vi] For example, a promise from Swett to Pennsylvania Senator, Simon Cameron, a job in a Lincoln White House, led to the acquisition of Pennsylvania’s votes (Cameron would later be appointed as Lincoln’s Secretary of War, only to resign less than a year later).[vii] Upon learning of the Cameron bargain in early 1861, Lincoln apparently declared: “They have gambled me all around, bought and sold me a hundred times. I cannot begin to fill all the pledges made in my name.”[viii] Though the source of this quote comes from an article written in 1949, meaning its authenticity is questionable at best, there is still reason to believe Lincoln was displeased with at least the Cameron bargain; conflict in administration policy led to Cameron’s early resignation. Regardless, Lincoln got his nomination as Republican candidate for President (Maine Senator Hannibal Hamlin was nominated as Vice President), but  it came at the cost of unauthorized backdoor deals negotiated by his delegates in Chicago – in spite of concise, clear, emphatic instructions in the Endorsement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Honest Abe & His Directions to the Delegates

The last sentence of the aforementioned Endorsement message is simple to ascertain: Lincoln makes the clear order to his team in Chicago to abstain from making deals for votes, or at least to refrain from making deals with men who could later put him in a “bind” – men like Simon Cameron . However without understanding what Lincoln was referencing to in his first sentence, only half of his message/directions to his delegates is understood. In the paragraphs to follow, Lincoln’s Endorsement will be broken down and examined in multiple parts. Lastly, the claim will be made that this document is worth studying when people debate and/or analyze whether Lincoln deserves the tag of “Honest Abe.”

 

Like Lincoln, Seward was anti-slavery and made his sentiments well-known to the public. In fact, Seward had enjoyed greater fame – and was considered to be more of an abolitionist – than Lincoln during the years leading up to the 1860 presidential election.[ix] Because of his exposure to a national audience as Governor, and then Senator, of the state of New York, Seward became a leading proponent against slavery in the United States. Seward’s speech delivered in Rochester, New York, on October 25, 1858, gained him further notoriety when he said these words:  “It is an irrepressible conflict between opposing and enduring forces, and it means that the United States must and will, sooner or later, become either entirely a slave-holding nation or entirely a free-labor nation.”[x] This declaration solidified him as a hero to the North and villain to the South. Interestingly, Seward’s famous lines similarly echoed a Lincoln speech from three months earlier known as the “House Divided Speech.” In Lincoln’s speech, he famously said: “A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free. I do not expect the Union to be dissolved – I do not expect the house to fall – but I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other.”[xi]

 

For Lincoln to tell his camp in Chicago that he agreed with Seward about the future of America as either entirely free, or entirely slave-holding, was no surprise to anybody. By this time, Republicans were aware of this parallel political stance on slavery in both candidates.  The public embracing of this theory on America’s future, however, was seen by many as a controversial and radical position to stand behind. It is Lincoln’s disagreement with Seward’s “Higher Law” political stance where he wanted to separate himself from the New Yorker. Lincoln, in the Endorsement, wanted to make sure his delegates in Chicago knew that, and that they would spread a message that differentiated from Seward’s at the Convention.

 

In his maiden speech as a freshman Senator from the Whig Party, Seward addressed the Senate in a speech called, “Freedom in the Territories” on March 11, 1850.  Delivered four days after Daniel Webster’s famous “Constitution and the Union” address, Seward spoke in support of admitting California as a free state to the Union and prohibiting the spread of slavery to the new territories. To Seward, containing the spread of slavery was a moral obligation and was contrary to the will of God (synonymous to his position on fugitive slave laws as well). He made this clear from his speech, and these words were quoted and debated throughout the 1850s:  “…there is a higher law than the Constitution, which regulates our authority over the domain, and devotes it to the same noble purposes. The territory is a part – no inconsiderable part – of the common heritage of mankind, bestowed upon them by the Creator of the universe. We are his stewards, and must so discharge our trust as to secure in the highest attainable degree, their happiness.”[xii] Though lacking in oratorical ability, the transcript of this speech gained national attention due to Seward’s “clear and compelling” arguments; 100,000 pamphlets of the speech were distributed throughout the country within in three weeks.[xiii]

 

In his disagreement with Seward’s “Higher Law” doctrine, Lincoln revealed his strategy to represent himself as a more moderate candidate as compared to the “radical” Seward; Lincoln’s primary allegiance was to the Constitution of the United States of America, not a moral law that stood above it as Seward clearly stated in 1850.[xiv] Though Lincoln hated slavery and established fugitive slave laws, he was loyal to the Constitution and the laws established by the American people first; he could use this political stance as a means to distance himself from Seward. Lincoln and his delegates could rightfully proclaim that Seward was a radical for this reason: though Lincoln and Seward held equal hostility for slavery and fugitive slave laws, Seward had less respect and loyalty for established institutions such as the Constitution: the law of the United States of America.[xv] While others could attach Seward’s views to radicals such as John Brown, Lincoln could rightfully reject any association or agreement with men like Brown, as he did in February of 1860 in his Cooper Union Speech.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So what was Lincoln “saying” in the Endorsement of May 17, 1860?

When the contents of the Lincoln’s Endorsement are evaluated, Lincoln’s message to his delegates can be summed up like this:

 

- Lincoln agreed with Seward on the slavery issue in America; the position both candidates embraced, that the nation would become either entirely free, or entirely slave-holding, was a controversial, radical position to take. He wanted his delegates to promote that position.

 

- Lincoln wanted to be portrayed at the Republican National Convention as a moderate, safer, option than Seward as a presidential candidate and wanted his counterpart to be portrayed as a radical. By disagreeing with Seward’s ‘higher law’ morality cry, Lincoln pledged his loyalty to the laws of the United States, showing that he was bound by the decisions made by the American people, even if he disagreed with slavery, fugitive slave laws etc. The future of slavery should be decided by the American people in the democratic fashion outlined in the Constitution.

 

- Lincoln did not want his delegates in Chicago to secure support/votes via deal-making and promises he would have to keep if he won the White House, especially if promises were made to men who would “bind” him; people like Cameron. Lincoln wanted to retain his reputation as an honest man and did not want to give his opponents any additional ammunition as he set up his cabinet in a future Lincoln White House.

 

Conclusion

Lincoln’s Endorsement is a relevant primary source for several reasons (for example, the Endorsement is a great primary source to investigate when comparing Lincoln and Seward as Republican candidates). However, the primary reason this short note on the margins of the Missouri Democrat is so important is that it demonstrates Lincoln’s integrity and high moral character. He wanted to be the Republican Nominee for President but he was unwilling to sacrifice his reputation, break his moral code, or cut deals with men he did not want to have in a future administration, in order to reach that goal. With the probability of a Seward nomination if his delegates failed to act as they did, Lincoln was willing to take that risk, and commanded his men to behave with his same moral code in Chicago. Lincoln could not control the actions of his delegates at the Convention, he was away in Springfield, Illinois (as it was customary for candidates to abstain from attending the Convention), and his men willingly and openly disobeyed his orders. Even so, Lincoln, after his election as President, honored many of the commitments made in his name such as the appointment of Cameron as Secretary of War. Lincoln was not a man to go back on his promises, even if they were made in his name and not actually by himself. Lincoln was not a perfect man; there are examples scholars could reference to his apparent dishonesty and/or deceit.[xvi] Nevertheless, the Endorsement points to a Lincoln who was deservedly known as “Honest Abe.” He was prepared to risk his chance to become the President of the United States of America because he was a man of integrity. How many people would be willing to take the same risk?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Citations

[i] Burlingame, Michael. “Make No Contracts,” Journal Divided (September 2010),

http://housedivided.dickinson.edu/sites/journal/2010/09/27/no-contracts/.

 

 

[ii] Burlingame, “Make No Contracts.”

 

 

[iii] Whitney, Henry C. Lincoln the Citizen, vol. 1 of Life of Lincoln, eds. Marion Mills Miller (New York: Baker & Taylor Co., 1908), 288-289,

http://www.archive.org/details/lifeoflincoln01whit.

 

 

[iv] Burlingame, “Make No Contracts.”

 

 

[v] Whitney, Lincoln the Citizen.

 

 

[vi] Ibid.

 

 

[vii] Burlingame, “Make No Contracts.”

 

 

[viii] Helms, Allen E. The Journal of Politics. Vol. 11, No. 1, (Feb., 1949), pp. 47.

 

 

[ix] Hapgood, Norman. Abraham Lincoln: The Man of the People. New York: MacMillan, 1899, pp. 157.

 

 

[x] Borough of Manhattan Community College, “William Henry Seward: ON THE IRREPRESSIBLE CONFLICT,” Delivered at Rochester, NY, October 25, 1858,

http://socrates.bmcc.cuny.edu/bfriedheim/irrepressibe.htm.

 

 

[xi] “A House Divided”: Speech at Springfield, Illinois in Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (8 vols., New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 2: 461-469, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/.

 

 

[xii] Byrd, Robert C. The Senate, 1789-1989: Classic Speeches, 1830-1993. Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1994, http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/generic/Speeches_Seward_NewTerritories.htm.

 

 

[xiii] Byrd, The Senate.

 

 

[xiv] Hapgood, pp. 157.

 

 

[xv] Ibid.

 

 

[xvi] Abraham Lincoln to Norman Buel Judd, October 20, 1858, Rushville, IL, in Roy P. Basler, ed., The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln (8 vols., New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1953), 3: 329-330, http://quod.lib.umich.edu/l/lincoln/.

 

 

“Lincoln ain’t here, and don’t know what we have to meet, so we will go ahead, as if we hadn’t heard from him…”

          - David Davis