abraham lincoln quotes house divided speech

Home | News | Books | Speeches | Places | Resources | Education | Timelines | Index | Search Representatives Hall Lecturn © Abraham Lincoln Online House Divided Speech Springfield, Illinois June 16, 1858 On June 16, 1858 more than 1,000 delegates met in the Springfield, Illinois, statehouse for the Republican State Convention. At 5:00 p.m. they chose Abraham Lincoln as their candidate for the U.S. Senate, running against Democrat Stephen A. Douglas. At 8:00 p.m. Lincoln delivered this address to his Republican colleagues in the Hall of Representatives. The title reflects part of the speech's introduction, "A house divided against itself cannot stand," a concept familiar to Lincoln's audience as a statement by Jesus recorded in all three synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke). Even Lincoln's friends regarded the speech as too radical for the occasion. His law partner, William H. Herndon, considered Lincoln as morally courageous but politically incorrect. Lincoln read the speech to him before delivering it, referring to the "house divided" language this way: "The proposition is indisputably true ... and I will deliver it as written. I want to use some universally known figure, expressed in simple language as universally known, that it may strike home to the minds of men in order to rouse them to the peril of the times." The speech created many repercussions, giving Lincoln's political opponent fresh ammunition. Herndon remarked, "when I saw Senator Douglas making such headway against Mr. Lincoln's house divided speech I was nettled & irritable, and said to Mr. Lincoln one day this -- 'Mr. Lincoln -- why in the world do you not say to Mr. Douglas, when he is making capitol out of your speech, -- 'Douglas why whine and complain to me because of that speech. I am not the author of it. God is. Go and whine and complain to Him for its revelation, and utterance.' Mr. Lincoln looked at me one short quizzical moment, and replied 'I can't.'" Reflecting on it several years later, Herndon said the speech did awaken the people, and despite Lincoln's defeat, he thought the speech made him President. "Through logic inductively seen," he said, "Lincoln as a statesman, and political philosopher, announced an eternal truth -- not only as broad as America, but covers the world." Another colleague, Leonard Swett, said the speech defeated Lincoln in the Senate campaign. In 1866 he wrote to Herndon complaining, "Nothing could have been more unfortunate or inappropriate; it was saying first the wrong thing, yet he saw it was an abstract truth, but standing by the speech would ultimately find him in the right place." Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention. If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased , but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed. "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. Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new -- North as well as South . Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination -- piece of machinery so to speak -- compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidence of design and concert of action, among its chief architects, from the beginning. But, so far, Congress only, had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable, to save the point already gained, and give chance for more. The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later, commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained. This necessity had not been overlooked; but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man, choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: "It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or state, not to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "Squatter Sovereignty," and "Sacred right of self-government." "But," said opposition members, "let us be more specific -- let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment. While the Nebraska Bill was passing through congress, a law case involving the question of a negroe's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave, for a long time in each, was passing through the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and law suit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negroe's name was "Dred Scott," which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: "That is a question for the Supreme Court." The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible, echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument. The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott Decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained. At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that squabble the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind -- the principle for which he declares he has suffered much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle, is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding -- like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand -- helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans, against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point, the right of a people to make their own constitution, upon which he and the Republicans have never differed. The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas' "care-not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery, in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. \ The working points of that machinery are: First, that no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of this provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that-- "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States." Secondly, that "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States Territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future. Thirdly, that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately; but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State. Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, to not care whether slavery is voted down or voted up . This shows exactly where we now are ; and partially , also, whither we are tending. It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free" "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now , it was an exactly fitted niche , for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people, to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people to exclude slavery, voted down? Plainly enough now , the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator's individual opinion withheld, till after the presidential election? Plainly enough now , the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after indorsements of the decision by the President and others? We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen -- Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance -- and when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few -- not omitting even scaffolding -- or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in -- in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck. It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska Bill, the people of a State , as well as Territory, were to be left "perfectly free" " subject only to the Constitution. " Why mention a State ? They were legislating for territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? Why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? While the opinion of the Court , by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state , or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly , this is a mere omission ; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Macy sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill -- I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down, in the one case, as it had been in the other. The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is, "except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the U.S. Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories was left open in the Nebraska act. Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up , shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision an be maintained when made. Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free ; and we shall awake to the reality , instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. This is what we have to do. But how can we best do it? There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly , that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is, with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all, from the facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us, on a single point, upon which, he and we, have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion ." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas' superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And, unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia . He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property ; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade -- how can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free" -- unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition. Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday -- that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas' position , question his motives , or do ought that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever , he and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability , I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us -- he does not pretend to be -- he does not promise to ever be. Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends -- those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work -- who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant , and even, hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then to falter now? -- now -- when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail -- if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise councils may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later the victory is sure to come. Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln , edited by Roy P. Basler et al. Home | News | Education | Timelines | Places | Resources | Books | Speeches | Index | Search Lincoln's writings are in the public domain; photo and this introduction copyright © 2018 Abraham Lincoln Online. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy

House Divided Speech

Text of lincoln's speech.

• Trebuchet MS

Line Spacing

Column width, text alignment, reading mode.

"A House Divided Against Itself Cannot Stand."

Speech in Acceptance of Nomination as United States Senator, Made at the Close of the Republican State Convention, Springfield, Ill. June 16, 1858.

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:  

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "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. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let any one who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination—piece of machinery, so to speak—compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted; but also let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State constitutions, and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery, and was the first point gained.

But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an indorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," otherwise called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows: "It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or State, nor to exclude it therefrom; but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States." Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty" and "sacred right of self-government." "But," said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the Territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska bill was passing through Congress, a law case involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free State and then into a Territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the District of Missouri; and both Nebraska bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May, 1854. The negro's name was Dred Scott, which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next presidential election, the law case came to and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a Territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answered: "That is a question for the Supreme Court."

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the indorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The indorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the indorsement. The Supreme Court met again; did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument. The presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court; but the incoming President in his inaugural address fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital indorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained!

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up. I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind—the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much, and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding,—like the mold at the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand,—helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans against the Lecompton constitution involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point—the right of a people to make their own constitution—upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas's "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are:

(1) That no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave, can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro in every possible event of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

(2) That, "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any United States Territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the Territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

(3) That whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State makes him free as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made not to be pressed immediately, but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one or one thousand slaves in Illinois or in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are, and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in, and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all. Why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down? Plainly enough now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the court decision held up? Why even a senator's individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the indorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-indorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen,—Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance,—and we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding—or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in—in such a case we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of a State as well as Territory were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." Why mention a State? They were legislating for Territories, and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States; but why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? Why are the people of a Territory and the people of a State therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same? While the opinion of the court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States Territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a State, or the people of a State, to exclude it. Possibly, this is a mere omission; but who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a State to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Mace sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a Territory, into the Nebraska bill—I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down in the one case as it had been in the other? The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is: "Except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction." In what cases the power of the States is so restrained by the United States Constitution is left an open question, precisely as the same question as to the restraint on the power of the Territories was left open in the Nebraska act. Put this and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a State to exclude slavery from its limits. And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up" shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome, or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free, and we shall awake to the reality instead that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State. To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. How can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is with which to effect that object. They wish us to infer all this from the fact that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us on a single point upon which he and we have never differed. They remind us that he is a great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion." Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart" to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas's superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave-trade. Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new Territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia. He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property; and as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave-trade? How can he refuse that trade in that "property" shall be "perfectly free," unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday—that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But can we, for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference? Now, as ever, I wish not to misrepresent Judge Douglas's position, question his motives, or do aught that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us—he does not pretend to be—he does not promise ever to be.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by, its own undoubted friends—those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care for the result. Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy. Did we brave all then to falter now?—now, when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered, and belligerent? The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail—if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise counsels may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but sooner or later, the victory is sure to come.

Lincoln ends the speech on an inspirational note: There may be obstacles, but if the Republicans persevere, “the victory is sure to come.” Lincoln appeals to his audience’s sense of optimism and party pride in order to leave them feeling hopeful about the future. Though much of Lincoln’s speech is focused on dismantling the conspiracy behind the recent pro-slavery trends, his final call to action affirms the strength and moral superiority of the Republican cause. Though the Democratic establishment may be conspiring to expand slavery across the United States, the Republicans “shall not fail” in their effort to oppose that expansion.

Lincoln contrasts the adjectives “disciplined, proud, and pampered” with “wavered, dissevered, and belligerent” to highlight how the Democrats have weakened since the last election. After Douglas broke with his party and rejected the Lecompton Constitution, Southern Democrats began criticizing him heavily. Lincoln argues that if Republicans could effectively oppose the Democrats when the Democrats were still “disciplined” and together, then they can certainly obtain victory now that the Democrats are plagued by internal strife.

The Republican party was formed in 1854 in response to the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. It was made up primarily of abolitionists, former Whigs, anti-slavery Democrats, and free soilers. The central focus of the party was to oppose the expansion of slavery and promote economic reform, and the “discordant” assortment of political alignments formed a tense truce around that platform. By presenting their shared triumphs in the previous election, Lincoln appeals to his fellow Republicans’ sense of unity and brotherhood. Though they come from different backgrounds, they find common ground in resisting slavery. Together, they will continue to “battle” against the Democrats and prevent the expansion of slavery.

Lincoln uses another anaphoric tricolon to contrast with his description of Douglas. Whereas Douglas is “not with” the Republicans and “does not promise ever to be,” the “undoubted friends” of the party have their “hearts in the work” and “care for the result.” As he brings his speech to a close, Lincoln emphasizes the important work ahead of the Republican party. He encourages the delegates of the convention, and voters in general, to entrust the cause of anti-slavery only to “undoubted friends”—which Lincoln has made clear Douglas is not. Instead, voters should support Lincoln himself, whose “hands are free” to take on the fight against slavery’s expansion.

Lincoln uses an anaphoric tricolon to reinforce his claim that Douglas is not presently aligned with the Republican party or its goals. Each successive clause reminds his audience that Douglas is an outsider and that he has made no promise to ever support the anti-slavery clause. Indeed, much of Lincoln’s speech has focused on highlighting how Douglas has aided the pro-slavery cause. So, rather than putting their hopes in Douglas, the Republicans should instead vote for Lincoln, who they can be sure will uphold their beliefs.

Lincoln inserts a disclaimer into his speech wherein he assures his audience that he has not meant to offend Douglas with his accusations. His show of respect for Douglas’s “great ability” acts as an appeal to ethos as Lincoln reassures his audience that collaboration is possible. However, Lincoln will not compromise on the Republican’s “great cause” of resisting slavery. For the time being, Douglas is an outsider to the Republicans, excluded from Lincoln’s unifying “we.” Douglas must first express a firm commitment to the anti-slavery cause, at which point the Republican party will gladly welcome him.

Lincoln scathingly questions a journalist’s assertion that Douglas will be needed to resist the reinstatement of the transatlantic slave trade. Since Douglas has expressed no moral qualms about the practice, Lincoln posits that he should have no issues with the foreign trade. By linking Douglas with a practice that is almost universally abhorred, Lincoln casts Douglas as someone whose apathy towards the morality of slavery is actively dangerous. Lincoln asks his audience to consider how Douglas could possibly be a advocate for the anti-slavery cause when he has made it clear that he has no personal investment in it. He also asks Douglas to defend his apparent apathy, foregrounding slavery, an issue that Douglas sought to avoid, as a key campaign issue in the senate race.

The transatlantic slave trade, here referred to as the African slave trade, refers to the importation of slaves from Africa. It was formally outlawed in the United States in 1808, largely due to the influence and advocacy of Thomas Jefferson. However, the internal slave trade, or the buying and selling of currently owned slaves, continued to thrive long after the abolishment of the transatlantic trade. By the 1850s, the transatlantic slave trade was near-universally condemned, and even most Southerners viewed it as a distasteful relic of the past. However, a group of Southern secessionists, referred to as the Fire Eaters, advocated for reinstating it. Their motivation was less focused on reopening the slave trade and more focused on inflaming resentment between the North and South.

The phrase “a living dog is better than a dead lion” is drawn from Ecclesiastes 9:4. It refers to the idea that even if a lion is grander than a dog in life, death makes all things equal. Combining allusion and metaphor, Lincoln suggests that even if Douglas were a mighty “lion” of a politician, his attachment to popular sovereignty and the Democratic party would make him an unlikely ally to the anti-slavery cause. The Republicans hoped that Douglas’s estrangement from Buchanan over the Lecompton Constitution might bring him to their side. However, Lincoln asserts that the “caged and toothless” Douglas has no intention nor means of aiding the Republicans since he claims to have no stake in their chief issue: halting the expansion of slavery.

Douglas earned the nickname “Little Giant” due to his short physical stature and commanding presence. Lincoln, who stood a full foot taller than the 5’4” Douglas, subtly mocks Douglas by alluding to this nickname. By including the adverb “very” before the adjective “small,” Lincoln emphasizes Douglas’s short stature. The “Little Giant” nickname was meant as a show of respect to Douglas. However, many of his political detractors also targeted his height as a means of discrediting or belittling him, as Lincoln seems to do here.

The “little quarrel” that Lincoln refers to is the disagreement between Buchanan and Douglas over the ratification of the Lecompton Constitution. Many more moderate Republicans viewed this dispute as evidence that Douglas might break with the Democrats and become a Republican anti-slavery champion. However, Lincoln dismisses this possibility and frames the dispute as “little.” This diminishes the perceived magnitude of the disagreement and reinforces Douglas’s continued attachment to the Democrats.

Lincoln establishes the importance of a Republican victory in the upcoming election. If slavery is to be resisted, then the anti-slavery party must win office. However, some Republicans harbored hopes that Douglas might actually be on their side. His steadfast neutrality on the moral issues surrounding slavery made him a popular candidate for more moderate voters. Lincoln acknowledges this divide in voter sentiment by posing the question of how the Republican cause can best be advanced. The following paragraph proceeds to advocate against Douglas by portraying him as pro-slavery—or at least not strongly enough opposed to it.

Lincoln appeals to pathos by creating a contrast between the long-cherished hope of the Republican party and what he views as the imminent reality of slavery’s expansion. The “pleasant dream” of slave states abolishing slavery on their own is unlikely in the current climate. Lincoln encourages his audience to reject naivety and instead recognize that forces are conspiring to expand slavery across the United States. By crafting a chilling image of Illinois’s being forced to become a slave state, Lincoln appeals to his audience’s fear of having their freedoms and morals trespassed upon. He then issues a call to action: the Democratic dynasty must be overthrown or pro-slavery forces may overwhelm Republican opposition.

Lincoln appeal to logos by framing the vague language of both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision as part of an equation: The inputs are the lack of language protecting states’ and territories’ rights to ban slavery and the vague assertion that the Constitution takes precedence over state and territorial laws; the output is a “nice little niche” wherein the Supreme Court could rule in a future case that the US Consitution prohibits states and territories from excluding slavery. Lincoln highlights the rationality of his own arguments by establishing a clear and logical cause and effect. He also draws attention to the apparent intentionality of the vague language, reinforcing his theory that Douglas and the Democrats are conspiring to expand slavery.

Supreme Court Justice Samuel Nelson (1792–1873) was one of the concurring judges in the Dred Scott decision. His reasons for rejecting Scott’s suit and ruling with the court differed from Taney’s. Unlike Taney, who was a staunch supporter of slaveowner rights, Nelson preferred a narrow, uncontroversial approach to law. Nelson’s concurring opinion did not address the unconstitutionality of the Missouri Compromise or black citizenship. Instead, it focused on the necessity of popular sovereignty and state’s rights. Lincoln’s direct quote from Nelson’s concurrence bolsters his ethos by establishing Lincoln as someone intimately familiar with the Dred Scott case. He also references having read the opinions of all nine justices, further positioning Lincoln as an informed speaker and legal scholar.

Supreme Court Justices John McLean and Benjamin Curtis were the two dissenting votes in the Dred Scott decision. Both were anti-slavery and saw the majority’s decision as an overreach of judicial power. They each wrote forceful dissenting opinions on the case, inspiring Chief Justice Taney to respond with an equally forceful majority opinion. Curtis became the only Supreme Court Justice in US history to resign on a matter of principle, citing the tense atmosphere in the court in the wake of the Dred Scott case. Lincoln poses a hypothetical scenario wherein either McLean or Curtis attempted to convince the court majority to specify that states could exclude slavery from their borders. Lincoln asserts that had such a scenario occurred, it is likely that Chief Justice Taney would have rejected the idea—just as Douglas did when Chase proposed amending the Kansas-Nebraska Act.

Lincoln notes that neither the opinion of the court nor any of the concurring opinions from the Dred Scott case explicitly declare the right of states or territories to exclude slavery. He draws a parallel between this omission and the similar omission found in the Kansas-Nebraska Act, which also only explicitly declares the right of territories to allow slavery. Lincoln admit that this might be “a mere omission.” However, he also recalls the rejection of the proposed Chase amendment, which would have given territories the right to exclude slavery. By saying that no one can be “quite sure” of the reasoning behind the omission, Lincoln sets up his claim that the ability of inidvidual states and territories to exclude slavery may be in jeopardy in the current political climate.

Lincoln extends the house metaphor that he introduced at the beginning of the speech. If the Union is “a house divided,” then Lincoln is certain that it will eventually become all slave or all free. He now accuses “Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James” of being in the process of constructing that new, pro-slavery nation. They have already made “the frame of a house” using the Kansas-Nebraska Act and Dred Scott decision. Now, Lincoln posits, they only need to bring in a few more pieces until the house is completed and slavery is legal across the United States.

Lincoln drops the more formalized and respectful terms of address he has used thus far in favor of referring to Stephen Douglas, Franklin Pierce, Roger Taney, and James Buchanan by their first names. Using the first names of elected officials in formal settings is considered disrespectful. In doing so, Lincoln is demystifying these powerful individuals and encouraging his audience to evaluate their actions based on the results of their policies, not on their titles.

The verb “to preconcert” refers to the act of arranging or planning something in advance. Lincoln concedes that there is no way to prove that the Democratic establishment conspired to expand slavery. However, he does believe that there is a lot of evidence indicating that “Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James” collaborated in order to secure the legal precedents needed to expand the institution.

Lincoln employs a simile comparing Pierce, Buchanan, and Douglas’s actions in advance of the Dred Scott decision to those of a rider trying to sooth a “spirited horse.” The implication is that the Democratic administration knew that the nation would be upset by the decision, so they preemptively attempted to sooth that discontent by offering their endorsements. The simile confronts the audience with the idea that they have been manipulated by the Democrats. However, Lincoln also subtly indicates that the nation, much like the horse, has the ability to “give the rider[s] a fall” by voting Republican.

The noun “felicitation” refers to well-wishes or praise given to someone for an achievement. Lincoln notes Pierce’s praise of Buchanan’s endorsement of the Dred Scott decision as a suspiciously timed coincidence. Both men were willing to preemptively endorse a decision that they allegedly did not know the outcome of. Lincoln cites this as evidence for his theory that Taney collaborated with Pierce and Buchanan on the ruling so that they could garner public support before it was announced.

One of the rallying cries of proponents of popular sovereignty was that the policy allowed for the “perfect freedom” of the people of the territories. However, Lincoln notes that only allowing territories to include slavery is not truly freedom. Since the Dred Scott decision revoked the ability of territorial legislatures to exclude slavery, anti-slavery territorial residents have no “freedom” to advocate for their beliefs.

Lincoln uses anaphora—or the repetition of a word or phrase in successive clauses—to showcase the conclusions he hopes to have led his audience to. His rigorous examination of the recent legislative and judicial record has established the logic behind his claims. Now, through his repetition of the phrase “plainly enough now,” Lincoln presents some of the connections he has developed between the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision. The adverb “plainly” refers to something that is obvious or easy to identify. By introducing his ideas with “plainly,” Lincoln indicates that his conclusions should be clear and apparent in light of the evidence he has presented.

For the anti-slavery Republicans, the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision were major losses. However, throughout most of the early-to-mid 19th century, anti-slavery sentiment seemed like the dominant trend. Many of the border states between the North and South had abolished slavery, and the practice was falling out of favor in more urbanized regions of the South. However, beginning with the Compromise of 1850 and the strengthening of the Fugitive Slave Act, the anti-slavery cause began losing ground. For many Republicans, this trend likely did seem “dark and mysterious,” possibly indicating a shift in public sentiment. However, Lincoln asserts that his speech ought to have “thrown additional light” on the topic, showcasing how the Democratic administration conspired to manufacture these gains.

Lincoln repeats this phrase from the first line of the speech in order to transition into a new section of his argument. The first half of the speech focuses on recent judicial and legislative history with regards to slavery. Now, Lincoln begins discussing the future and “whither” the United States is “tending” with regards to slavery. This repeated phrase provides a bookend to his analysis of the past and indicates to listeners that he will now begin addressing the future and the relevant campaign issues—including Douglas.

Lincoln shows his frustration with the Dred Scott decision as he illustrates how damaging the ruling has been to the anti-slavery cause. Not only can the territories be effectively converted to slaveholding regions, but the court decision has also put free states in jeopardy. If slaveowners can freely transport their slaves into free states and then take them back to slave states, then there is little preventing them from settling in free states with their slaves more permanently. The court decision has essentially denied free states the right to hold slaveowners accountable to the laws of the region. Instead, slaveowners can simply return to more sympathetic slave states to settle legal matters pertaining to slave ownership.

Lincoln frames the Supreme Court’s ruling that Congress cannot exclude slavery from a territory as a bid to expand slavery’s influence. If slavery cannot be prohibited by Congress or a territorial legislature, then individuals can move their slaves into territories as they please. Lincoln posits that even if a territory decides to enter the Union as a free state, it will have a hard time removing the influence of slavery once it has been established. Combined with the Supreme Court’s ruling that Congress cannot free or confiscate anyone’s slaves, the territories have essentially been barred from ever effectively excluding slavery.

As he discusses the three primary findings of the Dred Scott decision, Lincoln explains what he believes the reasoning behind each stipulation was. He infers that the court's decision to rule that African Americans cannot be citizens stems from a desire to deny them the constitutional “privileges and immunities” entailed in citizenship. In order to deny Dred Scott his freedom, the court had to strip away his constitutional rights. By directly quoting from the constitution, Lincoln appeals to logos and emphasizes the legal ramifications of the court’s decision. If African Americans cannot be citizens, then they have no constitutional protections nor do they have the ability to legally challenge their status.

Lincoln extends his machinery metaphor and uses a numbered list to review the stipulations of the Dred Scott decision. By addressing the court holdings in an organized manner, Lincoln brings clarity to both the individual mechanisms of the decision and the overarching implications of it. Though his audience was likely familiar with the court decision, Lincoln’s decision to review the individual parts of it allows him to interpret the different components within his own argumentative framework. It also extends the industrial metaphor by approaching the parts of the decision as one might approach a technical manual. Each part of the Dred Scott decision serves a different purpose. Together, they work as a “machine” that is expressly designed to facilitate the spread of slavery.

Lincoln mockingly refers to the popular sovereignty doctrine as “Senator Douglas’s ‘care not’ policy.” The implication is that Douglas is attempting to cultivate apathy amongst voters by claiming that popular sovereignty is the fairest means of deciding where slavery should be allowed. However, for Republicans and other anti-slavery groups, slavery is a moral issue. Therefore, popular sovereignty is not a doctrine of freedom and fairness, but a doctrine that explicitly supports the expansion of an immoral institution.

A foundry mold is a tool used in metal casting to create shapes that are too difficult to sculpt by hand. The mold, typically made of tightly packed sand, is carved in a specific shape and molten metal is then poured into the mold. When the metal solidifies, the cheap mold is disintegrated in order to free the finished metal part. Using a simile, Lincoln compares the original Nebraska doctrine and the principle of popular sovereignty to a foundry mold. The implication is that the Kansas-Nebraska Act was only a temporary measure designed to create a “mold,” or niche, for the Dred Scott decision. Once the Dred Scott decision declared Congressional restrictions on slavery unconstitutional, the mold was no longer needed and Douglas’s Nebraska doctrine “fell back into loose sand.”

Lincoln uses alliteration and simile to showcase the failure of Douglas’s popular sovereignty doctrine and to highlight its role in expanding slavery. The alliterative phrase “squatter sovereignty squatted out of existence” is both memorable and humorous, adding a mocking tone to Lincoln’s words. Combined with the simile comparing “squatter sovereignty” to “temporary scaffolding,” it also conveys a sense of impermanence and instability. Though popular sovereignty sounded good in theory and became a major campaign issue, it was a resounding failure in application, promptly “kicked to the winds.”

Lincoln uses the first-person singular pronoun “I” sparingly throughout the speech, favoring instead the more unifying plural pronoun “we.” However, he reverts to an “I” statement as he questions Douglas’s apparent apathy with regards to the slavery issue. As opposed to Lincoln’s more generalized criticisms of Douglas and the Democratic establishment, the use of an “I” statement personalizes the sentiment. Lincoln stakes a claim to the moral highground by framing apathy—and the cultivation of it in the “public mind”—as incomprehensible. For Lincoln and his Republican audience, slavery is too important of an issue to not care about, making Douglas’s supposed neutrality immoral and cowardly.

During the Bleeding Kansas period, Kansas elected a primarily pro-slavery territorial legislature. The election was a source of major controversy, with nearly half of the votes thought to be fraudulent. In response, anti-slavery free-staters formed their own unofficial legislature. They met in Topeka in 1855 and produced the Topeka Constitution, which would have established Kansas as a free state. In response, the controversially elected territorial legislature met in 1857 and drafted the Lecompton Constitution, which would have established Kansas as a slave state. When the Lecompton Constitution was brought before Congress, President Buchanan and the majority of Southern Democrats supported its passage. However, Northern Democrats, including Douglas, were uncomfortable with the rampant fraud surrounding the Kansas election. They ultimately sided with Republicans in rejecting the Lecompton Constitution.

In the wake of the Kansas-Nebraska Act’s passage, people on both sides of the slavery debate moved to Kansas in the hopes of steering it towards their desired courses. This mass migration resulted in a power struggle between the pro and anti-slavery factions, which led to a period of civil unrest often referred to as “Bleeding Kansas.” In the hopes of controlling the chaos, Governor Robert Walker called in federal military troops. In response, a group of anti-slavery academics, led by Yale professor Benjamin Silliman, wrote to President Buchanan in protest. They saw the military presence as a form of voter suppression. Buchanan responded to the letter by insisting that the military presence in Kansas was necessary to maintain order and enforce the Dred Scott decision.

Franklin Pierce (1804–1869) was the fourteenth President of the United States. He presided over and endorsed the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, viewing it as necessary in his bid to settle and develop the new territories. Pierce spent the majority of his presidency attempting to defuse tensions over slavery. He, along with many others, viewed the upcoming Dred Scott decision as the means by which the matter might finally be resolved. However, Lincoln frames Pierce’s pre-emptive endorsement of the decision as proof of a Democratic conspiracy: he implies that party leaders encouraged the public to accept the decision, “whatever it might be,” as a means of making themselves seem conciliatory when, in fact, they already knew what the decision would entail.

The 1856 presidential election featured three primary candidates: Democrat James Buchanan, Republican John C. Fremont, and American Party candidate Millard Fillmore. Though Buchanan won the election by a sizeable margin, he did not obtain 50% of the popular vote, which Lincoln refers to as a “clear popular majority.” Lincoln references this lack of a clear majority in order to undermine the idea that the majority of the United States was truly pro-slavery. Indeed, the combined total of votes for Fillmore and Fremont, both of whom were—to varying degrees—anti-slavery candidates, was greater than the total number of votes for Buchanan.

James Buchanan (1791–1868) was the fifteenth President of the United States. A Democrat, he aspired to end the conflict over slavery through compromise and frequently sided with the pro-slavery South in order to avoid inflaming secessionist sentiments. Lincoln refers to Buchanan’s election as “the second point gained” by the pro-slavery coalition, since it guaranteed the presidential endorsement of whatever the Supreme Court decided in the Dred Scott case. The short, clipped phrases Lincoln uses to introduce Buchanan’s election give the speech a sense of narrative motion. Lincoln emphasizes the passage of time in order to further highlight the suspect timing of the Dred Scott decision, which came shortly after Buchanan’s inauguration.

US Senator Lyman Trumbull (1813–1896) was known as a congressional agitator and staunch anti-slavery advocate. He would later become one of the co-authors of the Thirteenth Amendment, which outlawed slavery across the United States. Lincoln here references a confrontation between Trumbull and Douglas in which Douglas—referred to here as “the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill”—refused to answer whether he believed that the people of the territories should be allowed to exclude slavery. By indicating that the decision should be left to the Supreme Court, Douglas anticipated the ruling in the Dred Scott decision that Congress cannot exclude slavery from a territory. Lincoln uses this interaction to bolster his claims surrounding governmental conspiracy by subtly implying that Douglas had foreknowledge of the Supreme Court decision.

During the 1850s, the US Supreme Court was overseen by Chief Justice Roger Taney (1777–1864), who succeeded Chief Justice John Marshall in 1836. In later writings, Taney and several other members of his court expressed the belief that their 7-2 ruling in Dred Scott v. Sandford would settle the “slavery agitation” sweeping the nation. However, their predictions proved false, and the ruling led to near-universal outrage amongst Northerners. Even moderates believed that the court had overreached by barring African Americans from obtaining citizenship and declaring the Missouri Compromise unconstitutional.

Lincoln’s audience would have been familiar with the details of both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision. However, rather than citing them as separate pieces of evidence for the encroachment of pro-slavery sentiment, Lincoln instead proposes that there is an insidious conspiracy controlling the trends of the US government. Instead of relying on his audience’s pre-conceived understanding of recent legislative and judicial history, Lincoln instead foregrounds his own interpretation of events. By explaining the sequence of events in such extensive detail, Lincoln establishes a clear narrative that highlights the allegedly suspicious timing of these two pro-slavery gains, bolstering his argument.

Lincoln presents a hyperbolically simplified version of the debate that he imagines to have occured in Congress around the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Specifically, he references the text of the Kansas-Nebraska Act and one of the amendments introduced to the act by Senator Salmon P. Chase. This amendment would have allowed new territories to vote to either legalize or ban slavery, as opposed to the bill itself, which only allowed them to legalize it. Lincoln appeals to logos by quoting directly from the Kansas-Nebraska Act and emphasizing that it is only logical to allow the territories to exclude slavery if popular sovereignty and freedom are truly the goal. By noting the opposition of Douglas and his Southern supporters to the amendment, Lincoln calls into question their true motives.

Lincoln appeals to pathos by reframing the alleged freedom of popular sovereignty as an infringement upon the rights of anti-slavery individuals. During the 1850s, slaveowners often portrayed themselves as victims who needed to have their rights protected. According to them, the north was attempting to destroy their traditional values and way of life. Lincoln subverts this narrative and instead appeals to the righteous indignation of abolitionists and anti-slavery voters who have now had their right to protest slavery infringed upon. In his view, popular sovereignty is not a doctrine of freedom, but rather a doctrine that explicitly supports slavery.

“Squatter sovereignty” is a derisive name for the controversial doctrine of popular sovereignty. Popular sovereignty dictates that the US territories should decide through the popular vote whether to enter the Union as slave or free states. Its leading advocate was Stephen A. Douglas. Proponents of slavery referred to popular sovereignty as “the sacred right of self government.” Opponents of slavery, like Lincoln, viewed it as a thinly veiled means of spreading slavery to the territories. By using the term “squatter sovereignty,” Lincoln aligns himself with the anti-slavery cause and also disparages his opponent’s key philosophy.

As he speaks, Lincoln keeps a tally of the “points” gained by the pro-slavery cause. This serves a dual purpose in that it helps give the speech structure and also bolsters the logic of Lincoln’s assertions. Since Lincoln delivered these remarks verbally, maintaining his audience’s focus was an area of concern. By counting out the “points” gained, Lincoln offers his audience a verbal cue by which to keep track of his arguments. Tallying the figurative points also allows Lincoln to establish a framework for his argument and control the progression of ideas. By framing his theory in terms of points, Lincoln provides the audience a metric by which to judge the gains made by slavery proponents, creating an appeal to logos .

Though he is not named until the latter half of the speech, Lincoln focuses much of his address against his primary opponent in the Illinois senatorial election, Stephen A. Douglas (1813–1861). Douglas was a prominent politician in the 1850s due to his co-authorship of the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Lincoln frequently refers to Douglas indirectly as “the author of the Nebraska bill.” A Northern Democrat, Douglas was notoriously neutral about slavery from a moral standpoint, instead preferring to consider it from the perspectives of property rights and constitutional law. Lincoln attempts to frame Douglas as one of the “chief architects” of the pro-slavery gains in recent years. He cites Douglas’s support for both the Kansas-Nebraska Act and the Dred Scott decision as evidence of Douglas’s pro-slavery sentiments, implicating him in a broader conspiracy aimed at expanding the practice to the territories.

“The Dred Scott decision” refers to the 1857 Supreme Court Case Dred Scott v. Sandford, which Lincoln addresses at length later in the speech. Dred Scott, a slave, was taken by his owner from slave territory into free territory. Scott then sued his owner, claiming that he was automatically freed upon being taken into free territory. The Supreme Court ruled against Scott’s bid for freedom and also introduced three new legal precedents: People of African descent cannot be citizens of the United States and therefore cannot sue in federal court; the federal government cannot ban slavery in new territories, making the Missouri Compromise, which had banned slavery north of the 36° 30′ parallel, unconstitutional; and the federal government has no right to free slaves.

Lincoln introduces an extended metaphor that he references throughout his speech. He compares the recent swathe of pro-slavery laws and legal decisions to parts of a machine. He then asks his audience to consider “what work the machinery is adapted to do,” setting up the primary claim of his speech: The Kansas-Nebraska Act and The Dred Scott decision are part of a larger conspiracy within the government aimed at expanding slavery across the entire United States.

Lincoln asks a rhetorical question, confronting his audience with a startling possibility: As opposed to slavery’s being abolished or remaining contained to the South, recent events have paved the way for it to expand into the North as well. Up until the 1850s, the balance between slave states and free states had been carefully maintained. The North had tentatively resigned itself to allowing slavery to continue in the established South, with their focus instead shifting to stopping its expansion into new regions. However, after the Kansas-Nebraska Act was enacted, Northern anti-slavery sentiments were inflamed. Lincoln appeals to pathos by asking his audience to confront the implications of the recent pro-slavery political shift, invoking their fears surrounding its expansion.

The adjective “ultimate” refers to something that either occurs at the end of a process or is the ideal outcome in a given circumstance. The noun “extinction” means to cease to exist. This diction suggests that slavery’s “ultimate extinction” is both an imminent and desirable outcome. Though Lincoln was against slavery from a moral and political standpoint, he did not identify as an abolitionist. However, his assertion that slavery’s “ultimate extinction” would “place the public mind” at “rest” signaled to proponents of slavery that Lincoln wished to abolish the practice everywhere—including the established slave-owning South. This phrase was frequently parroted by Lincoln’s political detractors as a means of polarizing more moderate Republicans and swing voters.

Lincoln employs parallel structure and metaphor to emphasize the instability of the Union in its current state. Just as a “house divided against itself cannot stand,” neither can a nation torn between opposing ideologies continue to function. By comparing the United States to a house, Lincoln evokes the visual image of a structure on the verge of collapse. A house is capable of sheltering and protecting its inhabitants, but it is also capable of caving in on them. Lincoln uses repetition and parallelism to add severity to his words, emphasizing the image of a house falling over and offering a grim prediction for the future: If the United States cannot come together on the topic of slavery, then it will never be truly stable.

This phrase, which gives the speech its title, is an allusion to verses found in the biblical books of Luke, Mark, and Matthew. By situating his argument in a biblical framework, Lincoln gains moral authority and appeals to the religiosity of his audience. In the phrase’s biblical context, Jesus Christ highlights the foolishness of his detractors, who claim that he exorcised a demon using satanic power. He logically points out that if satanic power could be used to expel demons, Satan’s influence would quickly decline. Lincoln uses this phrase in a similar context, reminding his audience that the prolonged political divide over slavery will continue to weaken the nation.

In an effort to break the congressional gridlock over whether to expand slavery into the new territories, Democratic Senator Stephen A. Douglas—Lincoln’s opponent—and President Franklin Pierce drafted the Kansas-Nebraska Act. The act stipulated that the citizens of each new territory would vote on whether to legalize slavery. The goal was to remove the federal government from further involvement in the slavery debate by giving the power back to the states. However, the act sparked near-universal outrage from anti-slavery politicians and citizens. Much of the outrage stemmed from the Kansas-Nebraska Act’s effective reversal of the 1820 Missouri Compromise, which had prevented the spread of slavery north of the 36° 30′ line. Opponents of slavery feared that without the protection of the Missouri Compromise, slavery would freely expand across the United States.

As Kansas and Nebraska were being formally settled in the early 1850s, debates sparked in Congress over the expansion of slavery into these new territories. Several pro-slavery Southern politicians refused to vote on important infrastructural legislation unless slavery was legalized in Kansas and Nebraska. Lincoln employs parallelism in the phrase “avowed object and confident promise” to add a mocking rhythm to his condemnation of the “policy” that was implemented to end this “agitation.” By crafting a memorably parallel phrase using assertive diction, Lincoln creates contrast with the next sentence, which outlines the failure of that “confident promise.”

Lincoln uses the first-person plural pronoun “we” throughout his speech as he addresses the delegates of the Illinois Republican State Convention. By using “we,” Lincoln appeals to a sense of shared identity and political alignment. Lincoln establishes the Republican party as the defenders of the anti-slavery cause. As he discusses the recent gains made by pro-slavery advocates, he uses inclusive pronouns to share in his audience’s fears surrounding slavery’s expansion.

Abraham Lincoln (1809–1865) delivered the so-called House Divided speech on June 16th, 1858, at the Illinois Republican State Convention to an audience of around 1,000. Lincoln issued these statements in acceptance of his nomination to run as the Republican candidate for a US Senate seat in the 1858 election. Prior to 1854, Lincoln identified as a Whig, serving in the Illinois House of Representatives for four terms and the US House of Representatives for one term. He left politics in 1850 to resume his career as a lawyer, but re-entered the field as a Republican after the passage of the Kansas-Nebraska Act expanded slavery and dissolved the Whig party. He ultimately lost in the 1858 Illinois Senatorial election to the incumbent Democrat, Stephen A. Douglas. However, Lincoln successfully won the presidency in 1860 thanks to the notoriety he obtained from both the “House Divided” speech and the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates.

please wait...

Knowledge for Freedom seminar

Hosted by Dickinson College with support from the Teagle Foundation

Lincoln, House Divided speech (1858)

“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.

INTRODUCTION

Abraham Lincoln delivered his famous “House Divided” speech on the evening of June 16, 1858, at the Illinois Republican State Convention in Springfield, Illinois.  It was, in effect, an acceptance speech.   Earlier that day, Illinois Republicans had adopted an unprecedented endorsement for the local attorney and former congressman as their “first and only choice” in the forthcoming campaign to unseat incumbent Senator Stephen A. Douglas.  The reason why such an endorsement was unusual was because in those days there was no tradition of public campaigning for US senate seats.  Before the ratification of the 17th amendment in 1912, state legislatures always selected US senators and would-be candidates typically conducted their efforts in private and after the fall legislative elections.  But Lincoln’s Republican allies believed it was critical to organize an early public campaign with him as the party’s official nominee to head off growing pressure on them to support Douglas, a leading Democrat.  The pressure was coming because Douglas was in the midst of a bitter feud with President James Buchanan, the more openly pro-slavery leader of his national party.  To some Republicans, especially party leaders from New York, this Democratic feud represented a rare opportunity to flip an old political enemy.  Yet Lincoln and the Illinois Republicans knew all too well that Douglas was not committed to their core antislavery positions –most notably their firm belief in stopping slavery’s expansion into western territories such as Kansas.   That is why Lincoln used his acceptance speech on June 16 to try to explain why Douglas and his controversial doctrine of settling the fate of slavery in the territories by “popular sovereignty” or by a vote of the settlers themselves, represented a mortal threat to the future of the Republican Party and the nation itself.

SOURCE FORMAT:  Public speech (excerpt)

WORD COUNT:   672 words

Abraham Lincoln, Speech to the Republican state convention, June 16, 1858

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed.

“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.

Either the opponents of slavery, will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward, till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new—North as well as South.

…We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.

To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation.

That is what we have to do. But how can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is, with which to effect that object. They do not tell us, nor has he told us, that he wishes any such object to be effected. They wish us to infer all, from the facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us, on a single point, upon which, he and we, have never differed.

They remind us that he is a very great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But “a living dog is better than a dead lion.” Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don’t care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the “public heart” to care nothing about it….

… Now, as ever, I wish to not misrepresent Judge Douglas’ position, question his motives, or do ought that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle.

But clearly, he is not now with us—he does not pretend to be—he does not promise to ever be.

Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends—those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work—who do care for the result.

Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even, hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy.

Did we brave all then, to falter now?—now—when that same enemy is wavering, dissevered and belligerent?

The result is not doubtful. We shall not fail—if we stand firm, we shall not fail. Wise councils may accelerate or mistakes delay it, but, sooner or later the victory is sure to come.

CITATION:   Abraham Lincoln, A House Divided speech, Springfield, IL, June 16, 1858, FULL TEXT via Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln

DISCUSSION QUESTIONS

• Lincoln said that “a house divided against itself cannot stand,” and yet the United States had been divided over slavery for more than sixty years.  What had changed to make him believe that the nation’s sectional divisions were no longer sustainable?
• Lincoln denied that he was an abolitionist like Frederick Douglass and yet here he called for the “ultimate extinction” of slavery.  How radical would that prediction have seemed to various segments of the American electorate at that time?
• In 2007, when he launched his presidential bid from the Old State Capitol in Springfield, then-Senator Barack Obama quoted from this excerpt in Lincoln’s speech:  “Of strange, discordant, and even, hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through.”  Why might an aspiring modern-day candidate like Obama have found that line so appealing?

FURTHER READING

It comes as something of a shock to see just how much vulgarity Stephen Douglas was prepared to inject into his exchanges with Abraham Lincoln. (It is almost as shocking to watch how far Lincoln was willing to descend in his unsuccessful efforts to capture the low ground from the distinguished senator.). Were those the Lincoln-Douglas debates?  One of the great highlights of American political discourse?  Needless to say, the debates had their better moments, especially when Lincoln moved up rather than down, ascending to some of his finest, most poetic denunciations of human slavery.” –James Oakes, The Radical and the Republican, pp. xv-xvi

Prof. Matthew Pinsker offers a close-reading video segment on the House Divided speech

• FEATURED COLLECTION:  Lincoln-Douglas Debates Classroom (House Divided Project)
• “House Divided Speech (June 16, 1858),” Lincoln’s Writings: The Multi-Media Edition, House Divided Project
• Clickable Word Cloud for the Lincoln-Douglas 1858 Debates
• Matthew Pinsker, “ Man of Consequence: Abraham Lincoln in the 1850s,” Illinois History Teacher (2009)
• Handout –Other Lincoln-Douglass Debates

EAD awards $600,000 to K-5 Implementation Projects

• News & Events
• Student Design Challenge Contest

How to read the Roadmap

Start here if you are coming to the Roadmap for the first time.

The 7 Themes

Explore our framework for civics and history education.

The 5 Design Challenges

Embrace the complexity of curricular design.

Implementing the Roadmap in your classroom

Design robust curricula tailored to your students. 

• by grade level
• by driving question
• by resource type
• Take Action
• Download Report & Roadmap

Interactive Roadmap

• Learn to read the roadmap

The Seven Themes

The five design challenges.

• Educator Resources
• Design Challenge Art Contest
• Download Report & Roadmap

Home » Primary Sources » Abraham Lincoln, “A House Divided” Speech, 1858

Abraham Lincoln, “A House Divided” Speech, 1858

This excerpt from (or the entirety of) Lincoln’s address to the Republican State Convention puts the notion of “a house divided” in its original context, just before the start of the Civil War.

NOTE: Because it provides the central concept of this set of resources, I’ve included it last (although it predates John Brown’s speech above.)

Abraham Lincoln

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention. If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased , but has constantly augmented .

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed –

“A house divided against itself cannot stand.”

I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free .

• John Brown’s Raid (US National Park Service). (2021, July 30). National Park Service. Retrieved March 20, 2022, from https://www.nps.gov/articles/john-browns-raid.htm
• John Brown’s Raid on Harper’s Ferry. (n.d.). Ohio History Central. Retrieved March 20, 2022, from https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/John_Brown%27s_Raid_on_Harper%27s_Ferry

[/footnote]

Don't have an account yet? Register

Already registered? Login

Download the Roadmap and Report

Download the Educating for American Democracy Roadmap and Report Documents

Get the Roadmap and Report to unlock the work of over 300 leading scholars, educators, practitioners, and others who spent thousands of hours preparing this robust framework and guiding principles. The time is now to prioritize history and civics.

Your contact information will not be shared, and only used to send additional updates and materials from Educating for American Democracy, from which you can unsubscribe.

Abraham Lincoln gave his now iconic "House Divided" speech upon receiving the Illinois Republican Party's nomination for a seat in the United States Senate in 1858.  In the race that ensued, Lincoln would face off against Democrat Stephen Douglas in a series of highly publicized debates about national issues, most importantly the institution of slavery.  Lincoln eventually lost the election to Douglas, but the debates and media coverage of them vaulted the previously unknown lawyer to national stardom and, eventually, the Presidency in 1860.  

Mr. President and Gentlemen of the Convention:

If we could first know where we are and whither we are tending, we could better judge what to do and how to do it. We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object and confident promise of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased but has constantly augmented. In my opinion, it will not cease until a crisis shall have been reached and passed. "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. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in the course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the states, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition?

Let anyone who doubts carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination – piece of machinery, so to speak – compounded of the Nebraska doctrine and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider, not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also let him study the history of its construction and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief architects, from the beginning.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the states by state constitutions and from most of the national territory by congressional prohibition. Four days later commenced the struggle which ended in repealing that congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery and was the first point gained.

But, so far, Congress only had acted; and an endorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained and give chance for more.

This necessity had not been overlooked, but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty," other-wise called "sacred right of self-government," which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man choose to enslave another , no third man shall be allowed to object. That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska Bill itself, in the language which follows:

"It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into an territory or state, nor to exclude it therefrom, but to leave the people there-of perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States."

Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "squatter sovereignty" and "sacred right of self-government." "But," said opposition members, "let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery." "Not we," said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska Bill was passing through Congress, a law case, involving the question of a Negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then into a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave for a long time in each, was passing through the United States Circuit Court for the district of Missouri; and both Nebraska Bill and lawsuit were brought to a decision in the same month of May 1854. The Negro's name was Dred Scott, which name now designates the decision finally made in the case. Before the then next presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in, the Supreme Court of the United States; but the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requested the leading advocate of the Nebraska Bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits; and the latter answers: "That is a question for the Supreme Court."

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the endorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The endorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly 400,000 votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory. The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the endorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did not announce their decision, but ordered a reargument.

The presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the Court; but the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be. Then, in a few days, came the decision.

The reputed author of the Nebraska Bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capital endorsing the Dred Scott decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to endorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained!

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska Bill, on the mere question of fact , whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not in any just sense made by the people of Kansas; and in that quarrel the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up . I do not understand his declaration, that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind – the principle for which he declares he has suffered so much and is ready to suffer to the end. And well may he cling to that principle! If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine.

Under the Dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty" squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding; like the mold at the foundry, served through one blast and fell back into loose sand; helped to carry an election and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans against the Lecompton constitution involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine. That struggle was made on a point – the right of a people to make their own constitution – upon which he and the Republicans have never differed.

The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas' "care not" policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained. The working points of that machinery are:

First, that no Negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any state in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the Negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the United States Constitution which declares that "the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all the privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states."

Second, that, "subject to the Constitution of the United States," neither Congress nor a territorial legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Third, that whether the holding a Negro in actual slavery in a free state makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave state the Negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately but, if acquiesced in for awhile, and apparently endorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott in the free state of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or 1,000 slaves, in Illinois or in any other free state.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mold public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, not to care whether slavery is voted down or voted up. This shows exactly where we now are; and partially, also, whither we are tending.

It will throw additional light on the latter to go back and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated. Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free," "subject only to the Constitution." What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough, now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision to afterward come in and declare the perfect freedom of the people to be just no freedom at all.

Why was the amendment expressly declaring the right of the people voted down? Plainly enough, now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision. Why was the Court decision held up? Why even a senator's individual opinion withheld till after the presidential election? Plainly enough, now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free" argument upon which the election was to be carried. Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the endorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting of a spirited horse preparatory to mounting him when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall. And why the hasty after-endorsement of the decision by the President and others?

We cannot absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen – Stephen, Franklin, Roger, and James, for instance – and when we see these timbers joined together and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortises exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single piece be lacking, we see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared yet to bring such piece in – in such a case, we find it impossible not to believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first blow was struck.

"Something Notable and Striking": John Adams Writes about the Boston Tea Party, 1773

"I wish you to be exceedingly watchfull": George Washington to George Weedon, September 1781

"we fight get beat and fight again": nathanael greene to george washington, 1781, you may also like.

Lincoln Speech: A House Divided

In the Illinois State House on June 17, 1858, former Representative Abraham Lincoln accepted the Republican nomination and opened his senato… read more

In the Illinois State House on June 17, 1858, former Representative Abraham Lincoln accepted the Republican nomination and opened his senatorial campaign with his now-famous “House Divided” speech in which he said that the United States could not remain half slave and half free. Brian Lamb introduced R. Frederick Klein , an historical interpreter, who re-enacted Lincoln’s speech. Mr. Klein then responded to questions from members of the audience. This was part of the announcement by several Illinois cities of historical re-enactments of all of the 1858 Lincoln-Douglas debates. close

Javascript must be enabled in order to access C-SPAN videos.

• Text type Text People Graphical Timeline
• Filter by Speaker All Speakers Fritz Klein Brian Lamb
• Search this text

*This text was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

People in this video

Hosting Organization

• C-SPAN C-SPAN
• Illinois Historic Preservation Agency | Old State Capitol Illinois Historic Preservation Agency | Old State Capitol
• American History TV

Airing Details

• Mar 05, 1994 | 9:49pm EST | C-SPAN 2
• Mar 06, 1994 | 1:27pm EST | C-SPAN 1
• Jun 25, 1999 | 11:30pm EDT | C-SPAN 1
• Jul 02, 1999 | 11:54pm EDT | C-SPAN 1
• Aug 27, 1999 | 1:34am EDT | C-SPAN 2
• Aug 27, 1999 | 3:17am EDT | C-SPAN 2
• Nov 30, 1999 | 1:26pm EST | C-SPAN 2
• Jul 04, 2000 | 11:48am EDT | C-SPAN 2
• Jul 04, 2000 | 6:45pm EDT | C-SPAN 2
• Jun 04, 2002 | 10:00pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Jun 05, 2002 | 6:30am EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Jun 09, 2002 | 10:00am EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Jun 09, 2002 | 6:30pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Sep 03, 2002 | 10:00pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Sep 04, 2002 | 6:30am EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Apr 04, 2006 | 10:01pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Apr 05, 2006 | 2:00am EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Apr 05, 2006 | 7:00am EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Apr 07, 2006 | 10:01pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Apr 08, 2006 | 2:00am EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Apr 08, 2006 | 7:00am EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Apr 09, 2006 | 10:01am EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Apr 09, 2006 | 2:00pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Apr 09, 2006 | 7:00pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Jun 18, 2011 | 9:13am EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Jun 19, 2011 | 4:16pm EDT | C-SPAN 3
• Jun 20, 2011 | 5:13am EDT | C-SPAN 3

Related Video

Lincoln Law Office

Ms. Battles gave C-SPAN School Bus staff a tour of the Springfield law office where attorney and state legislator Abraha…

Lincoln Photographs' Authenticity

Harold Holzer, who is the Chief Communications Officer at the Metropolitan Museum of Art and author of several books on …

Lincoln-Douglas Debates

Actors B.F. McClerren and Russel Brazzel discussed trying to understand their roles as Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Dougl…

The Lincoln-Douglas Debates

Harold Holzer, Civil War historian, discussed the publication which he edited, entitled "The Lincoln-Douglas Debates: Th…

User Created Clips from This Video

User Clip: Lincoln "House Divided"

User Clip: Abraham Lincoln Speech: A House Divided

User Clip: A House Divided

User Clip: House Divided Use

Visit the new and improved Hamilton Education Program website

• AP US History Study Guide
• History U: Courses for High School Students
• History School: Summer Enrichment
• Lesson Plans
• Classroom Resources
• Spotlights on Primary Sources
• Professional Development (Academic Year)
• Professional Development (Summer)
• Book Breaks
• Inside the Vault
• Self-Paced Courses
• Browse All Resources
• Search by Issue
• Search by Essay
• Become a Member (Free)
• Monthly Offer (Free for Members)
• Program Information
• Scholarships and Financial Aid
• Applying and Enrolling
• Eligibility (In-Person)
• EduHam Online
• Hamilton Cast Read Alongs
• Official Website
• Press Coverage
• Veterans Legacy Program
• The Declaration at 250
• Black Lives in the Founding Era
• Celebrating American Historical Holidays
• Browse All Programs
• Donate Items to the Collection
• Search Our Catalog
• Research Guides
• Rights and Reproductions
• See Our Documents on Display
• Bring an Exhibition to Your Organization
• Interactive Exhibitions Online
• About the Transcription Program
• Civil War Letters
• Founding Era Newspapers
• College Fellowships in American History
• Scholarly Fellowship Program
• Richard Gilder History Prize
• David McCullough Essay Prize
• Affiliate School Scholarships
• Nominate a Teacher
• State Winners
• National Winners
• Gilder Lehrman Lincoln Prize
• Gilder Lehrman Military History Prize
• George Washington Prize
• Frederick Douglass Book Prize
• Our Mission and History
• Annual Report
• Contact Information
• Student Advisory Council
• Teacher Advisory Council
• Board of Trustees
• Remembering Richard Gilder
• President's Council
• Scholarly Advisory Board
• Internships
• Our Partners
• Press Releases

History Resources

The "House Divided" Speech, ca. 1857–1858

A spotlight on a primary source by abraham lincoln.

By 1850, the extension of slavery into the new territories won through the Mexican-American War of 1846–1848 provided a testing ground for competing visions of America. The passage of the Fugitive Slave Law in 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act in 1854 precipitated a firestorm in Kansas.

The Dred Scott decision in 1857 affirmed that no slave or descendant of a slave could ever be a US citizen. It ignited jubilation in the South and fierce protests in the North, and marked the end of compromise between the opposing groups. The decision strengthened the bonds among abolitionists, Republicans, and moderates in the North.

Why, Kansas is neither the whole , nor a tithe of the real question.

"A house divided against itself can not stand"

I believe this government can not endure permanently, half slave, and half free.

I expressed this belief a year ago; and subsequent developments have but confirmed me.

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. Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and put it in course of ultimate extinction; or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawfull in all the states, old, as well as new. Do you doubt it? Study the Dred Scott decision, and then see, how little, even now, remains to be done.

That decision may be reduced to three points. The first is, that a negro can not be a citizen. That point is made in order to deprive the negro in every possible event, of the benefit of that provision of the U. S Constitution which declares that: "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all previleges and immunities of citizens in the several States."

The second point is, that the U. S constitution protects slavery, as property, in all the U. S. territories, and that neither congress, nor the people of the territories, nor any other power, can prohibit it, at any time prior to the formation of State constitutions.

This point is made, in order that the territories may safely be filled up with slaves, before the formation of State constitutions, and thereby to embarrass the free states[.]

A full transcript is available.

Questions for Discussion

Read the document introduction, examine the transcript, and apply your knowledge of American history in order to answer the questions that follow.

• Although it is undated, historians believe this text was most likely written in late 1857. Create a timeline of major events related to the slavery issue beginning in 1850 and extending through Abraham Lincoln’s election in 1860. Clearly locate this speech fragment on the timeline.
• Explain the most immediate events that might have influenced Lincoln’s comments in this speech fragment.
• What prediction did Lincoln make in this document?
• Compare the ideas within this speech fragment with the Emancipation Proclamation of 1863. In what specific ways did Lincoln altered his views?

A printer-friendly version is available  here .

Stay up to date, and subscribe to our quarterly newsletter.

Learn how the Institute impacts history education through our work guiding teachers, energizing students, and supporting research.

Library of Congress

Exhibitions.

• Ask a Librarian
• Digital Collections
• Library Catalogs

With Malice Toward None: The Abraham Lincoln Bicentennial Exhibition Lincoln's House Divided Speech

Richard Durbin speaks about Lincoln's “House Divided” speech.

Back to top

Connect with the Library

All ways to connect

Subscribe & Comment

• RSS & E-Mail

Download & Play

• iTunesU (external link)

About | Press | Jobs | Donate Inspector General | Legal | Accessibility | External Link Disclaimer | USA.gov

If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it.

We are now far into the fifth year since a policy was initiated with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only not ceased, but has constantly augmented.

In my opinion, it will not cease, until a crisis shall have been reached, and passed. "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.

Either the opponents of slavery will arrest the further spread of it, and place it where the public mind shall rest in the belief that it is in course of ultimate extinction, or its advocates will push it forward till it shall become alike lawful in all the States, old as well as new, North as well as South.

Have we no tendency to the latter condition? Let any one who doubts, carefully contemplate that now almost complete legal combination, piece of machinery so to speak, compounded of the Nebraska doctrine, and the Dred Scott decision. Let him consider not only what work the machinery is adapted to do, and how well adapted, but also, let him study the history of its construction, and trace, if he can, or rather fail, if he can, to trace the evidences of design and concert of action among its chief bosses, from the beginning.

But, so far, Congress only had acted and an endorsement by the people, real or apparent, was indispensable to save the point already gained, and give chance for more.

The new year of 1854 found slavery excluded from more than half the States by State Constitutions, and from most of the national territory by Congressional prohibition.

Four days later commenced the struggle, which ended in repealing that Congressional prohibition. This opened all the national territory to slavery and was the first point gained. This necessity had not been overlooked but had been provided for, as well as might be, in the notable argument of "squatter sovereignty,'' otherwise called "sacred right of self government,'' which latter phrase, though expressive of the only rightful basis of any government, was so perverted in this attempted use of it as to amount to just this: That if any one man, choose to enslave another, no third man shall be allowed to object.

That argument was incorporated into the Nebraska bill itself, in the language which follows:

" It being the true intent and meaning of this act not to legislate slavery into any Territory or state, nor to exclude it there from, but to leave the people thereof perfectly free to form and regulate their domestic institutions in their own way, subject only to the Constitution of the United States. ''

Then opened the roar of loose declamation in favor of "Squatter Sovereignty,'' and "Sacred right of self government.''

"But,'' said opposition members, "let us be more specific. Let us amend the bill so as to expressly declare that the people of the territory may exclude slavery.''

"Not we,'' said the friends of the measure; and down they voted the amendment.

While the Nebraska bill was passing through congress, a law case, involving the question of a negro's freedom, by reason of his owner having voluntarily taken him first into a free state and then a territory covered by the congressional prohibition, and held him as a slave, for a long time in each, was passing through the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Missouri. And both, Nebraska bill and law suit, were brought to a decision in the same month of May 1854. The negro's name was Dred Scott,' which name now designates the decision finally made in the case.

Before the then next Presidential election, the law case came to, and was argued in the Supreme Court of the United States. But the decision of it was deferred until after the election. Still, before the election, Senator Trumbull, on the floor of the Senate, requests the leading advocate of the Nebraska bill to state his opinion whether the people of a territory can constitutionally exclude slavery from their limits. And the latter answers, "That is a question for the Supreme Court.''

The election came. Mr. Buchanan was elected, and the endorsement, such as it was, secured. That was the second point gained. The endorsement, however, fell short of a clear popular majority by nearly four hundred thousand votes, and so, perhaps, was not overwhelmingly reliable and satisfactory.

The outgoing President, in his last annual message, as impressively as possible echoed back upon the people the weight and authority of the endorsement. The Supreme Court met again, did not announce their decision, but ordered a re-argument.

The Presidential inauguration came, and still no decision of the court. But the incoming President, in his inaugural address, fervently exhorted the people to abide by the forthcoming decision, whatever it might be.

Then, in a few days, came the decision. The reputed author of the Nebraska bill finds an early occasion to make a speech at this capitol indorsing the Dred Scott Decision, and vehemently denouncing all opposition to it. The new President, too, seizes the early occasion of the Silliman letter to indorse and strongly construe that decision, and to express his astonishment that any different view had ever been entertained.

At length a squabble springs up between the President and the author of the Nebraska bill, on the mere question of fact, whether the Lecompton constitution was or was not, in any just sense, made by the people of Kansas. And in that squabble the latter declares that all he wants is a fair vote for the people, and that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up.

I do not understand his declaration that he cares not whether slavery be voted down or voted up, to be intended by him other than as an apt definition of the policy he would impress upon the public mind, the principle for which he declares he has suffered much, and is ready to suffer to the end.

And well may he cling to that principle. If he has any parental feeling, well may he cling to it. That principle is the only shred left of his original Nebraska doctrine. Under the Dred Scott decision, "squatter sovereignty'' squatted out of existence, tumbled down like temporary scaffolding, like the mould at the foundry served through one blast and fell back into loose sand, helped to carry an election, and then was kicked to the winds. His late joint struggle with the Republicans against the Lecompton Constitution, involves nothing of the original Nebraska doctrine.

That struggle was made on a point, the right of a people to make their own constitution, upon which he and the Republicans have never differed. The several points of the Dred Scott decision, in connection with Senator Douglas' "care not'' policy, constitute the piece of machinery in its present state of advancement. This was the third point gained.

The working points of that machinery are:

First, that no negro slave, imported as such from Africa, and no descendant of such slave can ever be a citizen of any State, in the sense of that term as used in the Constitution of the United States. This point is made in order to deprive the negro, in every possible event, of the benefit of this provision of the United States Constitution, which declares that "The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States.''

Secondly, that "subject to the Constitution of the United States,'' neither Congress nor a Territorial Legislature can exclude slavery from any United States territory. This point is made in order that individual men may fill up the territories with slaves, without danger of losing them as property, and thus to enhance the chances of permanency to the institution through all the future.

Thirdly, that whether the holding a negro in actual slavery in a free State, makes him free, as against the holder, the United States courts will not decide, but will leave to be decided by the courts of any slave State the negro may be forced into by the master. This point is made, not to be pressed immediately, but, if acquiesced in for a while, and apparently indorsed by the people at an election, then to sustain the logical conclusion that what Dred Scott's master might lawfully do with Dred Scott, in the free State of Illinois, every other master may lawfully do with any other one, or one thousand slaves, in Illinois, or in any other free State.

Auxiliary to all this, and working hand in hand with it, the Nebraska doctrine, or what is left of it, is to educate and mould public opinion, at least Northern public opinion, to not care whether slavery is voted down or voted up.

This shows exactly where we now are, and partially also, whither we are tending. It will throw additional light on the latter, to go back, and run the mind over the string of historical facts already stated.

Several things will now appear less dark and mysterious than they did when they were transpiring. The people were to be left "perfectly free,'' "subject only to the Constitution.''

What the Constitution had to do with it, outsiders could not then see. Plainly enough now, it was an exactly fitted niche for the Dred Scott decision to afterwards come in and declare the perfect freedom of the people, to be just no freedom at all.

Why was the amendment, expressly declaring the right of the people to exclude slavery, voted down? Plainly enough now, the adoption of it would have spoiled the niche for the Dred Scott decision.

Why was the court decision held up? Why even a Senator's individual opinion withheld till after the Presidential election? Plainly enough now, the speaking out then would have damaged the "perfectly free'' argument upon which the election was to be carried.

Why the outgoing President's felicitation on the endorsement? Why the delay of a reargument? Why the incoming President's advance exhortation in favor of the decision? These things look like the cautious patting and petting a spirited horse, preparatory to mounting him, when it is dreaded that he may give the rider a fall.

And why the hasty after endorsements of the decision by the President and others? We can not absolutely know that all these exact adaptations are the result of preconcert. But when we see a lot of framed timbers, different portions of which we know have been gotten out at different times and places and by different workmen, Stephen, Franklin, Roger and James, for instance. And when we see these timbers joined together, and see they exactly make the frame of a house or a mill, all the tenons and mortices exactly fitting, and all the lengths and proportions of the different pieces exactly adapted to their respective places, and not a piece too many or too few, not omitting even scaffolding, or, if a single piece be lacking, we can see the place in the frame exactly fitted and prepared to yet bring such piece in, in such a case, we find it impossible to not believe that Stephen and Franklin and Roger and James all understood one another from the beginning, and all worked upon a common plan or draft drawn up before the first lick was struck.

It should not be overlooked that, by the Nebraska bill, the people of a State as well as Territory, were to be left "perfectly free'' "subject only to the Constitution.''

Why mention a State? They were legislating for territories and not for or about States. Certainly the people of a State are and ought to be subject to the Constitution of the United States. But why is mention of this lugged into this merely territorial law? Why are the people of a territory and the people of a state therein lumped together, and their relation to the Constitution therein treated as being precisely the same?

While the opinion of the Court, by Chief Justice Taney, in the Dred Scott case, and the separate opinions of all the concurring Judges, expressly declare that the Constitution of the United States neither permits Congress nor a Territorial legislature to exclude slavery from any United States territory, they all omit to declare whether or not the same Constitution permits a state, or the people of a State, to exclude it.

Possibly, this was a mere omission. But who can be quite sure, if McLean or Curtis had sought to get into the opinion a declaration of unlimited power in the people of a state to exclude slavery from their limits, just as Chase and Macy sought to get such declaration, in behalf of the people of a territory, into the Nebraska bill---I ask, who can be quite sure that it would not have been voted down, in the one case, as it had been in the other.

The nearest approach to the point of declaring the power of a State over slavery, is made by Judge Nelson. He approaches it more than once, using the precise idea, and almost the language too, of the Nebraska act. On one occasion his exact language is, "except in cases where the power is restrained by the Constitution of the United States, the law of the State is supreme over the subject of slavery within its jurisdiction.''

In what cases the power of the states is so restrained by the U.S. Constitution, is left an open question, precisely as the same question, as to the restraint on the power of the territories was left open in the Nebraska act. Put that and that together, and we have another nice little niche, which we may, ere long, see filled with another Supreme Court decision, declaring that the Constitution of the United States does not permit a state to exclude slavery from its limits.

And this may especially be expected if the doctrine of "care not whether slavery be voted down or voted up,'' shall gain upon the public mind sufficiently to give promise that such a decision can be maintained when made.

Such a decision is all that slavery now lacks of being alike lawful in all the States. Welcome or unwelcome, such decision is probably coming, and will soon be upon us, unless the power of the present political dynasty shall be met and overthrown. We shall lie down pleasantly dreaming that the people of Missouri are on the verge of making their State free; and we shall awake to the reality, instead, that the Supreme Court has made Illinois a slave State.

To meet and overthrow the power of that dynasty, is the work now before all those who would prevent that consummation. That is what we have to do. But how can we best do it?

There are those who denounce us openly to their own friends, and yet whisper us softly, that Senator Douglas is the aptest instrument there is, with which to effect that object. They do not tell us, nor has he told us, that he wishes any such object to be effected. They wish us to infer all, from the facts, that he now has a little quarrel with the present head of the dynasty; and that he has regularly voted with us, on a single point, upon which, he and we, have never differed.

They remind us that he is a very great man, and that the largest of us are very small ones. Let this be granted. But "a living dog is better than a dead lion.'' Judge Douglas, if not a dead lion for this work, is at least a caged and toothless one. How can he oppose the advances of slavery? He don't care anything about it. His avowed mission is impressing the "public heart'' to care nothing about it. A leading Douglas Democratic newspaper thinks Douglas' superior talent will be needed to resist the revival of the African slave trade.

Does Douglas believe an effort to revive that trade is approaching? He has not said so. Does he really think so? But if it is, how can he resist it? For years he has labored to prove it a sacred right of white men to take negro slaves into the new territories. Can he possibly show that it is less a sacred right to buy them where they can be bought cheapest? And, unquestionably they can be bought cheaper in Africa than in Virginia.

He has done all in his power to reduce the whole question of slavery to one of a mere right of property. And as such, how can he oppose the foreign slave trade, how can he refuse that trade in that "property'' shall be "perfectly free,'' unless he does it as a protection to the home production? And as the home producers will probably not ask the protection, he will be wholly without a ground of opposition.

Senator Douglas holds, we know, that a man may rightfully be wiser to-day than he was yesterday, that he may rightfully change when he finds himself wrong. But, can we for that reason, run ahead, and infer that he will make any particular change, of which he, himself, has given no intimation? Can we safely base our action upon any such vague inference?

Now, as ever, I wish to not misrepresent Judge Douglas' position, question his motives, or do ought that can be personally offensive to him. Whenever, if ever, he and we can come together on principle so that our great cause may have assistance from his great ability, I hope to have interposed no adventitious obstacle. But clearly, he is not now with us, he does not pretend to be, he does not promise to ever be.

Our cause, then, must be entrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends, those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work, who do care for the result.

Two years ago the Republicans of the nation mustered over thirteen hundred thousand strong. We did this under the single impulse of resistance to a common danger, with every external circumstance against us. Of strange, discordant, and even, hostile elements, we gathered from the four winds, and formed and fought the battle through, under the constant hot fire of a disciplined, proud, and pampered enemy.

More History

Picture Archive A - C Picture Archive D - M Picture Archive N - Z

Attila short biography Map of Attila's empire Battle of the Catalaunian Plains Who were the Huns?  

Also called the Persian Wars , the Greco-Persian Wars were fought for almost half a century from 492 BC - 449 BC. Greece won against enormous odds. Here is more:

Battle of Marathon Battle of Thermopylae Battle of Salamis Battle of Plataea

Learn More   Historic Castles and Palaces

Historic Documents

Lincoln's house divided speech.

June 16, 1858, at the Illinois Republican convention

• Daniel Webster's "Seventh of March" Speech
• FDR's Infamy Speech

This public-domain content provided by the Independence Hall Association , a nonprofit organization in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, founded in 1942. Publishing electronically as ushistory.org. On the Internet since July 4, 1995.

Abraham Lincoln

Support ushistory.org and buy a poster for your wall!

Click here!

Lincoln’s ‘House Divided’ speech teaches important lessons about today’s political polarization

Professor of Communication Arts and Sciences and Director of the Center for Democratic Deliberation, Penn State

Disclosure statement

Bradford Vivian does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

Penn State provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation US.

View all partners

The idea of “two Americas,” or “red” and “blue” states, now dominates public discussion. “Political polarization,” the Pew Research Center reports , “is a defining feature of American politics today.”

But the idea that America is politically polarized isn’t new.

In 1858 Abraham Lincoln delivered one of the most important addresses in U.S. history, his “House Divided” speech , when he accepted the Illinois Republican nomination for Senate. The speech marked his entrance into national politics at a time when the nation was profoundly at odds over slavery.

Lincoln’s speech still offers timely lessons about the costs of deep-seated political polarization.

My research examines how communities remember – and sometimes fail to remember – the lessons of the past. Lincoln’s description of the Union as a house divided is well-remembered today. But many Americans fail to heed its deeper lessons about equality and the moral foundations of popular government.

The divided states of America

To cite the language of journalist Bill Bishop’s best-seller, “The Big Sort,” Americans have sorted themselves into distinct, homogeneous groups.

Complex social, moral, legal and even scientific questions are now filtered through the lens of opposing party identifications. Political scientists Daniel Hopkins and John Sides conclude that U.S. “polarization has deep structural and historical roots” with “no easy solutions.”

In his “House Divided” speech, Lincoln addressed a nation even more fiercely divided by partisan acrimony, regional differences and economic tensions than the U.S. of today.

Lincoln began his speech by attempting to predict whether a calamity was coming and if it could be prevented:

“If we could first know where we are, and whither we are tending, we could then better judge what to do, and how to do it … I believe this government cannot endure, permanently half slave and half free.”

The alternative to bitter polarization that Lincoln offered didn’t prevent the Civil War. But it shaped postwar understanding of the territorial, political and even armed conflicts that led to it and the lessons to be learned from it.

Union first

Above all, Lincoln stressed in his speech that “a crisis” over slavery was imminent. He asked Americans to choose the common purpose that would best serve their Union – a government of all free or all slave states – before the crisis chose for them.

Lincoln developed the idea that the Union is exceptional in public statements from 1858 until the end of the Civil War. In his First Inaugural in 1861 , Lincoln called the Union “perpetual,” and “much older than the Constitution … [N]o State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union.” For years, Lincoln held that Americans belong to the Union before they belong to political parties.

His reasoning purposefully echoed George Washington’s Farewell Address of 1796 , which warned Americans that “the spirit of party” is a prime threat to “Union … a main prop of your liberty.” For Lincoln, Americans’ common identification with the guiding ideal of equality should transcend their affiliations with political parties.

Consider the symbolism of Lincoln’s main metaphor, the Union as a house:

“A house divided against itself cannot stand … 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.”

Building and maintaining a house is familial and collaborative. Family conflicts are inevitable; households fall apart if families don’t resolve those conflicts.

The metaphor of a house emphasizes interdependence, cooperation and shared purpose. It asks how citizens might build and maintain something together, despite natural differences, rather than live and work separately.

These ideas have been lost in social and political debates today, which are dominated by competing party agendas and talk of irreconcilable “red” and “blue” state mentalities.

Lincoln’s central warning – “A house divided against itself cannot stand” – was rich in moral significance. A house should rest on a firm physical foundation for the safety of the family who lives in it. The Union, Lincoln implied, should rest on a firm moral foundation: a bedrock dedication to equality.

The Union, he believed, cannot be a compact of convenience or a loose-knit confederation. It was founded for a clear moral purpose: to extend conditions of equality to as many people as possible. The “new nation” that “our fathers brought forth” in 1776, Lincoln would say most memorably in his 1863 Gettysburg Address , was “dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.” Commitment to the principle of equality was an essential, not optional, basis of membership within.

Beware false prophets

Bipartisan compromise sounds good – but it can erode fundamental commitments to equality. By 1858, the U.S. had witnessed decades’ worth of political compromises over slavery: the Missouri Compromise of 1820, the Compromise of 1850 and the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854. All of these measures maintained the institution of slavery while purporting to limit it.

According to Lincoln, such compromises only led to more intense conflict:

“We are now far into the fifth year, since a policy was initiated, with the avowed object, and confident promise, of putting an end to slavery agitation. Under the operation of that policy, that agitation has not only, not ceased, but has constantly augmented.”

Lincoln warned of false political prophets who earned praise for short-term bipartisan compromises without taking a firm stand on fundamental forms of inequality. They aimed to build a “political dynasty,” not a strong union:

“Our cause, then, must be intrusted to, and conducted by its own undoubted friends – those whose hands are free, whose hearts are in the work – who do care for the result.”

Lincoln’s opponent in the Senate campaign, incumbent Democratic Sen. Stephen A. Douglas, claimed to not care whether territories voted to become free or slave states so long as the elections reflected the popular will in those territories. The “machinery” of such compromises over principles of equality, Lincoln said, constructs only “temporary scaffolding,” hastily fabricated to win elections before being “kicked to the winds.”

Equality over polarization

I believe Lincoln’s “House Divided” speech offers alternative ways to imagine the nation than as a patchwork of “red” and “blue” states.

Americans belong to a union first, parties second. Party machinery and false political prophets divide the house of the people; the people have the power to stabilize that house if they choose to do so. The union was founded on a dedication to equality. It retains a firm moral foundation by preserving commitments to principles of equality over region or party.

The primary offense against the principle of equality in Lincoln’s time was slavery. But Americans can apply the logic of his argument to contemporary inequities based on race, employment, gender, voting rights, criminal justice, religion and more. The nation is a house divided, many times over, in all of those cases.

Lincoln didn’t claim that perfect equality could be achieved. But he saw broad commitments to the idea of equality as essential to the ongoing work of creating, as the Constitution puts it, a more perfect union – and a freer one for all.

The union must “become all one thing, or all the other” in order to be truly free. On this guiding principle, Lincoln declared, there can be no partisan dispute and no bipartisan compromise.

This is an updated version of an article originally published on June 14, 2018.

• Abraham Lincoln
• Partisanship
• Political polarization

Director of STEM

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

Chief Executive Officer

Finance Business Partner

Head of Evidence to Action

• History Classics
• Your Profile
• Find History on Facebook (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Twitter (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on YouTube (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on Instagram (Opens in a new window)
• Find History on TikTok (Opens in a new window)
• This Day In History
• History Podcasts
• History Vault

Abraham Lincoln’s Most Enduring Speeches and Quotes

By: Aaron Randle

Updated: February 7, 2024 | Original: January 26, 2022

There’s perhaps no better way to grasp Abraham Lincoln ’s outsized American legacy than through his writing.

From his time as a 20-something political hopeful to his tragic death, Lincoln was a voluminous writer, authoring hundreds of letters, speeches, debate arguments and more.

Despite very little formal schooling, the 16th president was an avid reader who from a young age understood the transformative power of words. “Words were Lincoln’s way up and out of the grinding poverty into which he had been born,” wrote historian and author Geoffrey Ward. “If the special genius of America was that it provided an environment in which ‘every man can make himself,’ as Lincoln believed, pen and ink were the tools with which he did his self-carpentering.”

While he often expressed himself with humor and folksy wisdom, Lincoln wasn’t afraid to wade into lofty territory. His writings show how his thoughts on the thorny issues of the day—like slavery, religion and national discord—evolved over time. He penned some of America’s most monumental expressions of statecraft, such as the Gettysburg Address , widely hailed for its eloquence and clarity of thought. His prose, infused with his deep love of poetry, helped him in his efforts to reach—and heal—a fractured nation.

Here are a few excerpts of Lincoln’s writings, both famous and lesser-known.

On the Fractured Nation

The  ‘House Divided’ Speech:  As America expanded West and fought bitterly over whether new territories could extend the practice of slavery, Lincoln spoke out about what he saw as a growing threat to the Union. Many criticized this speech  as radical, believing—mistakenly—that Lincoln was advocating for war.

The 'Better Angels of Our Nature' speech:  By the time Lincoln was first sworn into office , seven states had already seceded from the Union. During his first address as president, he tried to assure the South that slavery would not be interfered with, and to quiet the drumbeat of war by appealing to “the better angels of our nature.”

Was Abraham Lincoln an Atheist?

As a young man, Lincoln openly admitted to his lack of faith. As a politician, he spoke about God but refused to say he was a Christian.

Lincoln‑Douglas Debates

Background and Context for the Debates As the architect of the Kansas‑Nebraska Act, Douglas was one of the most prominent politicians in the country and seen as a future presidential contender. The controversial 1854 law repealed the Missouri Compromise and established the doctrine of popular sovereignty, by which each new territory joining the Union would […]

The Gettysburg Address: Hailed as one of the most important speeches in U.S. history, Lincoln delivered his brief, 272-word address at the dedication of the Gettysburg battlefield , the site of more than 50,000 casualties. By alluding to the Declaration of Independence , he redefined the war as a struggle not just to preserve the Union, but for the fundamental principle of human freedom.

On Religion

During his younger years, the future President remained notoriously noncommittal on the topic of religion—so much so that even his close friends were unable to verify his personal faith. At times, wrote Lincoln scholar Allen Guelzo, “He would actually be aggressive on the subject of unbelief,” asserting that the Bible was just a book or that Jesus was an illegitimate child.

This lack of clarity on his beliefs—Was he an atheist? A skeptic?—proved a political liability early on. After failing to win election to the U.S. House of Representatives in 1843, a worried Lincoln expressed fears that his lack of religiosity might have been to blame:

Lincoln won that House seat three years later, but not without his opponent, a revivalist preacher, accusing him of being a religious scoffer. Instead of dismissing the allegation, as he might have before, the future President wrote a public message directly to his constituency to deny any disrepect, while still avoiding pinning himself down to one personal faith:

By his first inauguration, Lincoln had evolved to making full-throated avowals of faith, even declaring that adherence to Christianity was critical to the Union's survival.

On Racial Inequality

It might seem that the author of the Emancipation Proclamation , the president hailed as “the Great Liberator,” would have clear and consistent views on racial justice and equality. Not exactly.

From the onset, Lincoln always opposed the idea and existence of slavery . As early as 1837, when addressing Congress as a newly-elected member of the Illinois General Assembly, the 28-year-old Lincoln proclaimed the institution to be “founded on both injustice and bad policy.”

Nearly two decades later, he continued to reject it on moral and political grounds:

Nonetheless, despite his deep opposition to slavery, Lincoln did not believe in racial equality. He made this point clear during his famed debates against rival Stephen A. Douglas during their race for the U.S. Senate seat from Illinois:

Lincoln struggled to articulate a vision for how free Black Americans could integrate into white-dominated U.S. society. Under constant political pressure to offset his push for emancipation, Lincoln frequently floated the idea of resettling African Americans elsewhere —to Africa, the Caribbean or Central America. As early as 1854, he articulated this idea:

Lincoln’s views on race equality continued to evolve until his death. In his last public address, just four days before his assassination, Lincoln seemed to denounce a future in which newly freed Black Americans were barred from a chance at equal access to the American dream.

In that same speech, Lincoln also teased the idea of Black suffrage , particularly maddening one attendee. Listening from the crowd, Confederate sympathizer  John Wilkes Booth heard the assertion and remarked, “That is the last speech he will make.”

Lincoln’s Humor

An essential facet of Lincoln the man—and a huge contributor to his political success—was his witty, folksy humor and his talent for mimicry. An inveterate storyteller, Lincoln skillfully spun up puns, jokes, aphorisms and yarns to offset dicey social and political situations, ingratiate himself with hostile audiences, endear himself with the common man and separate himself from political opponents.

As a lawyer , Lincoln always made a point to speak plainly to the judge and jury, avoiding obscure or high-minded legal jargon. One day in court, another lawyer quoted a legal maxim in Latin, then asked Lincoln to affirm it. His response: “If that’s Latin, you had better call another witness.”

So captivating and engaging was Lincoln’s banter that even his vaunted Senate opponent Stephen A. Douglas begrudgingly acknowledged its effectiveness. Douglas likened it to "a slap across my back. Nothing else—not any of his arguments or any of his replies to my questions—disturbs me. But when he begins to tell a story, I feel that I am to be overmatched."

Humor played a key role, historians say, in Lincoln’s victory over Douglas in their famed 1858 debates. In one instance, he colorfully undercut Douglas’s arguments for the Dred Scott Supreme Court decision as “as thin as the homeopathic soup that was made by boiling the shadow of a pigeon that had starved to death.”

And when hecklers followed a Douglas jibe by calling Lincoln “two-faced,” the future president famously defused the attack with his famed self-deprecating humor:

“If I were two-faced, would I be wearing this one?” 

HISTORY Vault: Abraham Lincoln

A definitive biography of the 16th U.S. president, the man who led the country during its bloodiest war and greatest crisis.

Sign up for Inside History

Get HISTORY’s most fascinating stories delivered to your inbox three times a week.

By submitting your information, you agree to receive emails from HISTORY and A+E Networks. You can opt out at any time. You must be 16 years or older and a resident of the United States.

More details : Privacy Notice | Terms of Use | Contact Us

Civics, Communities & Voting, Online: Presidential Speeches Discussion: Abraham Lincoln "A House Divided" Speech

This event is online only .   With roughly 100 days to go until Election Day, join us at the Grand Concourse Library as we journey through the sands of time and discuss famous Presidential Speeches. The 3rd Speech we will be discussing will be the 16th President of the United States,  Abraham Lincoln "A House Divided" Speech". Click this link to access the speech

See you there!

You must register with your email address in order to receive the link to participate. The link will be sent to you by email approximately one day before the discussion. You will need a device with audio and/or video and an internet connection to join. Sign up for NYPL Connect to get updates from NYPL and information about our digital resources and services available during our temporary closure.

• Skip to global NPS navigation
• Skip to this park navigation
• Skip to the main content
• Skip to this park information section
• Skip to the footer section

Exiting nps.gov

Alerts in effect, house divided speech.

Last updated: April 10, 2015

Park footer

Contact info, mailing address:.

413 S. 8th Street Springfield, IL 62701

217 492-4241

Stay Connected

Barack Obama quotes Abraham Lincoln in DNC speech endorsing Kamala Harris

Loud applause greeted the former president as he took to the stage to speak to the Democratic National Convention in Chicago.

Wednesday 21 August 2024 06:46, UK

• Barack Obama
• Democratic Party

Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player

Ukrainian president fires air force commander

Murder investigation after boy stabbed

Is the Gaza Strip being split into three?

Meet the minnows playing European football

Boy returns to museum after smashing artefact

Angela Rayner raves behind DJ booth

Rooney tunes: Wayne sings karaoke

Residents ‘shocked’ at teen murder

Teenager killed by Russian strike

Gaza blogger killed by shrapnel

Burton's Beetlejuice sequel 'in spirit of first movie'

Harris-Walz sign damaged

Molly-Mae posts first video since Fury split

Why are prisons overcrowded?

Israel's deadly strike on West Bank city

Angelina Jolie meets bed-ridden fan

Residents fleeing fire cry for opening of gate

Flat fire residents 'confronted by locked gate'