Mr. Lincoln's Letter (1863)

Source: The Pacific Commercial Advertiser. Honolulu: October 22, 1863

The following epitome of the Letter of the President to the Union Mass Meeting at Springfield, is another evidence of the plain, unpretentious character of our Chief Magistrate. It does not possess the elegance which characterizes the productions of the Secretary of State, but it treats the great issue of the day in a clear and simple style which appeals to the intelligence of every one, and carries and irresistible conviction of the sincerity of the author.

It is fortunate for the United States that the control of its destinies has been confided to a man so little influenced by personal ambition. Mr. Lincoln has been tried and found faithful, and as a change of administration cannot fail to be fraught with evil, the people should reward his faithfulness by electing him a second time to the Presidency:

After regretting his inability to attend, he says:

"There are those who are dissatisfied with me. To such I would say: you desire peace and you blame me that you do not have it. But how can we attain it? There are but three conceivable ways. 

First, to suppress the rebellion with force of arms. This I am trying to do. Are you for it? If you are, so far we are agreed. The second way is to give up the Union. I am against this. If you are, you should say so plainly. If you are not for force, nor yet for a dissolution there only remains some imaginable compromise. I do not believe any compromise embracing the maintenance of the Union can be possible. All that I learn ears to a directly opposite belief. 

The strength of the rebellion is in its military, and the army dominates the country and all the people within its range. Any offers of terms made by any man or men, within that range, in opposition to that army, is simply nothing for the present, because such man or men have no power whatsoever to enforce their side of the compromise if one were made with them. A compromise to be effective must be made either with those who have control of the rebel army or with the people first liberated from the domination of them by the success of our army. 

Allow me to assure you that no word or intimidation from the rebel army, or from the men controlling it, in relation to any peace compromise, has ever come to my knowledge or belief, and all charges and intimidations to the contrary are deceptive and groundless; and I promise you that if any such preposition shall hereafter come it shall not be rejected or be kept secret from you. 

You dislike the Emancipation Proclamation, and perhaps would have it retracted. You say it is unconstitutional. I think the Constitution invests the Commander-in-Chief with the laws of war in time of war. The most that can be said is that slaves are property. Is there, or has there ever been, any question that by the laws of war property both of enemies and friends may be taken when needed, and it is not needed when our taking it helps us or hurts the enemy? Armies, the world over, destroy the enemy's property when they cannot use it, and destroy their own to keep it from the enemy. Civilized belligerents do all in their power to help themselves or hurt the enemy, except a few things regarded as barbarous. 

The Proclamation is the law and valid, or not valid. If it is valid, it cannot be retracted any more than the dead can be brought back to life. Some of you prefer to think that a retraction would operate favorably to the Union. Why better after retraction, than before the issue.? There was more than a year and a half of trial to suppress the rebellion before the proclamation was issued, the last one hundred days, of which passed under an explicit  notice that it was coming unless averted by those in revolt returning to their allegiance. 

The war has certainly progressed as favorably since the issue of the Proclamation as before. I know, as definitely as one can know the opinions of others, that some of the commanders of the armies in the field, who have given us our important victories, believe in the emancipation policy, and that colored troops contribute the heaviest blows yet dealt to rebellion, and that one at least of these important successes could not have been achieved unless it was with the aid of the black soldiers. 

Among the commanders holding these views are some who have never had any affinity with what is called Abolitionism, or with the Republican party in politics, but who hold them purely as military opinions; and I submit their opinions as being entitled to some weight against the objections often urged that the Emancipation Proclamation and arming the blacks are unwise as military measures, and were not adopted as such in good faith. Some say they will not fight to free negroes. Some of the negroes seem willing enough ti fight for you; but no matter, fight you then to save the Union. I issued the proclamation for the purpose to aid in saving the Union; and whenever you shall have conquered all resistance to the Union, if I shall urge you to continue fighting, it will be an apt time then for you to declare that you will not fight to free negroes. 

I thought that in our struggle for the Union, to whatever extent the negroes should cease helping the enemy, to that extent it weakens the enemy in his resistance to you. Do you think differently? I thought that whenever negroes get to be soldiers leaves just so much less for white soldiers to do in saving the Union. Does it appear otherwise to you? But negroes, like other people, act upon a motive. Why should they do anything for us if we do nothing for them? If they stake their lives for us, they should be protected by the strongest possible motive, even a promise of freedom; and a promise must be kept.