r oK 
 
 
 ^d* 
 
 >* 
 
 
 * .4- 9* * «y -1 A^ "^ ^ 
 
 
 :** , 
 
 V*Cr 
 
Some Lincoln Correspondence 
 with Southern Leaders before 
 the Outbreak of the Civil War 
 
 FROM THE COLLECTION OF 
 
 JUDD STEWART 
 1909 
 
COPYRIGHT 1909 
 
 By JUDD STEWART 
 
 NEW YORK 
 
 ©CU256177 <- 
 
 1 v_J vr> 
 
 
FOREWORD 
 
 Recently I acquired the correspondence between President 
 Abraham Lincoln, Mr. Alexander H. Stephens and Senator 
 J. J. Crittenden given herein. It seems to me proper to make a 
 permanent record of these documents because they add to the 
 history of the time and much to the record of Lincoln's efforts 
 to prevent the War of the Rebellion. 
 
 By publishing the correspondence it is hoped that perhaps the 
 originals of the letters, which are certified as being correct by Mr. 
 Stephens, may be brought to light. Senator Crittenden's 
 letter to Mr. Stephens, the original of which is in my collection, 
 suggests that he might also have asked Mr. Lincoln's opinion on 
 the same question and the internal evidence of the correspond- 
 ence, it seems to me, indicates that these letters were really 
 written by these men. I have indicated in notes which of the 
 letters are original, and which are copies, certified to by Mr. 
 Stephens. 
 
 The letter from Mr. Lincoln to Mr. Stephens, January 19th, 
 i860, and Mr. Stephens' reply January 25th, present, perhaps 
 as no two other letters could do, the views of the South and the 
 North prior to the breaking out of the Rebellion. 
 
 The letter of Mr. Lincoln to Senator Crittenden Dec. 22nd, 
 1859 is somewhat curt in its tone, but may be explained by the 
 fact that Senator Crittenden went out of his way to help Douglas 
 in 1858, and Lincoln was always a little sore over Crittenden 
 meddling in the matter because he thought Crittenden, as well as 
 Greely and others should, on principle, have sided with him. 
 
 Mr. Lincoln's letter of January 19th, i860 to Mr. Stephens 
 (duplicated for Senator Crittenden) was dictated, and, in addition, 
 was an effort to answer both Mr. Stephens and Senator Critten- 
 den with one letter; both of these circumstances would quite 
 naturally tend to detract from Mr. Lincoln's usual clarity of 
 expression, although the substance of the letter is what might be 
 
 expected from him. 
 
 Judd Stewart. 
 
 Plainfield, Nov. 30th, 1909. 
 
December 22, 1859. 
 Address, Springfield, Illinois. 
 
 Hon. J.J. Crittenden, U.S. Senate 
 
 My Dear Sir : I should not care to be a candidate of a party- 
 having as its only platform "The Constitution, the Union and 
 the enforcement of the laws." "The Constitution," as we 
 understand it, has been the shibboleth of every party or mal- 
 content from the Hartford Convention that wanted to secede 
 from slave territory and the "Blue Light" burners who were in 
 British sympathy in 181 2, to John C. Calhoun and South Carolina 
 Nullification. The Union, we intend to keep, and loyal states 
 will not let disloyal ones break it. Its constitution and laws 
 made in persuance thereof must and shall remain, "the supreme 
 law of the land." The enforcement of what laws? If they are 
 those which give the use of jails & domestic police for masters 
 seeking "fugitives from labor" that means war in the North. 
 No law is stronger than is the public sentiment where it is to be 
 enforced. Free speech and discussion and immunity from whip 
 & tar and feathers, seem implied by the guarantee to each state 
 of "a republican form of government." Try Henry Clay's 
 "gradual emancipation" scheme now in Kentucky, or to circulate 
 W. L. Garrison's Liberator where most men are salivated by the 
 excessive use of the Charleston Mercury. Father told a story 
 of a man in your parts required to give a warrantee bill of sale 
 with a horse. He wrote, "I warrant him sound in skin and 
 skeleton and without faults or faculties." That is more than I 
 can say of an unmeaning platform. Compromises of principles 
 break of their own weight. 
 
 Yours very respectfully 
 
 A. Lincoln. 
 
 (The above is from a copy made by the same person who copied the 
 letters certified as correct by Mr. Stephens as noted herein.) 
 
Washington, Jany 13th, i860. 
 
 My Dear Sir 
 
 I send you by this mail a pamphlet of my friend, S. S. Nicholas 
 of Louisville, Kenty, proposing & recommending a new plan of 
 electing or selecting presidents of the United States— He wants 
 your opinion upon it— Please write to him what you think of it, 
 when you have time to read it. He is one of our most able & 
 respected citizens of Kentucky. He will be pleased to hear from 
 you. Mr. Wm. C. Rives has given him an opinion & he desires 
 
 yours. 
 
 The House is still without a Speaker, & confusion still reigns. 
 
 This is the result of the conflict that has been so long waged 
 between the Democratic & Republican parties. It has brought 
 the country to the verge of ruin. To displace both these parties 
 from power seems to be the only remedy — the only safety for the 
 country. You will have seen that some of us here are making 
 an appeal to the people to rise in the form of a national & constitu- 
 tional party and apply that remedy. What think you of it? 
 If such men as you would but espouse & lead in the movement, 
 it could not but succeed— the feelings of the whole country favours 
 it & the whole country would be benefited by it. Indeed, we may 
 well (say) that the country could not be injured by any change. 
 
 You may be assured of this, that the movement is entirely 
 unselfish, & that the only motives to it are the good of the 
 country, & to rescue it from the plague of party that is now upon it . 
 
 We are labouring for the advancement of no individual. We 
 spurn such an imputation. We have no individual in view 
 even, for the Presidency. Our only aim is our Country's good. 
 
 The only question with you will be whether the means by which 
 we seek that end are the appropriate & best means, namely, the 
 formation of such a party as is proposed. I do not seek to draw 
 you from the sequestration in which you have chosen to place 
 yourself, but I have been so long accustomed to regard your 
 opinions with respect & confidence, that I should like, for own 
 satisfaction, if for no other purpose, to have your views upon this 
 occasion, if your cases & your clients have left you time to think 
 of the subject. I am, 
 
 Your Friend &c 
 Hon. Alex'r H. Stephens. J. J- Crittenden. 
 
 (The above is from the original autograph letter now in my possession.) 
 
Springfield, Illinois, 19 January, i860. 
 
 Duplicated for Senator J no. J. Crittenden 
 
 Honorable A. H. Stephens 
 
 Dear Sir: Your letter and one from Hon. J. J. Crittenden, 
 reached me at the same time. He wants a new party on the 
 platform of "The Union, the constitution and the enforcement 
 of the Laws" — not construed. You from your retirement at 
 Liberty Hall complain of the bad faith of many in the free states 
 who refuse to return fugitives from labor, as agreed in the com- 
 promise of 1850, 1854: but I infer that you agree with Judge 
 Douglas that the territories are to be left to "form and regulate 
 their own domestic institutions subject only to the Constitution 
 of the United States." I remember the letter of the Whigs in 
 Congress in 1852 which defeated Gen'l Winfield Scott on the 
 ground that he did not present your view of States' rights. Also 
 that your letter destroyed the Whig party and it is said that you 
 and Toombs voted for Webster after he was dead. You are still 
 "harping" on "my daughter" and you supported Zach Taylor as 
 a sound Kentuckian. If I understand you, here are two con- 
 structions : Crittenden being willing for the Henry Clay gradual 
 emancipation, I think. The rights of local self-government as 
 defined by Webster, also including state determination of 
 citizenship, are clearly in the Constitution. When we were both 
 Members of the Young-Indian Club in Washington you then 
 argued for paramount state Sovereignty going very nearly to the 
 extreme of state nullification of Federal laws with John C. 
 Calhoun: and of secession at will with Robert Toombs. The 
 Colonies were subject up to July 4, 1776, and had no recognized 
 independence until they had won it in 1783: but the only time 
 they ever had the shadow of separate sovereignty was in the two 
 years before they were compelled to the articles of Confederation 
 July 9, 1778. They fought England for seven years for the 
 right to club together but when were they independent of each 
 other? Let me say right here that only unanimous consent of 
 all of the states can dissolve this Union. We will not secede and 
 you shall not. Let me show you what I think of the reserved 
 rights of the states as declared in the articles of Confederation 
 and in the Constitution and so called Jeffersonian amendments; 
 suppose that I sold a farm here in Illinois with all and singular 
 
the rights, members and appurtenances to the same in any wise 
 belonging or appertaining, signed, sealed and delivered: I have 
 now sold my land. Will it at all change the contract if I go to 
 the clerk's office and add a post script to the record; that all 
 rights not therein conveyed I reserve to myself and my children? 
 The colonies, by the Declaration of July 4, 1776, did not get 
 nationality, for they were leagued to fight for it. By the articles 
 of Confederation of July 9, 1778 under stress and peril of failure 
 without union; a government was created to which the 
 states ceded certain powers of nationality, especially in the com- 
 mand of the army and navy, as yet supported by the states. 
 Geo. Washington was commander in Chief and congress was 
 advisory agent of the states, commending but not enacting laws 
 for the thirteen, until empowered This proved insufficient 
 and the peril of failure was great as ever, at home and abroad. 
 Alexander Hamilton and others of New York were first to urge 
 that a government with no revenues, except state grants, could 
 have no credit at home or abroad. Three years later Virginia 
 led the states in urging concessions of power, and then by twelve 
 states — Rhode Island objecting — was framed our original Con- 
 stitution of 1787 fully three and a half years after the peace that 
 sealed our United national Independence. The post-script 
 erroneously all attributed to Thomas Jefferson; came in three 
 installments. The first ten (10) proposed in the first session of 
 the Congress of the United States 25th September 1789 were 
 ratified by the constitutional number of states 15 December 1791, 
 New Jersey 20 November 1789 and Virginia 15 December 1791, 
 eleven states only; Georgia and Connecticut dissenting. The 
 eleventh amendment proposed 5 March 1794; Third Congress 
 was then declared duly adopted by a President's message of, 
 8 January, 1798; Eleven states consenting & finally all con- 
 senting. The twelvth amendment was proposed in congress 1 2 
 December 1803 and declared ratified through the secretary of 
 State 25 September 1804 by the constitutional quorum of states. 
 The first ten articles are the Bill of Rights and each set of amend- 
 ments had a preface. The eleventh limited the Federal Judiciary 
 The twelfth regulated general elections for President and Vice- 
 President of the United States. Do any or all of these retract 
 the fee-simple grant of great and permanent powers to the 
 Federal Government? There are three great Departments 
 
I the President commanding the Army and Navy and with a 
 veto upon a plurality of Congress. II the Congress coining all 
 moneys; collecting all imposts on imports, regulating all inter- 
 state as all external commerce; making all subordinate Federal 
 Judiciary as appointed of the President with power to have a 
 ten mile square seat and to take grants or to buy for Forts, 
 Dock yards and Arsenals; having post offices and post roads 
 under laws executed by the President, and to frame supreme 
 consitutional lows and set up courts and Judges. Ill The supreme 
 court set as arbiter and expounder of the constitution and of all 
 differences of states and with states or of them with the Federa- 
 tion; no loop hole left for nullification, and none for secession, — 
 because the right of peaceable assembly and of petition and by 
 article Fifth of the Constitution, the right of amendment, is the 
 Constitutional substitute for revolution. Here is our Magna 
 Carta not wrested by Barons from King John, but the free gift of 
 states to the nation they create and in the very amendments 
 harped upon by states rights men are proposed by the Federal 
 congress and approved by Presidents, to make the liberties of 
 the Republic of the West forever sure. All of the States' Rights 
 which they wished to retain are now and forever retained in the 
 Union, including slavery; and so I have sworn loyalty to this 
 constitutional union, and for it let me live or let me die. But 
 you say that slavery is the corner stone of the south and if 
 separated, would be that of a new Republic; God forbid. When 
 a boy I went to New Orleans on a flat boat and there I saw slavery 
 and slave markets as I have never seen them in Kentucky, and I 
 heard worse of the Red River plantations. I hoped and prayed 
 that the gradual emancipation plan of Henry Clay or the Liberian 
 colonization of John Q. Adams might lead to its extinction in the 
 United States. Geo. Washington, the Massachusetts Adams, 
 presidents James Madison and Monroe, Benj. Franklin; opposed 
 its extension into the territories before I did. The ordinance of 
 1784, 1787 for the North West territory ceded by Virginia, was 
 written by Thomas Jefferson and signed only by slave-holders 
 and that prohibited forever slavery, or involuntary servitude not 
 imposed for crime. Your grandfather, Captain Stephens, suf- 
 fered at Valley Forge and bled at Brandywine for the principles 
 of the men of 17 76-1 783. Your Uncle, Justice Grier of the 
 Supreme Bench has recently expounded the Supreme Law as I 
 
 8 
 
honestly accept it. Senator Crittenden complains that by the 
 device of party conventions and nominations of candidates for 
 Presidents and Vice-Presidents the Federal plan of separate and 
 unbiased Electoral Colleges is taken away and the popular 
 feature of elections is restored to the people. I reckon they 
 wanted it so. What are you agoing to do about it? To abolish 
 conventions you must abolish candidates. In your Oxford Col- 
 lege oration, you say "I love the Union and revere its memories; 
 I rejoice in all its achievements in arts in letters and in arms." 
 If it is a good thing, why not just keep it and say no more about 
 it? 
 
 I am not in favor of a party of Union constitution and law to 
 suit Mr. Bell or Mr. Everett and be construed variously in as 
 many sections as there are states. 
 
 This is the longest letter I ever dictated or wrote. 
 
 But this is to, only you alone, not to the public. 
 
 Yours truly 
 
 A. Lincoln. 
 
 (The above is from a copy certified as correct by Mr. Stephens.) 
 
STATE OF GEORGIA 
 Executive Department 
 
 Atlanta, Ga., 1882. 
 
 Crawfordsville, Ga., January 25th, i860. 
 
 Hon. Abraham Lincoln, 
 
 Springfield, Illinois. 
 
 My Dear Sir: 
 
 Yours of the 19. is here. I have little faith in any new or old 
 party being able to save us from the madness, as much of the 
 south as the north. A Constitutional Union party pledged to 
 the enforcement of all laws, and in its platform fully recognizing 
 the paramount State sovereignty, seems hopeful to some men — 
 less so to me than when I wrote, as you will see by my reply to 
 Senator Crittenden. As a railway man might say — "I foresaw 
 a smash up on our road, and got off at the first station." My 
 retirement from congress means — I trust — rest and an end of 
 public life. There are two points in your letter. First, il- 
 lustrating our constitution and amendments by a fee-simple deed 
 with a post-script. This is clever. Just such deeds are known 
 to Georgia law, the tail inserted before signing. To avoid the 
 equity of redemption of mortgage, the Insurance loan companies, 
 mostly from the North West, take a fee-simple deed, conditional 
 to be void if the loan and interest are paid in three years. What 
 remains of the title? Everything, — if the condition is kept. 
 Let me give you a better illustration. Pensioners of the United 
 States, receive for service or wound, each a part of what right- 
 fully and originally is of the government, i. e. money of the public 
 revenue, when granted it is truly inalienable. The pensioner 
 cannot sell or pawn the certificate, not even for the full value of it 
 for an average life-time and such premium as the certainty of 
 payment commands with public bonds. Not voidable, but void 
 is such a sale, the government admitting no consideration as 
 equal to its faith with the pensioner. This government right is 
 de visible, — inheritable — inalienable. Take a scripture illustra- 
 tion. The covenant of the Holy Family ran by inheritance 
 through Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. In the third step it fell to 
 the younger brother; in the fourth, it divided to twelve sons, 
 
 10 
 
Dinah not inheriting. Each son had an equal inalienable tribal 
 right as entire as that Abraham and Isaac possessed. This was 
 tested when the David line of the royal tribe of Judah represented 
 by Rehoboam, undertook to coerce the seceded ten tribes under 
 Jeroboam (i, Kings XI th 31, 32,) and although possessed of 
 Kingly divine right, he was forbidden of the Lord. (I. King 
 XII: 21.) The thirteen colonies revolting from the British 
 crown, were successful; and whether you date Independence 
 from July 4, 1776, or in 1783, when seven years later it was 
 recognized, the original sovereignty of Great Britain became all 
 vested in the colonies, and if Dinah had been wed the partition of 
 the sovereignty into thirteen full nations or tribes would be a 
 parallel. Indeed it was so since Joseph parted to Ephram — 
 Manasseh the younger first. Again, the Hebrew could not 
 alienate heritage or liberty; all came back in the Jubilee; only 
 strangers could (Leviticus XXV: 10 to 17). State sovereignty 
 like "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," is inalienable — 
 priceless — above all consideration, expediency or necessity. 
 States could not give away — could not sell — that Pension of the 
 Divine Governor — that heritage and that birth-right of the 
 mother birth-pangs of 17 76-1 783. Born in a bed of fire of the 
 Revolution — States sold not their rights — as did Esau for a mess 
 of pottage. Sovereignty here in our states is no longer in the 
 crown, nor is it in the agent appointee: but it is in the states. 
 The southern fire-eaters who clamor for extension of Slavery 
 into the territories, by the popular local vote or by Congress, 
 have no sense. We will settle no more slave territory unless we 
 reopen the African slave trade to get more negroes. Granting 
 Congress power to put it in, also concedes power to keep it out. 
 When once these malcontents have conceded to the Federal 
 Agent, the right to intermeddle with the paramount local 
 sovereignty; the same in the territory preparing for statehood as 
 in the states; all barriers will break and centralism will obliterate 
 state lines. Review this matter again. Slavery and sec- 
 tionalism will not always force issues, and Statehood is as precious 
 to the North West as it is to the South East. Your second point 
 is the word "Perpetual" and in the last two words of the caption 
 "Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union" — the sense of 
 the title is submerged and also of all of the articles, except 
 Thirteen. 
 
 11 
 
Articles of Confederation: Each of them is equally vital. 
 No delegate would have signed one without them all. "Perpetual 
 Union" — "This union shall be perpetual" on these terms only. 
 Did you ever notice that this language is not repeated in the 
 "More perfect" Constitution? You know as well as I do that 
 Virginia and other states as New York and Rhode Island in all of 
 the early proposals to extend the power of Congress over im- 
 port duties for the sake of public credit based on revenue; asked 
 that the experiment be limited to a term of years, ten, fifteen or 
 thirty. Only the general trust in each other and in the limita- 
 tions exacted : made it a general and not a limited time partner- 
 ship. Granting more power against such protests as that of 
 Rhode Island that it might be used against the states. The 
 language of the Articles of 1778 as to perpetuity was intentionally 
 omitted. Our ancestors did not foresee that slavery, then 
 general would sectionalize ; and that in doing business as a firm 
 for one hundred years, that valuable assets viz: our vast terri- 
 torial farms — would be struggled for by greedy banks of partners 
 — and, as Henry Clay foresaw in our expansion by conquest from 
 Mexico, would threaten or produce inter-state and sectional war. 
 I pray that there may be no disunion. The one weakness of the 
 south is the concretion of wealth in the hands of a few. A recent 
 book "Cotton is King" — shows that the King is administered by 
 an aristocracy of three hundred thousand (300,000) out of four 
 millions of whites (4.000,000). If the entire white population 
 seek separate Independence; the northern states will no more 
 repress it than did George III with the Colonies. There will be 
 no "peacable secession;" the firm has assets now contended for — 
 and the arbiter is the sword. No constitutional party will avail 
 when sections differ as you and I do as to what it means. No 
 law will be enforced when men like William H. Seward say there 
 is a "Higher Law" than is the Federal Supreme law, and when 
 men like Salmon P. Chase say in the Senate, they and their states 
 will not observe the great Compromises of 1850-1854-6. Our 
 Union is a compact between sovereigns, and if one breaks a treaty 
 the others are not bound. Call it a partnership — unlimited in 
 times as they usually are — but strictly limited in action. Few 
 partnerships anticipate their dissolution or fix the time. One 
 partner extravagant and greedy releases the rest, for no one may 
 hold others to take advantage of his own wrong. Death dis- 
 
solves but it is rarely provided for. When we dissolve, the less 
 will leave the greater, and if the less be then the richer, as the 
 south now is, the greater will not be amiable. That means war; 
 not doubtful if Independence, not selfish greed, shall actuate a 
 tier of states. Once made, the breach will never heal. Horace 
 Greeley says two sections may be pinned together by bayonets, 
 but not the hearts. General Scott in his words, "Wayward 
 sisters depart in peace" refers to the In Pace of the convent nun 
 walled up alive. That we will see. Finally, I do not think the 
 Jeffersonian amendments are unmeaning. They express what 
 the convention implied. Esto Perpetua has been inscribed on 
 pyramids and empire gates and cut deeply into granite and 
 marble tombs. The works of man are not eternal. We are far 
 from the hoary years of Thebes and Rome and England — Wait ! 
 Our temple is very new, but it shakes. Oysters and little brooks, 
 coilia insects and earth worms have terms outlasting empires, 
 Wait! We are very new. Rereading your valuable letter, I 
 note this question, "W T hat of state rights is there remaining after 
 all of the enumerated concessions to the Federal government?" 
 I answer Sovereignty that is everything. I now have in my hands 
 as Attorney and Trustee, the estate of three girls who have 
 sixty thousand dollars each. This is my admission that I do 
 not own the estate. The three departments of the General 
 Government do not constitute the union — remove the states and 
 the agent is nothing. 
 
 Let me suppose that you return to public life and one day 
 you pen this entry * * * "On the fourth day of March 1861 
 I. A. L. found myself to be the secretary of a convention of all the 
 states, met by Delegates in Phila. I The members of the con- 
 stitutional convention sat and looked at each other. II They all 
 agreed to disagree. Ill They then all went home. Would you 
 then write "Finding myself in the historic hall like a bean in an 
 empty bag, I, therefore, am The Union?" Let me suppose that 
 to pass the time, you spread the blue Union-Jack on a table and 
 with chalk, mark out among the stars, the line of dissolving power. 
 You admit that all of say thirty three states could dissolve the 
 Union. Mark out one as dissenting — Maine or South Carolina, 
 and you will admit that thirty-two states could still dissolve the 
 Union. The matter is practical. The constitution of 17 Septem- 
 ber 1787 began to take shape in the Delaware convention 7 
 
 13 
 
Dec. 1787, but up to 21 November 1789 North Carolina and 
 Rhode Island had not ratified and were of the 1778 Confedera- 
 tion. Twelve states in convention made the constitution, 
 omitting to record as perpetual the greater powers they loaned — 
 and up to May 29, 1790, Rhode Island was left alone in the Con- 
 federation of July 9, 1778. Then R. I. was taxed in. You can 
 easily divide thirty-three states into three groups of eleven each ; 
 Eastern, Western, Southern, Remove slavery and the South and 
 West naturally unite for good commercial reasons. Could not 
 twenty-two states then dissolve the Union? Surely. If 22: 
 could not seventeen (17) a majority of one? So the old Demo- 
 cratic party is practically divided now. If 17, could not eleven 
 (11)? Interest so divides us now. Judge Benning in a speech I 
 send you, argues that eleven states make the tobacco, cotton, rice, 
 sugar and corn, the five money producing staples; against the 
 potatoes, hay and wheat of the more populous states. Only by 
 their commerce that of lakes, rivers and railways being largely in 
 excess of the oceanic, do the twenty-two states compare with the 
 fruitful eleven. I may say that fourteen states are yet interested 
 in the productiveness of slave labor. Surely the old thirteen 
 states could have dissolved the union which they made. The 
 repeated recitation of the term perpetual purposely left out of the 
 constitution is like the "till death do you part" of marriage. 
 Christ and Paul admit it may be broken, although the Vinculo 
 Matrimoni never so recites. Any other fourteen states emerged 
 from territorial chrysalis become vested with all of the attributes 
 of statehood, sovereignty included. If fourteen could ever 
 dissolve the union — can they not now — cannot one? Where do 
 you draw the line of power? Eleven less populous states, having 
 a million more of whites and four millions more of total popula- 
 tion than had the old thirteen, if united as then for a new Inde- 
 pendence, would surely attain it. Great Britain had as many 
 available millions as you have and failed. You in your welcome 
 to Louis Kossuth, expressed high regard for any people struggling 
 for liberty, yet the slaves of the south are in as good condition as 
 were Hungarian serfs. A century of storm and shine has not yet 
 merged our thirteen stripes and thirty three bright stars into one 
 smear of indistinguishable Union. God keeps us yet distinct? 
 I am for the Union as our fathers made it. Georgia commands 
 
 14 
 
me — as said Ruth to Naomi, "The Lord do so to me and more 
 also if aught save death separate me and my state." 
 
 Yours truly, 
 
 Alexander H. Stephens. 
 
 (The foregoing copy of letter to Mr. Lincoln by Mr. Stephens is signed 
 by Mr. Stephens, it and Mr. Lincoln's letter of Jany. 19th, i860, to Mr. 
 Stephens (duplicated for Senator Crittenden) are certified to by Mr. 
 Stephens as being correct copies as follows) 
 
 *5 
 
STATE OF GEORGIA 
 Executive Department 
 
 Atlanta, Ga., January 19th, 1883. 
 
 Colo. Henry Whitney Cleveland at your request I certify that 
 the 7 sheets of legal cap paper dated Springfield, Illinois 19, 
 January i860, twenty three years ago, are the (dictated) letter of 
 Abraham Lincoln to me on the political issues before the secession 
 of the states and that the 16 sheets of Executive paper constitute 
 my reply from Crawfordville, Ga., January 25. i860, viz: an 
 exact transcript of my pencil copy written in bed, which I 
 retained. That I requested you not to include this correspon- 
 dence nor my diary written when a prisoner in Fort Warren, 
 Boston Harbor, in 1865, in your "Life Letters and Speeches" or 
 Biography of myself, because I intended to treat the matter fully 
 and fairly as I did in "The War Between the States." Also that 
 I did authorize the use in both books of the Springfield, Ills., 
 A. L. of November 30, i860, of my copy reply of Ga. 14 Dec'r 
 i860, of his rejoinder of Dec'r 22, i860, and also of my longer 
 sur-rejoinder of which you made printed and not fac simili copy. 
 The originals are yours to use as thought best. 
 
 Faithfully yours, 
 Alexander H. Stephens. 
 
 (Only the signature is in Mr. Stephens' handwriting.) 
 
 All of the foregoing letters were in December 1859 and January 
 i860. 
 
 After Mr. Lincoln's election, the following correspondence 
 with Mr. Stephens was had. The originals of these letters are in 
 my collection and were reproduced in fac-simile in Mr. Cleveland's 
 "Alexander H. Stephens in Public and Private with Letters and 
 Speeches" as mentioned in Mr. Stephens' certification above. 
 
 16 
 
Springfield, Ills., Nov. 30, i860. 
 Hon. A. H. Stephens 
 My dear Sir. 
 I have read, in the newspapers, your speech recently delivered 
 (I think) before the Georgia Legislature or its assembled mem- 
 bers. If you have revised it, as is probable, I shall be much 
 obliged if you will send me a copy. 
 
 Yours very truly, 
 
 A. Lincoln." 
 
 17 
 
Original draft (copy of it sent) 
 
 Crawfordville, Ga., 14 December, i860. 
 "My Dear Sir 
 
 Your short and polite note of the 30th ulto asking for a revised 
 copy of the speech to which you refer etc. was not received until 
 last night. The newspaper report of the speech has never been 
 revised by me. The notes of the reporter were submitted to me 
 and corrected to some extent before being published but not so 
 thoroughly as I would have wished. The report was substantially 
 correct. If I had had any idea that it would have been so 
 extensively circulated as it has been and been published in so 
 many papers throughout the country as it has been I should have 
 prepared a copy for the press in the first instance. But I had no 
 such thought and therefore let the report go as it did. There are 
 several verbal inaccuracies in it but the main points appear 
 sufficiently clear for all practical purposes. The country is 
 certainly in great peril and no man ever had heavier or greater 
 responsibilities resting upon him than you have in the present 
 momentous crisis. 
 
 Yours most Respectfully, 
 
 Alexander H. Stephens." 
 Hon. Abraham Lincoln, 
 
 Springfield, 111. 
 
 iS 
 
For your own eye only 
 
 Springfield, Ills., Dec. 22, i860. 
 Hon. A. H. Stephens. 
 My dear Sir 
 
 Your obliging answer to my short note is just received and for 
 which please accept my thanks. I fully appreciate the present 
 peril the country is in, and the weight of responsibility on me. 
 Do the people of the South really entertain fears that a Republi- 
 can administration would, directly, or indirectly, interfere with 
 their slaves, or with them, about their slaves? If they do, I wish 
 to assure you, as once a friend, and still, I hope, not an enemy, 
 that there is no cause for such fears. The South would be in no 
 more danger in this respect, than it was in the days of Washing- 
 ton. I suppose, however, this does not meet the case. You 
 think slavery is right and ought to be extended; while we think 
 it is wrong and ought to be restricted. That I suppose is the rub. 
 It certainly is the only substantial difference between us. 
 
 Yours very truly 
 
 A. Lincoln. 
 
 19 
 
W48