L: Lane through Lincoln

See below for annotated biographies of Free Soil Party leaders, members and supporters. Source: Scribner’s Dictionary of American Biography.

LANE, James Henry, 1814-1866, lawyer, soldier.  Union General.  U.S. Senator from Kansas, 1861-1866.  Elected Senator in 1861 and in 1865.  Active in the abolitionist movement in Kansas in the 1850’s.  A leader in the Jay Hawkers and Free Soil militant groups.  Voted for Thirteenth Amendment to the Constitution, abolishing slavery.

(Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 606; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 5, Pt. 2, p. 576; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 13, p. 121; Congressional Globe; Sewell, 1976; p. 281)

Biography from Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography:

LANE, James Henry, soldier, born in Lawrenceburg, Ind., 22 June, 1814; died  near Leavenworth, Kansas, 1 July, 1866, studied law, was admitted to the bar in 1840, and elected to the city council of Lawrenceburg. In May, 1846, he enlisted as a private in the 3d Indiana volunteer regiment, organizing for the Mexican war, was chosen colonel, and commanded a brigade at Buena Vista. He became colonel of the 5th Indiana regiment in 1847, and in 1848 was chosen lieutenant-governor of Indiana. From 1853 till 1855 he was a representative in congress, having been chosen as a Democrat, and voted for the repeal of the Missouri compromise. In 1855 he went to Kansas, where he took an active part in politics as a leader of the Free-state party, and was made chairman of the executive committee of the Topeka constitutional convention. He was elected by the people major-general of the free-state troops, and was active in driving out the Missouri invaders. In 1856 he was elected to the U. S. senate by the legislature that met under the Topeka constitution; but the election was not recognized by congress, and he was indicted in Douglas county for high treason and forced to flee from the territory. In 1857 he was president of the Leavenworth constitutional convention, and again made major-general of the territorial troops. In 1858 he shot a neighbor named Jenkins in a quarrel about a well, for which he was tried and acquitted. On the admission of Kansas to the Union in 1861, he was elected to the U. S. senate, serving on the committees of Indian affairs and agriculture. In May, 1861, he commanded the frontier guards that were organized for the defence of Washington, and on 18 Dec. he was made brigadier-general of volunteers; but the appointment was cancelled, 21 March, 1862. He commanded the Kansas brigade in the field for four months, rendering good service in western Missouri. He narrowly escaped from the Lawrence massacre in August, 1863, and was an aide to General Curtis during General Sterling Price's raid in October, 1864. He was a delegate to the Baltimore convention of 1864. He was re-elected to the United States senate in 1865, but in the following year, while on his way home, he was attacked with paralysis, his mind became unsettled, and he committed suicide. Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp. 606.

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 4, Pt. 1, p. 1

LANE, James H. […] [q.v.], he assured Free-State men that they had only to frame a constitution and it would command the support of the Illinois Senator ... In October he was elected president of a convention assembled at Topeka which framed and adopted a constitution ratified a month later by the voters of the party. The "Topeka Movement" was interrupted by the Wakarusa War in December, during which Lane fortified Lawrence again st pro-slavery Missourians and, had it not been for the cautious Robinson (Charles Robinson [q.v.], leader of the anti-slavery forces), might have taken the offensive. This crisis was a turning point in Lane's career. He was essentially a conservative until the hysteria of exciting events produced the proper background for radical leadership. A "state" government was organized in March 1856, and Lane and Andrew H. Reeder [q.v.] were elected to the Senate by the would be legislature.

Lane immediately went to Washington to labor for the admission of Kansas, armed with a memorial framed by the "Senators and Representatives of the General Assembly of the State of Kansas." It was favorably received in the House but was rejected by the Senate, where Douglas and other Administration leaders pronounced it a fraud and a forgery, largely upon technical grounds. Douglas refused to be drawn into a duel, and Lane toured the Northwest to lay the cause of Kansas before the people. Since the Missouri River had been closed to emigrants from the Northern states he opened a new rout e via Iowa and Nebraska, and through this channel "Lane's Army of the North" invaded Kansas. Arriving in August 1856 he attacked proslavery strongholds, and his men committed depredations fully as atrocious as those of the "border ruffians." Peace was restored upon the arrival of Governor John W. Geary [q.v.] in September.

After spending the following winter in the East, Lane returned to the Territory in March 1857. He opposed participation in the Lecompton movement but favored contesting the October election for members of the territorial legislature. This policy was adopted, and the Free-State party gained control of the General Assembly, which immediately elected Lane major-general of militia. Following the homicide of Gaius Jenkins, June 3, 1858, Lane retired from politics, but emerged in 18s 9 to become a Republican candidate for the Senate, and when the state was admitted in 1861 he reached the goal of his ambition.

Arriving in Washington in April 1861, he immediately raised a "Frontier Guard" which bivouacked in the East Room of the Executive Mansion for a few days. This episode marked the beginning of an intimate friendship with Lincoln which gave Lane influence and prestige in the management of Kansas affairs in Washington. In June 1861 Lincoln appointed him brigadier-general of volunteers with authority to raise two regiments. During September and October this "Kansas Brigade" operated against Confederate forces under General Sterling Price in western Missouri and "jayhawked" property of both Union and Confederate sympathizers. Returning to the Senate in December, Lane demanded an aggressive winter campaign. The President, who admired his tireless activity and infectious enthusiasm, tendered him the command of an expedition from the department of Kansas into Arkansas and the Indian country, but a controversy with General David Hunter, the departmental commander, prevented the "Great Southern Expedition" from materializing.

Although Lane had expressed anti-slavery convictions as a member of Congress from Indiana, he went to Kansas declaring that his attitude toward the institution there would depend upon the suitability of the soil and climate for hemp production. In 1857, however, he announced himself a "crusader for freedom." At the outbreak of war he asserted that "slavery would not survive the march of the Union Army," and his brigade assisted many blacks in escaping from Arkansas and Missouri. As recruiting commissioner for Kansas he assembled a regiment of negroes which was mustered January 13, 1863, perhaps the second to be officially received into Union service.

The Lane-Robinson feud which began in the territorial period continued with credit to neither of the principals. In the Kansas election of 1862 indorsement of Lane became the chief issue, and dissatisfied Republicans, supported by Democrats, bolted the regular ticket. He was denounced as an "infamous demagogue" with "an insatiable thirst for power," but the result of the election was regarded as a Lane triumph. His enemies increased and in the legislative session of 1864 they sought to end his political career by electing Governor Thomas Carney [q.v.] to the Senate. Since Lane's term would not expire for over a year the premature election was branded "a fraud upon the people." Lane stumped the state the following summer and, aided by opportune military events. secured the election of a friendly legislature which returned him to the Senate by an almost unanimous vote. As early as December 1863 Lane advocated the reelection of Lincoln, and his Cooper Institute speech a few months later was a timely review of the Administration's successes. He was a delegate to the Baltimore convention, and in the Grand Council of the Union League which assembled the evening before, he defended the President's record. In the campaign which followed he represented Kansas on the National Committee, and as chairman of the "National Union Committee for the West," he urged northwestern radicals to support Lincoln. He was a strong advocate of western expansion and gave the Homestead and Pacific Railroad bills his undivided support. He secured a grant of land to Kansas to aid the construction of the Leavenworth, Lawrence & Fort Gibson, and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe railroads. In the reconstruction of seceded states he deserted the radicals and reverted to conservatism. Accepting the perdurance theory, he advocated a "Topeka Movement" for Arkansas, Louisiana, and Tennessee as the best method of combating "bogus authority." His support of President Johnson's veto of the Civil Rights Bill caused almost universal condemnation in Kansas as "misrepresenting a radical constituency." Depressed by his cold reception at home, overworked, mentally deranged, charged with financial irregularities connected with Indian contracts, he shot himself on July 1, 1866, but lingered ten days, dying July 11.

Lane's great service to Kansas in the territorial period lay in his organization of various anti-slavery factions into a compact Free-State party. Albeit the movement which he led for statehood was destined to fail, it gave the members of that party a common purpose which united them until the pro-slavery legislature was overthrown. Furthermore, Northern men in Kansas had implicit faith in Lane's military capacity which gave them confidence in contests with "border ruffians." After the beginning of the Civil War, he was a pioneer in advocating emancipation and enlistment of negroes. Indigent, ambitious, provocative, magnetic, he was primarily an agitator. His "demoralized wardrobe," his unkempt hair and beard, his "lean, haggard, and sinewy figure," all contributed to his success in a frontier political canvass. His use of sarcasm and invective, his crude gestures and his long, bony fore-finger, his harsh and raspy voice made him an effective stump orator. "That he loved Kansas, and that Kansas loved him, is undeniable."

[John Speer, Life of General James H. Lane (1896), is eulogistic; Wm. E . Connelley, James Henry Lane (1899) is fragmentary; W. H. Stephenson, "The Political Career of General James H. Lane" (Kansas State Historical Society Publications, volume III, 1930), emphasizes his political activities but devotes some attention to this military background. See also R. G. Elliott,  "The Big Springs Convention," Trans. Kansas State Historical Society, volume VIII (1904); L. W. Spring, "The Career of a Kansas Politician," American Historical Review, October 1898; W. O. Stoddard, "The story of a Nomination," North American Review, March 1884; Jacob Stringfellow (N. V. Smith), "Jim Lane," Lippincott’s Magazine, March 1870; Kansas State Historical Society Collections, volume XIII (1915); D. W. Wilder, The Annals of Kansas (1886); W. H. Stephenson, "Amos Lane, Advocate of Western Democracy," Ind. Magazine of History, September 1930; Congressional Globe, 1853-66; War of the Rebellion: Official Records, series I, II, III; Leavenworth Daily Conservative, July 12, 1866. The "Webb Scrap Book" (17 volumes), preserved in the Kansas State Historical Library, contains copious clippings from a wide range of newspapers, May 1854-September 1856.]

W.H.S.


LANGSTON, Charles Henry, 1817-1892, Ohio, African American (Black mother, White father), abolitionist leader.  He and his brother, Gideon, were the first African Americans to attend Oberlin College.  Active in Ohio Negro Convention Movement.  Helped found the Ohio Anti-Slavery Society in 1858.  Active in Liberty, Free Soil and Republican parties.  Involved in slave rescue in violation of the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.  Recruited Black troops for the Union Army. 

(Blue, 2005, pp. 5-6, 13, 65-67, 66-78, 83-84, 86-88, 118, 120, 156, 266-267; Sinha, 2016, p. 467; Minutes, Convention of the Liberty Party, June 14, 15, 1848, Buffalo, New York)


LANGSTON, JOHN MERCER (December 14, 1829-November15, 1897), educator and diplomat.

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 6, Pt. 1, p. 597.

LANGSTON, JOHN MERCER (December 14, 1829-November15, 1897), educator and diplomat, was born in Louisa County, Virginia. His father, Ralph Quarles, was the owner of the estate. His mother, Lucy Langston, of African and Indian blood, Quarles's favorite slave, was emancipated by him in 1806 and subsequently bore him three sons, who followed the condition of their mother and took her name. Ralph Quarles was a kind master, who believed that slavery should be abolished by the voluntary act of the owner. In 1834 both of Langston's parents died. By his father's will the principal slaves were emancipated and liberal provision was made for the three sons. Langston was sent by the executors to live with his father's friend, William D. Gooch of Chillicothe, Ohio, who became his guardian and who gave him the care and education of a son. When the boy was about ten, Gooch decided to move to Missouri, a slave state. Langston started with him, but the sheriff, at the instigation of his half-brother, William Langston, followed with a process requiring Gooch to answer to the charge of attempting to carry the boy beyond the jurisdiction of the court that had made him guardian. Allen G. Thurman, then a young lawyer, appeared for William Langston, and the court ruled that the boy could not leave Ohio. After spending two years in a. Cincinnati private school, he returned to Chillicothe and, in 1844, entered the preparatory department of Oberlin College. In 1849 he graduated from the collegiate department and in 1853 from the theological department. However, he had studied theology only in order to prepare himself for law, and, not being able to gain admission to a law school, he read law under Philemon Bliss, of Elyria. In September 1854, he was admitted to the bar and, the next month, married Caroline M. Wall, who was then a senior in the literary department of Oberlin College.

He began practising law in Brownhelm but, two years later, located in Oberlin. In March 1855 he was nominated by the Liberty Party for clerk of Brownhelm township and was elected, probably the first negro to be chosen to an elective office in the United States. During the Civil War he served as an agent for recruiting regiment, the 54th Massachusetts and, later, the 55th Massachusetts and the 5th Ohio regiments. From 1865 to 1867 he was a member of the Council of Oberlin and, in 1867 and 1868, of the city Board of Education.

In 1868 he was called to Washington and appointed inspector-general of the Freedmen's Bureau. In this capacity he visited many sections of the South, where his tactful educational addresses were received with enthusiasm by both the colored and white population. Upon the termination of these activities he accepted the professorship of law in Howard University. As dean (1869-1876) and vice-president and acting president (1872) he organized and established the law department of this institution. For seven years he was a member of the Board of Health for the District of Columbia and its attorney. In 1877 he became minister-resident to Haiti and charge d' affaires to Santo Domingo and, until 1885, was in the diplomatic and consular service, where his tact, easy manner, and diplomatic address made a favorable impression. In 1883 he published Freedom and Citizenship, a selection from the many addresses that had made his reputation as an orator of power and distinction. Upon his return to the United States he was elected president of the Virginia Normal and Collegiate Institute at Petersburg, Virginia. In 1888 he was the Republican nominee for Congress from his district, and, although his election was contested, he was seated by the House in 1890. He was an unsuccessful candidate for reelection. He retired to his home in Washington, where he continued to interest himself in political affairs and wrote From the Virginia Plantation to the National Capital (1894) in which he told with real charm the story of his dramatic and useful life.

[Autobiography mentioned above; introductory sketch by J. E. Rankin in Freedom and Citizenship (1883); Souvenir Journal of the 35th National, Celebration at Culpeper, Virginia ... under Auspices of the Langston National Monument Historical and Emancipation Assn. comp. by R. B. Robinson (1898); W. J. Simmons, Men of Mark, (1887); J. W. Cromwell, The Negro in American History (1914); B. T. Washington, The Story of the Negro (2 volumes, 1909); New York Tribune, November 16, 1897.] R.C.M.


LARNED, Joseph Gay Eaton, lawyer, born in Thompson, Connecticut. 29 April, 1819; died in New York City, 3 June, 1870, was graduated at Yale in 1839, taught in Savannah, Georgia and Charleston, South Carolina, for a year and a half, studied law, taught in Waterloo, New York, and in 1842 became a tutor at Yale. In 1847 he resigned the tutorship, was admitted to the bar, and began practice in New Haven. In 1852 he moved to New York City. He was especially familiar with the law of patents, and became interested in the development of certain inventions. In 1855 he engaged in the manufacture of steam fire-engines of a design that was invented mainly by himself, and was the first used in New York City. In introducing them he overcame strong opposition. In 1863 he was appointed by the U. S. government assistant inspector of iron-clads, and until the end of the war supervised the work in the Brooklyn U.S. Navy yard. He subsequently resumed legal practice. He was one of the founders of the Free-Soil Party in Connecticut, and in 1845 contributed to the ' New Englander" a series of articles on "Massachusetts vs. South Carolina." During the later years of his life he interested himself in genealogical subjects, and compiled records of his ancestors which formed the basis of "The Learned Family," by William L. Learned (Albany, 1882). 

Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 620.


LAWRENCE, Amos Adams, 1814-1886.  Principal manager and treasurer of the Kansas Emigrant Aid Society.  Worked to keep Kansas a free state.  Lawrence, Kansas, was named in his honor.

(Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, p. 639;

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 6, Pt. 1, p. 47;

LAWRENCE, AMOS ADAMS (July 31, 1814-August 22, 1886); merchant and philanthropist, was the second son of Amos Lawrence [q.v.], a leading Boston merchant and philanthropist, and Sarah (Richards) Lawrence. He was educated at Franklin Academy, North Andover, and at Harvard College, where he graduated in 1835. Entering business for himself, after graduating from college, as a commission merchant, he formed a partnership in 1843 with Robert M. Mason, under the firm name of Mason & Lawrence. Mason ceased after a few years to be active in the firm and Lawrence continued to be the principal partner for forty years. The firm was very successful, holding the selling agency for several important textile mills and eventually acquiring the selling agency for the Pacific Mills at Lawrence, which for many years was the largest plant of its kind in the United States. Lawrence also engaged independently in manufacturing textiles, his principal venture being the Ipswich Mills, which he acquired in 1860 for the manufacture of cotton hosiery and other knit goods. This was then a new industry in the United States. Although for many years he operated the mill at a, loss, he ultimately succeeded in making it profitable and established the industry on a sound basis, becoming the largest manufacturer of knit goods in the country. He took an active part in promoting the interests of the textile industry, being for many years an ardent advocate of a protective tariff and in later life serving as president of the American Association of Knit Goods Manufacturers and also of the National Association of Cotton Manufacturers and Planters.

His father's philanthropic activities naturally brought the son many opportunities for charitable work. While still a young man he became a trustee of the Massachusetts General Hospital and took a great interest in the hospital and in the McLean Asylum for the Insane. He became interested also in the colonization of free negroes in Africa. With increasing years he became more and more interested in education. He establish ed Lawrence University, named after him, in Appleton, Wis., in connection with a large real-estate speculation, in which he became a reluctant partner, and another college at Lawrence, Kansas, which afterward was taken over by the state and became the nucleus of the state university. He served for several years as treasurer of Harvard College, and for many years as treasurer of the Episcopal Theological School in Cambridge. He was a generous benefactor of both institutions.

His most distinguished public service was that which he rendered in connection with the New England Emigrant Aid Company, of which he was treasurer. This company was founded in 1854 by Eli Thayer of Worcester, Massachusetts, an ardent but impecunious anti-slavery man, for the purpose of excluding slavery from the territory of Kansas by colonizing it with freemen. Thayer's scheme was to organize a company on a strictly business basis, which would finance settlers and by their success earn profits for the stockholders. A charter was secured and funds raised by the sale of stock. Lawrence had no faith in the Emigrant Aid Company as a business venture, never regarding it in any other light than as a patriotic and charitable enterprise, and seems to have sold the stock on that basis. (See Samuel A. Johnson, "The Genesis of the New England Emigrant Aid Society," in the New England Quarterly, January 1930.) To his zeal, aptitude, and business efficiency the success of the enterprise must be largely ascribed. After victory was in sight for the free state forces, he withdrew from the management of the company, though retaining his interest in the university at Lawrence and in other public institutions in Kansas.

Despite Lawrence's hostility to slavery and his strenuous efforts to keep the "peculiar institution" from spreading onto free soil, he was a conservative in politics. Brought up as a Whig, he never joined the. Free Soilers and was opposed to the radical Republican party in the campaigns of 1856 and 1860. In 1856 he was nominated for the governorship of Massachusetts on the Fillmore ticket, but declined. Two years later he accepted a similar nomination and was defeated. In 1860 he was the candidate of the Constitutional Union party and ran unsuccessfully on the ticket with Bell and Everett. After the secession of South Carolina he continued to work for the maintenance of the union by peaceful means and joined Everett and Robert C. Winthrop in a trip to Washington to support the Crittenden compromise. When war broke out, he gave the Lincoln administration unwavering support to the end. He took the lead in raising a regiment of mounted troops, the 2nd Massachusetts Cavalry, but the condition of his health prevented him from taking personal command.

Like his father, Lawrence was more interested in religion than in politics. The Unitarianism which his father and uncles adopted in place of their ancestral Puritanism on moving into the city from the country failed to satisfy the religious needs of the next generation of Lawrences, and several of them became members of the Episcopal Church. Amos Adams Laurence was one of these and in 1842 he was confirmed at St. Paul's, together with his wife and his brother. It was his strong religious feeling rather than his politics which made him an admirer of John Brown. Brown's forceful methods he never fully approved and the raid on Harpers Ferry he condemned as the act of a lawless fanatic. The rifles which had once belonged to the Emigrant Aid Company and which were used on Brown's raid were not so used with Lawrence's consent, but Lawrence did give money to Brown and he contributed toward the purchase of the farm at North Elba for Brown's family and toward the employment of counsel at his trial after the raid on Harpers Ferry. He foresaw that Brown would be lauded by the Abolitionists as a martyr and predicted that his death would hasten the end of slavery. Lawrence died suddenly, of heart disease, in August 1886. He had married, March 31, 1842, Sarah Elizabeth Appleton, daughter of William Appleton, a leading Boston merchant. She, together with six of their seven children, survived him.

[There is an excellent biography, Life of Amos A. Lawrence with Extracts from His Diary and Correspondence (1888), by Lawrence's son, Wm. Lawrence. Additional material of much interest will be found in the same author's Memories of a Happy Life (1926). An obituary appeared in the Boston Transcript, August 23, 1886.]

A. N. H.


LEAVITT, Joshua, 1794-1873, New York, reformer, temperance activist, editor, lawyer, clergyman, abolitionist leader.  Active supporter of the American Colonization Society.  Helped in raising funds for the Society.  Founder of the American Anti-Slavery Society (AASS), New York, 1833.  Manager, AASS, 1833-1837.  Executive Committee, AASS, 1834-1840.  Recording Secretary, AASS, 1838-1840.  Executive Committee, American and Foreign Anti-Slavery Society (A&FASS).  Advocated political action to end slavery, which led him to help found the Liberty Party.  Edited the newspaper, The Evangelist, which was founded by abolitionists Arthur and Lewis Tappan.  He later became editor of The Emancipator, which was founded by Arthur Tappan in 1833.  Leavitt toured extensively, lecturing against slavery.  His speeches were edited into a pamphlet entitled, “The Financial Power of Slavery.”  It was one of the most widely circulated documents against slavery. 

(Blue, 2005, pp. 20, 25, 34, 45, 50, 54, 94, 119, 122; Davis, 1990; Dumond, 1961, pp. 159, 175, 179, 266, 286, 301; Filler, 1960, pp. 24, 63, 101, 132, 142, 150, 168, 172, 174, 177, 189, 194, 266-267; Mitchell, 2007, pp. 1, 7-8, 17, 20, 28-30, 36, 45-49, 167, 217; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 42, 363-364; Sewell, 1976; pp. 50, 62, 69, 79, 91, 92, 104-105, 112-113, 124, 125, 133, 134, 137, 153, 156-159, 161-162,  Sorin, 1971, pp. 51, 68-71, 96, 131, 132; Wilson, Henry, History of the Rise and Fall of the Slave Power in America, Vol. 2.  Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1872, 345; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp. 649-650; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 6, Pt. 1, p. 84; American Reformers: An H.W. Wilson Biographical Dictionary, New York, 1985, pp. 518-519; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 13, p. 339; papers in the Library of Congress; Staudenraus, P. J. The African Colonization Movement, 1816-1865. New York: Columbia University Press, 1961, pp. 129-130, 214, 219)

Biography from Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography:

LEAVITT, Joshua, reformer, born in Heath, Franklin county, Massachusetts, 8 Sept., 1794; died  in Brooklyn, N.Y., 16 January, 1873. He was graduated at Yale in 1814, admitted to the bar in 1819, and began to practise in Putney, Vt., in 1821. In 1823 he abandoned his profession for the study of theology, and was graduated at Yale divinity-school in 1825. He settled the same year at Stratford, Conn., where he had charge of a Congregational church until 1828. In 1819, while a student of law in Heath, Mr. Leavitt organized one of the first Sabbath-schools in western Massachusetts, embracing not only the children, but the entire congregation, all of whom were arranged in classes for religious instruction. He also became interested in the improvement of the public schools. Before he entered the theological seminary he prepared a new reading-book, called “Easy Lessons in Reading” (1823), which met with an extensive sale. He subsequently issued a “Series of Readers” (1847), but these were not as popular. When the American temperance society was formed he became its first secretary, and was one of its travelling agents, in many places delivering the first temperance lecture the people had heard. In 1828 he removed to New York city as secretary of the American seamen's friend society and editor of the “Sailor's Magazine.” He established chapels in Canton, the Sandwich islands, Havre, New Orleans, and other domestic and foreign ports. He also aided in founding the first city temperance society, and became its secretary. He became in 1831 editor and proprietor of the newly established “Evangelist,” which under his management soon grew to be the organ of the more liberal religious movements, and was outspoken on the subjects of temperance and slavery. Mr. Leavitt bore a conspicuous part in the early anti-slavery conflict. His denunciation of slavery cost his paper its circulation in the south and a large proportion of it in the north, well-nigh compelling its suspension. To offset this loss he undertook the difficult feat of reporting in full the revival lectures of Charles G. Finney (q. v.), which, though not a short-hand reporter, he accomplished successfully. The financial crisis of 1837 compelled him, while erecting a new building, to sell out the “Evangelist.” In 1833 he aided in organizing the New York anti-slavery society, and was a member of its executive committee, as well as of that of the National anti-slavery society in which it was merged. He was one of the abolitionists who were obliged to fly for a time from the city to escape mob violence. In 1837 he became editor of the “Emancipator,” which he afterward moved to Boston, and he also published in that city “The Chronicle,” the earliest daily anti-slavery paper. In the convention that met at Albany in 1840 and organized the Liberal party, Mr. Leavitt took an active part, and he was also chairman of the national committee from 1844 till 1847. In 1848 Mr. Leavitt became office-editor of the New York “Independent,” and was connected editorially with it until his death. Mr. Leavitt was an earnest and powerful speaker. In 1855 Wabash college conferred on him the degree of D. D. Dr. Leavitt's correspondence with Richard Cobden, and his “Memoir on Wheat,” setting forth the unlimited capacity of our western territory for the growth and exportation of that cereal, were instrumental in procuring the repeal of the English corn laws. During a visit to Europe he also became much interested in Sir Rowland Hill's system of cheap postage. In 1847 he founded the Cheap postage society of Boston, and in 1848-'9 he labored in Washington in its behalf, for the establishment of a two-cent rate. In 1869 he received a gold medal from the Cobden club of England for an essay on our commercial relations with Great Britain, in which he took an advanced position in favor of free-trade. Besides the works already mentioned, he published a hymn-book for revivals, entitled the “Christian Lyre” (1831). Appleton’s Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp. 649-650.

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 6, Pt. 1, p. 84;

LEAVITT, JOSHUA (September 8, 1794-January 16, 1873), clergyman, reformer, abolitionist, editor, was born at Heath, Massachusetts, the son of Roger Smith Leavitt, a leading citizen, and Chloe Maxwell, daughter of Colonel Hugh Maxwell, an Irish soldier in the American Revolution. His paternal grandfather was the Reverend Jonathan Leavitt, of Suffield, Connecticut. Early distinguished by good scholarship, young Leavitt entered Yale in 1810 and graduated in 1814. He then served as preceptor at Wethersfield Academy, whence he went to Northampton, Massachusetts, to study law. He was admitted to the bar in 1819. The following year he was married to Sarah, daughter of the Rel Solomon Williams of Northampton, Massachusetts He practised a short time at Heath and at Putney, Vermont, but in 1823 returned to Yale and completed a two-year divinity course in a year. He was ordained and installed, February 1825, as Congregational minister at Stratford, Connecticut. Three years later he went to New York to be secretary of the Seamen's Friend Society and editor of the Sailor's Magazine. Known among New York friends as "the sturdy Puritan of New England," he entered upon strenuous literary and reformatory activities. He founded sailors' missions in several cities, and he was one of the first lecturers of the American Temperance Society. "Possessing," as he wrote, "no musical skill beyond that of ordinary. plain singers," he compiled an evangelical hymnal, The Christian Lyre, which went into many editions. As early as 1825 he wrote for the Christian Spectator in opposition to slavery. His name appears also in the Journal of Public Morals as an editor and chairman of the executive committee of the American Seventh Commandment Society.

Having a vigorous physique and, according to his Independent associate, Henry E. Bowen, "rare confidence in his own judgment," Leavitt undertook publication, in 1831, of the Evangelist, an organ of religious revivals, temperance, anti-slavery, and other causes. He was a member for a time of the Colonization Society, but he differed with William Lloyd Garrison as to its policies. When the New York Anti-Slavery Society was founded in 1833 Leavitt was a member of its executive committee and was instrumental in merging it into the National Anti-Slavery Society. He was among those who fled from physical violence when Dr. Lewis Tappan's house, an  abolitionist rendezvous, was mobbed. The financial depression of 1837 forced Leavitt to sell the Evangelist, but he reappeared as editor of the Emancipator. Before the election of 1840 he also edited the Ballot Box, which supported the party headed by J. G. Birney. Soon after this he moved the Emancipator to Boston where he opposed the Mexican War and espoused, besides anti-slavery, many causes, such as temperance, cheap postage, and free trade. He wrote vigorously and sometimes abusively. In 1848, when the pioneer work of the abolitionists was complete, and the Emancipator was visibly struggling for existence, Leavitt had an offer to return to New York as assistant editor of the Independent, then about to appear. He hesitated, but his friend, J. G. Whittier, advised: "Not all that thee might wish, Joshua, but a good harbor for thy old age." Such it proved to be. As office editor of the Independent for nearly twenty-five years Leavitt disappointed the expectations of those who predicted that he would be fiery and troublesome. He wrote millions of words of lucid editorial comment, handled correspondence, and won the affection and respect of his younger associates. He was in honor in Great, Britain where, in 1869, the Cobden Club awarded him a gold medal for his work in behalf of free trade. His editorial labor continued until a few days before his death, which followed a stroke of paralysis.

[The journals edited by Leavitt contain much autobiographical material, not yet collated. See F. B. Dexter, Biographical Sketches of the Graduates of Yale College, volume VI (1912); obituary in Independent, January 23, 1873; Elizur Wright, "The Father of the Liberty Party," Ibid., January 30, 1873; C. G. Finney, "Dr. Leavitt's Death," Ibid., February 6, 1873; Leonard Bacon, "Reminiscences of Joshua Leavitt," Ibid., February 13, 1873; J . P. Thompson, "Personal Recollections of Dr. Leavitt," Ibid., March 6, 1873; J. P. Bretz, "The Economic Background of the Liberty Party," American Historical Review, January 1929; L. H. Everts, History of the Connecticut Valley in Massachusetts (1879), volume II; New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, April 1873; New York Times, January 17, 1873. In 1916 the Massachusetts Historical Society acquired a collection of free-soil papers assembled by Leavitt.]

F. W. C.


LEE, LUTHER (November 30, 1800-December 13, 1889), clergyman, abolitionist, in 1838 the American Anti-Slavery Society made him their agent in western New York. Describing slavery in language "expressive of the shrieking terrors of death, the gloom of rayless despair, and the glowing fires of hell". Leader and co-founder of the Liberty party.

(L. C. Matlack, The History, of American Slavery and Methodism, from 1780 to 1849; and History of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America (1849);

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 6, Pt. 1, p. 115.

LEE, LUTHER (November 30, 1800-December 13, 1889), clergyman, abolitionist, was a leading figure in the anti-slavery movement within the Methodist Episcopal Church. Born in Schoharie, New York, of humble, illiterate parents, Samuel and Hannah (Williams) Lee, he received no schooling, and from the age of thirteen was dependent on his own resources. He had a vigorous, disputatious mind, however, and as occasion offered he spoke and preached at the little Methodist churches in his community. An elder brother taught him to read, and on July 31, 1825, he married a school-teacher, Mary Miller, who gave him whatever other formal education he received. In 1827, when he was admitted to the Genesee Conference, he was too ignorant to satisfy the examining committee, but he was approved because of his power as a revivalist. After an apprenticeship on frontier circuits in New York, he transferred to the Black River Conference in 1836, where he rapidly advanced to a position-of leadership. He was a fighting reformer, a powerful debater by disposition and training, and the . increasing anti-slavery agitation in the Church early caught his interest. The assassination of Elijah Lovejoy [q.v.] at Alton, Illinois, late in 1837, moved him to declare himself an abolitionist.

Most Methodists of that day did not take kindly to the official abolition organizations. Believing them "important links in the great chain of operations of the Presbyterian and Congregational churches,'' Methodists organized societies of their own in order to "do their benevolent works. in the name of their own denomination and proper character." Accordingly, Wesleyan anti-slavery societies were formed, in the promotion of which Lee engaged with consuming zeal. His efforts were so successful that in 1838 the American Anti-Slavery Society made him their agent in western New York. Describing slavery in language "expressive of the shrieking terrors of death, the gloom of rayless despair, and the glowing fires of hell" (Autobiography, post, p. 210), he met with much violence, which he fronted dauntlessly. In the fall of 1839 he was employed by the Massachusetts abolitionists. He now used all his influence to further the rising agitation for political anti-slavery organization, and in 1840 he took a leading part in founding the Liberty Party.

During these critical years Lee's  services were frequently required to defend Methodist clergymen in church trials for participating in abolition activity. Through the board of bishops the Church was making a determined effort to thwart such activity among its ministers; but the dual nature of Methodist polity, with authority exercised both from above through the bishops, and from below through the Conferences, made a peaceful adjustment impossible wherever the Conferences protected the abolitionists. After years of increasing friction, many abolitionists withdrew, and in 1843 they organized the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America, without an episcopacy and on an anti-slavery basis. At the first General Conference of the new denomination, in 1844, Lee was elected president Delegates reported fifteen thousand communicants; . but the denomination never grew larger. That same year Northern Methodists precipitated a division in the church on the slavery issue, and there were no ignore secessions. Lee faithfully served his Church during the two following decades, as editor of its organ, the True Wesleyan., as pastor in New York state, Ohio, and Michigan, and as professor on the faculty of the Wesleyan Methodist school, Adrian College, Adrian, Michigan. In 1867 he returned to the Methodist Episcopal Church and after ten more years' ministry in southern Michigan, he was superannuated, dying at the age of eighty-nine at Flint, Michigan  he wrote Universalism Examined and Refuted (1836); Ecclesiastical Manual, or Scriptural Church Government Stated and Defended (1850); Slavery Examined in the Light of the Bible (1855); Elements of Theology (1856); Natural Theology (1866). Their importance is inconsiderable. In 1882 he published Autobiography of the Reverend Luther Lee, D.D. In addition to the above, see Massachusetts Abolitionist, 1839-1840;

[L. C. Matlack, The History, of American Slavery and Methodism, from 1780 to 1849; and History of the Wesleyan Methodist Connection of America (1849); Minutes of the Annual Conferences of the M. E. Church (1890).]

G.H.B.


LINCOLN, Abraham, 1809-1865, 16th President of the United States (1861-1865), opponent of slavery.  Issued Emancipation Proclamation January 1, 1863, freeing slaves in southern states.  By the end of the Civil War, more than four million slaves were liberated from bondage. 

Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 6, Pt. 1, pp. 242-259;

[…].In 1834 Lincoln was chosen to the state legislature; and he served during four successive terms (1834-41), first at Vandalia, the old capital, and later at Springfield. It was a frontier legislature, but its party maneuvers were spirited, and it offered Lincoln his first political training. Being a Clay Whig in a Democratic body, he belonged to the minority; but he became Whig floor leader and directed the fortunes of his party in the lower house, receiving in several sessions the full party vote for the speakership. On national issues, which were necessarily of concern to him as a prominent party worker, he acted as a regular Whig, supporting the Bank of the United States, opposing the leading measures of Jackson and Van Buren, and attacking the independent treasury. He studiously avoided association with abolitionists, but he did not want this attitude construed as positive support of slavery. Consequently, when the legislature in 1837 passed resolutions severely condemning abolition societies, Lincoln and his colleague Dan Stone from Sangamon County entered a protest, asserting that slavery was "founded on both injustice and bad policy, but that the promulgation of abolition doctrines tends rather to increase than abate its evils" (Works, I, 52). […].

In the years 1847-49 Lincoln served one term in Congress, where he had the distinction of being the only Whig from Illinois. His election with more than 1,500 majority over the doughty backwoods preacher, Peter Cartwright, was a significant personal triumph, for Cartwright was himself a man of great popularity. In his undistinguished career as congressman the matters most worthy of comment are those which pertain to the Mexican War and to slavery. Lincoln had not opposed the war while campaigning as a candidate; but when his party sought political advantage by denouncing the conflict as a Democratic war unjustly begun by Polk, Lincoln joined aggressively in this party attack. He voted (January 3, 1848) that the war was "unnecessarily begun": and on December 22, 1847, he introduced his "spot resolutions" (Congressional Globe, 30 Congress, 1 Session, p. 64), which were so worded as to imply that the "spot" on which had occurred the shedding of American blood, which Polk had interpreted as Mexican aggression, was in fact an unoffending settlement of Mexican people, outside American jurisdiction, against which an American force had been unnecessarily sent contrary to General Taylor's advice. On January 12, 1848, he made a striking speech on his resolutions-a Whig speech in which he subjected the President's evidence to cold analysis, accused him of befogging the issue, and questioned the purposes of the administration as to the duration of the war and the terms of peace (Ibid., pp. 154-56). In this speech Lincoln made a declaration which hardly comported with his later declarations against Southern secession; for he asserted the right of "any people," or of "a majority of any portion of such people," to "shake off the existing government, and form a new one" (Works, I, 338- 39). Though Lincoln had voted to grant supplies to sustain the war, and though his antiwar speech made but slight impression generally, he had deeply offended the people of his state. His attitude was denounced in Illinois as unpatriotic; he was described as a "second Benedict Arnold," and was accused of having plead the cause of the enemy (Beveridge, I, 432). On various occasions Lincoln voted for the Wilmot proviso; and on January 10, 1849, he read a proposal to abolish slavery in the national capital ( Congressional Globe, 30 Congress, 2 Session, p. 212). It is characteristic of his conservatism that he proposed such abolition only in case three conditions should be met: emancipation was to be gradual; compensation was to be made to slaveholders; and the proposed act was not to go into force unless approved by the citizens of the District at a special election. Lincoln did not move among the great in Washington, nor did he rise above the obscurity of the average congress man. He amused a small circle by his camaraderie and droll stories, but the more brilliant social life of the capital was closed to him. Vigorous anti-slavery men were not his associates, but he formed a real friendship with Alexander H. Stephens of Georgia. Party affairs took much of his energy. He spent weary hours addressing documents to voters; wrote numerous letters; served as the Illinois member of the Whig national committee; delivered a rollicking speech against Cass which was essentially a campaign document (July 27, 1848, Works, II, 59-88) ; and participated in the Whig convention at Philadelphia in 1848, laboring hard for the inexperienced Zachary Taylor and against his former hero, Henry Clay. In the campaign of 1848 his services on the stump were not eagerly sought, least of all in Illinois; but he visited Massachusetts, speaking at Worcester, Chelsea, Dedham, Cambridge, Lowell, and Boston. One misses in these speeches the resonant tone of Lincoln's later declarations. Antislavery as he was at heart, he counseled against voting for the Free-Soil candidate, Van Buren, since such action would help to elect Cass. Though the Whigs were nationally successful in this election, Lincoln had the humiliation of seeing his party lo se his own district, where the defeat of S. T. Logan for Congress might be interpreted as a repudiation of Lincoln's record by his neighbors. With a sense of futility he bade goodbye to Washington; and, while the thunders of the mid-century slavery crisis were shaking the country, he renounced politics, returned to the obscurity of Springfield, and sadly resumed his law practice.

In the agitation that swept the country with the repeal of the Missouri Compromise Lincoln emerged from political inactivity and launched upon the larger career which occupied the coming years. From 1854 on there appeared a new tone in his speeches, a notable earnestness combined with adroitness in narrowing the contest to one phase of the slavery question, thus making it a suitable party issue. In a speech at Springfield, October 4, 1854, repeated at Peoria on October 16 (Works, II, 190-262), Lincoln answered Douglas, who had spoken in the same hall the previous day. His reasoned appeals to the Declaration of Independence, his sarcasm, his searching questions, and his shrewdness in avoiding pitfalls, indicated that he had now struck his stride as a leader. Still calling himself a Whig, though events were drawing him toward the new Republican party, he worked hard for the senatorship from Illinois in 1855; but, after successive ballots in the legislature indicated his dwindling strength, he aided the cause of the Anti-Nebraska fusionists against the Democrats by throwing his support to Trumbull.

The next year Lincoln became definitely identified with the new party; and at the Republican state convention at Bloomington he delivered, on May 29, 1856, what some have called his greatest speech (Works, II, 308 note). In a time of high excitement over the Kansas struggle, when radicals were trying to capture the Republican party, Lincoln's task was to make a fighting speech which would have enough boldness to inspire the crusading abolitionists and yet so define the issue as to keep the support of moderates. Herndon exhausted his adjectives in describing the speech and declared that on that occasion his partner was seven feet tall. Lincoln soon became active in the new party, attending every meeting he could reach, speaking frequently, managing the details of party machinery, and carrying on an extensive correspondence with voters. He was now the leading Republican as he had been the leading Whig of Illinois. At the time of Fremont's nomination for the presidency at Philadelphia in 1856 he received 110 votes for the vice-presidential nomination; and in this way his name was widely advertised in the North. He campaigned for Fremont in this election, though McLean had been his choice; but he had only partial success in winning Whig support for the Republican cause.

Successfully seeking the Republican senatorial nomination in 1858, Lincoln delivered a carefully prepared speech on June 16 before the state Republican convention at Springfield. "A house divided against itself cannot stand," said he. "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" ( Works, III, 2). In this speech, as elsewhere, Lincoln denounced the Dred Scott decision of 1857 as part of a pro-slavery conspiracy which, unless thwarted, would one day legalize slavery even in the free states. In the campaign with Douglas for the senatorship, Lincoln at first trailed his opponent, speaking at Chicago on July 10 just after his antagonist had spoken at the same place, and repeating the performance at Bloomington and elsewhere. On July 24, 1858, he challenged Douglas [q.v.] to a series of debates; and the acceptance of the challenge gave Lincoln the advantage of being matched against the outstanding leader of the Democratic party. Beginning at Ottawa, August 21, reaching an early climax at Freeport, August 27, and closing at Alton on October 15, the seven "joint debates" were but the most striking incident of a long duel between Lincoln and Douglas. It was indeed a memorable contest. The emotion of cheering crowds, the clack and rattle of western campaigning, the sporting spectacle of contestants facing each other in successive forensic rounds, the physical disparity between the candidates, the contrast between Douglas' private railroad car and the crowded coach or freight caboose in which Lincoln, not without an eye to political effect, lumbered into town to be fetched to his lodging in a hay-wagon-these features lent a picturesque interest to a contest in which the importance of the stakes far exceeded the realization of participants or spectators. Each candidate showed respect for the other, and the discussions were conducted on a high plane, albeit with a deadly earnestness. In the speeches there were few elements that were new. Lincoln shrewdly capitalized the growing split in the Democratic ranks; he denounced Douglas' indifference as to the right or wrong of slavery; and he used with telling effect the inconsistency between "popular sovereignty" and the doctrine of the Dred Scott decision, both of which Douglas favored. At Freeport, by a question as to whether the people of a territory could exclude slavery, he forced Douglas to compromise himself as presidential candidate in 1860 by taking a position which offended the South, though gaining votes for the senatorial contest in Illinois.

Once and again in the debates Lincoln disavowed abolitionist doctrines and stressed the conservative note. He did not advocate the unconditional repeal of fugitive-slave laws nor oppose the admission of states in which slavery might be established by constitutions honestly adopted. Negro citizenship did not receive his indorsement, nor did he urge political or social equality for the races. His advocacy of abolition in the District of Columbia was again qualified by those safeguarding conditions which he had previously proposed as congressman. With the politician's eye for vote-getting and for uniting the incongruous elements of his nascent party, he avoided the language of the anti-slavery crusader and narrowed the issue to the clear-cut doctrine of freedom in the territories. The effectiveness of his campaign was shown in the election returns. His party carried districts containing a larger population than those carried by the Democrats, but inequitable apportionment gave Douglas a majority in the legislature, insuring his election. The contest lifted Lincoln into national prominence; and in 1859 he made many speeches in Ohio, Indiana, Iowa, Wisconsin, and Kansas, impressing his ideas upon the people of important doubtful states.

His name was now being mentioned for the presidency, and it was as a presidential possibility that he delivered on February 27, 1860, his Cooper Institute speech in New York (Works, V, 293-328). This was a notable formulation of the issues on which the new party could do battle. Exclusion of slavery from the territories as the doctrine of the fathers was the key note of the address, which was delivered in Lincoln's best style and with a dignity in keeping with the occasion. Decrying the efforts to discredit the Republican party by identifying it with the radicalism of John Brown or the abusiveness of Helper's Impending Crisis, he spoke for an attitude of understanding and friendliness toward the Southern people. He urged his party to "yield to them if ... we possibly can," doing "nothing through passion and ill temper"; and he denounced efforts to destroy the Union.

Lincoln was named in state convention as the choice of Illinois Republicans for the presidency; and a combination of factors led to his success in the national convention at Chicago. Seward was considered too radical and was injured by the powerful opposition of Greeley. Other candidates had weak points; Bates could not carry the Germans; Chase could not muster his own state.  The moderate element was growing in the new party, and in certain "battle-ground states", Illinois, Indiana, Pennsylvania, and New Jersey, which had supported Buchanan in 1856-it was vitally important to nominate a conservative candidate. Lincoln had steadily counseled moderation; he had avoided connection with the Know-Nothings, had pleased the Germans by his opposition to measures directed against foreigners, and had made himself highly acceptable as a second choice in case Seward could not be named. In short, Lincoln was so free from radicalism, so careful to avoid offense, and yet withal so skilful in inspiring enthusiasts that he proved to be precisely the type of candidate to which a convention turns after the luminous stars of the pre-convention canvass have proved unavailable. The atmosphere of the wigwam at Chicago was favorable to the "rail splitter," opposition within the state having been skilfully sidetracked. O. H. Browning, for instance, who favored Bates because of his strength with the old Whigs, was a member of the Illinois delegation pledged to Lincoln; and he labored loyally for him at the convention. David Davis, in charge of the Lincoln forces at Chicago, worked tirelessly and did his part well, though his bargaining in cabinet positions was contrary to Lincoln's instructions. With 465 delegates present and 233 necessary to a choice, the first ballot stood: Seward 173 1/2, Lincoln 102, Cameron 50 1/2, Chase 49, Bates 48, the rest scattered. On the second ballot Cameron's name was withdrawn to Lincoln's advantage, Seward receiving 184 1/2 votes, Lincoln 181, Chase 42 1/2, Bates 35. On the third ballot the change of four Ohio votes during the count precipitated a stampede to Lincoln, who became the convention's choice amid scenes of wild excitement.

In the fury of the ensuing campaign, with the Democratic party split between North and South and disunion threatened in case of Republican success, Lincoln remained quietly at Springfield. He conferred with leaders, received delegations, wrote letters, and prepared a short autobiography for campaign purposes; but he avoided political speeches. While the people of the South were expecting the worst from him, he did but little to reassure them. In the election of November 6, 1860, he was chosen president by pluralities in enough states to give him a considerable electoral majority; but as regards the whole popular vote he was a minority president. There were ten Southern states in which not a single popular vote had been cast for him; and, strangely enough, his own county in Illinois voted against him. Lincoln carried every Northern free state except New Jersey. His vote in New England was nearly three times that of Douglas; elsewhere in the East his vote stood to that of Douglas as 7 to 4; in the Western states the contest was closer, the ratio being 8 to 7. Lincoln's total in the popular vote was 1,866,452 as compared to 1,376,957 for Douglas, 849,781 for Breckinridge, and 588,- 879 for Bell (Edward Stanwood, A History of the Presidency, 1924, I, 297). The electoral vote stood: Lincoln 180, Breckinridge 72, Bell 39, Douglas 12. In the critical interval between his election and his inauguration Lincoln continued his policy of silence, making no speeches and avoiding public statements as to his policy. While events were moving rapidly in the lower South and disunion was consummated by the formation of a Southern Confederacy without hindrance from Washington, the President-Elect, though never doubting that the government possessed the authority to maintain itself, remained passive and quiet at Springfield. Matters of patronage, cabinet making, the preparation of his inaugural address, conferences, and correspondence occupied his attention. He found time for a trip to Coles County where he visited his aged stepmother, directing that the grave of his father be suitably marked, and for one to Chicago to meet Hannibal Hamlin, November 21-26, 1860. To the measures of compromise proposed in Congress he gave scant encouragement. The Crittenden proposal to avert disunion was shattered by Lincoln's inflexible refusal to countenance the territorial extension of slavery. He requested General Scott to be ready to "hold or retake" the forts in the South as the case might require; and he did little to allay Southern fears as to his policy. He assured John A. Gilmer of North Carolina (December 15, 1860, Works, VI, 81) that he would not discriminate against the South in appointments and that the only substantial difference between the Southern people and himself was in the matter of slavery extension. To another Southerner, Samuel Haycraft, he wrote that the "good people of the South" would find in him "no cause to complain" (November 13, 1860, Ibid., VI, 69-70). These and other similar letters, however, were confidential, and the pacific nature of his intentions was not appreciated. The pliable Seward, during these clays, was more prominent as Republican spokesman than the President-Elect. A survey of the Southern press in this crisis shows a division of sentiment between those who recognized Lincoln's election as legal and would await an "overt act" before embarking upon disunion and those who asserted that abolition had swept the North and that the "cause of the South" had no future except by separation. (See D. L. Dumond, Southern Editorials on Secession, 1931, esp. pp. 221-223, 304-06; see also A. C. Cole in American Historical Review, July 1931, pp. 740- 67.) It was not long before the men who held the latter view seized the reins in the lower South; and fast-moving events made theirs the controlling policy for the South in general. (Much light is thrown on Lincoln as president-elect by the colorful letters of Henry Villard to the New York Herald, November 1860 to February 1861). In the matter of cabinet making the inclusion of Seward, Chase, and Bates was a recognition of rivals, while Wells was chosen as a New Englander and a former Democrat who had turned Republican. Lincoln had wished to include some representative of the South (as distinguished from the border states) and had approached John A. Gilmer of North Carolina on this subject, but his efforts to this end proved unsuccessful. Bargains in the nominating convention were kept by the appointment of Caleb B. Smith of Indiana and Simon Cameron of Pennsylvania.

On February 11, 1861, with words of restrained emotion, Lincoln left Springfield for Washington. His speeches en route did little to reassure the skeptical East, but they made it clear that the government would resist secession. The effect of these speeches in the South was distinctly unfavorable ( D. L. Dumond, The Secession Movement, 1931, pp. 258-60). Newspapers carried full accounts of the journey, and unfortunate publicity was given to trivial incidents, as when Lincoln, whose chin was now marred by a new-grown beard, publicly kissed a little girl for whom he inquired as his train stopped at her town, and explained that the facial adornment had been assumed at her request. His secret night ride to Washington, occasioned by detective reports of assassination plots, was a humiliation to his friends and a subject of ridicule by his opponents. In a conciliatory inaugural address Lincoln again disclaimed any intention to interfere with slavery in the states, counseled observance of all federal laws (not accepting the Fugitive-slave Law), and plead earnestly for the preservation of the Union, which he declared to be perpetual (Works, VI, 169-85). Denouncing secession as anarchy he announced that the national power would be used to ''hold, occupy, and possess" (he did not say "repossess") federal "property and places." Declaring that "physically speaking, we cannot separate," he a sked his countrymen "one and all" to "think calmly," pledging that the government would not assail them, and closed with a poetic reminder of those "mystic chords of memory" which he hoped would yet "swell the chorus of the Union.'' […].

Looking broadly at his administration, one is impressed with the many difficulties that beset Lincoln's path. He had a rival for the presidency (Chase) in his cabinet. Within his own party the "Jacobins," a group which seemed at times a cabal of congressional leaders but which became the dominant element, tried his patience with their radicalism, their defiant opposition, and their interference in the conduct of the war. Abolition demands required his utmost tact; for the outcries of such men as Wendell Phillips reached at times an almost hysterical pitch. Always he had the activities of anti-war leaders to deal with. Though bringing Democrats within his cabinet and appointing many of them to civil and military positions, he was unable to carry through his "all parties program"; and he found it necessary to function as leader of one party, the Republican or "Union" party.

Though the issuing of the Emancipation Proclamation is the most memorable of Lincoln's acts, the stereotyped picture of the emancipator suddenly striking the shackles from millions of slaves by a stroke of the pen is unhistorical. Lincoln's policy touching slavery was a matter of slow development. Throughout the struggle he held that Congress did not have the power to abolish slavery in the South; and in keeping with his "border-state policy" he resisted for many months the clamors of abolitionists. When Union generals, notably Fremont in Missouri and Hunter in the lower South, attempted emancipation by military edict, Lincoln overruled them; and he said to a religious group: "I do not want to issue a document that . . . must . . . be inoperative, like the Pope's bull against the comet" (Works, VIII, 30). Answering Greeley's antislavery appeal on August 22, 1862, he wrote, though with the proclamation already in his drawer, that his "paramount object" was to "save the Union," and was not "either to save or to destroy slavery" (Ibid., VIII, 16). It was found, however, that war over a vastly extended front with a slave-holding power forced the government either to take steps toward emancipation or to become both its own enemy and a promoter of slavery. By July 1862, therefore, Congress had, at least on paper, provided as much as the Emancipation Proclamation involved, by freeing slaves coming within Union military lines, emancipating slave-soldiers, and decreeing liberation generally as to all "rebel owned" slaves in the sweeping though ineffectual confiscation act of July 17, 1862. In addition, Congress had by this time prohibited slavery in the territories and in the District of Columbia.

Meanwhile, from Lincoln's pondering of the slavery problem there had emerged a plan of constructive statesmanship. Recognizing state authority in the premises, mindful of Southern property rights, and moved by the conviction that the North ought equitably to share the financial burden of emancipation, since it must share the guilt of slavery, Lincoln had urged Congress to launch a scheme of gradual emancipation by voluntary action of the states, with federal compensation to slave-holders. This plan, however, as well as the scheme of deportation and colonization in Africa, had broken down; and in July 1862 Lincoln reached the decision to issue his edict of liberation. By this time the increasing radicalism of the war mind, the indifference of the border states to his compensation scheme, and the realization that foreign sympathy could not be obtained for a government which "sought to put down the rebellion with the left hand, while supporting slavery with the right hand" (Chase Manuscripts, Library of Congress, volume LXII, no. 1989) had done their work. On July 22, 1862, Lincoln summoned his cabinet and read aloud the first draft of the Emancipation Proclamation.

His decision was now made; he was not asking advice "about the main matter." Rather he was announcing his course and taking counsel about incidental questions pertaining to its execution. Accepting Seward's· suggestion that the measure would gain force if issued on the morrow of victory, he waited until Lee had been fought off at Antietam and gave out his preliminary proclamation on September 22, 1862 (Works, VIII, 36-41). In this edict he gave warning that on January 1, 1863, all slaves in rebellious districts would be made free; but the proclamation was far from an abolition document, for the President emphasized the restoration of the Union as the object of the war, and pledged further efforts to provide compensation to slaveholders. By common usage, the term "Emancipation Proclamation" applies to the edict of January 1, 1863, that of September 22, 1862, being but a warning. The Proclamation of January 1, 1863, contained no general declaration against slavery as an evil (Ibid., VIII, 161-64). The Union slave states were naturally not affected; and important districts of the South (the whole state of Tennessee as well as portions of Virginia and Louisiana) were excluded from the terms of. the proclamation. The most curious fact about the whole matter was that the proclamation applied only to regions under Confederate control; and Lincoln was denounced for freeing slaves only on paper in districts where his power could not extend. It is hard to put in a word the actual effect of the Proclamation. Preservation of slavery in non-rebellious districts was clearly implied; and if the Southern states had done all Lincoln asked in September 1862, thus obviating the necessity of the final proclamation, there was nothing in the preliminary document to prevent the war from ending with slavery still maintained. Yet the President's stroke at slavery did somehow change the character of the war; and its moral effect was great, albeit somewhat offset by the displeasure of those who opposed a "war to free the negroes." Military emancipation extended as the armies advanced in the South; but as to the legal potency of the Proclamation Lincoln himself had grave doubts. Effective liberation, in fact, came through state action in the border states and more notably through the anti-slavery amendment to the Constitution. Perhaps the chief importance of the Proclamation was in paving the way for these final measures. Lincoln's part in the whole matter was necessarily central. It was he who determined the time, circumstances, and manner of the proclamation; and it was his conviction that, had it been issued six months earlier, public sentiment would not have sustained it (F. B. Carpenter, Six Months at the White House, p. 77). […].

As to peace negotiations with the Confederacy, Lincoln insisted upon reunion and the abolition of slavery, but manifested a generous disposition on collateral issues. This was his attitude in connection with the peace efforts of Horace Greeley [q.v.] in 1864; and the same moderate attitude was manifested in connection with Blair's mission to Richmond (see Blair, Francis Preston, 1791-1876) and in the Hampton Roads Conference of February 1865. In this conference Lincoln, in company with Seward; conferred on board a warship with three Confederate commissioners (J. A. Campbell, A. H. Stephens, and R. M. T. Hunter); and accounts agree that, while the President again insisted upon reunion and emancipation, he showed willingness to use the pardoning power freely in the South, to allow self-government to the returning states, and even to recommend liberal compensation to slave-holders. On the fall of Richmond Lincoln visited the Confederate capital, where he walked the streets unmolested, and advised with Southern leaders, notably J. A. Campbell. He expressed a desire to permit the "rebel" legislature of Virginia to return and reorganize the state; but this purpose, as

(Dumond, 1961, pp. 224-225, 356; Rodriguez, 2007, pp. 65, 66, 140, 241-243, 275, 368-370, 385, 690-691; Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 1888, Vol. III, pp. 715-727; Dictionary of American Biography, Charles Scribner’s Sons, New York, 1936, Vol. 6, Pt. 1, pp. 242-259; National Archives and Records Administration [NARA], College Park, Maryland; American National Biography, Oxford University Press, New York, 2002, Vol. 13, p. 662) 

[For bibliographies, see Daniel Fish, Lincoln Bibliography (1906), also in Complete Works, XI, 135-380; Jos. B. Oakleaf, Lincoln Bibliography (1925);

W. E. Barton, "The Lincoln of the Biographers, "Trans. Illinois State Historical Society for the Year 1929 (1929), pp· 58-116.

The most important edition of the writings and speeches is John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Complete Works of Abraham Lincoln (Gettysburg ed., 12 volumes, 1905), and it is to this edition that the foregoing references are made.

Additional writings are to be found in G. A. Tracy, Uncollected Letters of Abraham Lincoln (1917); Lincoln Letters, Hitherto Unpublished, in the Library of Brown University  and other Providence Libraries (1929);

P. M. Angle, New Letters and Papers of Lincoln, (1930).

The best edition of the Lincoln-Douglas debates is that of E. E. Sparks in Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library, volume III (1908):

Of manuscript collections the most important are the Weik MSS. (preserved by J. W. Weik, collaborator with Herndon), and the voluminous Lincoln papers deposited in the Library of Congress, but withheld from investigators for many years. Certain alleged Lincoln documents have proved to be forgeries, such as the letters to Senator Crittenden, December 22, 1859, and to A. H. Stephens, January 19, 1860 (see W. C. Ford in Massachusetts Historical Society Proc., May 1928). the letter to an Italian named Melloni, alleged to have been written in 1853 (New York Times, November 20,   23, 24, 1931, May 8, 1932), and the fantastic collection of Lincoln and Ann Rutledge letters published in the Atlantic Monthly, December 1928-February 1929 (see P. M. Angle, "The Minor Collection: A Criticism," Ibid., April 1929).

Autobiographical portions of Lincoln's utterances have been collected in An Autobiography of Abraham Lincoln (1926), by N. W. Stephenson.

Campaign biographies were issued by J. L. Scripps, J. H. Barrett, and J. Q. Howard in 1860, and by H. J. Raymond. W. M. Thayer, and J. H. Barrett again in 1864.

After Lincoln' s death there appeared a number of biographies by men who had known him more or less closely. Ward H. Lamon [q .v.] brought out The Life of Abraham Lincoln from his Birth to his Inauguration as President (1872). This work; which gives a realistic and partly unfavorable picture of Lincoln, was written not by Lamon but by Chancey F. Black. Isaac N. Arnold of Chicago, from year of association with Lincoln, published studies in 1-86. and 18-9, and The Life of Abraham Lincoln (1885).

J. G. Holland, Life of Abraham Lincoln (1866), though produced too soon to permit of historical perspective, was a work of merit, compiled with discrimination and attractively written.

In 1889 appeared Herndon's Lincoln: The True Story of a Great Life, by W. H. Herndon and J. W. Weik,   which should be used in the edition of P. M. Angle (1930). With all its limitations, this biography is a classic. It presents Lincoln without the halo, giving a view of the every-day life of the man with a wealth of anecdote and a power of portrayal which has caused it to be extensively used by later biographers. Herndon substituted "for Lincoln's aureole the battered tall hat. with valuable papers stuck in its lining, which he had long contemplated with reverent irritation" (Charnwood, Abraham Lincoln p. 102). It is, however, the Lincoln of the prairies whom Herndon and Weik present ; their account of the presidency is wholly inadequate. Many years later Weik returned over the same trail and published The Real Lincoln (1922), reaffirming certain disputed statements in the Herndon work and adding minor details.

The monumental work by Lincoln's secretaries, John G. Nicolay and John Hay, Abraham Lincoln: A History (10 volumes;1890), inaugurated a new era of Lincoln historiography. It is a voluminous history as well as a biography, for the authors attempted to include everything. Approved by Robert Lincoln, it possesses both the advantages and the defects of an authorized biography. From their daily contact with the President, Nicolay and Hay had an inside acquaintance with his administration; and they made use of a vast range of material, including papers which have been used by no other writers. Their uniform tendency, however, to treat everything from the point of view of Lincoln, their unsympathetic attitude toward his opponents, and their partiality for the Republican party, made it impossible for them to produce the definitive biography.

Since Nicolay and Hay, the Lincoln bibliography has reached tremendous dimensions, and a full list would comprise thousands of items. The activity of collectors and dealers in Lincolniana has magnified the importance of every trivial item; and the yearly output of Lincoln addresses and articles, tinctured with the political or social predilections of the authors, is of staggering proportions. Only a few outstanding titles can be mentioned here.

At the forefront of recent biographies is Albert J. Beveridge, Abraham Lincoln, 1809-1858 (2 volumes, 1928). This great work is not as readable as certain other biographies, for the author has presented his material as he found it with the minimum of literary coloring; its high value derives from its soundness and thoroughness of historical. investigation.

Ida M. Tarbell, The Life of Abraham Lincoln (2 volumes, 1900), is based on material collected by the author in the service of McClure's Magazine, and was first published serially in that periodical in 1895-96. It has merit as a popular "life," but some of its statements, e.g., those concerning the parentage of Nancy Hanks, have been disproved.

Abraham Lincoln (1917), by Lord Charnwood, is an excellent one-volume biography. Though he conducted but little original research and used easily available published sources, Charnwood has produced a well-proportioned narrative which gains much by being addressed to an English audience.

Another short biography of high merit is Lincoln: An Account of His Personal Life, etc. (1924), by N. W. Stephenson. With rare literary artistry Stephenson treats the "emergence" of Lincoln's character from its earlier hesitancies into the "final Lincoln," whom he places among the "consummate masters of statecraft."

W. E. Barton has been tireless in his research and has produced a great many books on Lincoln, among which are: Life of Abraham Lincoln (2 volumes, 1925); The Paternity of Abraham Lincoln (1920); The Soul of Abraham Lincoln (1920); The Women Lincoln Loved (1927); The Lineage of Lincoln (1929); Lincoln at Gettysburg (1930).

Carl Sandburg, Abraham Lincoln : The Prairie Years (2 volumes, 1926), though attempting no elaborate documentation or critical evaluation of sources, is extraordinarily vivid and has a remarkable Pictorial quality in its portrayal of the rough American pioneer life out of which Lincoln came. Emil Ludwig, Lincoln (1930), translated from the German by Eden and Cedar Paul, though of slight importance as a historical contribution, is dramatic and readable, conforming: to the new biographical vogue.

The following biographies should also be mentioned: Carl Schurz, Abraham Lincoln (1891); E. P. Oberholtzer, Abraham Lincoln (1904); J. T. Morse, Abraham Lincoln (2 volumes, 1893); J. G. Nicolay, A Short Life of Abraham Lincoln (1902).

Certain works of reminiscence give special emphasis to Lincoln, such as: H. C. Whitney, Life on the Circuit with Lincoln (1892); U. F. Linder, Reminiscences of the Early Bench and Bar of Illinois (1879); A. K. McClure, Abraham Lincoln and Men of War-Times (1892) ; H. B. Rankin, Intimate Character Sketches of Abraham Lincoln (1924); A. T. Rice, ed., Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln by Distinguished Men of His Time (1886); Joshua F. Speed, Reminiscences of Abraham Lincoln (1884); James Speed, James Speed; A Personality (1914); and W. O. Stoddard, Inside the White House in War Times (1890).

The following diaries are of special note: Letters of John Hay and Extracts from Diary (3 volumes, p.p., 1908, with omissions and with personal. names reduced to initials); Diary of Gideon Welles, ed. by J. T. Morse, Jr. (3 volumes, 1911), a voluminous and valuable record for the presidency containing many devastating statements concerning members of Lincoln's cabinet (critically analyzed, especially as to Welles's numerous emendations, by H. K. Beale in American Historical Review, April 1925, pp. 547- 52); "Diary and Correspondence of Salmon P. Chase" (Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1902, volume II, 1903); "The Diary of Edward Bates," ed. by H. K. Beale, Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1930, volume IV (1932);The Diary of Orville Hielzman Browning, ed. by T. C. Pease and J. G  Randall (3 volumes 1927-33, in the Illinois Historical Collections).

Various problems of Lincoln's presidency are treated by J. G. Randall in Constitutional Problems Under Lincoln (1926).



Source: Dictionary of American Biography, Volumes I-X, Edited by Dumas Malone, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1930.