2 days Ago
Steve Beckett We meet today to reflect upon our town and one of its kinsmen, Abraham Lincoln. When I was a young lawyer, I would climb the stairs to the second floor, and over by the elevator, I saw a marble slab monument that told me that Abraham Lincoln on this spot had delivered his third speech in opposition to the Nebraska bill. Being a “Lincoln reader,” I knew of the Kansas-Nebraska Act, but I did not know of any association between my hometown and Lincoln’s feelings about that law that would permit the extension of slavery to the Kansas and Nebraska territories.
The other name on the plaque was Joseph Cunningham, and frankly, I knew nothing about him, recognizing only that the Cunningham name was prominent in our town — Cunningham Children’s Home and Cunningham Avenue. I asked myself: Why was there such a monument at this location about this speech? Over the years, I have read hundreds, literally more than a thousand books about Abraham Lincoln. My curiosity expanded my focus to read Joseph Cunningham’s history of Champaign County, and other biographical works about Mr.
Lincoln, which taught me more about his relationship with Urbana. I can say that, without a doubt, Judge Cunningham was a friend and supporter of Abraham Lincoln. Judge Cunningham was also well-versed in the national affairs of the country in 1854.
Today, we tell a story of both Lincoln and Cunningham. Abraham Lincoln ‘Full house’ for speech In 1854, Lincoln was here in Urbana as a circuit-riding lawyer of the 8th Judicial Circuit of Illinois. He would come to Urbana to handle clients’ business in our courthouse for the few docket days it took to settle, continue or try the matters then pending in our court.
A lawyer he sometimes affiliated with was Henry Whitney, who had come to Urbana to practice law in the fall of 1854. While he may have seen Abraham Lincoln in the company of Judge David Davis in June of 1854, Whitney had never actually met Lincoln until the late afternoon of Oct. 24, 1854.
In his book “Life on the Circuit with Lincoln,” Whitney tells of meeting both Lincoln and Davis in their room at the Pennsylvania House on the east side of the courthouse square in Urbana. Learning that Lincoln was speaking that evening at the courthouse, Whitney went to the second-floor courtroom and observed a candle-lit courtroom with a standing-room-only crowd — as Whitney described it, a “full house.” Lincoln then gave the speech that we remember today.
What was so special about Urbana that would cause Abraham Lincoln to speak on a subject of national interest? There was no university here. Urbana was a small town in a small county. In 1853, Urbana had 400 residents; in 1855, it had 1,500 residents, the population swollen by the new presence of the Illinois Central Railroad 2 miles west of Urbana.
A new town had sprung up by the tracks. To add insult to injury, the new town was dubbed West Urbana, but changed its name on incorporation to Champaign in 1860, and has since that time been a troublesome sibling to the original town. Champaign County's Abraham Lincoln marker.
The Missouri Compromise Back to the Urbana speech given on this date, a little historical refresher: After independence, settlers from the original 13 states migrated westward. As time had passed, the issue of slavery was very much a north-south issue and the national government addressed the issue with some element of conviction. In July 1787, the Northwest Ordinance was adopted, a provision which outlawed slavery in the new “western” states that would be formed in the territory in the statehood process.
Within months, a new U.S. Constitution was adopted and submitted for ratification.
While the word “slavery” was not an express statement of that document, everyone knew slavery was there and was a continuing sore point for the country. The new Constitution noted that the African slave trade was to be abolished within 20 years of ratification or by 1808. Then came the Louisiana Purchase in 1803, adding vast territory to the United States.
What about slavery there? There was no Northwest Ordinance for those new lands. The issue came to a boil in 1820, when Missouri was to be admitted to the Union as a slave state. How was this going to be accomplished, given the country’s divisiveness over slavery? It was resolved by compromise — the Missouri Compromise.
Missouri is admitted as a slave state, but slavery is prohibited north of a line of 36 degrees, 30 minutes latitude, to the western end of the purchase’s lands. The compromise worked and brought a semblance of peace on the slavery issue for decades. Louisiana and five other states had been admitted before its adoption.
Afterwards, Iowa was admitted free and Arkansas was admitted as slave, and Minnesota was organized as a free territory. Texas joined the union as a slave state by treaty in 1845. All of this is consistent with the vision of the Missouri Compromise.
Then the Mexican War came in 1846, with the slavery issue (which had never really gone away) and its national aggravation returned. The New Mexico and Utah territories were formed. The Wilmot Proviso was debated and voted on in Congress myriad times, but it was never adopted.
Gold was discovered in California in 1848. Forty Niners began streaming there, thousands and thousands of them. California was ready to join the union — as a free state.
The Missouri Compromise, having existed now for 30 years, would provide the calming regularity that nation needs, right? The North and South resolve the matters by a series of compromises — separate legislative acts that become known as the Compromise of 1850. California is in; Utah and New Mexico will have to organize their constitutions to be slave or free at the time they request admission to the Union. And the Missouri Compromise that still protects the free status of the Nebraska Territory remains.
The South got a new fugitive-slave law, and for the North, the slave trade was abolished in D.C. (not slavery, just the market you could see from the Capitol building).
Texas got $10 million — money talks. Stephen Douglas Douglas’ political aspirations One of the guiding forces in the U.S.
Senate, where this slavery battle was being politically fought, was Illinois Sen. Stephen A. Douglas.
He was chairman of the Committee on Territories and took an active role in achieving that 1850 compromise. What did Stephen Douglas want? He wanted to be president of the United States. The vehicle that would help get him into that office was the Nebraska Bill.
He introduced it in 1853, but it did not make it to the floor for a vote by the time of congressional adjournment. This 1853 Nebraska Bill did not mention the Missouri Compromise. Douglas reintroduced the bill on Jan.
4, 1854, and again, its initial language did not disturb the Missouri Compromise. But Douglas knew that for him to have presidential political support in the Southern states, he had to appease them on slavery, so in addressing the committee report summarizing the legislation, Douglas recommended repeal of the Missouri Compromise. This was met favorably by his friends in the South, and in late January, Douglas made it official.
If adopted, the Nebraska Bill would repeal the Missouri Compromise. This repeal introduced “popular sovereignty” — a vote by the residents in the territory on the issue of slavery before admission to the union. Enacting the Nebraska Bill with the repeal meant that slavery would now be extended into the territories.
The calmness that had existed exploded into condemnation across the Northern states. In February of 1854, even in the very small town of Urbana, there was a strong public protest. Joseph Cunningham The newspaper editor Joseph Cunningham had come to town from Ohio, arriving in 1853.
He had acquired an interest in the local paper — the Urbana Union. He and his co-editor, Benjamin Roney, cried out their opposition to the Nebraska Bill. In an editorial on Feb.
23, 1854, the Urbana Union pronounced “Let Well Enough Alone”: “The Missouri Compromise has long been regarded as of equal sanctity to the Constitution itself — Once begin to break faith, and we shall see an end of all peace on the question of slavery.” The Union was a weekly, published every Thursday. It had national news, local advertisements, local news stories and society items, but it also had a voice.
In response to inquiries, in the next edition of the paper — March 2, 1854 — Cunningham had a piece “Nebraska — Its Location” with a first sentence: “The question is often asked where is it and how much does it occupy?” Urbana folks did not know where Nebraska was! Despite the hue and cry, the Nebraska Bill easily passed in the Senate, and on May 22, 1854, it passed the House (where the Whigs voted against it 45-0). Lincoln was here in Urbana for court and learned of its passage. His next court stop was Danville, where he learned that President Franklin Pierce signed the bill.
Douglas’ political and presidential trajectory improved dramatically. Joseph Cunningham reported on the passage in the June 1, 1854, edition of the Union: “The exchanges bring the unwelcome news of the odious Nebraska Bill.” This bronze sculpture of Abraham Lincoln was installed on the University of Illinois campus in 2013.
The election of 1854 It was a mid-term (non-presidential) election year. Illinois’ second senate seat was up for consideration. Democrat James Shields was the incumbent (Lincoln fought a duel with him in 1841).
The Whigs were the active party in Illinois (there was no Republican Party in Illinois yet). The Whigs’ candidate for re-election to Congress from Springfield was a friend and colleague of Lincoln’s. To assist Richard Yates, Lincoln agreed to be the Whig candidate for the Statehouse from Springfield.
However, a new group of political partisans was loosely forming connections — labeled as “Anti-Nebraska.” Lincoln would fit that label very well. That was how strong his feelings were about the repeal of the Missouri Compromise.
As part of the campaign, Douglas was speaking out about his favorite child — the Kansas-Nebraska Act. Douglas started in Springfield on Sept. 26, 1854, lauding his work.
When he was done speaking, Lincoln responded and received broad, boisterous support. On Oct. 16, 1854, Douglas did it again, pontificating about the beauty of his Nebraska Bill for three hours in Peoria.
Lincoln, at 5 p.m., invited the same Peoria crowd to return at 7 p.
m. when he would respond to Douglas, telling the crowd that Douglas would reply to Lincoln’s remarks immediately thereafter. (Look at how shrewd Lincoln was, guaranteeing himself a crowd.
) Lincoln came to Urbana on Tuesday, Oct. 24. How it is that he was invited to speak that evening? With no letter to be found, and no mention in the Union, about how it came about might be a mystery.
We can guess that Cunningham had something to do with it, but that is only a guess. There must have been advance notice — because we know it was a “full house.” Lincoln did not just appear and decide he was going to walk over to the courthouse to speak.
It was in the evening and by candlelight. Sounds rather romantic! I conclude that Cunningham invited Lincoln. When Douglas and Lincoln were engaged in the 1958 debates, an interesting letter gives the present historian the clue.
Lincoln and Douglas appeared at the first debate in Ottawa on Aug. 21, 1858. A day later, Lincoln wrote a letter to Cunningham: Yours of the 18th, signed as Secretary of the Rep.
Club, is received. In the matter of making speeches I am a good (deal) pressed by invitations for almost all quarters; and while I hope to be at Urbana sometime during the canvass I cannot yet say when. Can you not see me at Monticello on the 6th of Sept.
? Douglas and I, for the first time this canvass, crossed swords here yesterday; the fire flew some, and I am glad to know I am yet alive. There was a vast concourse of people — more than could (get) near enough to hear. Yours as ever.
A. Lincoln An Abraham Lincoln exhibit at the Springfield museum that bears his name. ‘That is despotism’ In fact, Lincoln spoke at the county fairgrounds in Urbana on Sept.
25, 1854. Douglas had spoken in Urbana the day before. In the Urbana speech, Lincoln must have spoke as he did in Peoria.
In Peoria, Douglas claimed that there was nothing special about the Missouri Compromise. It was an act of Congress that a later Congress could address and repeal as needed. Lincoln responded: “If Congress, at that time, intended that all future territories should, when admitted as states, come in with or without slavery, at their own option, why did it not say so? “Why was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise omitted in the Nebraska Bill of 1853? Why was it omitted in the original bill of 1854? Why, in the accompanying report, was such a repeal characterized as a departure for the course pursued in 1850 and its continued omission recommended?” In Peoria, Douglas claimed that the United States was founded by the White man for the White man.
He declared that the Black race (then referred to as “Negro”) was an inferior race that did not deserve any respect. Lincoln responded: “When the White man governs himself, that is self-government. When he governs himself and also governs another man, that is more than self-government — that is despotism.
“If the Negro is a man, why then, my ancient faith teaches me that ‘all men are created equal,’ and that there can be no moral right in connection with one man’s making a slave of another. “No man is good enough to govern another man without that other’s consent. The master not only governs the slave without his consent, but he governs by a set of rules altogether different from those which he prescribes for himself.
” Also in Peoria, Douglas claimed that he did not care if the Kansas or Nebraska territory was slave or free, that popular sovereignty was the best example of democracy there was, and that the slavery question would be resolved once and for all by its use: Lincoln responded: “This declared indifference, but as I must think, covert real zeal for the spread of slavery, I cannot but hate. I hate it because of the monstrous injustice of slavery itself. I hate it because it deprives our republican example of its just influence in the world — enables the enemies of free institutions, with plausibility, to taunt us as hypocrites — causes the real friends of freedom to doubt our sincerity, and especially because it forces so many really good men amongst ourselves into an open war with the very fundamental principles of civil liberty — criticizing the Declaration of Independence, and insisting that there is no right principle of action but self-interest.
” President-elect #AbrahamLincoln 's advice to a crowd of his happy supporters after election day. #AbeSays #Elections #OneNation Source: https://t.co/76GjVKn3WC pic.
twitter.com/wYYekEoTa9 What plays in Peoria ..
. Lincoln told his Urbana audience that he was anti-slavery and anti-Nebraska. (Who knows — he may have mentioned Yates.
) But his Anti-Nebraska speaking did not end there — Lincoln went to Chicago on Oct. 27, 1854, where both Lincoln and Douglas spoke. Lincoln took the Illinois Central train to Chicago and left his horse in Urbana.
Lincoln returned on the next day and used old-fashioned transportation — his horse and stage lines — and on Nov. 1, 1854, Lincoln spoke again in Quincy. He was clearly on the stump.
What about our Urbana Union? What did it have to say about the momentous Lincoln speech, about the leading topic of the times in front of the large crowd at the courthouse? Virtually nothing! In the Thursday, Oct. 26, edition of the paper, this line appeared: “On Tuesday evening Hon. A.
Lincoln addressed a large assembly at the Court House, in opposition to the Nebraska Bill.” Nothing else was written. What was in it for Lincoln to give the Urbana speech? It was a political speech delivered out on the circuit.
While Lincoln was indeed a candidate for the House of Representatives, his actual desire was to be selected the new U.S. senator.
Remember that U.S. senators were not elected by popular vote but by majority vote of the General Assembly.
Lincoln was looking for support from Illinois House and Senate members, who in February 1855 would be voting in the new Illinois senator or putting Shields back into office. Going from Springfield to Peoria, to Urbana, to Chicago, to Quincy was consistent with Lincoln looking for political support for his Senate candidacy and for perhaps also for Yates’ re-election. In fact, Lincoln won his state House election, but on Nov.
27, 1854, he withdrew from his election to that office, which made him eligible for the Senate race. He started writing letters to friends and acquaintances, asking for their help with that Senate selection. In his written notes, Lincoln was analyzing the anti-Nebraska votes, which he believed to be a majority of the members of the Illinois Legislature.
If Lincoln could have the majority anti-Nebraska vote, he would be the new Illinois U.S. senator, opposing Douglas.
In early January, Lincoln drafted a resolution for introduction to the Illinois House to reinstate the Missouri Compromise. Apparently, nothing ever came of this, but we can read his mind, can’t we? Lincoln wanted to be senator, and the hottest issue was the repeal of the Missouri Compromise and anti-Nebraska. Joseph Cunningham knew that the speech was a political speech — because the monument to the event is not just that Lincoln spoke in opposition to the Nebraska Bill but that he spoke in opposition to “Douglas and the Nebraska Bill.
” Opposing Douglas is political. Lincoln lost the Senate race, even though he had the most votes (45) on the first ballot. By the 10th ballot, Lincoln had 15 votes and assigned his supporters to vote for Lyman Trumbell, who became that second U.
S. senator from Illinois. Step into history! 📜 See Lincoln’s Gettysburg Address in his own handwriting on display until November 24.
📅 Don’t miss FREE Admission on November 19 for the 161st anniversary! Plan your visit: https://t.co/hQh6JTOMkJ #ALPLM #AbrahamLincoln #GettysburgAddress @GovPritzker pic.twitter.
com/uk6enOOfjr A lesson for today I have called the Urbana speech a “lost speech,” but how so? All the other speeches (Lincoln had first made remarks in Bloomington) were covered by the newspapers. But as we have seen, the Urbana Union barely mentioned it. Why? On Nov.
9, 1854, the Thursday following the election, the editors of the Union responded to a criticism that they had tried to influence voters. That criticism was that the newspaper had actively supported candidates for the Nov. 7 election.
To settle this question in the negative, we have but to refer to the files of the Union, on whose pages no article can be found advocating the claims of any man to any office. One can only assume that a small-town newspaper would be afraid of being a Whig paper or a Democratic paper — it would be bad for business. The papers in the larger towns definitely picked sides, and there was more than one paper in those towns.
If the Urbana Union did likewise, it would lose readers and advertising revenue. So is it really a “lost speech”? Probably not. Henry Whitney said it was the Peoria speech.
When Lincoln was soliciting support for his U.S. Senate candidacy, on Dec.
15, 1854, he sent a printed copy of the Peoria speech to Thomas Henderson of Stark County, likely in pamphlet form. One can easily conclude that what Lincoln said in Peoria, he said in Urbana. Lincoln was not the great emancipator here in Urbana.
He was a politician seeking office. He was a stump speaker trying to get Yates elected, but the speech does reflect Lincoln’s movement against slavery and was a step toward a view of emancipation instead of colonization. While this is not the Gettysburg Address, what played in Peoria certainly played in Urbana.
Lincoln’s Urbana speech showed the direction Lincoln was heading. In short, Lincoln had re-entered politics with a vengeance. He had found a cause he truly believed in.
He was not an abolitionist, but he was firmly anti-slavery and thought slavery was so evil that it had to die because of its depravity. He believed in the “all men are created equal” passage of the Declaration of Independence and saw his chance to succeed in politics. The monument that Judge Joseph Cunningham placed and dedicated was a permanent reminder of Lincoln’s presence in our community and of the importance of the message he brought here on Oct.
24, 1854. What happened with Cunningham? He was elected county judge in 1860 and served a four-year term. He was “Judge Cunningham” thereafter.
In 1867, he was appointed as a trustee on the board of the new Illinois Industrial University, established just west of Urbana that year. He served two terms. He never lost his kinship with Lincoln and frequently made presentations about Lincoln’s time in Urbana.
As we know, at the time of the centennial of Lincoln’s birth, Cunningham’s reflections of Lincoln and the 1854 speech led him to place a monument in the courthouse in Urbana to declare that “on this spot, Abraham Lincoln gave his third speech in opposition to the Nebraska Bill and Senator Douglas, October 24, 1854.” What does this historical Urbana speech mean for us in central Illinois 170 years later? We see national political issues swirling around us in a country, as divided as it was in 1854. There is still a sense of geography to this.
In 1854, it was North and South, but to some extent the division was also urban and rural — a cultural divide. Today, there is a strong urban and rural divide, but we can look at a map and see that U.S.
geography still matters. The moral message that Lincoln carried eventually became law with the end of slavery by his act of emancipation. We must insist in the same sense of political morality and that work must be done to solve the divisions that exist today.
.
