“The framework of Lincoln’s mental and moral being was honesty; and a wrong cause was poorly defended by him.  The ability which some eminent lawyers possess of explaining away the bad points of a cause by ingenious sophistry was denied him.  In order to bring into full activity his great powers it was necessary that he should be convinced of the right and justice of the matter which he advocated.  When so convinced, whether the cause was great or small, he was usually successful.

“He hated wrong and oppression everywhere; and many a man whose fraudulent conduct was undergoing review in a court of justice has writhed under his terrific indignation and rebukes.  He was the most simple and unostentatious of men in his habits, having few wants, and those easily supplied.”

In 1837 Mr. Lincoln removed to Springfield, Ill., where he entered into partnership with his old friend, John T. Stuart; and this partnership continued until 1841.  In 1834 he had been elected to the Legislature, and after his removal to Springfield he was again chosen to that body.  It was during this period that he found the nerve, when it did require courage, to express and record his protest against the injustice of slavery.  Twice as a youth he had made a trip to New Orleans,—­in 1828 and 1831,—­and on his second visit had for the first time observed slavery in its most brutal and revolting form.  He had gone into the very centre of a slave mart, had seen families sold, the separation forever of husband and wife, of parent and child.  When we recall how deeply he always sympathized with suffering, brute as well as human, and his strong love of justice, we can realize how deeply he was affected by these things.  His companions on this trip have attempted to describe his indignation and grief.  They said.  “His heart bled.  He was mad, thoughtful, abstracted, sad, and depressed.”

The years which Mr. Lincoln passed in Springfield were the preparatory years of his future greatness.  From this time onward he was ever a busy man.

He was once associated with Mr. Swett in defending a man accused of murder.  He listened to the testimony which witness after witness gave against his client until his honest heart could stand it no longer; then, turning to his associate, he said:  “Swett, the man is guilty; you defend him:  I can’t.”  Swett did defend him, and the man was acquitted.  When proffered his share of the large fee Lincoln most emphatically declined it, on the ground that “all of it belonged to Mr. Swett, whose ardor and eloquence saved a guilty man from justice.”

At another time, when a would-be client had stated the facts of his case, Mr. Lincoln replied:  “Yes; there is no reasonable doubt but I can gain your case for you.  I can set a whole neighborhood at loggerheads.  I can distress a widowed mother and her six fatherless children, and thereby get for you $600, which rightfully belongs, it seems to me, as much to the woman and her children as it does to you.  You must remember that some things that are legally right are not morally right.  I shall not take your case, but will give you a little advice, for which I will charge you nothing.  You appear to be a sprightly, energetic man:  I would advise you to try your hand at making $600 some other way.”