One can realize with this ability to move people’s minds that the Southern Conspiracy were right to hate this man.  He, better than any at the time was able to uncover their stratagems and tear down their sophisms and contradictions.

POLITICAL CORRESPONDENCE

To W. C. Whitney.

Springfield, July 9, 1856.

Dear Whitney:—­I now expect to go to Chicago on the 15th, and I probably shall remain there or thereabouts for about two weeks.

It turned me blind when I first heard Swett was beaten and Lovejoy nominated; but, after much reflection, I really believe it is best to let it stand.  This, of course, I wish to be confidential.

Lamon did get your deeds.  I went with him to the office, got them, and put them in his hands myself.

Yours very truly,
A. Lincoln.

ON OUT-OF-STATE CAMPAIGNERS

To William Grimes.

Springfield, Illinois, July 12, 1856

Your’s of the 29th of June was duly received.  I did not answer it because it plagued me.  This morning I received another from Judd and Peck, written by consultation with you.  Now let me tell you why I am plagued: 

1.  I can hardly spare the time.

2.  I am superstitious.  I have scarcely known a party preceding an election to call in help from the neighboring States but they lost the State.  Last fall, our friends had Wade, of Ohio, and others, in Maine; and they lost the State.  Last spring our adversaries had New Hampshire full of South Carolinians, and they lost the State.  And so, generally, it seems to stir up more enemies than friends.

Have the enemy called in any foreign help?  If they have a foreign champion there I should have no objection to drive a nail in his track.  I shall reach Chicago on the night of the 15th, to attend to a little business in court.  Consider the things I have suggested, and write me at Chicago.  Especially write me whether Browning consents to visit you.

Your obedient servant,
A. Lincoln.

REPUBLICAN CAMPAIGN SPEECH

Fragment of speech at Galena, Illinois, in the Fremont campaign, August 1, 1856.

You further charge us with being disunionists.  If you mean that it is our aim to dissolve the Union, I for myself answer that it is untrue; for those who act with me I answer that it is untrue.  Have you heard us assert that as our aim?  Do you really believe that such is our aim?  Do you find it in our platform, our speeches, our conventions, or anywhere?  If not, withdraw the charge.

But you may say that, though it is not our aim, it will be the result if we succeed, and that we are therefore disunionists in fact.  This is a grave charge you make against us, and we certainly have a right to demand that you specify in what way we are to dissolve the Union.  How are we to effect this?