|
ABRAHAM LINCOLN'S INAUGURATION AT
THE U.S. CAPITOL - 1861
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
Go here for more about
Abraham Lincoln.
Go here for more about
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address.
It follows the full text transcript of
Abraham Lincoln's First Inaugural Address,
delivered on the East Portico of the U.S. Capitol,
Washington DC - March 4, 1861.
 |
Fellow Citizens of
the United States, |
In compliance with
a custom as old as the Government itself, I
appear before you to address you briefly and to
take in your presence the oath prescribed by the
Constitution of the United States to be taken by
the President before he enters on the execution
of this office.
I do not consider it necessary at present for me
to discuss those matters of administration about
which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of
the Southern States that by the accession of a
Republican Administration their property and
their peace and personal security are to be
endangered. There has never been any reasonable
cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most
ample evidence to the contrary has all the while
existed and been open to their inspection. It is
found in nearly all the published speeches of
him who now addresses you. I do but quote from
one of those speeches when I declare that I have
no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere
with the institution of slavery in the States
where it exists. I believe I have no lawful
right to do so, and I have no inclination to do
so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with
full knowledge that I had made this and many
similar declarations and had never recanted
them; and more than this, they placed in the
platform for my acceptance, and as a law to
themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic
resolution which I now read:
Resolved, that the maintenance inviolate of the
rights of the States, and especially the right
of each State to order and control its own
domestic institutions according to its own
judgment exclusively, is essential to that
balance of power on which the perfection and
endurance of our political fabric depend; and we
denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of
the soil of any State or Territory, no matter
what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing
so I only press upon the public attention the
most conclusive evidence of which the case is
susceptible that the property, peace, and
security of no section are to be in any wise
endangered by the now incoming Administration. I
add, too, that all the protection which,
consistently with the Constitution and the laws,
can be given will be cheerfully given to all the
States when lawfully demanded, for whatever
cause, as cheerfully to one section as to
another.
There is much controversy about the delivering
up of fugitives from service or labor. The
clause I now read is as plainly written in the
Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State,
under the laws thereof, escaping into another,
shall in consequence of any law or regulation
therein be discharged from such service or
labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the
party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision
was intended by those who made it for the
reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and
the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All
members of Congress swear their support to the
whole Constitution, to this provision as much as
to any other. To the proposition, then, that
slaves whose cases come within the terms of this
clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are
unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in
good temper, could they not with nearly equal
unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which
to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this
clause should be enforced by national or by
State authority, but surely that difference is
not a very material one. If the slave is to be
surrendered, it can be of but little consequence
to him or to others by which authority it is
done. And should anyone in any case be content
that his oath shall go unkept on a merely
unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be
kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not
all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized
and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so
that a free man be not in any case surrendered
as a slave? And might it not be well at the same
time to provide by law for the enforcement of
that clause in the Constitution which guarantees
that "the citizens of each State shall be
entitled to all privileges and immunities of
citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental
reservations and with no purpose to construe the
Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules;
and while I do not choose now to specify
particular acts of Congress as proper to be
enforced, I do suggest that it will be much
safer for all, both in official and private
stations, to conform to and abide by all those
acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any
of them trusting to find impunity in having them
held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first
inauguration of a President under our National
Constitution. During that period fifteen
different and greatly distinguished citizens
have in succession administered the executive
branch of the Government. They have conducted it
through many perils, and generally with great
success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent,
I now enter upon the same task for the brief
constitutional term of four years under great
and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the
Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now
formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law
and of the Constitution the Union of these
States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if
not expressed, in the fundamental law of all
national governments. It is safe to assert that
no government proper ever had a provision in its
organic law for its own termination. Continue to
execute all the express provisions of our
National Constitution, and the Union will endure
forever, it being impossible to destroy it
except by some action not provided for in the
instrument itself.
Again, if the United States be not a government
proper, but an association of States in the
nature of contract merely, can it as a contract,
be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties
who made it? One party to a contract may violate
it--break it, so to speak--but does it not
require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we
find the proposition that in legal contemplation
the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history
of the Union itself. The Union is much older
than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact,
by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was
matured and continued by the Declaration of
Independence in 1776. It was further matured,
and the faith of all the then thirteen States
expressly plighted and engaged that it should be
perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in
1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared
objects for ordaining and establishing the
Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a
part only of the States be lawfully possible,
the Union is less perfect than before the
Constitution, having lost the vital element of
perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon
its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the
Union; that resolves and ordinances to that
effect are legally void, and that acts of
violence within any State or States against the
authority of the United States are
insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to
circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the
Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken,
and to the extent of my ability, I shall take
care, as the Constitution itself expressly
enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be
faithfully executed in all the States. Doing
this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part,
and I shall perform it so far as practicable
unless my rightful masters, the American people,
shall withhold the requisite means or in some
authoritative manner direct the contrary. I
trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but
only as the declared purpose of the Union that
it will constitutionally defend and maintain
itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or
violence, and there shall be none unless it be
forced upon the national authority. The power
confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and
possess the property and places belonging to the
Government and to collect the duties and
imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for
these objects, there will be no invasion, no
using of force against or among the people
anywhere. Where hostility to the United States
in any interior locality shall be so great and
universal as to prevent competent resident
citizens from holding the Federal offices, there
will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers
among the people for that object. While the
strict legal right may exist in the Government
to enforce the exercise of these offices, the
attempt to do so would be so irritating and so
nearly impracticable withal that I deem it
better to forego for the time the uses of such
offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be
furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as
possible the people everywhere shall have that
sense of perfect security which is most
favorable to calm thought and reflection. The
course here indicated will be followed unless
current events and experience shall show a
modification or change to be proper, and in
every case and exigency my best discretion will
be exercised, according to circumstances
actually existing and with a view and a hope of
a peaceful solution of the national troubles and
the restoration of fraternal sympathies and
affections.
That there are persons in one section or another
who seek to destroy the Union at all events and
are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither
affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need
address no word to them. To those, however, who
really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the
destruction of our national fabric, with all its
benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it
not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it?
Will you hazard so desperate a step while there
is any possibility that any portion of the ills
you fly from have no real existence? Will you,
while the certain ills you fly to are greater
than all the real ones you fly from, will you
risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all
constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it
true, then, that any right plainly written in
the Constitution has been denied? I think not.
Happily, the human mind is so constituted that
no party can reach to the audacity of doing
this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in
which a plainly written provision of the
Constitution has ever been denied. If by the
mere force of numbers a majority should deprive
a minority of any clearly written constitutional
right, it might in a moral point of view justify
revolution; certainly would if such right were a
vital one. But such is not our case. All the
vital rights of minorities and of individuals
are so plainly assured to them by affirmations
and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in
the Constitution that controversies never arise
concerning them. But no organic law can ever be
framed with a provision specifically applicable
to every question which may occur in practical
administration. No foresight can anticipate nor
any document of reasonable length contain
express provisions for all possible questions.
Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by
national or by State authority? The Constitution
does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit
slavery in the Territories? The Constitution
does not expressly say. Must Congress protect
slavery in the Territories? The Constitution
does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our
constitutional controversies, and we divide upon
them into majorities and minorities. If the
minority will not acquiesce, the majority must,
or the Government must cease. There is no other
alternative, for continuing the Government is
acquiescence on one side or the other. If a
minority in such case will secede rather than
acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn
will divide and ruin them, for a minority of
their own will secede from them whenever a
majority refuses to be controlled by such
minority. For instance, why may not any portion
of a new confederacy a year or two hence
arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions
of the present Union now claim to secede from
it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now
being educated to the exact temper of doing
this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests
among the States to compose a new union as to
produce harmony only and prevent renewed
secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the
essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint
by constitutional checks and limitations, and
always changing easily with deliberate changes
of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only
true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects
it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to
despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of
a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is
wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the
majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some
form is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some
that constitutional questions are to be decided
by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such
decisions must be binding in any case upon the
parties to a suit as to the object of that suit,
while they are also entitled to very high
respect and consideration in all parallel cases
by all other departments of the Government. And
while it is obviously possible that such
decision may be erroneous in any given case,
still the evil effect following it, being
limited to that particular case, with the chance
that it may be overruled and never become a
precedent for other cases, can better be borne
than could the evils of a different practice. At
the same time, the candid citizen must confess
that if the policy of the Government upon vital
questions affecting the whole people is to be
irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme
Court, the instant they are made in ordinary
litigation between parties in personal actions
the people will have ceased to be their own
rulers, having to that extent practically
resigned their Government into the hands of that
eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any
assault upon the court or the judges. It is a
duty from which they may not shrink to decide
cases properly brought before them, and it is no
fault of theirs if others seek to turn their
decisions to political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is
right and ought to be extended, while the other
believes it is wrong and ought not to be
extended. This is the only substantial dispute.
The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution
and the law for the suppression of the foreign
slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps,
as any law can ever be in a community where the
moral sense of the people imperfectly supports
the law itself. The great body of the people
abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases,
and a few break over in each. This, I think, can
not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in
both cases after the separation of the sections
than before. The foreign slave trade, now
imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately
revived without restriction in one section,
while fugitive slaves, now only partially
surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by
the other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can
not remove our respective sections from each
other nor build an impassable wall between them.
A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of
the presence and beyond the reach of each other,
but the different parts of our country can not
do this. They can not but remain face to face,
and intercourse, either amicable or hostile,
must continue between them. Is it possible,
then, to make that intercourse more advantageous
or more satisfactory after separation than
before? Can aliens make treaties easier than
friends can make laws? Can treaties be more
faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can
among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can
not fight always; and when, after much loss on
both sides and no gain on either, you cease
fighting, the identical old questions, as to
terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to
the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall
grow weary of the existing Government, they can
exercise their constitutional right of amending
it or their revolutionary right to dismember or
overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact
that many worthy and patriotic citizens are
desirous of having the National Constitution
amended. While I make no recommendation of
amendments, I fully recognize the rightful
authority of the people over the whole subject,
to be exercised in either of the modes
prescribed in the instrument itself; and I
should, under existing circumstances, favor
rather than oppose a fair opportunity being
afforded the people to act upon it. I will
venture to add that to me the convention mode
seems preferable, in that it allows amendments
to originate with the people themselves, instead
of only permitting them to take or reject
propositions originated by others, not
especially chosen for the purpose, and which
might not be precisely such as they would wish
to either accept or refuse. I understand a
proposed amendment to the Constitution--which
amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed
Congress, to the effect that the Federal
Government shall never interfere with the
domestic institutions of the States, including
that of persons held to service. To avoid
misconstruction of what I have said, I depart
from my purpose not to speak of particular
amendments so far as to say that, holding such a
provision to now be implied constitutional law,
I have no objection to its being made express
and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority
from the people, and they have referred none
upon him to fix terms for the separation of the
States. The people themselves can do this if
also they choose, but the Executive as such has
nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer
the present Government as it came to his hands
and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his
successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in
the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any
better or equal hope in the world? In our
present differences, is either party without
faith of being in the right? If the Almighty
Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and
justice, be on your side of the North, or on
yours of the South, that truth and that justice
will surely prevail by the judgment of this
great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the Government under which we
live this same people have wisely given their
public servants but little power for mischief,
and have with equal wisdom provided for the
return of that little to their own hands at very
short intervals. While the people retain their
virtue and vigilance no Administration by any
extreme of wickedness or folly can very
seriously injure the Government in the short
space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and
well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable
can be lost by taking time. If there be an
object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a
step which you would never take deliberately,
that object will be frustrated by taking time;
but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such
of you as are now dissatisfied still have the
old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the
sensitive point, the laws of your own framing
under it; while the new Administration will have
no immediate power, if it would, to change
either. If it were admitted that you who are
dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute,
there still is no single good reason for
precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism,
Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has
never yet forsaken this favored land are still
competent to adjust in the best way all our
present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow
countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous
issue of civil war. The Government will not
assail you. You can have no conflict without
being yourselves the aggressors. You have no
oath registered in heaven to destroy the
Government, while I shall have the most solemn
one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but
friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion
may have strained it must not break our bonds of
affection. The mystic chords of memory,
stretching from every battlefield and patriot
grave to every living heart and hearthstone all
over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus
of the Union, when again touched, as surely they
will be, by the better angels of our nature.
More History
|
|
