mirror-textfiles.com/etext/NONFICTION/lincoln-first-121.txt

                         AMERICAN HISTORICAL DOCUMENTS

                       LINCOLN'S FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS

                                     (1861)

  Fellow-citizens of the United States: In compliance with a custom as
old is 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 his 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 under 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 any one, 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 citizen 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 the 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 of 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 in
any clearly written constitutional right, it might, in a moral point
of view, justify revolution-certainly would if such a 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, cannot 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 cannot separate. We cannot 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 cannot do this. They cannot 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 cannot 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 cannot 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 conferred none upon him to fix terms for the
separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if
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 loth 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
battle-field 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.
.