header by Emerson Taymor, 2005
1. The Colonial Era: 1607-1763
2. The Revolutionary Era:
1763-1789
3. The Early National Period:
1789-1824
4. Jacksonian America: 1824-1848
5. Antebellum America: 1848-1860
6. The Civil War Era: 1861-1877
7. The Gilded Age: 1877-1901
8. Progressivism: 1901-1920
9. The Twenties
10. Depression and New Deal: 1929-1939
11. World War II: 1939-1945
12. Early Cold War: 1945-1963
13. Social Ferment: 1945-1960
14. The Sixties
15. The Seventies and After
|
|
|
|
Lincoln's First Inaugural
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?...
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....
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....
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...
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.
|