Abraham
Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address
Monday,
March 4, 1861
|
Fellow-Citizens
of the United States: |
|
|
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. [NOTE:
He is talking about the Corwin Amendment] |
|
|
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. |