HISTORIC SPEECHES
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
First Inaugural Address
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 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 Hi 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 purposes 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 anyone make 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 Of 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 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
of 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, 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,
guarantees 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 as 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 [sic] 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 specially 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 governments 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 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.
<< Go
Back
