First
Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Published In The Jasper Courier March 13, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the
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 Again: If the Descending from these
general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the
Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the But if destruction of the
Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the 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 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 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 The mails, unless repelled,
will continue to be furnished in all parts of the 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 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 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 |