Washington, D.C.
This speech had its origins in the back room of a store in
Springfield, Illinois. Abraham Lincoln, who lived in Springfield for
nearly 25 years, wrote the speech shortly before becoming America's
sixteenth President. As President-elect, he took refuge from hordes of
office seekers at his brother-in-law's store in January 1861. There
he used just four references in his writing: Henry Clay's 1850 Speech
on compromise, Webster's reply to Hayne, Andrew Jackson's proclamation
against nullification, and the U.S. Constitution. The desk Lincoln used
has been preserved by the State of Illinois.
A local newspaper, the Illinois State Journal, secretly printed the first
draft, which he took on his inaugural journey to Washington. He entrusted
the speech to his son Robert, who temporarily lost the suitcase, causing a
minor uproar until it was found. Once in Washington, Lincoln allowed a
handful of people to read the speech before delivering it. William H. Seward,
his Secretary of State, offered several suggestions which softened its tone
and helped produce its famous closing. Although meant to allay the fears of
Southerners, the speech did not dissuade them from starting the war, which
broke out the following month.
Californians read the speech after it traveled via telegraph
and Pony Express. It was telegraphed from New York to Kearney,
Nebraska, then taken by Pony Express to Folsom, California,
where it was telegraphed to Sacramento for publication. Today you can see
the First Inaugural Address manuscript and the Bible from
the inaugural ceremony at the "American Treasures" exhibit, Library
of Congress, Washington, D.C.
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 law-giver 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," 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 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 for [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 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 so
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 with all, 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 over-ruled, 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 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 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 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 battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living
heart and hearth-stone, 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.
March 4, 1861
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."
|
Most pet owners would NEVER knowingly poison their animal, but many do! They feed their pets nutritional supplements that contain artificial chemicals in amounts toxic to many types of animals and even children. We recommend NU-VET products. These natural supplements help meet the nutritional needs of your pet, without exposing them to the risk of artificial chemicals. Call 1-800-474-7044, Discount Code 42050, to order by phone. Order NuVet online. Click on the e-store link. Save BIG on supplements, toys, flea collars &more! |
The Make Life Work For You Family of Helpful Websites
Jamie's Storyland - Articles and Advice - Mobile Website
You Can Trust God - Mobile Website
American Purebred Association - Dog and Litter Registrations - Mobile Website
Good, bad and Funny Excuses For Being Late - Mobile Website
Appalling Behavior - Celebrities Behaving Badly
DoggieStyle: Dog Advice and more...
St Patrick's Day Around The World
