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 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 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 acontract, 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 Ishall 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.
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. |
