Time: Fri Dec 12 17:36:35 1997 To: From: Paul Andrew Mitchell [address in tool bar] Subject: SLS: Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address (Supreme Court Warning) (fwd) Cc: Bcc: sls References: <snip> > >Subj: Lincoln's 1st Inaugural address > > FIRST INAUGURAL ADDRESS > > Abraham Lincoln (March 4, 1861) > >---------------------------------------------------------------------------- > >Fellow-citizens of the United States: In compliance with a custom as old is >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 >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 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 >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 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 >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 of 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 in any clearly written constitutional >right, it might, in 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, 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, 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 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 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 >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 loth 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. > <snip>
Return to Table of Contents for
Supreme Law School: E-mail