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 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
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 privileged and immunities of citizens in
the several States?"
I take the official oath today 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 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 of
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 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, an 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, 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 loathe 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.