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 whatpretext,
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 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 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
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? 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.