**********************************************************************
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, Iappear before you to address you briefly and to take in yourpresence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the UnitedStates to be taken by the President "before he enters on theexecution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss thosematters of administration about which there is no special anxietyor excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the SouthernStates that by the accession of a Republican Administration theirproperty and their peace and personal security are to beendangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for suchapprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary hasall the while existed and been open to their inspection. It isfound in nearly all the published speeches of him who nowaddresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when Ideclare that--
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with theinstitution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe Ihave 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 thatI had made this and many similar declarations and had neverrecanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform formy acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear andemphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of theStates, and especially the right of each State to order andcontrol its own domestic institutions according to its ownjudgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power onwhich the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend;and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil ofany State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among thegravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only pressupon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of whichthe case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security ofno section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incomingAdministration. I add, too, that all the protection which,consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given will becheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, forwhatever cause--as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitivesfrom service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly writtenin the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the lawsthereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law orregulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, butshall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such serviceor labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended bythose who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitiveslaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All membersof Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to thisprovision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, thatslaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall bedelivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would makethe effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equalunanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good thatunanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should beenforced by national or by State authority, but surely thatdifference is not a very material one. If the slave is to besurrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or toothers by which authority it is done. And should anyone in anycase be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merelyunsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguardsof liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to beintroduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as aslave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by lawfor the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution whichguarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled toall privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations andwith no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by anyhypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specifyparticular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggestthat it will be much safer for all, both in official and privatestations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which standunrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunityin having them held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of aPresident under our National Constitution. During that periodfifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in successionadministered the executive branch of the Government.They have conducted it through many perils, and generally withgreat success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enterupon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four yearsunder great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the FederalUnion, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of theConstitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity isimplied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all nationalgovernments. It is safe to assert that no government proper everhad a provision in its organic law for its own termination.Continue to execute all the express provisions of our NationalConstitution, and the Union will endure forever, it beingimpossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for inthe instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but anassociation of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, asa contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties whomade it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so tospeak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the propositionthat in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed bythe history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than theConstitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles ofAssociation in 1774. It was matured and continued by theDeclaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, andthe faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted andengaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles ofConfederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declaredobjects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "toform a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of theStates be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than beforethe Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motioncan lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances tothat effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within anyState or States against the authority of the United States areinsurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the lawsthe Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shalltake care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me,that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all theStates. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, andI shall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightfulmasters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in someauthoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust thiswill not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purposeof the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintainitself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, andthere shall be none unless it be forced upon the nationalauthority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy,and possess the property and places belonging to the Governmentand to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may benecessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no usingof force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility tothe United States in any interior locality shall be so great anduniversal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holdingthe Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxiousstrangers among the people for that object. While the strict legalright may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of theseoffices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearlyimpracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the timethe uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in allparts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shallhave that sense of perfect security which is most favorable tocalm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will befollowed unless current events and experience shall show amodification or change to be proper, and in every case andexigency my best discretion will be exercised, according tocircumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of apeaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration offraternal sympathies and affections.
That there are persons in one section or another who seek todestroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to doit I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I needaddress no word to them. To those, however, who really love theUnion may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of ournational fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and itshopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it?Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibilitythat any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence?Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than allthe real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of sofearful a mistake?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutionalrights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainlywritten in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily,the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to theaudacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which aplainly written provision of the Constitution has everbeen denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority shoulddeprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, itmight in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly wouldif such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All thevital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainlyassured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties andprohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never ariseconcerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with aprovision specifically applicable to every question which mayoccur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate norany document of reasonable length contain express provisions forall possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrenderedby national or by State authority? The Constitution does notexpressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories?The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protectslavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expresslysay.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutionalcontroversies, and we divide upon them into majorities andminorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must,or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, forcontinuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or theother. If a minority in such case will secede rather thanacquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide andruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from themwhenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. Forinstance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year ortwo hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of thepresent Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherishdisunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper ofdoing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States tocompose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewedsecession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. Amajority held in restraint by constitutional checks andlimitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes ofpopular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of afree people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchyor 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 someform is all that is left.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutionalquestions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I denythat such decisions must be binding in any case upon the partiesto a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to veryhigh respect and consideration in all parallelcases by all other departments of the Government. And while it isobviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in anygiven case, still the evil effect following it, being limited tothat particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled andnever become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne thancould the evils of a different practice. At the same time, thecandid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Governmentupon vital questions affecting the whole people is to beirrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instantthey are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personalactions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, havingto that extent practically resigned their Government into thehands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view anyassault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which theymay not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, andit is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions topolitical purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought tobe extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not tobe extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppressionof the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, asany law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of thepeople imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of thepeople abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a fewbreak over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, andit would be worse in both cases after the separation of thesections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectlysuppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in onesection, 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 ourrespective sections from each other nor build an impassable wallbetween them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of thepresence and beyond the reach of each other, but the differentparts of our country can not do this. They can not but remain faceto face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, mustcontinue between them. Is it possible, then, to make thatintercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory afterseparation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier thanfriends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforcedbetween aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war,you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sidesand no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical oldquestions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people whoinhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existingGovernment, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it ortheir revolutionary right to dismember or overthrowit. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy andpatriotic citizens are desirous of having the NationalConstitution amended. While I make no recommendation ofamendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the peopleover the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modesprescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existingcircumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity beingafforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that tome the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allowsamendments to originate with the people themselves, instead ofonly permitting them to take or reject propositions originated byothers, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might notbe precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. Iunderstand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--whichamendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to theeffect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with thedomestic institutions of the States, including that of personsheld to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, Idepart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments sofar as to say that, holding such a provision to now be impliedconstitutional law, I have no objection to its being made expressand irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people,and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for theseparation of the States. The people themselves can do this ifalso they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do withit. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came tohis hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimatejustice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in theworld? In our present differences, is either party without faithof being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with Hiseternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or onyours of the South, that truth and that justice will surelyprevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the Americanpeople.
By the frame of the Government under which we live this samepeople have wisely given their public servants but little powerfor mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the returnof that little to their own hands at very short intervals. Whilethe people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration byany extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure theGovernment in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this wholesubject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there bean object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which youwould never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time;but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such ofyou as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitutionunimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your ownframing under it; while the new Administration will have noimmediate power, if it would, to change either. If it wereadmitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in thedispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitateaction. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firmreliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land arestill competent to adjust in the best way all our presentdifficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine,is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will notassail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves theaggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy theGovernment, 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 notbe enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break ourbonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching fromevery battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart andhearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus ofthe Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by thebetter angels of our nature.