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 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? 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.
|