Abraham Lincoln's First Inauguration was
on March 4, 1861. Mr. Lincoln was staying at Willard's Hotel, which had
become the centre of attention that day. By 10 A.M the Avenue at
that point was blocked up. The day was beautiful and everyone was in the
street. Over twenty-five thousand strangers were in the city, many of
whom had slept in the Capitol and in the streets—it being absolutely
impossible to find a hotel room.
According to custom, the Inaugural
ceremonies should have begun at noon. But at that hour Mr. Buchanan was
still in his office at the Capitol signing bills. It was not till ten
minutes past twelve that he left the Capitol. He drove rapidly to the
White House, entered an open barouche with servants in livery, and
proceeded to Willard's. There the President-elect, and Senators Pearce
and Baker of the Committee of Arrangements, entered the carriage, and in
a few minutes the procession began to move.
The arrangements, as a rule, were bad,
the throng pressing upon the Presidential carriage so as to compel it to
stop frequently. But the sight was very brilliant, and the crowd
enormous. A striking feature of the procession was a van labeled
Constitution, upon which thirty-four young girls in white were seated.
Arriving at the private door leading, through a covered way, to the
Capitol, the carriage stopped and the two Presidents alighted. It was
about half past one when they entered the Senate arm-in-arm. A newspaper
correspondent says:
"Mr. Buchanan and Mr. Lincoln entered, arm-in-arm, the former pale, sad,
nervous; the latter's face slightly flushed, with compressed lips. For a
few minutes, while the oath was administered to Senator Pearce, they sat
in front of the President's desk. Mr. Buchanan sighed audibly, and
frequently. Mr. Lincoln was grave and impassive as an Indian martyr."
After a few moments of rest, the procession formed again and proceeded
to the platform on the portico of the Capitol. There, the Supreme Court,
the Senate, House of Representatives, Foreign Ministers, and a vast
crowd of privileged persons quickly filled every seat : while the
people—to the number of some 25,000—were gathered in a dense mass below.
President Lincoln was introduced to the people by Senator Baker, of
Oregon, and forth-with, in a clear, strong voice, proceeded to read his
inaugural address , which was frequently interrupted by bursts of
applause.
At the close of the speech, the reading of the oath was administered by
Chief Justice Taney; and after receiving the congratulations of his
friends, the President, leaning on the arm of President Buchanan,
retired within the building, and thence drove to the White House.
Lincoln's First Inaugural Address
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 law-giver 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," 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 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 for [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 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 so 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 with all, 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
over-ruled, 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 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 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 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
battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone,
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.
|