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."
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 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 anywise 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 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 human 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 guarranties that
"The citizens of each State shall be entitled to all previleges 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 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 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 in 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 or 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 ever 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, guarranties 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
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
inadmissable; 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 paralel 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 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, 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 oppertunity 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 vigilence, 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 host 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 loth 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
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.
