Abraham Lincoln

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 his 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 Hi
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 purposes
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 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 any one m 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 citizen 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 Of 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 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 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 of 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, m 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, guarantees 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 as 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 ploicy [sic] 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 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
specially 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 governments 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 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.