THE NEW ADMINISTRATION.
Speeches at Washington--The Inaugural Address--Its Effect--
The Cabinet--Commissioners from Montgomery--Extract from A. H.
Stephens’s speech--Virginia Commissioners--Fall of Fort Sumter.
A few days after his arrival in Washington, the President elect was
waited upon by the Mayor and other municipal authorities, welcoming him
the city, to whom he made the following reply:
“Mr. MAYOR: I thank you, and through you the municipal authorities
of this city who accompany you, for this welcome. And as it is
the first time in my life since the present phase of politics
has presented itself in this country, that I have said anything
publicly within a region of country where the institution of
slavery exists, I will take this occasion to say that I think
very much of the ill feeling which has existed, and still exists,
between the people in the sections from whence I came and the
people here, is dependent upon a misunderstanding of one another.
I therefore avail myself of this opportunity to assure you, Mr.
Mayor, and all the gentlemen present, that I have not now, and
never have had, any other than as kindly feelings towards you as
towards the people of my own section. I have not now, nor never
have had, any disposition to treat you in any respect otherwise
than as my own neighbors. I have not now any purpose to withhold
from you any of the benefits of the Constitution, under any
circumstances, that I would not feel myself constrained to withhold
from my neighbors; and I hope, in a word, that when we shall become
better acquainted, and I say it with great confidence, we shall
like each other the more. I thank you for the kindness of this
reception.”
On the following evening, at the close of a serenade tendered him by
the Republican Association, he thus addressed the crowd:
“MY FRIENDS: I suppose that I may take this as a compliment paid
to me, and as such please accept my thanks for it. I have reached
this city of Washington under circumstances considerably differing
from those under which any other man has ever reached it. I am
here for the purpose of taking an official position amongst the
people, almost all of whom were politically opposed to me, and are
yet opposed to me as I suppose. I propose no lengthy address to
you. I only propose to say, as I did on yesterday, when your worthy
Mayor and Board of Aldermen called upon me, that I thought much
of the ill feeling that has existed between you and the people of
your surroundings and that people from amongst whom I came, has
depended, and now depends, upon a misunderstanding.
“I hope that, if things shall go on as prosperously as I believe we
all desire they may, I may have it in my power to remove something
of this misunderstanding, that I may be enabled to convince you,
and the people of your section of the country, that we regard you
as in all things our equals, and in all things entitled to the same
respect and the same treatment that we claim for ourselves; that
we are in nowise disposed, if it were in our power, to oppress you,
to deprive you of any of your rights under the Constitution of the
United States, or even narrowly to split hairs with you in regard
to those rights, but are determined to give you, as far as lies in
our hands, all your rights under the Constitution--not grudgingly,
but fully and fairly. I hope that, by thus dealing with you, we
will become better acquainted, and be better friends. And now, my
friends, with these few remarks, and again returning my thanks for
this compliment, and expressing my desire to hear a little more of
your good music, I bid you good-night.”
Never, in the history of the country, has the inaugural address of any
President been so anxiously awaited as was that of Mr. Lincoln. The
most of his countrymen, even in States whose loyalty to the Government
was beyond suspicion, were certain to be disappointed, whatever that
inaugural might prove to be. An impression prevailed, for which no good
grounds could be shown, that somehow, in some inexplicable way, this
particular address would operate as a panacea to heal the nation’s
malady. One class, who knew not the man, hoped, almost against hope,
that such concessions would be made to the rebels as would bridge
over existing difficulties, and restore the good old times when men
could vend their goods and principles--or what served them in lieu
thereof--without being annoyed by war or rumor of war. Another would
be satisfied with nothing short of the most positive and unqualified
denunciations of the rebels, coupled with the details in advance of
dealing with them. Still another were simply curious in the premises to
know what could be said. Whisperings, too, that the address would be
prevented by violence, and hints of assassination were heard here and
there.
All necessary precautions, however, having been taken to guard against
the latter contingencies, Mr. Lincoln appeared at the east front
of the capitol, and received, at the hour appointed, the oath of
office from Chief Justice Taney. Then followed, in a clear, steady
tone of voice, in the presence of more than ten thousand of his
fellow-citizens, the 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 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 the full knowledge that I had made this, and made 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 lawgiver is the law.
“All members of Congress swear their support to the whole
Constitution--to this provision as well as 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 this 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 the 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 very 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 difficulties.
“A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is
now formidably attempted. I hold that in the 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 a 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 in 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 the 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 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 shall be faithfully executed in all
the States. Doing this, which I deem to be only a simple duty on
my part, I shall perfectly perform it, so far as is practicable,
unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the
requisition, 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 need be no bloodshed or violence, and there
shall be none unless it is forced upon the National authority.
“The power confided to me _will be used to hold, occupy, and
possess the property and plants belonging to the Government_, and
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 shall be so great and so
universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding
Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious
strangers among the people that object. While the strict legal
right may exist of 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 best 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 the circumstances actually existing, and with a view
and 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 well to ascertain why we do it? Will you
hazard so desperate a step, while 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; it 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 authorities? 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 alternative for continuing the
Government but acquiescence on the one side or the other. If a
minority in such a case will secede rather than acquiesce, they
make a precedent which, in turn, will ruin and divide them, for a
minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority
refuses to be controlled by such a minority. For instance, why 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 check and
limitation, 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 majority,
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 a 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 the vital question affecting the
whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by the decisions of the
Supreme Court, the instant they are made, as in ordinary litigation
between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased
to be their own masters, unless 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; and this is the only substantial dispute; and 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 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, 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 amendment, I fully
recognize the full 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 either to accept or refuse. I understand that 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 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 the terms for the
separation of the States. The people themselves, also, can do
this 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 vigilance, no administration, by any extreme
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 is still no single 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
difficulties.
“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 cords 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.”
One point was established, at least, by this inaugural, whatever
uncertainties might cluster about it--we had, at last, a Government. No
Buchanan ruled the hour. Loyal men of every shade breathed more freely.
At the same time, the whole drift was toward securing, if possible, an
honorable reconciliation. If, after this lucid, temperate statement
of the plans and purposes of the new Administration, the blow must
fall, which all wished to avoid, it was encouraging to feel--as every
one who heard Mr. Lincoln on that eventful day must have felt--that a
man was at the helm who had firm faith that the organic law, so far
from providing for the dissolution of the Union, had vitality and force
within itself sufficient to defend the nation against dangers from
within as well as from without.
The announcement of the President’s cabinet, likewise--composed, as it
was, of the ablest men in his own party, the majority of whom had been
deemed worthy of presentation as candidates for the high office which
he held--imparted confidence to all who wished well to the country. The
able pen of the Secretary of State was at once called into requisition
to communicate, through the newly appointed ministers abroad, the true
state of affairs to the European powers. As speedily as possible the
Departments were purged of disloyal officials, although the deceptions
and subterfuges which constituted a goodly portion of the stock in
trade of the rebellion rendered this a work of more time than was
satisfactory to many.
The Davis dynasty, at Montgomery, having, on the 9th of March, passed
an act to organize a Confederate army, two persons--one from Alabama
and the other from Georgia--announced themselves, three days later, as
“Confederate Commissioners,” accredited for the purpose of negotiating
a treaty. The President declined to recognize these “Commissioners,”
who were referred to a copy of his inaugural enclosed for a full
statement of his views.
On the 21st of March, Alexander H. Stephens, of Georgia, Vice-President
of the Montgomery traitors, up to that time regarded as one of the most
moderate--as he certainly was one of the ablest--of the conspirators,
in a speech at Savannah, silenced all questionings as to the intent of
himself and co-workers.
He said on that occasion:
“The new Constitution (that adopted at Montgomery) has put at
rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar
institutions--African slavery as it exists among us--the proper
status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the
immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution.
Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this as the rock upon
which the old Union would split. He was right. What was conjecture
with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended
the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be
doubted. The prevailing ideas, entertained by him and most of
the leading statesmen, at the time of the formation of the old
Constitution, were, that the enslavement of the African was in
violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle,
socially, morally, and politically. It was an evil they knew not
well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that
day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the
institution would be evanescent and pass away. * * *
“Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas.
Its foundations are laid, its corner-stone rests upon the great
truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery,
subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal
condition. This, our new Government, is the first in the history
of the world based upon this great physical, philosophical, and
moral truth. * * * It is upon this, as I have stated, our social
fabric is firmly planted; and I can not permit myself to doubt the
ultimate success of a full recognition of this principle throughout
the civilized and enlightened world. * * * This stone, which was
rejected by the first builders, ‘is become the chief stone of the
corner’ in our new edifice.”
On the 13th of April, the President was waited upon by a committee from
a Convention of the State of Virginia, which Convention was discussing
the question whether to go with the States already in rebellion, or to
remain in the Union, for the sake of furthering the ends of the rebels.
The object of the visit, and its result, may be determined from Mr.
Lincoln’s response:
“GENTLEMEN:--As a committee of the Virginia Convention, now in
session, you present me a preamble and resolution, in these words:
“‘WHEREAS, In the opinion of this Convention, the uncertainty which
prevails in the public mind as to the policy which the Federal
Executive intends to pursue towards the seceded States is extremely
injurious to the industrial and commercial interests of the
country, tends to keep up an excitement which is unfavorable to the
adjustment of the pending difficulties, and threatens a disturbance
of the public peace; therefore,
“_Resolved_, That a committee of three delegates be appointed
to wait on the President of the United States, present to him
this preamble, and respectfully ask him to communicate to this
Convention the policy which the Federal Executive intends to pursue
in regard to the Confederate States.’
“In answer, I have to say, that having, at the beginning of my
official term, expressed my intended policy as plainly as I was
able, it is with deep regret and mortification I now learn there
is great and injurious uncertainty in the public mind as to what
that policy is, and what course I intend to pursue. Not having as
yet seen occasion to change, it is now my purpose to pursue the
course marked out in the inaugural address. I commend a careful
consideration of the whole document as the best expression I can
give to my purposes. As I then and therein said, I now repeat, ‘The
power confided in me, will be used to hold, occupy, and possess
property and places belonging to the Government, and to collect
the duties and imposts; but beyond what is necessary for these
objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against
or among the people anywhere.’ By the words ‘property and places
belonging to the Government,’ I chiefly allude to the military
posts and property which were in possession of the government
when it came into my hands. But if, as now appears to be true, in
pursuit of a purpose to drive the United States authority from
these places, an unprovoked assault has been made upon Fort Sumter,
I shall hold myself at liberty to repossess it, if I can, like
places which had been seized before the Government was devolved
upon me, and in any event I shall, to the best of my ability,
repel force by force. In case it proves true that Fort Sumter has
been assaulted, as is reported, I shall, perhaps, cause the United
States mails to be withdrawn from all the States which claim to
have seceded, believing that the commencement of actual war against
the Government justifies and possibly demands it. I scarcely need
to say that I consider the military forts and property, situated
within the States which claim to have seceded, as yet belonging to
the Government of the United States, as much as they did before the
supposed secession. Whatever else I may do for the purpose, I shall
not attempt to collect the duties and imposts by any armed invasion
of any part of the country--not meaning by this, however, that I
may not land a force deemed necessary to relieve a fort upon the
border of the country. From the fact that I have quoted a part of
the inaugural address, it must not be inferred that I repudiate any
other part, the whole of which I reaffirm, except so far as what I
now say of the mails may be regarded as a modification.”
Fort Sumter fell on the day following the reception of these
commissioners, after every effort, consistent with the means at the
disposal of the government, had been made to prevent what then seemed
a catastrophe. This action could bear but one interpretation. A
reconciliation of difficulties was utterly impracticable. An appeal
had been made to the sword. The power and authority of the United
States had been defied and insulted. No loyal man could now hesitate.
If, however, there were any who, even then, clung to the fallacy that
compromise could save us, Abraham Lincoln was not of the number.