those who favor a policy which they call "armed neutrality"; that is, an
arming of those States to prevent the Union forces passing one way, or
the disunion the other, over their soil. This would be disunion completed.
Figuratively speaking, it would be the building of an impassable wall
along the line of separation--and yet not quite an impassable one, for
under the guise of neutrality it would tie the hands of Union men and
freely pass supplies from among them to the insurrectionists, which it
could not do as an open enemy. At a stroke it would take all the trouble
off the hands of secession, except only what proceeds from the external
blockade. It would do for the disunionists that which, of all things, they
most desire--feed them well and give them disunion without a struggle of
their own. It recognizes no fidelity to the Constitution, no obligation to
maintain the Union; and while very many who have favored it are doubtless
loyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very injurious in effect.
Recurring to the action of the government, it may be stated that at
first a call was made for 75,000 militia; and, rapidly following this,
a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insurrectionary
districts by proceedings in the nature of blockade. So far all was
believed to be strictly legal. At this point the insurrectionists
announced their purpose to enter upon the practice of privateering.
Other calls were made for volunteers to serve for three years, unless
sooner discharged, and also for large additions to the regular army and
navy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured
upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity;
trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily ratify them. It is
believed that nothing has been done beyond the constitutional competency
of Congress.
Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty to
authorize the commanding general in proper cases, according to his
discretion, to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or,
in other words, to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary
processes and forms of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous
to the public safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but very
sparingly. Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done
under it are questioned, and the attention of the country has been called
to the proposition that one who has sworn to "take care that the laws
be faithfully executed" should not himself violate them. Of course some
consideration was given to the questions of power and propriety before
this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required to
be faithfully executed were being resisted and failing of execution in
nearly one third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of
execution, even had it been perfectly clear that by the use of the
means necessary to their execution some single law, made in such extreme
tenderness of the citizen's liberty that, practically, it relieves more
of the guilty than of the innocent, should to a very limited extent be
violated? To state the question more directly, are all the laws but one
to go unexecuted, and the government itself go to pieces lest that one be
violated? Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken if
the government should be overthrown when it was believed that disregarding
the single law would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed
that this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was
violated. The provision of the Constitution that "the privilege of the
writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when, in cases of
rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it," is equivalent to
a provision--is a provision--that such privilege may be suspended when, in
case of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does require it. It was
decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the public safety does
require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ which was
authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and not the
executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution itself is
silent as to which or who is to exercise the power; and as the provision
was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be believed the
framers of the instrument intended that in every case the danger
should run its course until Congress could be called together, the very
assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in this case, by
the rebellion.
No more extended argument is now offered, as an opinion at some length
will probably be presented by the attorney-general. Whether there shall be
any legislation upon the subject, and if any, what, is submitted entirely
to the better judgment of Congress.
The forbearance of this government had been so extraordinary and so long
continued as to lead some foreign nations to shape their action as if they
supposed the early destruction of our national Union was probable. While
this, on discovery, gave the executive some concern, he is now happy
to say that the sovereignty and rights of the United States are now
everywhere practically respected by foreign powers; and a general sympathy
with the country is manifested throughout the world.
The reports of the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and the Navy will
give the information in detail deemed necessary and convenient for your
deliberation and action; while the executive and all the departments will
stand ready to supply omissions, or to communicate new facts considered
important for you to know.
It is now recommended that you give the legal means for making this
contest a short and decisive one: that you place at the control of
the government for the work at least four hundred thousand men and
$400,000,000. That number of men is about one-tenth of those of proper
ages within the regions where, apparently, all are willing to engage; and
the sum is less than a twenty-third part of the money value owned by the
men who seem ready to devote the whole. A debt of $600,000,000 now is a
less sum per head than was the debt of our Revolution when we came out of
that struggle; and the money value in the country now bears even a greater
proportion to what it was then than does the population. Surely each man
has as strong a motive now to preserve our liberties as each had then to
establish them.
A right result at this time will be worth more to the world than ten times
the men and ten times the money. The evidence reaching us from the country
leaves no doubt that the material for the work is abundant, and that it
needs only the hand of legislation to give it legal sanction, and the hand
of the executive to give it practical shape and efficiency. One of the
greatest perplexities of the government is to avoid receiving troops
faster than it can provide for them. In a word, the people will save their
government if the government itself will do its part only indifferently
well.
It might seem, at first thought, to be of little difference whether the
present movement at the South be called "secession" or "rebellion." The
movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning they
knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable magnitude by
any name which implies violation of law. They knew their people possessed
as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and order, and as much
pride in and reverence for the history and government of their common
country as any other civilized and patriotic people. They knew they
could make no advancement directly in the teeth of these strong and noble
sentiments. Accordingly, they commenced by an insidious debauching of the
public mind. They invented an ingenious sophism which, if conceded, was
followed by perfectly logical steps, through all the incidents, to the
complete destruction of the Union. The sophism itself is that any State of
the Union may consistently with the national Constitution, and therefore
lawfully and peacefully, withdraw from the Union without the consent of
the Union or of any other State. The little disguise that the supposed
right is to be exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole
judges of its justice, is too thin to merit any notice.
With rebellion thus sugar-coated they have been drugging the public mind
of their section for more than thirty years, and until at length they
have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against the
government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the farcical
pretense of taking their State out of the Union, who could have been
brought to no such thing the day before.
This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from the
assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy pertaining
to a State--to each State of our Federal Union. Our States have neither
more nor less power than that reserved to them in the Union by the
Constitution--no one of them ever having been a State out of the Union.
The original ones passed into the Union even before they cast off their
British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came into the Union
directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. And even Texas
in its temporary independence was never designated a State. The new ones
only took the designation of States on coming into the Union, while that
name was first adopted for the old ones in and by the Declaration of
Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were declared to be "free and
independent States"; but even then the object plainly was not to declare
their independence of one another or of the Union, but directly the
contrary, as their mutual pledge and their mutual action before, at the
time, and afterward, abundantly show. The express plighting of faith by
each and all of the original thirteen in the Articles of Confederation,
two years later, that the Union shall be perpetual, is most conclusive.
Having never been States either in substance or in name outside of the
Union, whence this magical omnipotence of "State rights," asserting a
claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union itself? Much is said about
the "sovereignty" of the States; but the word even is not in the national
Constitution, nor, as is believed, in any of the State constitutions. What
is "sovereignty" in the political sense of the term? Would it be far wrong
to define it as "a political community without a political superior"?
Tested by this, no one of our States except Texas ever was a sovereignty.
And even Texas gave up the character on coming into the Union; by which
act she acknowledged the Constitution of the United States, and the laws
and treaties of the United States made in pursuance of the Constitution,
to be for her the supreme law of the land. The States have their status in
the Union, and they have no other legal status. If they break from this,
they can only do so against law and by revolution. The Union, and not
themselves separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By
conquest or purchase the Union gave each of them whatever of independence
or liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the States, and, in
fact, it created them as States. Originally some dependent colonies made
the Union, and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence for
them, and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had
a State constitution independent of the Union. Of course, it is not
forgotten that all the new States framed their constitutions before they
entered the Union nevertheless, dependent upon and preparatory to coming
into the Union.
Unquestionably the States have the powers and rights reserved to them in
and by the national Constitution; but among these surely are not included
all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive, but, at most,
such only as were known in the world at the time as governmental powers;
and certainly a power to destroy the government itself had never been
known as a governmental, as a merely administrative power. This relative
matter of national power and State rights, as a principle, is no other
than the principle of generality and locality. Whatever concerns the whole
should be confided to the whole--to the General Government; while whatever
concerns only the State should be left exclusively to the State. This
is all there is of original principle about it. Whether the national
Constitution in defining boundaries between the two has applied the
principle with exact accuracy, is not to be questioned. We are all bound
by that defining, without question.
What is now combated is the position that secession is consistent with the
Constitution--is lawful and peaceful. It is not contended that there is
any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law which
leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased with money
the countries out of which several of these States were formed. Is it just
that they shall go off without leave and without refunding? The nation
paid very large sums (in the aggregate, I believe, nearly a hundred
millions) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. Is it just that she
shall now be off without consent or without making any return? The
nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit of these so-called
seceding States in common with the rest. Is it just either that creditors
shall go unpaid or the remaining States pay the whole? A part of the
present national debt was contracted to pay the old debts of Texas. Is it
just that she shall leave and pay no part of this herself?
Again, if one State may secede, so may another; and when all shall have
seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just for creditors?
Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed their money?
If we now recognize this doctrine by allowing the seceders to go in peace,
it is difficult to see what we can do if others choose to go or to extort
terms upon which they will promise to remain.
The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They
have assumed to make a national constitution of their own, in which of
necessity they have either discarded or retained the right of secession
as they insist it exists in ours. If they have discarded it, they thereby
admit that on principle it ought not to be in ours. If they have retained
it, by their own construction of ours, they show that to be consistent
they must secede from one another whenever they shall find it the easiest
way of settling their debts, or effecting any other selfish or unjust
object. The principle itself is one of disintegration and upon which no
government can possibly endure.
If all the States save one should assert the power to drive that one out
of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians would
at once deny the power and denounce the act as the greatest outrage upon
State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, instead of being
called "driving the one out," should be called "the seceding of the others
from that one," it would be exactly what the seceders claim to do, unless,
indeed, they make the point that the one, because it is a minority,
may rightfully do what the others, because they are a majority, may not
rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and profound on the rights of
minorities. They are not partial to that power which made the Constitution
and speaks from the preamble calling itself "We, the People."
It may well be questioned whether there is to-day a majority of the
legally qualified voters of any State except perhaps South Carolina in
favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men are
the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called seceded
States. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of them. It is
ventured to affirm this even of Virginia and Tennessee; for the result of
an election held in military camps, where the bayonets are all on one side
of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as demonstrating
popular sentiment. At such an election, all that large class who are at
once for the Union and against coercion would be coerced to vote against
the Union.
It may be affirmed without extravagance that the free institutions we
enjoy have developed the powers and improved the condition of our whole
people beyond any example in the world. Of this we now have a striking and
an impressive illustration. So large an army as the government has now on
foot was never before known without a soldier in it but who has taken his
place there of his own free choice. But more than this, there are many
single regiments whose members, one and another, possess full practical
knowledge of all the arts, sciences, professions, and whatever else,
whether useful or elegant, is known in the world; and there is scarcely
one from which there could not be selected a President, a Cabinet, a
Congress, and perhaps a court, abundantly competent to administer the
government itself. Nor do I say this is not true also in the army of
our late friends, now adversaries in this contest; but if it is, so much
better the reason why the government which has conferred such benefits on
both them and us should not be broken up. Whoever in any section proposes
to abandon such a government would do well to consider in deference to
what principle it is that he does it; what better he is likely to get in
its stead; whether the substitute will give, or be intended to give, so
much of good to the people. There are some foreshadowings on this subject.
Our adversaries have adopted some declarations of independence in which,
unlike the good old one, penned by Jefferson, they omit the words "all
men are created equal." Why? They have adopted a temporary national
constitution, in the preamble of which, unlike our good old one, signed by
Washington, they omit "We, the People," and substitute, "We, the deputies
of the sovereign and independent States." Why? Why this deliberate
pressing out of view the rights of men and the authority of the people?
This is essentially a people's contest. On the side of the Union it is
a struggle for maintaining in the world that form and substance of
government whose leading object is to elevate the condition of men to
lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable
pursuit for all; to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair chance
in the race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures,
from necessity; this is the leading object of the government for whose
existence we contend.
I am most happy to believe that the plain people understand and appreciate
this. It is worthy of note that, while in this the government's hour of
trial large numbers of those in the army and navy who have been favored
with the offices have resigned and proved false to the hand which had
pampered them, not one common soldier or common sailor is known to have
deserted his flag.
Great honor is due to those officers who remained true, despite the
example of their treacherous associates; but the greatest honor, and most
important fact of all, is the unanimous firmness of the common soldiers
and common sailors. To the last man, so far as known, they have
successfully resisted the traitorous efforts of those whose commands,
but an hour before, they obeyed as absolute law. This is the patriotic
instinct of the plain people. They understand, without an argument, that
the destroying of the government which was made by Washington means no
good to them.
Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two points in
it our people have already settled--the successful establishing and
the successful administering of it. One still remains--its successful
maintenance against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. It is
now for them to demonstrate to the world that those who can fairly carry
an election can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are the rightful
and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots have fairly
and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful appeal back
to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal, except to ballots
themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson of peace:
teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, neither can they
take it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the beginners of a war.
Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of candid men as to what is
to be the course of the government toward the Southern States after the
rebellion shall have been suppressed, the executive deems it proper to say
it will be his purpose then, as ever, to be guided by the Constitution and
the laws; and that he probably will have no different understanding of the
powers and duties of the Federal Government relatively to the rights of
the States and the people, under the Constitution, than that expressed in
the inaugural address.
He desires to preserve the government, that it may be administered for all
as it was administered by the men who made it. Loyal citizens everywhere
have the right to claim this of their government, and the government has
no right to withhold or neglect it. It is not perceived that in giving it
there is any coercion, any conquest, or any subjugation, in any just sense
of those terms.
The Constitution provides, and all the States have accepted the provision,
that "the United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a
republican form of government." But if a State may lawfully go out of
the Union, having done so it may also discard the republican form of
government, so that to prevent its going out is an indispensable means to
the end of maintaining the guarantee mentioned; and when an end is
lawful and obligatory, the indispensable means to it are also lawful and
obligatory.
It was with the deepest regret that the executive found the duty of
employing the war power in defense of the government forced upon him. He
could but perform this duty or surrender the existence of the government.
No compromise by public servants could, in this case, be a cure; not that
compromises are not often proper, but that no popular government can long
survive a marked precedent that those who carry an election can only save
the government from immediate destruction by giving up the main point upon
which the people gave the election. The people themselves, and not their
servants, can safely reverse their own deliberate decisions.
As a private citizen the executive could not have consented that these
institutions shall perish; much less could he in betrayal of so vast and
so sacred a trust as these free people had confided to him. He felt that
he had no moral right to shrink, nor even to count the chances of his own
life, in what might follow. In full view of his great responsibility he
has, so far, done what he has deemed his duty. You will now, according to
your own judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that your views and
your action may so accord with his as to assure all faithful citizens who
have been disturbed in their rights of a certain and speedy restoration to
them, under the Constitution and the laws.
And having thus chosen our course, without guile and with pure purpose,
let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear and with manly
hearts.
A. LINCOLN,
July 4, 1861
TO THE SECRETARY OF THE INTERIOR.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, July 6, 1861.
HON. SEC. OF INTERIOR.
MY DEAR SIR:--Please ask the Comr. of Indian Affairs, and of the Gen'l
Land Office to come with you, and see me at once. I want the assistance of
all of you in overhauling the list of appointments a little before I send
them to the Senate.
Yours truly,
A. LINCOLN.
MESSAGE TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES.
TO THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
In answer to the resolution of the House of Representatives of the 9th
instant, requesting a copy of correspondence upon the subject of the
incorporation of the Dominican republic with the Spanish monarchy, I
transmit a report from the Secretary of State; to whom the resolution was
referred.
WASHINGTON, July 11, 1861.
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.
TO THE SENATE AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES:
I transmit to Congress a copy of correspondence between the Secretary
of State and her Britannic Majesty's envoy extraordinary and minister
plenipotentiary accredited to this government, relative to the exhibition
of the products of industry of all nations, which is to take place at
London in the course of next year. As citizens of the United States may
justly pride themselves upon their proficiency in industrial arts, it is
desirable that they should have proper facilities toward taking part in
the exhibition. With this view I recommend such legislation by Congress at
this session as may be necessary for that purpose.
A. LINCOLN.
WASHINGTON, July 16, 1861
MESSAGE TO CONGRESS.