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 the 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 guaranties that
"the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all the privileges and
immunities of citizens of 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 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 places 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 the 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 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 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; and 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 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 questions 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 into 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, 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 sections 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 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 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
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.
THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE GOVERNMENT,
BEFORE AND SINCE THE WAR, 1859 AND 1865.
The receipts into the Treasury during the fiscal year ending
June 30, 1859, were as follows:
From Customs $49,565,824 38
From Public Lands 1,756,687 30
From Miscellaneous Sources 2,082,559 33
From Treasury Notes 9,667,400 00
From Loans 18,620,000 00
Aggregate resources for the year ending
June 30, 1859 $88,090,787 11
Which amount was expended as follows:
Civil, Foreign and Miscellan's $23,635,820 94
Interior (Indians and Pensions), 4,753,972 60
War Department 23,243,822 38
Navy Department 14,712,610 21
Public Debt 17,405,285 44
Total expenses for the year $83,751,511 57
Balance in Treasury July 1, 1859 4,339,275 54
The receipts into the Treasury during the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1865, was $1,898,532,533 24, of which were
received:
From loans applied to expenses $864,863,499 17
From loans applied to Public Debt 607,361,241 68
From Internal Revenue 209,464,215 25
Expenditures for the year $1,897,674,224 09
War Department charged with 1,031,323,360 79
Balance in Treasury July 1, 1865 858,309 15
Total increase of Public Debt during the
year 941,902,537 04
PRESIDENT LINCOLN'S SECOND AND LAST INAUGURAL ADDRESS.
MARCH 4, 1865.
FELLOW-COUNTRYMEN: At this second appearing to take the oath of the
Presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended address than
there was at the first. Then a statement, somewhat in detail, of a
course to be pursued seemed very fitting and proper. Now, at the
expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been
constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest
which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the
nation, little that is new could be presented.
The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as
well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust reasonably
satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no
prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were
anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it; all sought
to avoid it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this
place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent
agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to
dissolve the Union and divide the effects by negotiation. Both parties
deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the
nation survive; and the other would rather accept war than let it
perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed
generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it.
These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that
this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen,
perpetuate, and extend this interest, was the object for which the
insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government
claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement
of it.
Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which
it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the
conflict might cease with, or even before the conflict itself should
cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental
and astounding.
Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invoke his
aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to
ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of
other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The
prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered
fully. The Almighty has his own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of
offences, for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man
by whom the offence cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery
is one of these offences, which, in the providence of God, must needs
come, but which, having continued through his appointed time, he now
wills to remove, and that he gives to both North and South this terrible
war as the woe due to those by whom the offence came, shall we discern
therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers
in a living God always ascribe to him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do
we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may soon pass away. Yet, if God
wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondman's two
hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until
every drop of blood drawn with the lash, shall be paid with another
drawn by the sword; as was said three thousand years ago, so still it
must be said, "The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous
altogether."