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--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, 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 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 of 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 policy of the government, upon vital
questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed by
decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinary
litigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have
ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned
the 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 especially chosen for the purpose, and which
might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse.
I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution which amendment,
however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the
Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions
of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid
misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak
of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision
to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being
made express and irrevocable.
The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and
they have conferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the
States. The people themselves can do this also if they choose; but the
executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer
the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it,
unimpaired by him, to his successors.
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.
REFUSAL OF SEWARD RESIGNATION
TO WM. H. SEWARD.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 4, 1861.
MY DEAR SIR:--Your note of the 2d instant, asking to withdraw your
acceptance of my invitation to take charge of the State Department, was
duly received. It is the subject of the most painful solicitude with me,
and I feel constrained to beg that you will countermand the withdrawal.
The public interest, I think, demands that you should; and my personal
feelings are deeply enlisted in the same direction. Please consider and
answer by 9 A.M. to-morrow.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
REPLY TO THE PENNSYLVANIA DELEGATION,
WASHINGTON, MARCH 5, 1861
Mr. CHAIRMAN AND GENTLEMEN OF THE PENNSYLVANIAN DELEGATION:--As I have so
frequently said heretofore, when I have had occasion to address the people
of the Keystone, in my visits to that State, I can now but repeat the
assurance of my gratification at the support you gave me at the election,
and at the promise of a continuation of that support which is now tendered
to me.
Allusion has been made to the hope that you entertain that you have a
President and a government. In respect to that I wish to say to you that
in the position I have assumed I wish to do more than I have ever given
reason to believe I would do. I do not wish you to believe that I assume
to be any better than others who have gone before me. I prefer rather to
have it understood that if we ever have a government on the principles we
profess, we should remember, while we exercise our opinion, that others
have also rights to the exercise of their opinions, and that we should
endeavor to allow these rights, and act in such a manner as to create no
bad feeling. I hope we have a government and a President. I hope, and
wish it to be understood, that there may be no allusion to unpleasant
differences.
We must remember that the people of all the States are entitled to all the
privileges and immunities of the citizens of the several States. We should
bear this in mind, and act in such a way as to say nothing insulting
or irritating. I would inculcate this idea, so that we may not, like
Pharisees, set ourselves up to be better than other people.
Now, my friends, my public duties are pressing to-day, and will prevent
my giving more time to you. Indeed, I should not have left them now, but I
could not well deny myself to so large and respectable a body.
REPLY TO THE MASSACHUSETTS DELEGATION,
WASHINGTON, MARCH 5, 1861
I am thankful for this renewed assurance of kind feeling and confidence,
and the support of the old Bay State, in so far as you, Mr. Chairman, have
expressed, in behalf of those whom you represent, your sanction of what
I have enunciated in my inaugural address. This is very grateful to my
feelings. The object was one of great delicacy, in presenting views at the
opening of an administration under the peculiar circumstances attending my
entrance upon the official duties connected with the Government. I studied
all the points with great anxiety, and presented them with whatever
of ability and sense of justice I could bring to bear. If it met the
approbation of our good friends in Massachusetts, I shall be exceedingly
gratified, while I hope it will meet the approbation of friends
everywhere. I am thankful for the expressions of those who have voted
with us; and like every other man of you, I like them as certainly as I do
others. As the President in the administration of the Government, I
hope to be man enough not to know one citizen of the United States from
another, nor one section from another. I shall be gratified to have good
friends of Massachusetts and others who have thus far supported me in
these national views still to support me in carrying them out.
TO SECRETARY SEWARD
EXECUTIVE CHAMBER, MARCH 7, 1861
MY DEAR SIR:--Herewith is the diplomatic address and my reply. To whom the
reply should be addressed--that is, by what title or style--I do not quite
understand, and therefore I have left it blank.
Will you please bring with you to-day the message from the War Department,
with General Scott's note upon it, which we had here yesterday? I wish to
examine the General's opinion, which I have not yet done.
Yours very truly
A. LINCOLN.
REPLY TO THE DIPLOMATIC CORPS
WASHINGTON, THURSDAY, MARCH 7, 1861
Mr. FIGANIERE AND GENTLEMEN OF THE DIPLOMATIC BODY:--Please accept my
sincere thanks for your kind congratulations. It affords me pleasure
to confirm the confidence you so generously express in the friendly
disposition of the United States, through me, towards the sovereigns and
governments you respectively represent. With equal satisfaction I accept
the assurance you are pleased to give, that the same disposition is
reciprocated by your sovereigns, your governments, and yourselves.
Allow me to express the hope that these friendly relations may remain
undisturbed, and also my fervent wishes for the health and happiness of
yourselves personally.
TO SECRETARY SEWARD
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 11,1861
HON. SECRETARY OF STATE. DEAR SIR:--What think you of sending ministers
at once as follows: Dayton to England; Fremont to France; Clay to Spain;
Corwin to Mexico?
We need to have these points guarded as strongly and quickly as possible.
This is suggestion merely, and not dictation.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO J. COLLAMER
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 12, 1861
HON. JACOB COLLAMER. MY DEAR SIR:--God help me. It is said I have offended
you. I hope you will tell me how.
Yours very truly,
A. LINCOLN.
March 14, 1861. DEAR SIR:--I am entirely unconscious that you have any way
offended me. I cherish no sentiment towards you but that of kindness and
confidence. Your humble servant, J. COLLAMER.
[Returned with indorsement:]
Very glad to know that I have n't.
A. LINCOLN.
TO THE POSTMASTER-GENERAL.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 13, 1861
HON. P. M. G.
DEAR SIR:--The bearer of this, Mr. C. T. Hempstow, is a Virginian who
wishes to get, for his son, a small place in your Dept. I think Virginia
should be heard, in such cases.
LINCOLN.
NOTE ASKING CABINET OPINIONS ON FORT SUMTER.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 15, 1861
THE HONORABLE SECRETARY OF WAR.
MY DEAR SIR:--Assuming it to be possible to now provision Fort Sumter,
under all the circumstances is it wise to attempt it? Please give me your
opinion in writing on this question.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
[Same to other members of the Cabinet.]
ON ROYAL ARBITRATION OF AMERICAN BOUNDARY LINE
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
The Senate has transmitted to me a copy of the message sent by my
predecessor to that body on the 21st of February last, proposing to take
its advice on the subject of a proposition made by the British Government
through its minister here to refer the matter in controversy between that
government and the Government of the United States to the arbitrament
of the King of Sweden and Norway, the King of the Netherlands, or the
Republic of the Swiss Confederation.
In that message my predecessor stated that he wished to present to the
Senate the precise questions following, namely:
"Will the Senate approve a treaty referring to either of the sovereign
powers above named the dispute now existing between the governments of
the United States and Great Britain concerning the boundary line between
Vancouver's Island and the American continent? In case the referee shall
find himself unable to decide where the line is by the description of it
in the treaty of June 15, 1846, shall he be authorized to establish a line
according to the treaty as nearly as possible? Which of the three powers
named by Great Britain as an arbiter shall be chosen by the United
States?"
I find no reason to disapprove of the course of my predecessor in this
important matter; but, on the contrary, I not only shall receive the
advice of the Senate thereon cheerfully, but I respectfully ask the Senate
for their advice on the three questions before recited.
ABRAHAM LINCOLN.
WASHINGTON, March 16, 1861
AMBASSADORIAL APPOINTMENTS
TO SECRETARY SEWARD.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 18, 1861
HON. SECRETARY OF STATE.
MY DEAR SIR:--I believe it is a necessity with us to make the appointments
I mentioned last night--that is, Charles F. Adams to England, William L.
Dayton to France, George P. Marsh to Sardinia, and Anson Burlingame to
Austria. These gentlemen all have my highest esteem, but no one of them is
originally suggested by me except Mr. Dayton. Mr. Adams I take because you
suggested him, coupled with his eminent fitness for the place. Mr.
Marsh and Mr. Burlingame I take because of the intense pressure of their
respective States, and their fitness also.
The objection to this card is that locally they are so huddled up--three
being in New England and two from a single State. I have considered this,
and will not shrink from the responsibility. This, being done, leaves but
five full missions undisposed of--Rome, China, Brazil, Peru, and Chili.
And then what about Carl Schurz; or, in other words, what about our German
friends?
Shall we put the card through, and arrange the rest afterward? What say
you?
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
TO G. E. PATTEN.
EXECUTIVE MANSION, March 19, 1861.
TO MASTER GEO. EVANS PATTEN.
WHOM IT MAY CONCERN:--I did see and talk with Master Geo. Evans Patten
last May at Springfield, Ill.
Respectfully,
A. LINCOLN.
[Written because of a denial that any interview with young Patten, then a
schoolboy, had ever taken place.]
RESPONSE TO SENATE INQUIRY RE. FORT SUMTER
MESSAGE TO THE SENATE.
TO THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES:--I have received a copy of the
resolution of the Senate, passed on the 25th instant, requesting me, if
in my opinion not incompatible with the public interest, to communicate to
the Senate the despatches of Major Robert Anderson to the War Department
during the time he has been in command of Fort Sumter. On examination of
the correspondence thus called for, I have, with the highest respect
for the Senate, come to the conclusion that at the present moment the
publication of it would be inexpedient.
A. LINCOLN
WASHINGTON, MARCH 16, 1861
PREPARATION OF FIRST NAVAL ACTION
TO THE SECRETARY OF WAR
EXECUTIVE MANSION, MARCH 29, 1861
HONORABLE SECRETARY OF WAR.
SIR:--I desire that an expedition to move by sea be got ready to sail
as early as the 6th of April next, the whole according to memorandum
attached, and that you cooperate with the Secretary of the Navy for that
object.
Your obedient servant,
A. LINCOLN.
[Inclosure.]
Steamers Pocahontas at Norfolk, Paunee at Washington, Harriet Lane at
New York, to be under sailing orders for sea, with stores, etc., for one
month. Three hundred men to be kept ready for departure from on board
the receiving-ships at New York. Two hundred men to be ready to leave
Governor's Island in New York. Supplies for twelve months for one hundred
men to be put in portable shape, ready for instant shipping. A large
steamer and three tugs conditionally engaged.
TO ------ STUART.
WASHINGTON, March 30, 1861
DEAR STUART:
Cousin Lizzie shows me your letter of the 27th. The question of giving her
the Springfield post-office troubles me. You see I have already appointed
William Jayne a Territorial governor and Judge Trumbull's brother to a
land-office. Will it do for me to go on and justify the declaration that
Trumbull and I have divided out all the offices among our relatives? Dr.
Wallace, you know, is needy, and looks to me; and I personally owe him
much.
I see by the papers, a vote is to be taken as to the post-office. Could
you not set up Lizzie and beat them all? She, being here, need know
nothing of it, so therefore there would be no indelicacy on her part.
Yours as ever,
TO THE COMMANDANT OF THE NEW YORK NAVY-YARD.
NAVY DEPT., WASHINGTON, April 1, 1861
TO THE COMMANDANT OF THE NAVY-YARD, Brooklyn, N. Y.
Fit out the Powhatan to go to sea at the earnest possible moment under
sealed orders. Orders by a confidential messenger go forward to-morrow.
A. LINCOLN.
TO LIEUTENANT D. D. PORTER
EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1861
LIEUTENANT D. D. PORTER, United States Navy.
SIR:--You will proceed to New York, and with the least possible delay,
assuming command of any naval steamer available, proceed to Pensacola
Harbor, and at any cost or risk prevent any expedition from the mainland
reaching Fort Pickens or Santa Rosa Island.
You will exhibit this order to any naval officer at Pensacola, if you deem
it necessary, after you have established yourself within the harbor, and
will request co-operation by the entrance of at least one other steamer.
This order, its object, and your destination will be communicated to no
person whatever until you reach the harbor of Pensacola.
A. LINCOLN.
Recommended, WILLIAM H. SEWARD.
RELIEF EXPEDITION FOR FORT SUMTER
ORDER TO OFFICERS OF THE ARMY AND NAVY.
WASHINGTON, EXECUTIVE MANSION, April 1, 1861.
All officers of the army and navy to whom this order may be exhibited
will aid by every means in their power the expedition under the command
of Colonel Harvey Brown, supplying him with men and material, and
co-operating with him as he may desire.
A. LINCOLN.
ORDER TO CAPTAIN SAMUEL MERCER.
(Confidential.)
WASHINGTON CITY, April 1, 1861
SIR:--Circumstances render it necessary to place in command of your
ship (and for a special purpose) an officer who is fully informed and
instructed in relation to the wishes of the Government, and you will
therefore consider yourself detached. But in taking this step the
Government does not in the least reflect upon your efficiency or
patriotism; on the contrary, have the fullest confidence in your ability
to perform any duty required of you. Hoping soon to be able to give you a
better command than the one you now enjoy, and trusting that you will have
full confidence in the disposition of the Government toward you, I remain,
etc.,
A. LINCOLN.
SECRETARY SEWARD'S BID FOR POWER
MEMORANDUM FROM SECRETARY SEWARD, APRIL 1, 1861
Some thoughts for the President's Consideration,
First. We are at the end of a month's administration, and yet without a
policy either domestic or foreign.
Second. This, however, is not culpable, and it has even been unavoidable.
The presence of the Senate, with the need to meet applications for
patronage, have prevented attention to other and more grave matters.