Lincoln's First Inaugural Address - Final Text

Source: Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln, vol. 4 (New
Brunswick, 1958), pp. 262-71

                                        March 4, 1861

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 full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar
declarations, and had never recanted them.  And more than
this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as
a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic
resolution which I now read:
     "_Resolved_, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights
of the States, and especially the right of each State to order
and control its own domestic institutions according to its own
judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on
which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric
depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of
the soil of any State or Territory, no matter under what
pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
     I now reiterate these sentiments: and in doing so, I only
press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence
of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and
security of no section are to be in 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 law-giver is
the law.  All members of Congress swear their support to the
whole Constitution -- to this provision as much as to any
other.  To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come
within the terms of this clause, "shall be delivered up,"
their oaths are unanimous.  Now, if they would make the effort
in good temper, could they not, with nearly equal unanimity,
frame and pass a law, by means of which to keep good that
unanimous oath?
     There is some difference of opinion whether this clause
should be enforced by national or by state authority; but
surely that difference is not a very material one.  if the
slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little
consequence to him, or to others, by which authority it is
done.  And should any one, in any case, be content that his
oath shall go unkept, on a merely unsubstantial controversy as
to _how_ it shall be kept?
     Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the
safeguards of liberty known in civilized and human
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 guarranties that "The
citizens of each State shall be entitled to all previleges and
immunities of citizens in the several States?"
     I take the official oath to-day, with no mental
reservations, and with no purpose to construe the Constitution
or laws, by any hypercritical rules.  And while I do not
choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to
be enforced, I do suggest, that it will be much safer for all,
both in official and private stations, to conform to, and
abide by, all those acts which stand unrepealed, than to
violate any of them, trusting to find impunity in having them
held to be unconstitutional.
     It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of
a President under our national Constitution.  During that
period fifteen different and greatly 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
difficulty.  A disruption of the Federal Union heretofore only
menaced, is now formidably attempted.
     I hold, that in contemplation of universal law, and of
the Constitution, the Union of these States is perpetual. 
Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental
law of all national governments.  It is safe to assert that no
government proper, ever had a provision in its organic law for
its own termination.  Continue to execute all the express
provisions of our national Constitution, and the Union will
endure forever -- it being impossible to destroy it, except by
some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
     Again, if the United States be not a government proper,
but an association of States in the nature of contract merely,
can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade, by less than all
the parties who made it?  One party to a contract may violate
it -- break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to
lawfully rescind it?
     Descending from these general principles, we find the
proposition that, in legal contemplation, the Union is
perpetual, confirmed by the history of the Union itself.  The
Union is much older than the Constitution.  It was formed in
fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.  It was matured
and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.  It
was further matured and the faith of 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 destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part
only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is _less_
perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital
element of perpetuity.
     It follows from these views that no State, upon its own
mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that
_resolves_ and _ordinances_ to that effect are legally void;
and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against
the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or
revolutionary, according to circumstances.
     I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution
and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and, to the extent of my
ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself
expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be
faithfully executed in all the States.  Doing this I deem to
be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall perform it, so
far as practicable, unless my rightful masters, the American
people, shall withhold the requisite means, or, in some
authoritative manner, direct the contrary.  I trust this will
not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose
of the Union that it _will_ constitutionally defend, and
maintain itself.
     In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence;
and there shall be none, unless it be forced upon the national
authority.  The power confided in me, will be used to hold,
occupy, and possess the property, and places belonging to the
government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond
what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no
invasion -- no using of force against, or among the people
anywhere.  Where hostility to the United States, in any
interior locality, shall be so great and 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 for that object.  While the strict legal
right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of
these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating,
and so nearly impracticable with all, 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 circumstances actually
existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of
the national troubles, and the restoration of fraternal
sympathies and affections.
     That there are persons in one section, or another who
seek to destroy the Union at all events, and are glad of any
pretext to do it, I will neither affirm or deny; but if there
be such, I need address no word to them.  To those, however,
who really love the Union, may I not speak?
     Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction
of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories,
and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why
we do it?  Will you hazard so desperate a step, while there is
any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from,
have no real existence?  Will you, while the certain ills you
fly to, are greater than all the real ones you fly from?  Will
you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake?
     All profess to be content in the Union, if all
constitutional rights can be maintained.  Is it true, then,
that any right, plainly written in the Constitution, has been
denied?  I think not.  Happily the human mind is so
constituted, that no party can reach to the audacity of doing
this.  Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a
plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been
denied.  If, by the mere force of numbers, a majority should
ever 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, guarranties 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 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 inadmissable; 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 paralel 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 over-ruled, 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 their government, into the hands of that eminent
tribunal.  Nor is there, in this view, any assault upon the
court, or the judges.  It is a duty, from which they may not
shrink, to decide cases properly brought before them; and it
is no fault of theirs, if others seek to turn their decisions
to political purposes.
     One section of our country believes slavery is _right_,
and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is
_wrong_, and ought not to be extended.  This is the only
substantial dispute.  The fugitive slave clause of the
Constitution, and the law for the suppression of the foreign
slave trade, are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law
can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people
imperfectly supports the law itself.  The great body of the
people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a
few break over in each.  This, I think, cannot be perfectly
cured; and it would be worse in both cases _after_ the
separation of the sections, than before.  The foreign slave
trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived
without restriction, in one section; while fugitive slaves,
now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at
all, by the other.
     Physically speaking, we cannot separate.  We cannot
remove our respective sections from each other, nor build an
impassable wall between them.  A husband and wife may be
divorced, and go out of the presence, and beyond the reach of
each other; but the different parts of our country cannot do
this.  They cannot but remain face to face; and intercourse,
either amicable or hostile, must continue between them.  Is it
possible then to make that intercourse more advantageous, or
more satisfactory, _after_ separation than _before_?  Can
aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws?  Can
treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens, than laws
can among friends?  Suppose you go to war, you cannot fight
always; and when, after much loss on both sides, and no gain
on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as
to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
     This country, with its institutions, belongs to the
people who inhabit it.  Whenever they shall grow weary of the
existing government, they can exercise their _constitutional_
right of amending it, or their _revolutionary_ right to
dismember, or overthrow it.  I 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 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 oppertunity 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 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 vigilence, 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 host
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 loth 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.

Transcribed by Gary L. Hewitt, 21 April 1993
glhewitt@phoenix.princeton.edu