CPC Report; An unabashedly liberal
perspective
12 February 2010- Abraham Lincoln's Birthday (12 February 1809- 15 April 1865)
What is conservatism? Is it not the adherence to
the old
and tried against the new and untried? Abraham Lincoln
Abraham
Lincoln's 1st Inaugural
Address 
Fellow-Citizens
of the United States:
IN compliance with a custom as old as the
Government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to
take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the
United States to be taken by the President "before he enters on the
execution of this 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 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 any wise 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 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 anyone 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 humane jurisprudence to be
introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a
slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for
the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that
"the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and
immunities of citizens in the several States"? |
|
| I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations
and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any
hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular
acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be
much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform
to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate
any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be
unconstitutional. |
|
| It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a
President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen
different and 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 of 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 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 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 to 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 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 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 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 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 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 deprive a minority of any
clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view
justify revolution; 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 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 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, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be
worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than
before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be
ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive
slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all
by the other. | |
| Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove
our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall
between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the
presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of
our country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and
intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is
it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more
satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make
treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more
faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose
you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on
both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical 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 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 referred none upon him to fix terms for the
separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also 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 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. 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
battlefield 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.
| |
