Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address

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 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 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 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 citizen of each State shall be entitled
to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?”

I take the official oath today 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 the 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 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 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, 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, an 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 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 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 loathe 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.