Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address

Published：2026-07-30 20:37:22 Source: musical plush toys for 3 year olds Author: Brain Teasers

Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address

March 4,engineering kits for toddlers 1861

Fellow citizens of the United States: in compliance with a custom as old as thegovernment itself, I appear before you to address you briefly and to take, inyour presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, tobe 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 ofadministration about which there is no special anxiety, or excitement.

Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by theaccession of a Republican administration their property and their peace andpersonal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonablecause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contraryhas all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found innearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quotefrom one of those speeches when I declare that “I have no purpose, directly orindirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where itexists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination todo so.” Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that Ihad 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 tothemselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:

“Resolved: that the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, andespecially the right of each State to order and control its own domesticinstitutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to thatbalance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabricdepend, and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of anyState or Territory, no matter under what pretext, as among the gravest ofcrimes.”

I now reiterate these sentiments; and, in doing so, I only press upon thepublic 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 wiseendangered by the now incoming administration. I add, too, that all theprotection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can begiven, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, forwhatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another.

There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service orlabor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as anyother 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 bedischarged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim ofthe party to whom such service or labor may be due.”

It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made itfor the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of thelawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the wholeConstitution—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 bedelivered up”, their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort ingood temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law bymeans of which to keep good that unanimous oath?

There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced bynational or by State authority; but surely that difference is not a verymaterial one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but littleconsequence 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 merelyunsubstantial controversy as to howit shall be kept?

Again, in any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of libertyknown in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a freeman be not, in any case, surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well atthe same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in theConstitution which guarantees that “the citizen of each State shall be entitledto all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States?”

I take the official oath today with no mental reservations, and with no purposeto construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules. And while I donot 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 privatestations, 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 tobe unConstitutional.

It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under ournational Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatlydistinguished citizens have, in succession, administered the executive branchof the government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generallywith great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon thesame task for the brief Constitutional term of four years under great andpeculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore onlymenaced, is now formidably attempted.

I hold that, in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, theUnion of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, inthe fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that nogovernment proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its owntermination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our NationalConstitution, and the Union will endure forever—it being impossible to destroyit except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Again, if the United States be not a government proper, but an association ofStates in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceablyunmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract mayviolate it—break it, so to speak; but does it not require all to lawfullyrescind it?

Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legalcontemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Unionitself. 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 theDeclaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith ofall the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should beperpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And, finally, in 1787 oneof 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 belawfully possible, the Union is lessperfect than before theConstitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.

It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfullyget out of the Union; that Resolves and Ordinances to that effect are legallyvoid; and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against theauthority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, accordingto circumstances.

I therefore consider that, in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Unionis unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as theConstitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union befaithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simpleduty on my part; and I shall perform it so far as practicable, unless myrightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means, orin some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not beregarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that itwillConstitutionally defend and maintain itself.

In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence; and there shall benone, unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to mewill be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging tothe government, and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may benecessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of forceagainst or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States, inany interior locality, shall be so great and universal as to prevent competentresident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt toforce obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strictlegal right may exist in the government to enforce the exercise of theseoffices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating, and so nearlyimpracticable withal, that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses ofsuch offices.

The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of theUnion. So far as possible, the people everywhere shall have that sense ofperfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. Thecourse here indicated will be followed unless current events and experienceshall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case andexigency my best discretion will be exercised according to circumstancesactually existing, and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of thenational troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.

That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Unionat all events, and are glad of any pretext to do it, I will neither affirm nordeny; 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 nationalfabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not bewise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a stepwhile there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from haveno real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater thanall the real ones you fly from—will you risk the commission of so fearful amistake?

All profess to be content in the Union if all Constitutional rights can bemaintained. Is it true, then, that any right, plainly written in theConstitution, has been denied? I think not. Happily the human mind is soconstituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, ifyou can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of theConstitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majorityshould deprive a minority of any clearly written Constitutional right, itmight, in a moral point of view, justify revolution—certainly would if such aright were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights ofminorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmationsand negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution, thatcontroversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever beframed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which mayoccur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate, nor anydocument of reasonable length contain, express provisions for all possiblequestions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or Stateauthority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibitslavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.MustCongress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution doesnot expressly say.

From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, andwe divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will notacquiesce, the majority must, or the government must cease. There is no otheralternative; for continuing the government is acquiescence on one side or theother.

If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make aprecedent which in turn will divide and ruin them; for a minority of their ownwill secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by suchminority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year ortwo hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Unionnow claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now beingeducated to the exact temper of doing this.

Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a newUnion, as to produce harmony only, and prevent renewed secession?

Plainly, the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majorityheld in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changingeasily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the onlytrue sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does, of necessity, fly toanarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible; the rule of a minority, as apermanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majorityprinciple, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left.

I do not forget the position, assumed by some, that Constitutional questionsare to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny that such decisions mustbe binding, in any case, upon the parties to a suit, as to the object of thatsuit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration inall parallel cases by all other departments of the government. And while it isobviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, stillthe evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with thechance 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 sametime, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the government,upon vital questions affecting the whole people, is to be irrevocably fixed bydecisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made, in ordinarylitigation between parties in personal actions, the people will have ceased tobe their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned theirgovernment into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this viewany assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may notshrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault oftheirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.

One section of our country believes slavery is right, and ought to beextended, while the other believes it is wrong, and ought not to beextended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave clause ofthe 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 wherethe moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The greatbody of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a fewbreak over in each. This, I think, cannot be perfectly cured; and it would beworse in both cases afterthe separation of the sections thanbefore. The foreign slave-trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would beultimately 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 respectivesections from each other, nor build an impassable wall between them. A husbandand wife may be divorced, and go out of the presence and beyond the reach ofeach other; but the different parts of our country cannot do this. They cannotbut remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, mustcontinue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse moreadvantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens maketreaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfullyenforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, youcannot fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides, an no gain oneither, you cease fighting, the identical old questions as to terms ofintercourse 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 exercisetheir constitutionalright of amending it, or their revolutionaryright to dismember or overthrow it. I cannot be ignorant of the fact that manyworthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitutionamended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize therightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised ineither of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, underexisting circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity beingafforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me theconvention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originatewith the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or rejectpropositions originated by others not especially chosen for the purpose, andwhich might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept orrefuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution—which amendment,however, I have not seen—has passed Congress, to the effect that the FederalGovernment shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States,including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what Ihave said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments sofar as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied Constitutionallaw, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.

The chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they haveconferred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the states. Thepeople 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, asit 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 thepeople? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our presentdifferences is either party without faith of being in the right? If theAlmighty Ruler of Nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your sideof the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surelyprevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal, the American people.

By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people havewisely 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 atvery short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, noadministration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriouslyinjure the government in the short space of four years.

My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and wellupon this wholesubject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object tohurryany of you in hot haste to a step which you would never takedeliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no goodobject can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied, still havethe old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of yourown framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediatepower, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who aredissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single goodreason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and afirm reliance on him who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are stillcompetent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.

In yourhands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not inmine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will notassail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves theaggressors. Youhave no oath registered in heaven to destroy thegovernment, while Ishall 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. Themystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave toevery living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell thechorus of the Union when again touched, as surely they will be, by the betterangels of our nature.

Related articles