The transition from March 4, 2014, the date of my haircut to Abraham Lincoln.
On March 4, 1861 Abraham Lincoln, after taking the oath of office, became President of the United States. Following is the text of his first inaugural address:
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
IN compliance with a custom as old as the Government itself, I appear before you toaddress you briefly and to take in your presence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of theUnited 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 administrationabout which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accessionof a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to beendangered. 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 thisand many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, theyplaced 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 attentionthe 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 thereclaiming 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 byState authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to besurrendered, 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 civilizedand humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrenderedas 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 toconstrue the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now tospecify 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 NationalConstitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have insuccession 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
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these Statesis perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all nationalgovernments. 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 thenature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all theparties 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 contemplationthe Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much olderthan 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 outof the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violencewithin 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 uponme, 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 unlessit 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 aspossible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorableto 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 may 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 eventsand are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I needaddress 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 allits benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why wedo 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 uponthem 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 toproduce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraintby constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changesof 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 bythe Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the partiesto 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 otherbelieves 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 fromeach other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced andgo 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 theyshall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right ofamending 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 uponhim to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also theychoose, 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 anybetter or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of beingin 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 wiselygiven their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom providedfor 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 valuablecan be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step whichyou 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 ofcivil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselvesthe 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 passionmay 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