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."

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." 

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.

I take the official oath to-day with no political 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.

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 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 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 me, that constitutional
questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court; nor do I deny
that such decisions must be binding, in any sese, upon the parties
to a suit, as to the object of that suit, while they are also
entitled to a 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 the 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 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.

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. 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 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.