Alternative transcript:

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 Annotation To the citizens of the united states, I am here to follow a long-standing custom, to take the president's oath before he enters the office, according to the constitution. The southern states seem to be worried that because the government is Republican, that their property, peace, and personal security are endangered. There is no reason for htis fear. It has been very clear to them with plenty of evidence that this is not the case, for example, every single one of my speeches. I once said a quote "summary of quote: I don't want to interfere with slavery in areas where it already exists). My following and I have never taken this back. We all agree that the right of each state to control its institutions is on them, and is an importan right. We don't support illegal invasion with armed force into any state or Territory, and consider it a horrible crime. acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read: 4 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 anywise endangered by the now incoming Administration. . . . . . . "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." 5 A disruption of the Federal Union heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. 7 6 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. 8 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 I say these things again, that the property, peace, and security of all areas are safe. Because of all this, any disruption to the union comes from bad intentions. The law of the constitution is meant to preserve the US not destroy it, and therefore we can't allow states to just decided to leave. The United States is not built in a way where states all signed a contract in which they could leave. Even if it did, and one party in the contract violated it, it likely wouldn't cause the end of the union. The Union has been around even longer than the constitution, and came to be through the hard work of the Declaration of Independece, through the thirteen states, by 9 Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed in the articles of the confederation. 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 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. 10 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. 11 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. 12 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 in 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.... But if this union is destroyed, all of that hard work will ruin and the union will be worse than even before the constitution, because the thing that makes it so special, that it's so long lasting, would be gone. This means that anyone trying to leave is doing it illegally, meaning that it's a revolution. My duties leave me responsible to try to fix the division in the Union. As long as the American people support me, I will do my best to fix this division, and I trust I won't be regarded as evil, as I am only following my duties to ensure the Union maintains itself. There is no need for this to become violent or forced. I will do what is neccessary but nothing beyond that, there will be no invasions, or force against any people. 13 14 15 16 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?... 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.... 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 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, It would be smart to make sure you (as in secceding states) are completely sure in your reasoning for this huge decision, because if even a small amount of your reasoning is mistaken, the effects will be so grave. Everyone is happy in the union if all constitutional rights are safe. But has anything truly been denied? I don't believe so. This isn't easy, because no set of laws can provide for every scenario that may come up, every question that arises. The constitution doesn't directly say if fugitive slaves should be returned by national or state authority. It doesn't say if congress must prohibit slavery, or if they must protect it. The constitution doesn't provide answers for everything. There will always be conflicts and controversies, and sides will always be taken. It isn't practical for a group to secede whenever they aren't happy, because once a controversy comes up in the two countries, it will fracture again. The nation would become so fractured it would be ruined. How can a new union be created perfectly, with no future divisions now that the trend has started? When one doesn't respect the checks and balances of a successful country, the limitations that hold a country accountable, the person falls into anarchy. The opinions of 17 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 the majority. a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissable; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy, or despotism in some form, is all that is left.... 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. 18 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.... the minority can't be put in front of the wants and needs of The only dispute important enough to cause this succession has one section of the country believing slavery should be extended, and the other half believes it's wrong and should be halted. The suppression of the foreign slabe trade and the fugitive slave clause, are inpefect laws, but are as enforced as well as they can be, and would become even worse if the country were to split. It's not a fixable issue, if it didn't exist, all fugitive slaves wouldn't be given back, and the slave trade would be revived without restriction. We can't physically split the country, the land. It is too deeply intertwined. Agreements between borders and groups will never improve if the country is separate. Treaties will be harder to enforce, it would be harder to keep agreements peaceful. War won't solve all the problems, there will be losses on both sides that will eventually cause a stalemate. 19 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.... 20 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. 21 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. 22 I am loth 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 After You Read--Post Reading Questions. Answer all of the questions below. Why can't the people in this country be patient and trust that in time justice will prevail? God will show who is right in time. I urge you to calmly think about the whole situation and take your time. The people who ahve secceeded have no power currently, and if you were correct in your reasoning to leave, there would be no reason for action. Right now the country needs intelligence, patriotism, christianity and God to adjust to the current issue. I have no reason to harm you who wish to secceed. It is your choice to do this, the government will give u no aggression or conflict if you choose not to. You are not bound by oath to destroy the government, but I am bound to protect it. We are not enemies, it is not time for war. We shouldn't allow tensions to destroy everything. There is too much good in this Union to ruin. 1. What assurance did President Lincoln offer to Southern citizens in his First Inaugural Address? That he will not take their slaves away, or their rights. He assured them if they remain in the union no violence will be brought against them. 2. Based on the speech, what position on Slavery does Lincoln hold? A. Immediate abolition B. Slavery should not be extended into the territories 3. Given the tenets of Fugitive Slave Act, a provision of the Compromise of 1850, Lincoln would argue that: A. No state can lawfully get out of the nation B. State can only secede with just and righteous cause C. The Constitution and Declaration of Independence support secession if warranted D. It is fine so long as no blood is shed slaves to be returned to bondage, is constitutional E. The Fugitive Slave Act, a provision of the Compromise of 1850 that required fugitive slaves to be returned to bondage, is unconstitutional 4. Who is Lincoln's audience? Explain. Why is it important to understand who the audience is? The audience was a huge crowd of citizens, likely from varied parts of the country. While everyone is listening, he really aims his speech at calming the anger and tension from the south, trying to settle down their desire to succeed from the union and make the south feel heard. 5. What is the tone of his speech? Explain. It's reassuring, trying to calm people down and promise that he wasn't trying to take the south's rights from them. He tries to relate with them and dispel any rumours about his beliefs that might be present. The tone is also persuasive, trying to persuade the south to calm down and wait, change their mind about leaving the union. 6. When Lincoln writes, "In your hands, my fellow dissatisfied countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous decision of Civil War," to whom he is speaking? He is talking to the Confederate states, the South, especially the people in charge that were pushing to leave the Union. 6. In his conclusion, what does Lincoln mean by "the better angels of our nature"? How is his speech an appeal to "the better angels of our nature"? He is trying to persuade the country to move past its divides, and work together to move past conflict and disagreements and try to be "the best angels of our nature" or the best patriotic versions each citizen could be. 7. How do you think the South responded to the speech? They probably responded well. It was worded very kindly and reasuuringly, and it probably made a lot of people think twice. 8. If you had the opportunity to talk with Lincoln about the speech and ask him a question, what would you ask? I would probably ask what his plan was to eventually deal with slavery, because dealing with the issue wasn't somehting that could be postponed forever.