wm 
 
 '-'73»7L63 Iiincoxrij nuxctham 
 
 ~^909 i'iiCo and second inaugural 
 
 CAGE addresses; resGdge, July 5, i; 
 
 1861 j Proclamation, Jan. 1, 
 1863; Gettysburg Address Nov,
 
 LINCOLN ROOM 
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS 
 LIBRARY 
 
 MEMORIAL 
 
 the Class of 1901 
 
 founded by 
 
 HARLAN HOYT HORNER 
 
 and 
 
 HENRIETTA CALHOUN HORNER
 
 Abralfam Knroln
 
 Abraljam Etnrnln 
 
 JFtrat rnUi ^ttonb llnaugural ^Itbrnaea 
 Uraaagp. 3«lg 5, 18B1 
 Prorlamation. ilanuarg 1, 1S63 
 (gft^fiburg A^rraa. Nubroiber 13, 1083 
 
 WASHINGTON 
 
 QOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 
 
 1909
 
 
 INAUGURAL ADDRESS OF THE PRESIDENT 
 OF THE UNITED STATES ON THE 4TH OF 
 MARCH, 1861 jT >r *sr rtf jT 
 
 Senate — Ex. Doc. No. 1, Special Session, March 8, 1861
 
 INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
 
 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 pres- 
 ence the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States 
 to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of his 
 oflSce." 
 
 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 incli- 
 nation 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 law- 
 less 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 pubUc attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is 
 susceptible, that the property, peace, and security of no section are to 
 be in anjTvise 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. 
 
 (5)
 
 There is much controversy about the deUvering 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 sendee 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 law-giver 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 tmanimous 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 ver}' 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 imkept, 
 on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept? 
 
 Again, m any law upon this subject, ought not all the safeguards of 
 liberty kno-ivn 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 enforce- 
 ment of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citi- 
 zen 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 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 impimity in having them held to be unconsti- 
 tutional. 
 
 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 difiBculty. 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 for- 
 ever — it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not pro- 
 vided for in the instrument itself. 
 
 Again, if the United States be not a Government proper, but an asso- 
 ciation of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, 
 be peaceabl)' 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 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 Constitu- 
 tion, 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 practi- 
 cable, unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold 
 the requisite means, or, in some authoritative manner, direct the con- 
 trary. 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 
 
 72096—09 — 2
 
 8 
 
 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 hostiUty 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 obnox- 
 ious 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 fra- 
 ternal 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 num- 
 bers, a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written con- 
 stitutional 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, guarantees 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 Terri- 
 tories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Mttst Congress protect 
 slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. 
 
 From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controver- 
 sies, 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 com- 
 pose 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 deci- 
 sion 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
 
 lO 
 
 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 deci- 
 sions to political purposes. 
 
 One section of our coimtry 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 dn.- legal obli- 
 gation La 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 separa- 
 tion of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly 
 suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one sec- 
 tion; while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be 
 surrendered at all, by the other. 
 
 Phvsically 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 dififerent 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 wear>- 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 ha^'ing the National 
 Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amend- 
 ments, 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 amend-
 
 II 
 
 ment, however, I have not seen — has passed Congress, to the effect that 
 the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institu- 
 tions 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 pro- 
 vision 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 
 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. IntelUgence, 
 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 / 
 shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
 
 12 
 
 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 memorj', stretching from every 
 battle-field and patriot grave to every living heart and hearth-stone, 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.
 
 MESSAGE OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE 
 UNITED STATES TO THE TWO HOUSES 
 OF CONGRESS AT THE COMMENCEMENT 
 OF THE FIRST SESSION OF THE THIRTY- 
 SEVENTH CONGRESS ssr s«r sT sT 
 
 Senate — Ek. Doc. No. 1, 37th Congrress. 1st session. July 5, 1S61
 
 MESSAGE. 
 
 FELLOW-CITIZENS OF THE SENATE AND HoUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES: 
 Having been convened on an extraordinary occasion, as au- 
 thorized by the Constitution, your attention is not called to any 
 ordinary subject of legislation. 
 
 At the beginning of the present presidential term, four months ago, 
 the functions of the federal government were found to be generally 
 suspended within the several States of South Carolina, Georgia, Ala- 
 bama, Mississippi, Louisiana, and Florida, excepting only those of the 
 Post Office Department. 
 
 Within these States all the forts, arsenals, dock-yards, custom-houses, 
 and the like, including the movable and stationary property in and 
 about them, had been seized, and were held in open hostility to this 
 government, excepting only Forts Pickens, Taylor, and Jefferson, on 
 and near the Florida coast, and Fort Sumter, in Charleston harbor. 
 South Carolina. The forts thus seized had been put in improved condi- 
 tion; new ones had been built, and armed forces had been organized, 
 and were organizing, all avowedly with the same hostile purpose. 
 
 The forts remaining in the possession of the federal government in 
 and near these States were either besieged or menaced by warlike prepa- 
 rations, and especially Fort Sumter was nearly surrounded by well- 
 protected hostile batteries, with guns equal in quality to the best of 
 its own, and outnumbering the latter as perhaps ten to one. A dis- 
 proportionate share of the federal muskets and rifles had somehow found 
 their way into these States, and had been seized to be used against the 
 government. Accumulations of the public revenue, lying within them, 
 had been seized for the same object. The navy was scattered in distant 
 seas, leaving but a very small part of it within the immediate reach of 
 the government. Officers of the federal army and navy had resigned 
 in great numbers; and of those resigning, a large proportion had taken 
 up arms against the government. Simultaneously, and in connexion 
 with all this, the purpose to sever the Federal Union was openly avowed. 
 In accordance with this purpose, an ordinance had been adopted in 
 each of these States, declaring the States, respectively, to be separated 
 from the National Union. A fonnula for instituting a combined govern- 
 ment of these States had been promulgated; and this illegal organiza- 
 tion, in the character of confederate States, was already invoking recog- 
 nition, aid, and intervention, from foreign Powers. 
 
 (15) 
 72096—09 — 3
 
 i6 
 
 Finding this condition of things, and beUeving it to be an imperative 
 duty upon the incoming Executive to prevent, if possible, the consum- 
 mation of such attempt to destroy the Federal Union, a choice of means 
 to that end became indispensable. This choice was made, and was 
 declared in the inaugural address. The policy chosen looked to the 
 exhaustion of all peaceful measures, before a resort to any stronger 
 ones. It sought only to hold the public places and property not already 
 wrested from the government, and to collect the revenues; relying for 
 the rest, on time, discussion, and the ballot-box. It promised a con- 
 tinuance of the mails, at government expense, to the very people who 
 were resisting the government; and it gave repeated pledges against 
 any disturbance to any of the people, or any of their rights. Of all that 
 which a President might constitutionally, and justifiably, do in such a 
 case, everything was forborne, without which, it was believed possible 
 to keep the government on foot. 
 
 On the 5th of March, (the present incumbent's first full day in office,) a 
 letter of Major Anderson, commanding at Fort Sumter, written on the 
 28th of February, and received at the War Department on the 4th of 
 March, was, by that department, placed in his hands. This letter 
 expressed the professional opinion of the writer, that re-inforcements 
 could not be thrown into that fort within the time for his relief, rendered 
 necessary by the Umited supply of provisions, and with a view of holding 
 possession of the same, with a force of less than twenty thousand good and 
 well-disciplined men. This opinion was concurred in by all the officers of 
 his command, and their memoranda on the subject, were made enclosures 
 of Major Anderson's letter. The whole was immediately laid before 
 Lieutenant General Scott, who at once concurred with lilajor Anderson 
 in opinion. On reflection, however, he took full time, consulting with 
 other officers, both of the army and navy, and, at the end of four days, 
 came reluctantly, but decidedly, to the same conclusion as before. He 
 also stated at the same time that no such sufficient force was then at 
 the control of the government, or could be raised and brought to the 
 ground within the time when the pro\nsions in the fort would be 
 exhausted. In a purely military point of view, this reduced the duty of 
 the administration in the case, to the mere matter of getting the gar- 
 rison safely out of the fort. 
 
 It was believed, however, that to so abandon that position, under the 
 circumstances, would be utterly ruinous; that the necessity under which 
 it was to be done would not be fully understood; that by many, it would 
 be construed as a part of a voluntary policy ; that at home, it would dis- 
 courage the friends of the Union, embolden its adversaries, and go far 
 to insure to the latter, a recognition abroad; that, in fact, it would be 
 our national destruction consummated. This could not be allowed. 
 Stan'ation was not yet upon the garrison ; and ere it would be reached, 
 Fort Pickens might be re-enforced. This last would be a clear indication
 
 17 
 
 of policy, and would better enable the country to accept the evacuation 
 of Fort Sumter, as a military necessity. An order was at once directed 
 to be sent for the landing of the troops from the steamship Brooklyn, 
 into Fort Pickens. This order could not go by land, but must take the 
 longer and slower route by sea. The first return news from the order 
 was received just one week before the fall of Fort Sumter. The news 
 itself was, that the officer commanding the Sabine, to which vessel the 
 troops had been transferred from the Brooklyn, acting upon some quasi 
 armistice of the late administration, (and of the existence of which the 
 present administration, up to the time the order was despatched, had 
 only too vague and uncertain rumors to fix attention,) had refused to 
 land the troops. To now re-enforce Fort Pickens, before a crisis would 
 be reached at Fort Sumter, was impossible — rendered so by the near 
 exhaustion of provisions in the latter-named fort. In precaution against 
 such a conjuncture, the government had, a few days before, commenced 
 preparing an expedition, as well adapted as might be, to relieve Fort 
 Sumter, which expedition was intended to be ultimately used, or not, 
 according to circumstances. The strongest anticipated case for using it 
 was now presented; and it was resolved to send it forward. As had 
 been intended, in this contingency, it was also resolved to notify the 
 governor of South Carolina, that he might expect an attempt would be 
 made to provision the fort; and that, if the attempt should not be 
 resisted, there would be no efi'ort to throw in men, arms, or ammunition, 
 without further notice, or in case of an attack upon the fort. This notice 
 was accordingly given; whereupon the fort was attacked, and bom- 
 barded to its fall, without even awaiting the arrival of the provisioning 
 expedition. 
 
 It is thus seen that the assault upon, and reduction of. Fort Sumter, 
 was, in no sense, a matter of self defence on the part of the assailants. 
 They well knew that the garrison in the fort could, by no possibility, 
 commit aggression upon them. They knew — they were expressly noti- 
 fied — that the giving of bread to the few brave and hungry men of the 
 garrison, was all which would on that occasion be attempted, unless 
 themselves, by resisting so much, should provoke more. They knew 
 that this government desired to keep the garrison in the fort, not to 
 assail them, but merely to maintain visible possession, and thus to pre- 
 serve the Union from actual and immediate dissolution — trusting, as 
 herein before stated, to time, discussion, and the ballot-box, for final 
 adjustment; and they assailed, and reduced the fort, for precisely the 
 reverse object — to drive out the visible authority of the federal Union, 
 and thus force it to immediate dissolution. That this was their object, 
 the Executive well understood; and having said to them, in the inaugu- 
 ral address, "You can have no conflict without being yourselves the 
 aggressors," he took pains, not only to keep this declaration good, but 
 also to keep the case so free from the power of ingenious sophistry, as
 
 1 8 
 
 that the world should not be able to misunderstand it. By the afifair at 
 Fort Sumter, with its surrounding circumstances, that point was reached. 
 Then, and thereby, the assailants of the government, began the conflict 
 of arms, without a gun in sight, or in expectancy to return their fire, 
 save only the few in the fort, sent to that harbor, years before, for their 
 own protection, and still ready to give that protection in whatever was 
 la\\-ful. In this act, discarding all else, they have forced upon the coun- 
 try, the distinct issue: "Immediate dissolution or blood." 
 
 And this issue embraces more than the fate of these United States. 
 It presents to the whole family of man the question, whether a con- 
 stitutional republic, or democracy — a government of the people, by 
 the same people — can, or cannot, maintain its territorial integrity against 
 its own domestic foes. It presents the question, whether discontented 
 individuals, too few in numbers to control administration, according to 
 organic law, in any case, can always, upon the pretences made in this 
 case, or on any other pretences, or arbitrarily, without any pretence, 
 break up their government, and thus practically put an end to free 
 government upon the earth. It forces us to ask : " Is there, in all repub- 
 lics, this inherent and fatal weakness?" "ilust a government, of neces- 
 sity, be too strong for the liberties of its own people, or too weak to 
 maintain its own existence?" 
 
 So vdewing the issue, no choice was left but to call out the war power 
 of the government; and so to resist force, employed for its destruction, 
 by force, for its preser\-ation 
 
 The call was made, and the response of the country was most gratify- 
 ing, surpassing in unanimity, and spirit, the most sanguine expectation. 
 Yet, none of the States commonly called slave States, except Delaware, 
 gave a regiment through regular State organization. A few regiments 
 have been organized mthin some others of those States by indi\adual 
 enterprise, and received into the government ser\dce. Of course, the 
 seceded States, so called, (and to which Texas had been joined about 
 the time of the inauguration,) gave no troops to the cause of the Union. 
 The border States, so called, were not uniform in their action; some of 
 them being almost for the Union, while in others — as Mrginia, North 
 Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas — the Union sentiment was nearly 
 repressed, and silenced. The course taken in A'irginia was the most 
 remarkable — perhaps the most important. A convention, elected by 
 the people of that State to consider this very question of disrupting the 
 Federal Union, was in session at the capital of Virginia when Fort 
 Sumter fell. To this body the people had chosen a large majority of 
 professed Union men. Almost immediately after the fall of Sumter, 
 many members of that majority went over to the original disunion 
 minority, and, with them, adopted an ordinance for withdrawing the 
 State from the Union. Whether this change was wrought b)' their great 
 approval of the assault upon Sumter, or their great resentment at the gov-
 
 19 
 
 emment's resistance to that assault, is not definitely known. Although 
 they submitted the ordinance, for ratification, to a vote of the people, 
 to be taken on a day then somewhat more than a month distant, the 
 convention, and the legislature, (which was also in session at the same 
 time and place,) with leading men of the State, not members of either, 
 immediately commenced acting as if the State were already out of the 
 Union. They pushed military preparations vigorously forward all over 
 the State. They seized the United States armory at Harper's Ferry, 
 and the navy yard at Gosport, near Norfolk. They received — perhaps 
 invited — into their State large bodies of troops, with their warlike 
 appointments, from the so-called seceded States. They formally entered 
 into a treaty of temporary alliance, and co-operation with the so-called 
 "Confederate States," and sent members to their Congress at Mont- 
 gomery. And, finally, they permitted the insurrectionary government 
 to be transferred to their capital at Richmond. 
 
 The people of Virginia have thus allowed this giant insurrection to 
 make its nest within her borders; and this government has no choice 
 left but to deal with it where it finds it. And it has the less regret, as 
 the loyal citizens have, in due form, claimed its protection. Those loyal 
 citizens this government is bound to recognize, and protect, as being 
 Virginia. 
 
 In the border States, so called — in fact, the middle States — there are 
 those who favor a policy which they call "armed neutraUty:" that is, 
 an arming of those States to prevent the Union forces passing one way, 
 or the disunion the other, over their soil. This would be disunion com- 
 pleted. Figuratively speaking, it would be the building of an impass- 
 able wall along the line of separation — and yet, not quite an impassable 
 one; for, under the guise of neutrality, it would tie the hands of the 
 Union men, and freely pass supplies from among them to the insurrec- 
 tionists, which it could not do as an open enemy. At a stroke, it would 
 take all the trouble off the hands of secession, except only what proceeds 
 from the external blockade. It would do for the disunionists that which, 
 of all things, they most desire — feed them well, and give them disunion 
 without a struggle of their own. It recognizes no fideUty to the Consti- 
 tution, no obligation to maintain the Union; and while very many who 
 have favored it are, doubtless, loyal citizens, it is, nevertheless, very 
 injurious in effect. 
 
 Recurring to the action of the government, it may be stated that, at 
 first, a call was made for seventy-five thousand miUtia; and rapidly fol- 
 lowing this, a proclamation was issued for closing the ports of the insur- 
 rectionary districts by proceedings in the nature of blockade. So far all 
 was believed to be strictly legal. At this point the insurrectionists 
 armounced their purpose to enter upon the practice of privateering. 
 
 Other calls were made for volunteers to serve three years, unless 
 sooner discharged, and also for large additions to the regular array and 
 73096 — 09 — 4
 
 20 
 
 navy. These measures, whether strictly legal or not, were ventured 
 upon, under what appeared to be a popular demand, and a public 
 necessity; trusting then, as now, that Congress would readily ratify 
 them. It is believed that nothing has been done beyond the constitu- 
 tional competency of Congress. 
 
 Soon after the first call for militia, it was considered a duty to author- 
 ize the commanding general, in proper cases, according to his discretion, 
 to suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or, in other words, 
 to arrest and detain, without resort to the ordinary processes and forms 
 of law, such individuals as he might deem dangerous to the public 
 safety. This authority has purposely been exercised but very sparingly. 
 Nevertheless, the legality and propriety of what has been done under it 
 are questioned, and the attention of the country has been called to 
 the proposition that one who is sworn to "take care that the laws be 
 faithfully executed," should not himself violate them. Of course some 
 consideration was given to the questions of power, and propriety, before 
 this matter was acted upon. The whole of the laws which were required 
 to be faithfully executed, were being resisted, and failing of execution in 
 nearly one-third of the States. Must they be allowed to finally fail of 
 execution, even had it been perfectly clear, that by the use of the means 
 necessary to their execution, some single law, made in such extreme 
 tenderness of the citizen's liberty, that practically, it relieves more of the 
 guilty than of the innocent, should, to a very limited extent, be violated? 
 To state the question more directly, are all the laws but one to go unexe- 
 cuted, and the government itself go to pieces, lest that one be violated ? 
 Even in such a case, would not the official oath be broken, if the gov- 
 ernment should be overthrown, when it was believed that disregarding 
 the single law, would tend to preserve it? But it was not believed that 
 this question was presented. It was not believed that any law was 
 violated. The provision of the Constitution that "the privilege of the 
 writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended unless when, in cases of 
 rebellion or invasion, the public safety may require it," is equivalent 
 to a provision — is a provision — that such privilege may be suspended 
 when, in cases of rebellion or invasion, the public safety does require it. 
 It was decided that we have a case of rebellion, and that the pubhc 
 safety does require the qualified suspension of the privilege of the writ 
 which was authorized to be made. Now it is insisted that Congress, and 
 not the Executive, is vested with this power. But the Constitution 
 itself is silent as to which, or who, is to exercise the power; and as the 
 provision was plainly made for a dangerous emergency, it cannot be 
 believed the framers of the instrument intended that, in every case, the 
 danger should run its course, until Congress could be called together; 
 the very assembling of which might be prevented, as was intended in 
 this case, by the rebellion. 
 
 No more extended argument is now offered, as an opinion, at some 
 length, will probably be presented by the Attorney General. Whether
 
 21 
 
 there shall be any legislation upon the subject, and if any, what, is 
 submitted entirely to the better judgment of Congress. 
 
 The forbearance of this government had been so extraordinary, and 
 so long continued, as to lead some foreign nations to shape their action 
 as if they supposed the early destruction of our National Union was 
 probable. While this, on discovery, gave the Executive some con- 
 cern, he is now happy to say that the sovereignty and rights of the 
 United States are now everywhere practically respected by foreign 
 powers; and a general sympathy with the country is manifested through- 
 out the world. 
 
 The reports of the Secretaries of the Treasury, War, and the Navy, 
 will give the information in detail deemed necessary, and convenient for 
 your deliberation, and action; while the Executive, and all the depart- 
 ments, will stand ready to supply omissions, or to communicate new 
 facts, considered important for you to know. 
 
 It is now recommended that you give the legal means for making this 
 contest a short and a decisive one; that you place at the control of 
 the government, for the work, at least four hundred thousand men, and 
 four hundred millions of dollars. That number of men is about one- 
 tenth of those of proper ages within the regions where, apparently, all 
 are willing to engage; and the sum is less than a twenty-third part of the 
 money value owned by the men who seem ready to devote the whole. 
 A debt of six hundred millions of dollars now, is a less sum per head, 
 than was the debt of our revolution when we came out of that struggle; 
 and the money value in the country now, bears even a greater proportion 
 to what it was then, than does the population. Surely each man has as 
 strong a motive now, to preserve our liberties, as each had then, to establish 
 them. 
 
 A right result, at this time, will be worth more to the world than ten 
 times the men, and ten times the money. The evidence reaching us 
 from the country, leaves no doubt, that the material for the work is 
 abundant ; and that it needs only the hand of legislation to give it legal 
 sanction, and the hand of the Executive to give it practical shape and 
 efficiency. One of the greatest perplexities of the government is to avoid 
 receiving troops faster than it can provide for them. In a word, the 
 people will save their government, if the government itself, will do its 
 part, only indifferently well. 
 
 It might seem, at first thought, to be of little difference whether the 
 present movement at the South be called "secession" or "rebellion." 
 The movers, however, well understand the difference. At the beginning, 
 they knew they could never raise their treason to any respectable mag- 
 nitude by any name which implies violation of law. They knew their 
 people possessed as much of moral sense, as much of devotion to law and 
 order, and as much pride in, and reverence for, the history and govern- 
 ment of their common country, as any other civilized and patriotic
 
 22 
 
 people. They knew they could make no advancement directly m the 
 teeth of these strong and noble sentiments. Accordingly they com- 
 menced by an insidious debauching of the public mind. They invented 
 an ingenious sophism, which, if conceded, was followed by perfectly 
 logical steps, through all the incidents, to the complete destruction of the 
 Union. The sophism itself is, that any State of the Union may, con- 
 sistently with the national Constitution, and therefore laujtdly, and 
 peacefully, withdraw from the Union, without the consent of the Union, 
 or of any other State. The Uttle disguise that the supposed right is to be 
 exercised only for just cause, themselves to be the sole judge of its justice, 
 is too thin to merit any notice. 
 
 With rebellion thus sugar-coated, they have been drugging the public 
 mind of their section for more than thirty years ; and until at length they 
 have brought many good men to a willingness to take up arms against the 
 government the day after some assemblage of men have enacted the 
 farcical pretence of taking their State out of the Union, who could have 
 been brought to no such thing the day before. 
 
 This sophism derives much, perhaps the whole, of its currency from 
 the assumption that there is some omnipotent and sacred supremacy 
 pertaining to a State — to each State of our Federal Union. Our States 
 have neither more, nor less power, than that reser\-ed to them, in the 
 Union, by the Constitution — no one of them ever having been a State out 
 of the Union. The original ones passed into the Union even before they 
 cast ofF their British colonial dependence; and the new ones each came 
 into the Union directly from a condition of dependence, excepting Texas. 
 And even Texas, in its temporary independence, was never designated a 
 State. The new ones only took the designation of States, on coming into 
 the Union, while that name was first adopted for the old ones, in and by 
 the Declaration of Independence. Therein the "United Colonies" were 
 declared to be "free and independent States;" but, even then, the object 
 plainly was not to declare their independence of 07ie another, or of the 
 Union, but directly the contrary, as their mutual pledge, and their mutual 
 action, before, at the time, and afterwards, abundantly show. The 
 express plighting of faith, by each and all of the original thirteen, in the 
 Articles of Confederation, two j'ears later, that the Union shall be per- 
 petual, is most conclusive. Having never been States, either in substance 
 or in name, outside of the Union, whence this magical omnipotence of 
 "State rights," asserting a claim of power to lawfully destroy the Union 
 itself? Much is said about the "sovereignty" of the States; but the 
 word, even, is not in the national Constitution; nor, as is believed, in any 
 of the State constitutions. What is a "sovereignty," in the political 
 sense of the term? Would it be far wrong to define it, "A political com- 
 munity, without a political superior?" Tested by this, no one of our 
 States, except Texas, ever was a sovereignty. And even Texas gave up 
 the character on coming into the Union; by which act, she acknowledged
 
 23 
 
 the Constitution of the United States, and the laws and treaties of the 
 United States made in pursuance of the Constitution, to be, for her, the 
 supreme law of the land. The States have their status in the Union, and 
 they have no other legal status. If they break from this, they can only 
 do so against law, and by revolution. The Uniofl, and not themselves 
 separately, procured their independence and their liberty. By conquest, 
 or purchase, the Union gave each of them, whatever of independence and 
 liberty it has. The Union is older than any of the States, and, in fact, it 
 created them as States. Originally some dependent colonies made the 
 Union, and, in turn, the Union threw off their old dependence for them, 
 and made them States, such as they are. Not one of them ever had a 
 State constitution independent of the Union. Of course, it is not for- 
 gotten that all the new States framed their constitutions before they 
 entered the Union; nevertheless, dependent upon, and preparatory to, 
 coming into the Union. 
 
 Unquestionably the States have the powers and rights reserved to 
 them in and by the national Constitution; but among these, surely, are 
 not included all conceivable powers, however mischievous or destructive; 
 but, at most, such only as were known in the world, at the time, as 
 governmental powers; and certainly a power to destroy the government 
 itself had never been known as a governmental — as a merely adminis- 
 trative power. This relative matter of national power and State rights, 
 as a principle, is no other than the principle of generality and locality. 
 Whatever concerns the whole, should be confided to the whole — to the 
 general government; while whatever concerns only the State, should be 
 left exclusively to the State. This is all there is of original principle 
 about it. Whether the national Constitution, in defining boundaries 
 between the two, has applied the principle wnth exact accuracy, is not 
 to be questioned. We are all bound by that defining, without question. 
 
 What is now combatted, is the position that secession is consistent with 
 the Constitution — is lawful, and peaceful. It is not contended that there 
 is any express law for it; and nothing should ever be implied as law, 
 which leads to unjust or absurd consequences. The nation purchased, 
 with money, the countries out of which several of these States were 
 formed. Is it just that they shall go off without leave, and without 
 refunding? The nation paid very large sums, (in the aggregate, I believe 
 nearly a hundred millions,) to relieve Florida of the aboriginal tribes. 
 Is it just that she shall now be off without consent, or without making 
 any return? The nation is now in debt for money applied to the benefit 
 of these so-called seceding States, in common with the rest. Is it just, 
 either that creditors shall go unpaid, or the remaining States pay the 
 whole? A part of the present national debt was contracted to pay the 
 old debts of Texas. Is it just that she shall leave, and pay no part of 
 this herself?
 
 24 
 
 Again, if one State may secede, so may another; and when all shall 
 have seceded, none is left to pay the debts. Is this quite just to cred- 
 itors? Did we notify them of this sage view of ours when we borrowed 
 their money? If we now recognize this doctrine by allowing the seceders 
 to go in peace, it is difficult to see what we can do if others choose to 
 go, or to extort terms upon which they will promise to remain. 
 
 The seceders insist that our Constitution admits of secession. They 
 have assumed to make a national constitution of their o^vn, in which, 
 of necessity, they have either discarded or retained the right of secession, 
 as, they insist, it exists in ours. If they have discarded it, they thereby 
 admit that, on principle, it ought not to be in ours. If they have retained 
 it, by their own construction of ours they show that to be consistent they 
 must secede from one another, whenever they shall find it the easiest 
 wav of settHng their debts, or eflfecting any other selfish or unjust object. 
 The principle itself is one of disintegration, and upon which no govern- 
 ment can possibly endure. 
 
 If all the States, save one, should assert the power to drive that one 
 out of the Union, it is presumed the whole class of seceder politicians 
 would at once deny the power, and denounce the act as the greatest 
 outrage upon State rights. But suppose that precisely the same act, 
 instead of being called "driving the one out," should be called "the 
 seceding of the others from that one," it would be exactly what the 
 seceders claim to do; unless, indeed, they make the point, that the one, 
 because it is a minority, may rightfully do what the others, because they 
 are a majority, may not rightfully do. These politicians are subtle and 
 profound on the rights of minorities. They are not partial to that power 
 which made the Constitution, and speaks from the preamble, calling 
 itself "We, the People." 
 
 It may well be questioned whether there is, to-day, a majority of the 
 legally qualified voters of any State, except perhaps South Carolina, in 
 favor of disunion. There is much reason to believe that the Union men 
 are the majority in many, if not in every other one, of the so-called 
 seceded States. The contrary has not been demonstrated in any one of 
 them. It is ventured to affirm this, even of Virginia and Tennessee; for 
 the result of an election, held in military camps, where the bayonets are 
 all on one side of the question voted upon, can scarcely be considered as 
 demonstrating popular sentiment. At such an election all that large 
 class who are, at once, for the Union, and against coercion, would be 
 coerced to vote against the Union. 
 
 It may be affirmed, \vithout extravagance, that the free institutions 
 we enjoy have developed the powers, and improved the condition, of 
 our whole people, beyond any example in the world. Of this we now 
 have a striking, and an impressive illustration. So large an army as the 
 government has now on foot, was never before known, without a soldier 
 in it, but who had taken his place there of his own free choice. But more
 
 25 
 
 than this: there are many single regiments whose members, one and 
 another, possess full practical knowledge of all the arts, sciences, profes- 
 sions, and whatever else, whether useful or elegant is known in the world; 
 and there is scarcely one from which there could not be selected a Presi- 
 dent, a Cabinet, a Congress, and perhaps a Court, abundantly competent 
 to administer the government itself! Nor do I say this is not true, also 
 in the army of our late friends, now adversaries in this contest; but if 
 it is, so much better the reason why the government, which has conferred 
 such benefits on both them and us should not be broken up. Whoever, 
 in any section, proposes to abandon such a government, would do well to 
 consider, in deference to what principle it is that he does it — what better 
 he is likely to get in its stead — whether the substitute will give, or be 
 intended to give, so much of good to the people. There are some fore- 
 shadowings on this subject. Our adversaries have adopted some declara- 
 tions of independence, in which, unlike the good old one, penned by Jef- 
 ferson, they omit the words "all men are created equal." Why? They 
 have adopted a temporary national constitution, in the preamble of which, 
 unUke our good old one, signed by Washington, they omit "We, the 
 people," and substitute "We, the deputies of the sovereign and inde- 
 pendent States." Why? Why this dehberate pressing out of view, the 
 rights of men, and the authority of the people? 
 
 This is essentially a People's contest. On the side of the Union, it is a 
 struggle for maintaining in the world, that form and substance of gov- 
 ernment, whose leading object is, to elevate the condition of men — to 
 lift artificial weights from all shoulders; to clear the paths of laudable 
 pursuit for all ; to afford all an unfettered start, and a fair chance in the 
 race of life. Yielding to partial and temporary departures, from neces- 
 sity, this is the leading object of the government for whose existence we 
 contend. 
 
 I am most happy to believe that the plain people understand and ap- 
 preciate this. It is worthy of note, that while in this, the government's 
 hour of trial, large numbers of those in the army and navy who have 
 been favored with the offices, have resigned, and proved false to the hand 
 which had pampered them, not one common soldier, or common sailor, is 
 known to have deserted his flag. 
 
 Great honor is due to those officers who remained true, despite the ex- 
 ample of their treacherous associates; but the greatest honor, and most 
 important fact of all, is the unanimous firmness of the common soldiers 
 and common sailors. To the last man, so far as known, they have suc- 
 cessfully resisted the traitorous efforts of those whose commands, but an 
 hour before, they obeyed as absolute law. This is the patriotic instinct 
 of plain people. They understand, without an argument, that the de- 
 stroying the government which was made by Washington means no good 
 to them.
 
 26 
 
 Our popular government has often been called an experiment. Two 
 points in it our people have already settled — the successful establishing 
 and the successful administering of it. One still remains — its successful 
 maintename against a formidable internal attempt to overthrow it. 
 It is now for them to demonstrate to the world, that those who 
 can fairly carry an election, can also suppress a rebellion; that ballots are 
 the rightful and peaceful successors of bullets; and that when ballots 
 have fairly and constitutionally decided, there can be no successful ap- 
 peal back to bullets; that there can be no successful appeal except to 
 ballots themselves, at succeeding elections. Such will be a great lesson 
 of peace; teaching men that what they cannot take by an election, 
 neither can they take it by a war; teaching all the folly of being the be- 
 ginners of a war. 
 
 Lest there be some uneasiness in the minds of candid men, as to what 
 is to be the course of the government, towards the southern States, after 
 the rebellion shall have been suppressed, the Executive deems it proper 
 to say, it will be his purpose then, as ever, to be guided by the Constitu- 
 tion and the laws; and that he probably will have no different under- 
 standing of the powers and duties of the federal government relatively to 
 the rights of the States and the people, under the Constitution, than that 
 expressed in the inaugural address: 
 
 He desires to preserve the government, that it may be administered 
 for all, as it was administered by the men who made it. Loyal citizens 
 everywhere, have the right to claim this of their government; and the 
 government has no right to withhold, or neglect it. It is not perceived 
 that, in giving it, there is any coercion, any conquest, or any subjugation, 
 in any just sense of those terms. :t^ 
 
 The Constitution provides, and all the States have accepted the 
 provision, that "The United States shall guarantee to every State in 
 this Union a republican form of government." But, if a State may 
 lawfully go out of the Union, having done so, it may also discard the 
 repubhcan form of government; so that to prevent its going out is an 
 indispensable means, to the end, of maintaining the guaranty men- 
 tioned; and when an end is lawful and obligatory, the indispensable 
 means to it, are also lawful and obligatory. 
 
 It was with the deepest regret that the Executive found the duty 
 of employing the war-power, in defence of the government, forced upon 
 him. He could but perform this duty, or surrender the existence of 
 the government. No compromise, by pubUc servants, could, in this 
 case, be a cure; not that compromises are not often proper, but that 
 no popular government can long survive a marked precedent, that those 
 who carry an election, can only save the government from immediate 
 destruction, by giving up the main point, upon which, the people gave 
 the election. The people themselves, and not their servants, can safely 
 reverse their own deliberate decisions.
 
 27 
 
 As a private citizen, the^Executive could not have consented that these 
 institutions shall perish; much less could he, in betrayal of so vast, and 
 so sacred a trust, as these free people had confided to him. He felt that he 
 had no moral right to shrink, nor even to count the chances of his own 
 life, in what might follow. In full view of his great responsibility, he 
 has, so far, done what he has deemed his duty. You will now, accord- 
 ing to your own judgment, perform yours. He sincerely hopes that 
 your views, and your action, may so accord with his, as to assure all 
 faithful citizens, who have been disturbed in their rights, of a certain, 
 and speedy restoration to them, under the Constitution and the laws. 
 
 And having thus chosen our course, without guile, and with ^pure 
 purpose, let us renew our trust in God, and go forward without fear, 
 and with manly hearts. 
 
 July 4, 1861.
 
 BY THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES 
 OF AMERICA s«r s^ A PROCLAMATION
 
 PROCLAMATION. 
 
 WHEREAS, on the twenty-second day of September, in the year 
 of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-two, 
 a proclamation was issued by the President of the United 
 States, containing among other things, the following, to wit : 
 
 "That on the first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hun- 
 dred and sixty-three, all persons held as slaves within any State or designated part 
 of a State, the people whereof shall then be in rebellion against the United States, 
 shall be then, thenceforward, and forever free; and the Executive Government of the 
 United States, including the military and naval authority thereof, will recognize and 
 maintain the freedom of such persons, and will do no act or acts to repress such per- 
 sons, or any of them, in any efforts they may make for their actual freedom. 
 
 "That the Executive will, on the first day of January aforesaid, by proclamation, 
 designate the States and parts of States, if any, in which the people thereof, respec- 
 tively, shall then be in rebellion against the United States; and the fact that any State, 
 or the people thereof, shall on that day be, in good faith, represented in the Congress 
 of the United States by members chosen thereto at elections wherein a majority of the 
 qualified voters of such State shall have participated, shall, in the absence of strong 
 countervailing testimony, be deemed conclusive evidence that such State, and the 
 people thereof, are not then in rebellion against the United States." 
 
 Now, therefore, I, Abraham Lincoln, President of the United States, 
 by virtue of the power in me vested as Commander-in-Chief, of the 
 Army and Navy of the United States in time of actual armed rebellion 
 against the authority and government of the United States, and as a fit 
 and necessary war measure for suppressing said rebellion, do, on this 
 first day of January, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
 and sixty-three, and in accordance with my purpose so to do publicly 
 proclaimed for the full period of one hundred days, from the day first 
 above mentioned, order and designate as the States and parts of States 
 wherein the people thereof respectively, are this day in rebellion against 
 the United States, the following, to wit: 
 
 Arkansas, Texas, Louisiana, (except the Parishes of St. Bernard, Pla- 
 quemines, Jefferson, St. John, St. Charles, St. James Ascension, Assump- 
 tion, Terrebonne, Lafourche, St. Mary, St. Martin, and Orleans, includ- 
 ing the City of New Orleans) Mississippi, Alabama, Florida, Georgia, 
 South Carolina, North Carolina, and Virginia, (except the forty-eight 
 counties designated as West Virginia, and also the counties of Berk- 
 ley, Accomac, Northampton, Elizabeth City, York, Princess Ann, and 
 
 (31)
 
 32 
 
 Norfolk, including the cities of Norfolk and Portsmouth, and which 
 excepted parts are, for the present, left precisely as if this proclamation 
 were not issued. 
 
 And by virtue of the power, and for the purpose aforesaid, I do order 
 and declare that all persons held as slaves within said designated States, 
 and parts of States, are, and henceforward shall be free; and that the 
 Executive government of the United States, including the mihtary and 
 naval authorities thereof, will recognize and maintain the freedom of 
 said persons. 
 
 And I hereby enjoin upon the people so declared to be free to abstain 
 from all violence, unless in necessary self-defense; and I recommend to 
 them that, in all cases when allowed, they labor faithfully for reasonable 
 wages. 
 
 And I further declare and make known, that such persons of suitable 
 condition, will be received into the armed service of the United States to 
 garrison forts, positions, stations, and other places, and to man vessels of 
 all sorts in said service. 
 
 And upon this act, sincerely believed to be an act of justice, warranted 
 by the Constitution, upon military necessity, I invoke the considerate 
 judgment of mankind, and the gracious favor of Almighty God. 
 
 In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the 
 seal of the United States to be affixed. 
 
 Done at the city of Washington, this first day of January, 
 in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred 
 
 '•^ ^^'^ and sLxty three, and of the Independence of the United 
 
 States of America the eighty-seventh. 
 
 By the President: 
 
 William H. Seward, 
 
 Secretary of State. 
 
 [No. 95-] 
 
 „yA^lc^rtc<^i^.
 
 ADDRESS AT DEDICATION OF GETTYSBURG 
 NATIONAL CEMETERY ^ NOVEMBER 19, 1863
 
 LINCOLN AT GETTYSBURG. 
 
 FOUR score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon 
 this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated 
 to the proposition that all men are created equal. 
 
 Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that 
 nation, or any nation so conceived and dedicated, can long endure. 
 We are met on the great battlefield of that war. We have come to 
 dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here 
 gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting 
 and proper that we should do this. 
 
 But in a large sense we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we 
 can not hallow, this ground. The brave men, hving and dead, who 
 struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or 
 detract. The world will little note nor long remember what we say 
 here, but it can never forget what they did. It is for us, the living, 
 rather, to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that 
 from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for 
 which they gave the last full measure of devotion; that we here highly 
 resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation, 
 under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of 
 the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth. 
 
 (35)
 
 SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS s«r MARCH 4, 1865 
 
 See Senate Journal, Thirty-eighth Congress, second session, p. 346
 
 SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESS. 
 
 FELLOW Countrymen : At this second appearing to take the oath 
 of the presidential office, there is less occasion for an extended 
 address than there was at the first. Then, a statement some- 
 what in detail, of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and 
 proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public dec- 
 larations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of 
 the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the ener- 
 gies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of 
 our arras, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the pub- 
 lic as to myself; and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging 
 to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is 
 ventured. 
 
 On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago, all thoughts were 
 anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it — all sought 
 to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this 
 place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent 
 agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war — seeking to 
 dissolve the Union, and divide effects, by negotiation. Both parties 
 deprecated war; but one of them would make war rather than let the 
 nation survive; and the other would accept war rather than let it per- 
 ish. And the war came. 
 
 One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed 
 generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These 
 slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this 
 interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, 
 and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would 
 rend the Union, even by war; while the Government claimed no right 
 to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither 
 party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has 
 already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict 
 might cease with, or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each 
 looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astound- 
 ing. Both read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each 
 invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men 
 should care to ask a just God's assistant in wringing their bread from 
 the sweat of other men's faces; but let us judge not, that we be not 
 judged. The prayers of both could not be answered — that of neither 
 
 (39)
 
 40 
 
 has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe 
 unto the world because of ofifences! for it must needs be that offences 
 come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh." If we shall 
 suppose that American slavery is one of those offences which, in the 
 providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued 
 through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives 
 to both North and South this terrible war, as the woe due to those by 
 whom the offence came, shall we discern therein any departure from 
 those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe 
 to Him? Fondly do we hope — fervently do we pray — that this mighty 
 scourge of w^r may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it con- 
 tinue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and 
 fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood 
 drawn \\-ith the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as 
 was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said, "The judg- 
 ments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether." 
 
 With malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the 
 right, as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work 
 we are in; to bind up thejiation's wounds; to care for him who shall 
 have borne the battle, and for his widow, and his orphan — to do all 
 which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves, 
 and with all nations. 
 
 sT
 
 UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOISURBANA 
 973 7L63K1909 cOO! 
 
 FIRST AND SECOND INAUGURAL ADDRESSES WAS 
 
 3 0112 031 
 
 830067