リンカーン大統領の就任演説の英文です。トップページへ
Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, 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 this office."
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 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 acceptance, and as a law to
themselves and to me, the clear and
emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the
States, and
especially the right of each State to order and
control its own domestic
institutions according to its own
judgment exclusively, is essential to that
balance of power on
which the perfection and endurance of our political
fabric depend;
and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the
soil of
any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among
the
gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press
upon the
public 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.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives
from
service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written
in the
Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws
thereof,
escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or
regulation therein
be discharged from such service or labor, but
shall be delivered up on claim
of the party to whom such service
or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by
those who
made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive
slaves; and the intention
of the lawgiver is the law. All members
of Congress swear their support to
the whole Constitution--to this
provision as much as to any other. To the
proposition, then, that
slaves whose cases come within the terms of this
clause "shall be
delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would
make
the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal
unanimity
frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that
unanimous
oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should
be
enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that
difference
is not a very 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 anyone in any
case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a
merely
unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards
of
liberty known in 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 enforcement of that clause in
the Constitution which
guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be
entitled to
all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several
States"?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and
with no
purpose 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.
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 difficulty. 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 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 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 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 decision may be
erroneous in any
given case, still the evil effect following it, being
limited to
that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled
and
never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne
than
could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the
candid
citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government
upon vital
questions affecting the whole people is to be
irrevocably fixed by decisions
of the Supreme Court, the instant
they are made in ordinary litigation
between parties in personal
actions the people will have ceased to be their
own rulers, having
to that extent practically resigned their Government into
the
hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any
assault
upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they
may not shrink to
decide cases properly brought before them, and
it is no fault of theirs if
others seek to turn their decisions to
political purposes.
One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to
be
extended, while the 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, can not be perfectly cured, and
it
would be worse in both cases after the separation of the
sections than
before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly
suppressed, would be
ultimately revived without restriction in one
section, while fugitive slaves,
now only partially surrendered,
would not be surrendered at all by the
other.
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our
respective
sections 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 can not do this. They can
not but remain face
to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile,
must
continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that
intercourse
more advantageous or more satisfactory after
separation than before? Can
aliens make treaties easier than
friends can make laws? Can treaties be more
faithfully enforced
between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you
go to war,
you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both
sides
and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical
old
questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who
inhabit it.
Whenever 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 can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy
and
patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National
Constitution
amended. While I make no recommendation of
amendments, I fully recognize the
rightful authority of the people
over the whole subject, to be exercised in
either of the modes
prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under
existing
circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity
being
afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to
me
the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows
amendments to
originate with the people themselves, instead of
only permitting them to take
or reject propositions originated by
others, not especially chosen for the
purpose, and which might not
be precisely such as they would wish to either
accept or refuse. I
understand a proposed amendment to the
Constitution--which
amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress,
to the
effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with
the
domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons
held to
service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I
depart from my
purpose not to speak of particular amendments so
far as to say that, holding
such a provision to now be implied
constitutional law, I have no objection to
its being made express
and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people,
and they
have referred none upon him to fix terms for the
separation of the States.
The people themselves can do this if
also 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. 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.