Posted on 06/26/2015 1:29:13 PM PDT by SJackson
Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address 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.
...snip...
Not really intended to restart the FR Lincoln or war debate, yes, slavery was an issue, but the idea that the war entered into to end slavery is simply incorrect. If we can bash Jefferson and Washington for slavery, Lincoln deserves credit too. In initiating the war, he had the opportunity to establish slavery as the issue he didn't
Since I understand the issue of erasing Robert E. Lee from history, he freed his slaves in 1862, what do we do with Grant, who freed his personal slave a few years earlier, but not those he managed for his father in law until 1865. His wife too.
This was the lead of his address
...but the idea that the war entered into to end slavery is simply incorrect.The idea that the war *wasn't* about slavery from its very beginning in South Carolina is simply incorrect. Secession and the war was about slavery in the south, as can be seen in the Ordinances of Secession and the secessionist op-eds.
Ping
Interestingly enough, he said this to Congress on January 12, 1848.
“... Any people anywhere, being inclined and having the power, have the right to rise up and shake off the existing government, and form a new one that suits them better. This is a most valuable, a most sacred right—a right which, we hope and believe, is to liberate the world...”
You do know, I assume, that of the 13 Articles of Secession for the 13 states that had them (though only 11 actually seceded), only four even mentioned slavery? They were: Mississippi; Texas; Georgia; and South Carolina.
I hate to have to post the following:
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.) To be absolutely fair - and I want to be fair - we are going to have to have a national dialog about the future of the Lincoln Memorial.
If you’re suggesting there was disagreement between the legality of slavery between SC and Lincoln you’re mistaken. Had SC not seceded, irrespective of motivation, there would have been no attemt to interfere with slavery in SC or any other slave state. if Lincoln is to be believed, a victory at First Manassas by the North would have been irrelevant to the institution.
Yup, statues have to go. I believe late in the war he was in favor of deportation, none of this 40 acres and a mule stuff
Melt down all your pennies!
Send all your $5 bills to me!
I think that as the war dragged on, and Lincoln became more familiar with the performance of black troops in the Union cause, he became more optimistic about their ability to be citizens. I don’t know if he ever went so far as to believe them equal, but I think he believed them deserving of equal rights.
“As I would not be a slave so I would not be a master. This expresses my view of democracy, whatever differs from this, the the extent of the difference is no democracy.” -Abe Lincoln.
If you’re referring to Lincoln then no - he didn’t believe in deportation. He did briefly study voluntary emigration however.
Like the Founders before him Lincoln believed in the natural right to rise up in rebellion against a tyrannical government. That wasn’t the situation in 1860.
You’re correct. I should have said he saw removal as a/the solution. I don’t think there was any forward looking thought given to it.
I don’t recall if Robert E. Lee was a member of the American Colonization Society (ACS) but I do recall that he paid out of pocket for the emigration of a bunch of former slaves to Africa (Liberia I believe).
Don’t know, Lincoln was interested in their plans though. Lincoln looking to Henry Clay’s solutions. Odd how paths cross.
As the War dragged on the Confederate States congress authorized freedom for any slave that would fight for the South - but that doesn't matter to those wanting to purge American history.
No, Lincoln was by anyone’s definition a white supremacist and he must be brought down regardless. Not quite yet. But the purge of Washington, Jefferson, and eventually Lincoln is coming.
And the star spangled banner that flew over slavery in the war of 1812, and during the native American genocide, and the landing of segregated U. S. troops at Normandy, and the imperialist invasion of Vietnam - all bad, all the time. I think even the Reverend Jeremiah Wright would agree to this narrative. Everything must go but the rainbow flag and president Obama.
Yea, in 1865.
No, Lincoln was by anyone’s definition a white supremacist and he must be brought down regardless
Only by America haters.
“I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been in favor of bringing about in anyway the social and political equality of the white and black races - that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race. I say upon this occasion I do not perceive that because the white man is to have the superior position the negro should be denied everything.”
-Fourth Debate with Stephen A. Douglas at Charleston, Illinois, September 18, 1858 (The Collected Works of Abraham Lincoln edited by Roy P. Basler, Volume III, pp. 145-146.) To be absolutely fair - and I want to be fair - we are going to have to have a national dialog about the future of the Lincoln Memorial.
So what? You think you’ve found some secret never before seen document? Here’s a clue: EVERYONE has seen that.
Again, so what?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.