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."
                                                                              1
     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.
                                                                             2
     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.

                                                                             3
     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.

                                                                             4
     I now reiterate these sentiments, and in doing so I only press upon the public attention the
   most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and
   security of no section are to be in 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.
                                                                             5
     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.

                                                                             6
     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?
                                                                             7
     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?
                                                                             8
     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"?
                                                                             9
     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.
                                                                            10
     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.
                                                                            11
     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.
                                                                            12
     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?
                                                                            13
     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."
                                                                            14
     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.
                                                                            15
     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.
                                                                            16
     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.
                                                                            17
     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.
                                                                            18
     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.
                                                                            19
     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?
                                                                            20
     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?
                                                                            21
     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.
                                                                            22
     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.
                                                                            23
     Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to
   produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
                                                                            24
     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.
                                                                            25
     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.
                                                                            26
     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.
                                                                            27
     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.
                                                                            28
     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.
                                                                            29
     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.
                                                                            30
     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.
                                                                            31
     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.
                                                                            32
     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.
                                                                            33
     In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of
   civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being
   yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government,
   while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
                                                                            34
     I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though
   passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of
   memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and
   hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched,
   as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.