the writings-5-第37章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



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　near1y　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　under　what　pretext；　as　amongst　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　causeas

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　Constitutionto　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　any　one　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　foreverit　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　itbreak　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　the　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　fromwill　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　revolutioncertainly　would　if　such　a　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