American Eloquence, Volume IV | Page 5

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 judgment exclusively, is essential
to the 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 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 re-claiming 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
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 what authority it is done. And
should any one, in any case, be content that his oath should go unkept,
on a mere 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 of 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 reservation, 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
for 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