On
her autobiography “The Price of My soul”, Bernadette Devlin (yeah
go Google her up, it's worth it) wrote that the title of the book
does not imply anything about the monetary value of her soul, but
merely the human experience of possessing one (my interpretation).
Now I wouldn't want you to think I had sold myself off to the Yanks
by merely judging this post from its title either. But when you see
Uncle Sam chipping in positively on our behalf (4377, I could be much
misguided here), it's only fair to give credit where it's due.
American
foreign policy had always been a prickly issue as far as I am
concerned, and I guess I am not in a club of one. Lo and behold, they
suddenly had a change of heart and had been giving off some VERY
positive vibes recently. Maybe Obummer is not as bad as some people
make him out to be, who knows. Like hell I had been a fan of this guy
since his first days (though I still put McCain on top, a man for
whom I have great respect). Confusing? Get used to it kiddos, that's
uniquely Sri Lankan.
So
when it came to writing something about Uncle Sam, there was this
internal conflict – which one to pick? Now Dubya is certainly out
of question – who the f%$£ in his right mind would want to put him
in a congratulatory blog, and the Presidential Clockmaker is a bit of
a touchy subject, lest there be kids reading this and doing a bit of
Googling.... Nah, these modern ones will not do. Rewind 150 odd years
and you meet no lesser persona than Abe Lincoln. But if I ever had
the impunity & insolence to write of Abe Lincoln myself, it would
be desecration – and I know that. So rather I leave the great man
to talk for himself, and do consider yourselves to be blessed for
getting an offside opportunity to read his inauguration speech.
Ladies
& gentlemen, His Excellency The President of the United States of
America, Abraham Lincoln (on 4th
March 1861
at Washington, D.C.) :
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 law-giver 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,"
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 for [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 [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 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 so 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 with all,
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 over-ruled, 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, cannot 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 cannot 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 cannot do this. They cannot 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 cannot 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 cannot 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.
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."
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 battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and
hearth-stone, 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.
