1861March 4th

According to the custom as old as our government, I now come to you to say a few words briefly and take the oath before you according to the ceremony stipulated in the US Constitution, that is, the president must take the oath before taking office.

I don't think it is necessary to discuss administrative issues that are not particularly worrying and disturbing here.

People in the southern States seem to have a sense of fear. They believe that with the party and government coming to power, their property, peaceful life and personal safety will be threatened. This fear has never been based on any facts. To tell the truth, a lot of contrary evidence has always existed and can be found out by them at any time. This kind of evidence can be found in almost every public speech of the person you are talking to now. I just want to quote one sentence here. In that speech, I said, "I have no intention of directly or indirectly interfering with the system in states where slavery already exists. I am convinced that I have no legal right to do that at all, and I have no intention. " The people who nominated me and elected me are very clear. I have made it clear and said many similar things. I have never taken back what I said. Not only that, they also wrote a clear and definite resolution in the procedure, which has legal effect and is acceptable to them and me. Let me tell you about this resolution:

"Resolution, to maintain the inviolability of the rights of each state, especially the right of each state to arrange and control various systems in its own state through its own decisions, which is the most important factor to improve our political structure and lasting power balance; We condemn the use of armed forces to illegally invade the land of any country or quasi-country. This kind of invasion is the most serious crime no matter what excuse is used. "

Now I reiterate these views: I just want to remind the public that the most conclusive evidence in this regard is that property, peaceful life and personal safety in any part of the country will not be endangered under any circumstances because of the upcoming government. I would also like to add here that as long as the states abide by the Constitution and laws and legally request protection, the government is of course willing to give protection, regardless of the reasons, and treat any place equally.

There is a controversial issue about evading service or extraditing people who have escaped from hard labor. The clause I am going to read out now, like any other clause on other issues, is clearly written in the Constitution:

"Anyone who should serve or work in a country according to the laws of that country, if he escapes to another country, should not be exempted from his service or work according to the laws or regulations of that country, but should be extradited at the request of the party entitled to the service or work."

There is no doubt that according to the intention of the person who made this provision, this provision actually means that we have the right to claim back our so-called fugitive slaves; And this intention of legislators has actually become law. All members of Congress have sworn to abide by all the articles in the Constitution-this article is no different from other articles. Therefore, their vows are completely consistent in that slaves who are suitable for this clause should be "extradited". Now, if they work hard calmly, can't they make a law with almost the same oath, so that their oath can be realized?

Whether this clause should be implemented by state organs or by state organs, everyone's opinions are not completely consistent; But it is safe to say that this difference is not a very important issue. As long as slaves can be returned, it doesn't matter to slaves or others which authority will return them. In any case, no one will be honest because things should be like this. Since his oath is such an insignificant dispute, he will think that he can not keep it, right?

In addition, in any law on this issue, should all the guarantees of freedom in civilization and humanitarian law be written down to prevent a free man from being handed over as a slave under any circumstances? At the same time, there is also a provision in the Constitution that explicitly guarantees that "citizens of all states enjoy all the privileges and immunities enjoyed by citizens of other states". Wouldn't it be better if we use legal protection to enforce this clause?

I solemnly swear here today that I have no reservations in my heart, and I have no intention to interpret the Constitution or legal provisions by any overly critical standards. Although I am not going to point out in detail which laws and regulations of Congress must be observed; But I suggest that all of us, whether as individuals or as public officials, should obey and abide by all laws and regulations that have not been abolished, so as to have more sense of security, instead of easily believing that we can escape punishment by calling them unconstitutional and openly violating them.

Seventy-two years have passed since the first president was sworn in according to the national constitution. During this period, fifteen outstanding citizens successively presided over the administrative departments of the government. They guided it through many difficulties and obstacles; On the whole, they have achieved great success. However, although there are so many precedents for reference, I will now undertake the same task within the short four-year term stipulated by the Constitution, but I am facing enormous and extraordinary difficulties. Before that, separatism was only threatened, but now there have been terrible actions to try to split.

After careful consideration of the general law and our constitution, I firmly believe that the Federation of our States is permanent. In the basic laws of all national governments, permanence is self-evident, although it does not have to be stated. We can say with certainty that no government worthy of the name will stipulate a clause in its basic law to set its own deadline for completion. Continue to implement the provisions of our constitution, and the Federation will exist forever-no one can destroy the Federation except by taking actions invisible to the Constitution.

Also, even if the United States is not a veritable government, but only a federal state established by contract, it is bound by contract. If all parties involved in this contract agree unanimously, can we cancel it? The party involved in the conclusion of the contract may breach the contract or breach the contract; But if this contract is legally dissolved, is it unnecessary for everyone to agree?

Starting from these general principles, we find that from the legal point of view, the idea that the Federation is permanent has been confirmed by the history of the Federation itself. The Federation itself predates the Constitution. In fact, it was established through the joint clause signed by 1774. It was not until the declaration of independence of 1776 that it was further matured and continued. Then, the "Confederacy Clause" of 1778 became more mature. At that time, the thirteen participating States had clearly promised to make the Confederacy exist forever. Finally, one of the declared purposes of the Constitution promulgated in 1787 is to "form a more perfect federation".

However, if any state, or several states, can legally abolish the union, and this union is even more imperfect than before the constitution was enacted, because it has lost a crucial factor-permanence.

From these viewpoints, we can draw the conclusion that it is impossible for any state to voluntarily and legally withdraw from the union-any resolution and decree for this purpose is legally invalid; As for any country that opposes the United States,

Bureau of violence, according to the specific situation as a rebellion or revolutionary behavior.

Therefore, I believe that from the constitutional and legal point of view, the Federation cannot be divided; I will also do my best to ensure that all federal laws and regulations are implemented in all States in accordance with the responsibilities clearly assigned to me by the Constitution. I think this is just to perform my simple duties; As long as it is feasible, I will carry it out unless my legitimate owner, the American people, takes back the indispensable tools given to me or exercises their authority to order me to take the opposite action. I believe that my words will never be regarded as a threat, but only as the realization of the declared purpose of the Federation, which will certainly defend and maintain its existence according to the Constitution.

To do this, there is no need for bloodshed or violence, unless someone makes it strong. Otherwise, this wouldn't have happened. The power given to me will be used to keep, occupy and control all property and land belonging to the government. Impose various taxes and tariffs; But unless it is really for these purposes, there will never be any invasion-never use force against people anywhere or between people. On any continent, even if the hostility towards the federal government is so severe and widespread that it prevents capable local citizens from performing federal duties, the government will never force disgusting outsiders to take up these positions. Although the government has the right to enforce these duties according to strict laws, it is bound to be unpleasant and almost unrealistic, so I think it is best to put these duties aside for the time being.

Unless rejected, the postal service will continue to operate throughout the Federation. If possible, people everywhere must enjoy a perfect sense of security, which is very conducive to calm thinking and reflection. The principles I mentioned here will be followed unless current events and practical experience show that it is appropriate to modify or change them. I will handle any incidents and emergencies carefully according to the specific circumstances at that time, hoping to resolve domestic disputes through peaceful means and strive to restore brotherhood.

As for saying that there are always some people in some places who are desperate to destroy the Federation and plot evil under any pretext, I am not going to affirm or deny it; If there are such people, I don't need to say anything to them. But for those who really love the league, can't I say something?

Before we begin to study such a serious problem, it is necessary to destroy our national organization, all its interests, all its memories and all its hopes. Isn't it wise to study carefully what it is for? When the disaster you are trying to escape probably doesn't exist, will you still take that harmful step regardless? Or the disaster you want to escape does exist, but there is a bigger disaster waiting for you in the place where you escape; Then where are you going? Are you willing to risk making such a terrible mistake?

Everyone said that if all the rights stipulated in the Constitution were really implemented, he would stay in the Federation. So, is there really a constitutional right to be denied? I don't think so. Fortunately, the human mind is so constructed that no one dares to take such a big risk. If possible, please tell me even one example to show that some provisions in the Constitution have not been implemented. If the majority completely relies on the advantage of quantity to deprive the minority of the rights expressly stipulated in the Constitution, then from a moral point of view, it may be said that the revolution is justified-if it is extremely important rights that are deprived, then the revolution is definitely a reasonable action. But this is not the case with us. The Constitution affirms and denies, guarantees and prohibits all the important rights of ethnic minorities and individuals; They have always been given clear assurances, so there has never been such an argument. However, when formulating the Basic Law, it is impossible to write down all the provisions that can be applied immediately for any problems that arise in practical work. No matter how brilliant the foresight is, it is impossible to predict everything in the future, and it is impossible to have any document with appropriate length containing provisions on all possible problems. Should people who evade labor be returned by the federal government or by the state government? There is no specific provision in the constitution. Can Congress ban slavery in a region? There is no specific provision in the constitution. Must Congress protect slavery in these areas? There is no specific provision in the constitution.

Starting from this kind of problem, we have a dispute on the constitutional issue, and because of this kind of problem, we are divided into the majority and the minority. If a few people refuse to acquiesce, most people must acquiesce, otherwise the government will have to stop working. There is no other way to go; If the government wants to continue to exercise its functions and powers, it must get the acquiescence of one party or the other. In this case, if a few people would rather leave than acquiesce, then they will set a precedent to split and destroy them in the future; Because when most people refuse to accept the control of such a few people, a few of them will inevitably leave them again. For example, after a year or two, why won't any part of a new alliance be as determined to leave that new alliance as some parts of the current Federation are? All people who have the idea of splitting the union are now being educated in the idea of splitting. Is it necessary to form a new federal country, and their interests must be so completely consistent, so that there will be harmony and there will be no separation from action?

It is very clear that the essence of the central idea of separation is anarchism. A majority subject to constitutional review and restriction, which always changes in time with the cautious changes of public opinions and emotions, is the only true ruler of the free people. Whoever wants to exclude them will inevitably move towards anarchism or absolutism. Exactly the same is impossible; It is totally unacceptable to regard minority rule as a long-term arrangement. Therefore, once the majority principle is ruled out, what remains is some form of anarchism or absolutism.

I haven't forgotten what some people have said. Constitutional issues should be decided by the Supreme Court. I don't deny that this ruling is completely binding on litigation and litigation purposes under any circumstances, and it should also be highly respected and valued by all other government departments under similar circumstances. Although it is very obvious that this ruling is likely to be wrong in a specific case, the subsequent consequences are always limited to this specific case, and the ruling may still be rejected, which will not be a precedent for future judgments. This kind of fault is certainly more tolerable than other faults. At the same time, honest citizens must admit that if the government's policies on major issues involving the interests of all the people must be decided by the Supreme Court, then once the general litigation between individuals is decided, the people will no longer be their own masters, but have reached the point where their government is handed over to the court above all else. When I say this, I don't mean to express my dissatisfaction with the court or the judge. It is their unshirkable responsibility to send them a case according to normal procedures and make an appropriate ruling on it; If others insist on using their judgment for political purposes, it is not their fault.

Some people in our country think slavery is right. It should be expanded, and some people think it is wrong and should not be expanded. This is the only substantive dispute. The provisions and laws of the Constitution on fugitive slaves prevent foreign slave trade.

Law, in a society where people's moral values do not support law, its implementation may not be worse than any law. In both cases, most people abide by boring legal obligations, but a few people don't listen to that. In this regard, I think it is impossible to completely solve it; If the two areas of the village dam are separated. In the future, the situation will only get worse. The foreign slave trade has not been completely banned yet, and will eventually be fully restored in a region; For fugitive slaves, in another area, only part of them are returned now, and they will refuse to hand them over completely in the future.

As far as natural conditions are concerned, we can't be separated. We must never let our areas be far away from each other, nor can we build an insurmountable high wall between them. A couple can divorce, go their separate ways and never see each other again. But all parts of the country can't do this. They can only get along face to face, whether friendly or not. Hatred or not, they still have to associate. Is there any way to make this kind of communication more favorable, satisfying and satisfying after separation than before? Is it easier for outsiders to make treaties than for friends to make laws? Is it more faithful to fulfill the treaty between outsiders than to act according to the law between friends? Even if you decide. If you resort to war, you can't fight forever. Finally, when both sides lose and neither side gains, you will not fight, and then the same old question will still be placed in front of you, under what conditions to interact with each other.

This country, together with its institutions, belongs to the people who live here. At any time, they are tired of the existing government. They can exercise their constitutional rights to reform the government or their revolutionary rights to dissolve or overthrow the government. Of course, I know that many outstanding patriotic citizens are eager to amend our constitution. Although I won't suggest it myself, I fully recognize their legal right on this issue and admit that they can exercise this right in either of the two ways stipulated by the Constitution. Moreover, under the present circumstances, I am not against it, but in favor of giving the people a fair opportunity to act.

I can't help but add that, in my opinion, it seems better to hold a meeting, so that the revised plans can be put forward by the people themselves, instead of just letting them accept or reject some plans put forward by people who are not specially selected for this purpose, because maybe those plans are just not what they are willing to accept or reject. As far as I know, someone has proposed a constitutional amendment-I didn't see it, but it has been passed in Congress to the effect that the federal government will never interfere in the internal systems of States, including those who should be forced to serve. In order that my words will not be misunderstood, I will change my original intention of not talking about specific amendments and make it clear that since such a clause may now be written into the Constitution, I have no objection to making it a clear and unchangeable clause.

All the authority of the president of the United States comes from the people, and the people have not given him the power to set conditions for the separation of States. If the people themselves want to do that, it is naturally possible; But the current government can't do this. His duty is to run the government as he took over and then hand it over to his successor intact.

Why can't we patiently and firmly believe in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope for the whole world? In our differences today, don't both sides think they are right? If the all-powerful ruler of all nations, with his eternal truth and justice, stands in your north or south, then, according to the judgment of the great judge of the American people, truth and justice will surely win.

According to the framework of the current government in which we live, our people are very wise; The power given to their civil servants to run amok is minimal; However, it is also very wise to stipulate that even a little power must be taken back into your own hands in a short time.

Because the people remain pure and vigilant, it is impossible for any administrative organ to cause serious damage to this government with extremely bad or stupid behavior in just four years.

My fellow citizens, please think about this whole problem calmly. What is truly valuable will not be lost because it is easy. If you have a goal that you can't wait to achieve, the steps you take are carefully considered.

If you don't take it, that goal may indeed be impossible to achieve because of your leisure; But a really good self-bidding will not be lost because it is easy. You people who are dissatisfied now must still abide by the old constitution, and on a new sensitive issue, there are still laws made according to the constitution; For both sides, even if the new government wants to change them, it has no right to do so immediately. Even if you admit that you disgruntled people are on the right side in this dispute, there is no justifiable reason to act rashly. Wisdom, patriotism, Christian spirit and dependence on God who has never abandoned this blessed land can still solve all our current difficulties in the most ideal way.

It is you, my dissatisfied compatriots, who decide the major issues of the civil war, not me. The government will never attack you. As long as you are not aggressors, there will be no conflict. You didn't swear to God that this government must be destroyed.

But I have solemnly sworn to "safeguard, protect and defend" this government.

I really don't want to finish my speech. We are not enemies, but friends. We can't be enemies. Although I am a little nervous now, I must not let it break the close emotional bond between us. The mysterious string of memory extends from every battlefield and every patriot's grave to every beating heart and every family in this vast land. One day, it will be touched by our conscience and play the federal chorus again.