Lincoln's First Inaugural Address

[L Verge]

In preparing for one of the trips to be conducted during the Surratt conference this coming April, I stumbled across this summary of Lincoln's First Inaugural Address on Wikepedia. To me, it speaks to the distrust that Marylanders and others had of Lincoln as the war and his negative actions progressed. Underneath the political pander, in my opinion, Lincoln was a pragmatist who did what it took to restore the Union.

"Lincoln opened his speech by first indicating that he would not touch on 'those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.' The remainder of the speech would address the concerns of Southerners, who were apprehensive that 'by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered.' Lincoln emphatically denied this assertion, and invited his listeners to consider his past speeches on the subject of slavery, together with the platform adopted by the Republican Party, which explicitly guaranteed the right of each individual state to decide for itself on the subject of slavery, together with the right of each state to be free from coercion of any kind from other states, or the Federal government. He went on to address several other points of particular interest at the time:

"Slavery: Lincoln stated emphatically that he had '...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.'

''Legal status of the South: He asserted that as he had just taken an oath 'to preserve, protect, and defend the United States Constitution', this oath enjoined him to see that the laws of the Union were faithfully executed in all states—including those that had seceded.

"Use of force: Lincoln promised that there would be no use of force against the South, unless it proved necessary for him to fulfill his obligation to 'hold, occupy, and possess the property and places' belonging to the federal government, and to collect legal duties and imposts. However, if the South chose to actively take up arms against the Government, their insurrection would meet a firm and forceful response.

"Secession: Referring to words in the preamble to the Constitution, Lincoln stated that the Constitution was established 'to form a more perfect union' than the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union had effected. Since the Union established under the Articles was explicitly perpetual in name and text, thus the Union under the Constitution was equally perpetual. He added that even if the Constitution were to be construed as a simple contract, it could not be legally rescinded without an agreement between all parties, meaning all of the states, North and South.

"Protection of slavery: Lincoln explicitly stated that he had no objection to the proposed Corwin Amendment to the Constitution, which had already been approved by both houses of the United States Congress. This amendment would have formally protected slavery in those states in which it already existed, and assured to each state the right to establish or repudiate it. Lincoln indicated that he thought that this right was already protected in the original Constitution, and thus that the Corwin Amendment merely reiterated what it already contained.

"Slavery in the Territories: Lincoln asserted that nothing in the Constitution expressly said what either could or could not be done regarding slavery in the territories. He indicated his willingness to enforce the Fugitive Slave Act, so long as free blacks could be protected from being kidnapped and illegally sold into slavery through its misuse.

"The postal service: The U.S. Mails would continue to operate throughout the South, 'unless repelled.'

"Federal offices in the South: With no professional civil service in operation during this period of American history, Lincoln promised that he would not use the spoils system to appoint Northern office-holders to federal offices, such as postmasterships, located in the Southern states. Instead, said he, he would 'forego the use of such offices' rather than force 'obnoxious strangers' upon the South."

In the case of Maryland, he also deceived them in the beginning by indicating that they would be compensated for manumitting their slaves and that they would not be asked to bear arms against their Southern brethren. Nearly forty years ago, an author researching the effects of the Civil War on Maryland told me that he had found more lingering hatred of Lincoln in Maryland than in many parts of the Deep South. I'm not sure that that feeling still exists, but broken promises can take a long time to heal.

[Gene C]

(08-23-2015 06:58 PM)L Verge Wrote:  In the case of Maryland, he also deceived them in the beginning by indicating that they would be compensated for manumitting their slaves and that they would not be asked to bear arms against their Southern brethren. Nearly forty years ago, an author researching the effects of the Civil War on Maryland told me that he had found more lingering hatred of Lincoln in Maryland than in many parts of the Deep South. I'm not sure that that feeling still exists, but broken promises can take a long time to heal.

I don't recall the time table of events, but in the case of Maryland, there was an attempt to assassinate Lincoln as he passed through Baltimore on the way to his inauguration by some political extremist of Maryland. Also, in the first days of the war, many of the Maryland brethren fired upon Union soldiers marching through Baltimore as they were on their way to protect Washington DC. And several railroad bridges and track were damaged and destroyed in an effort to keep Union soldiers from passing through Maryland. In addition, many Marylanders joined the Confederate army during the early days of the war and took up arms against their northern brethren. We've acknowledged that many in southern Maryland tried very hard to aid the Confederacy and harm the Union.

A significant part of the population of Maryland didn't have clean hands when it comes to claiming Lincoln deceived them and broke promises.

[L Verge]

(08-23-2015 10:59 PM)Gene C Wrote:  

(08-23-2015 06:58 PM)L Verge Wrote:  In the case of Maryland, he also deceived them in the beginning by indicating that they would be compensated for manumitting their slaves and that they would not be asked to bear arms against their Southern brethren. Nearly forty years ago, an author researching the effects of the Civil War on Maryland told me that he had found more lingering hatred of Lincoln in Maryland than in many parts of the Deep South. I'm not sure that that feeling still exists, but broken promises can take a long time to heal.

I don't recall the time table of events, but in the case of Maryland, there was an attempt to assassinate Lincoln as he passed through Baltimore on the way to his inauguration by some political extremist of Maryland. Also, in the first days of the war, many of the Maryland brethren fired upon Union soldiers marching through Baltimore as they were on their way to protect Washington DC. And several railroad bridges and track were damaged and destroyed in an effort to keep Union soldiers from passing through Maryland. In addition, many Marylanders joined the Confederate army during the early days of the war and took up arms against their northern brethren. We've acknowledged that many in southern Maryland tried very hard to aid the Confederacy and harm the Union.

A significant part of the population of Maryland didn't have clean hands when it comes to claiming Lincoln deceived them and broke promises.

With the exception of the assassination plot - not attempt - in Baltimore in February of 1861 (which some historians doubt existed), the references that you make occurred after Lincoln's conciliatory First Inaugural Address. I hope some of you will read this article on the border states: http://quod.lib.umich.edu/j/jala/2629860...w=fulltext

I do like the statement that the author makes about historians neglecting the role of the border states in shaping policy. The poor handling of Missouri had disastrous effects in many ways.

[Gene C]

I stand corrected regarding the "plot". Thanks for posting the interesting article. Lincoln sure had a difficult ballancing act on his hands early on.
Reminds me of this story

http://abrahamlincolnsclassroom.org/dail...ara-falls/

http://elections.harpweek.com/1864/carto...niqueID=43

[L Verge]

The thing that has kept me interested in Lincoln is his balancing acts and the way that he took illegal actions and got away with them. He is the consummate example of pragmatism in full swing, in my opinion, and it worked until his assassination. Others may disagree.

[Gene C]

It depends on what you mean by "got away with them".
He was severely criticized for his "illegal actions" by the press, both political parties, and the public.
He lost many friends and relatives in the war, his wife couldn't handle the stress and frequently made his life more difficult.
You can see from the photos of him how much he aged in just five years, the physical and mental strain of the job almost killed him, an assassin did. His son Tad noticed, "He wasn't happy here"

So in one sense he got away with it, in another sense he didn't.

[Angela]

I am not sure I understand the original post.

I don’t see how any of his actions, compared to his statements in the first inaugural can be considered fraudulent or “deceiving”.

Lincoln took office and gave no indication at all that he was interested in interfering with slavery. He was known to very moderate on the issue politically and was criticized many times by abolitionist to drag his feet or be too slow on the issue.
He himself explained this point perfectly, IMO. As early as the Jonesboro debate with Douglas, Lincoln made clear that he believed that the federal government had no right to interfere with slavery.

As for compensated emancipation, Lincoln DID propose it several times and reminded people of it in a letter from 1863 to James C. Conkling:
“But to be plain, you are dissatisfied with me about the negro. Quite likely there is a difference of opinion between you and myself upon that subject. I certainly wish that all men could be free, while I suppose you do not. Yet I have neither adopted, nor proposed any measure, which is not consistent with even your view, provided you are for the Union. I suggested compensated emancipation; to which you replied you wished not to be taxed to buy negroes. But I had not asked you to be taxed to buy negroes, except in such way, as to save you from greater taxation to save the Union exclusively by other means.”

As for the Corwin Amendment – didn’t it fall of the grid because it wasn’t ratified by the states necessary?

And didn't the Emancipation Proclamation become an issue only AFTER there was a Civil War going on - and which was started...not by Lincoln?

[L Verge]

I believe you have misinterpreted (or reversed points) regarding my original post. My purpose was to indicate why many Marylanders became disenchanted with Mr. Lincoln when he went against his own statements in his First Inaugural and further policies regarding not interfering with slavery and compensating slaveholders and not bearing arms against the South (then came the draft). We can go into habeas corpus, martial law, imprisonment, removal from elected office, stuffing the ballot boxes with non-Maryland soldiers' votes, etc.

I wish that many of you would understand that I am not anti-Lincoln and that I am fascinated with the man. Neither am I (and others on this forum) trying to refight the Civil War. Our interest is in analyzing all facets from all sides. In my mind, that is what education (and this forum) is all about.

P.S. There are a number of very qualified scholars who would debate you on whether or not Lincoln initiated the war. Also, I believe the Corwin Amendment never went to the states for a vote because of the arrival of a new regime and the war. I'll check on that, however.

Just checked, and the Amendment did go out for ratification. Three states ratified it -- Ohio (1861), Maryland (1862), and Illinois (1862). It was ultimately pulled in 1864, when Union victory was at hand. However, if I understand it correctly today, it could still be reconsidered and sent back out for ratification 150+ years later -- not that that would happen. Theoretically, however, if such would happen, would its ratification take precedence over the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments? As the King of Siam might say, "Tis a puzzlement."

[Eva Elisabeth]

I would think there's lots of truth in what Abraham Lincoln said in his Second Inaugural Address:

"Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.

One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding."

[LincolnToddFan]

(08-24-2015 07:57 PM)Gene C Wrote:  It depends on what you mean by "got away with them".
He was severely criticized for his "illegal actions" by the press, both political parties, and the public.
He lost many friends and relatives in the war, his wife couldn't handle the stress and frequently made his life more difficult.
You can see from the photos of him how much he aged in just five years, the physical and mental strain of the job almost killed him, an assassin did. His son Tad noticed, "He wasn't happy here"

So in one sense he got away with it, in another sense he didn't.

Great points, but you missed the greatest loss of all....his LIFE.