
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln - js2
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp
======
canada_dry
> We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies.

Yet here we are... the US two party system continues to devolve into a _bitter
no-holds-barred us-against-them battle_.

There are so many other foes - both internal and external - that need
addressing, yet in-fighting is weakening the nation's foundation while the
real enemies are rubbing their hands in glee.

~~~
antipaul
I sometimes wonder if today’s political divisions are substantially deeper
than in the past. Infighting seems to go back to the founding fathers.

So is today the end of democracy? Or standard operating practice?

~~~
vikramkr
We had a civil war. I would be very interested to see an analysis try and
argue that we are more divided now than when we had a civil war over whether
states had the right to decide whether or not black people count as people.

~~~
briandear
> we had a civil war over whether states had the right to decide whether or
> not black people count as people.

That actually wasn’t why the civil war was started. It wasn’t until later in
the war that emancipation was a goal. Slavery was legal in DC for the first
year of the Civil War.

~~~
hef19898
Didn't some states _explicitly_ state in their declarations of secession that
it was about their right to keep slaves? And with secession being the cause of
the civil war, it was about slavery from day one.

~~~
vikramkr
The very first state to secede made it pretty clear what it was all about.

"The declaration stated the primary reasoning behind South Carolina's
declaring of secession from the U.S., which was described as "increasing
hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the Institution of
Slavery"."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union)

------
RcouF1uZ4gsC
In my mind, there are only two indispensable Presidents without whom there
really would no be a United States of America: George Washington and Abraham
Lincoln. Lincoln had the rare traits of dogged determination, clear headed
pragmatism, and a rare humility that allowed him to do the seemingly
impossible and hold the Union together while still ending slavery. Truly, one
of the great people of history.

~~~
jariel
Yes there would be no USA without him, but as a foreigner, reading that, he
seems like a brutal federalist.

He literally says 'we don't want bloodshed, but hey, the constitution says you
cannot secede, so there will be bloodshed if you try to'.

We have several secessionist movements around the world: Canada, Spain, UK
(Scotland/Northern Ireland), EU (Brexit) - to name just a few.

Literally the 'land of the free', a new country, with a lot of devolved power
... but 'if you try to leave we're going to invade you'. It seems really
inconsistent with democratic principles.

Though histories and legalities are quite different, I was pretty shocked by
his stark position.

His tone is not aggressive, but his position is pretty hardcore absolutist.

~~~
Mediterraneo10
Secession in the case of the American South was not a clear-cut case of
everyone in a region wanting to live in their own country. The owners of the
large slave-based plantations wanted to secede, and since they were the
wealthy political elites, they made it happen. However, poorer white farmers
who owned no slaves were either ambivalent about secession or outright pro-
Union, and of course the black slave population weren't enthusiastic about the
Confederate elites' aims.

So, Lincoln was advocating for the large Southern population that did not want
to divide the Union, not quashing regional democratic aspirations.

~~~
jariel
So that's a good point but - "was not a clear-cut case of everyone in a region
wanting to live in their own country"

Neither was the American revolution in the first place.

Where was the referendum? What would have been the results? Would the
secessionists even have won?

Lincoln maybe didn't live in a time where he had a lot of historical examples
to follow, fair enough, but the argument that 'some didn't want to separate'
doesn't quite cut it fully because that's pretty much a pervasive context.

------
empath75
What to a slave is the 4th of July?
[https://youtu.be/NBe5qbnkqoM](https://youtu.be/NBe5qbnkqoM)

~~~
082349872349872
for those who prefer text:
[https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-
to...](https://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/document/what-to-the-slave-
is-the-fourth-of-july/)

Although I largely concur with Douglass, he does seem a bit disingenuous about
the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-
Fifths_Compromise](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-Fifths_Compromise) in
discussing the Constitution. Further reading indicates that's a deliberate
stance:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass#Return_to_t...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Douglass#Return_to_the_United_States)

"To side with the right, against the wrong, with the weak against the strong,
and with the oppressed against the oppressor! here lies the merit, and the one
which, of all others, seems unfashionable in our day." (that day being 1852)

------
dr_dshiv
"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."

Damn, Lincoln! Makes me think we need those statues of Jefferson Davis
(upside-down, for my taste) -- because now it seems clear that if the south
hadn't seceded, emancipation would not have happened for decades _if at all_

~~~
hef19898
Yeah, seems the Confederacy was the in itself the cause of tis own downfall.

Edit: As a what-if question, where would the US have stood in that case during
the two World Wars?

~~~
dr_dshiv
It is terrifying to think about what present day slavery would look like if it
had been further enshrined as a right of the southern states.

Or, if Lincoln had simply allowed succession.

~~~
vimy
[https://youtu.be/Uyz-AyAOLek](https://youtu.be/Uyz-AyAOLek)

From:
[https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0389828/)

------
protomyth
I've found his Second Inaugural to be his more interesting
[https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=38&page...](https://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?flash=false&doc=38&page=transcript)

The first sounds like a man trying to hold it together by word with some
appeasements.

~~~
js2
Yes, but it's well known. It's inscribed on the inside wall of the Lincoln
Memorial, along with the Gettysburg address. I had never read his first
inaugural address before. I'm 48.

~~~
protomyth
You really need to frame the speech with some understanding of the electoral
breakdown of the election.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidentia...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1860_United_States_presidential_election)

------
082349872349872
Context:

24.12.1860:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_C...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_the_Immediate_Causes_Which_Induce_and_Justify_the_Secession_of_South_Carolina_from_the_Federal_Union)

08.02.1861:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Constitution_of_th...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Provisional_Constitution_of_the_Confederate_States)

04.03.1861: First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln

12.04.1861:
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fort_Sumter)

------
7532yahoogmail
Op - thanks for finding and posting. I enjoyed reading it, and was pleased to
see evidence intelligent rhetoric with heart. Now at this point Lincoln said
he would not stop slavery -- that would change though.

------
JoBrad
The last paragraph of this speech is perhaps the best appeal to our better
selves a US politician has ever made, in my opinion. The way he seamlessly
shifts from acknowledging the current madness to a lofty call-to-greatness
gives me chills every time I read 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 battlefield
> and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone 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.

------
audessuscest
Yale should change his name.

~~~
dr_dshiv
That's the best idea I've heard! Rather than Yale changing its name, change
Elihu Yale's name to something else, like Elihu Shitbag. Yale can get
abstracted out and maybe become an acronym. Young Angry Leftwing Elitists, or
something.

(Class of '03 -- I love Yale)

