In his 1861 inaugural address, Lincoln asserts that, “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 (America’s) political fabric depend(s).”[1] Further, Lincoln states, “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists.” He continues, “I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”[2] Lincoln’s declared aim, to be sure, is the preservation of the Union, saying “I shall have the most solemn (oath) to ‘preserve, protect and defend’ it.”[3]

Lincoln’s actions tend to favor the progression rather than the protection of the Union, however. He qualifies his first claim to State’s “exclusive judgment,” by saying that, “no state, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the union.”[4] He declares in a letter to Horace Greeley, “What I do about slavery, and about the colored race, I do because I believe it helps to save the Union. …If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it…I would try to correct errors when shown to be errors; and I shall adopt new views so fast as they shall appear to be true views.”[5]

The difference in views appearing true and views merely adapting to suit situational agendas is indiscernible. Lincoln’s about-face on the slavery issue is counter to his aforementioned claims of non-interference. In his emancipation proclamation, made only two years after his inaugural address, Lincoln declares, “all persons held as slaves within said designated States…shall be free…the Executive government of the United States will recognize and maintain the freedom of said persons.”[6] Where he had admitted only two years before that he had no lawful right to interfere, he now interprets that he has that unequivocal right. As well, this nullifies his previous claim that States posses any exclusive judgment whatsoever.

South Carolina’s Ordinance of Secession and Declaration of Independence recognizes these inconsistencies in Lincoln’s rhetoric. Essentially ignored, however, is Lincoln’s unreasonable appeal that, in order to be nullified, the existing Constitution would hypothetically require all parties to lawfully rescind it. The Articles of the Confederation stipulated that any amendment required the consent of all 13 legislatures. However, the process for the ratification of the original Constitution was, itself, technically illegal with only 9 states required to ratify.[7] That Lincoln insisted upon unanimity for dissolution was hypocritical, considering.

Aside from Lincoln’s inconsistencies, South Carolina (in particular) complains that its individual protections and rights have been violated, specifically the guarantees by the Federal government to the States (Art. IV, sec. 4), and the rules governing state interactions. In particular, South Carolina is not receiving “protection against domestic insurrection”, nor are Northern states in compliance with the extradition laws governing the return of fugitive slaves. In effect, the South’s property is being stolen or otherwise held, and nothing is being done about it. This, in the South’s view, constitutes breech of contract and makes the pledge null and void.

The South’s argument is most convincing. The United States government is supposedly a government of laws, not of men. Procedure is in place for changing laws, allowing for the evolution of man and his society. States ratified the Constitution on the assurance that their autonomy would be maintained. The written law and language of that law favored States’ rights over Federal. Although Lincoln’s intentions might have favored the condition of man in general, he was acting outside the written law to enact measures to improve man’s status. The flaw rests in that paradox. The best laws are written for the protection of one man against the power of another man who might have the benefit of greater position. That law favors the weaker is necessarily understood, for the man in power has that power already as influence and has little need of additional support. The balance of power instilled within the US government houses is such an example meant to counter any abuses of power in the event that one house gains excessive influence.

When law is violated in the interest of improving law, it negates the nature of good law itself, making that law into a farce. When an aim necessitates the utilization of a method contrary to that original aim, the aim will fail. In essence, the law is not a mere means to an end, but is the end itself. That is not to say it should not be improved or altered, but it must be improved in accordance with pre-established perimeters, lest the conception of law itself become illegitimate.

[1] From “The Union…is perpetual”, (President Abraham Lincoln’s First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1861), This Fiery Trial: The Speeches and Writings of Abraham Lincoln, Ed. William E. Gienapp, Oxford University Press (2002), 89.

[2] Ibid., 89.

[3] Ibid., 96.

[4] Ibid., 91.

[5] From “I Would Save the Union” (Letter to Horace Greeley, August 22, 1862), from Gienapp, 135.

[6] Gienapp, “Are, and henceforth shall be free” from Chapter V: A New Birth of Freedom, 152.

[7] American Government, Ninth Edition, James Q. Wilson and John J. DiIulio, Jr., Houghton Mifflin: Boston (2004), 30.