-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 0
/
Copy pathws_lincoln.html
498 lines (489 loc) · 28.4 KB
/
ws_lincoln.html
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
366
367
368
369
370
371
372
373
374
375
376
377
378
379
380
381
382
383
384
385
386
387
388
389
390
391
392
393
394
395
396
397
398
399
400
401
402
403
404
405
406
407
408
409
410
411
412
413
414
415
416
417
418
419
420
421
422
423
424
425
426
427
428
429
430
431
432
433
434
435
436
437
438
439
440
441
442
443
444
445
446
447
448
449
450
451
452
453
454
455
456
457
458
459
460
461
462
463
464
465
466
467
468
469
470
471
472
473
474
475
476
477
478
479
480
481
482
483
484
485
486
487
488
489
490
491
492
493
494
495
496
497
498
<!DOCTYPE html>
<html lang="en">
<head>
<!--
New Perspectives on HTML5, CSS3, and JavaScript 6th Edition
Tutorial 13
Case Problem 4
Word Cloud of Lincoln's 1st Inaugural
Author: Hesbon Osoro
Date: 12/11/22
Filename: ws_lincoln.html
-->
<meta charset="utf-8" />
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1" />
<title>Rhetoric in the United States Word Cloud</title>
<link href="ws_base.css" rel="stylesheet" />
<link href="ws_styles.css" rel="stylesheet" />
<link href="ws_cloud.css" rel="stylesheet" />
<script src="ws_stopwords.js" async></script>
<script src="ws_cloud.js" async></script>
</head>
<body>
<header>
<img src="ws_logo.png" alt="White Sands College" id="wsimg" />
<img src="ws_rhetoric.png" alt="American Rhetoric" id="logoimg" />
<nav class="horizontal" id="topLinks">
<a id="navicon" href="#"><img src="ws_navicon.png" alt="" /></a>
<ul>
<li><a href="#">Syllabus</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Class Notes</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Readings</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Exams</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Office Hours</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>
<h1>Rhetoric in the United States</h1>
</header>
<section>
<article>
<h1>Abraham Lincoln's 1st Inaugural Address</h1>
<div id="speech">
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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--
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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:
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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:
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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 lawgiver 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 up
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?
</p>
<p>
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 anyone in any case be
content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial
controversy as to how it shall be kept?
</p>
<p>
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?
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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 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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an
association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as
acontract, 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?
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
But if 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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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 Ishall 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 it will
constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
</p>
<p>
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 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 withal that
I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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?
</p>
<p>
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?
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to
compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed
secession?
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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 overruled 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.
</p>
<p>
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, can not 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.
</p>
<p>
Physically speaking, we can not 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 can not do this. They can not 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 can not 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.
</p>
<p>
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 can
not 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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
<p>
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.
</p>
</div>
</article>
<aside id="cloud"></aside>
<nav class="vertical">
<h1>Explore Other Speeches</h1>
<ul>
<li>
<a href="#">Daniel Webster: On the Clay Compromise of 1850</a>
</li>
<li><a href="#">Abraham Lincoln: Second Inaugural Address</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Abraham Lincoln: Gettysburg Address</a></li>
<li><a href="#">William Jennings Bryant: "Cross of Gold"</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Clarence Darrow: "Mercy for Leopold and Loeb"</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Franklin Roosevelt: Pearl Harbor Address</a></li>
<li>
<a href="#">Eleanor Roosevelt: The Struggle for Human Rights</a>
</li>
<li>
<a href="#">Douglas MacArthur: Farewell Address to Congress</a>
</li>
<li><a href="#">John Fitzgerald Kennedy: Inaugural Address</a></li>
<li>
<a href="#">John Fitzgerald Kennedy: "Ich bin ein Berliner"</a>
</li>
<li><a href="#">Ronald Reagan: "A Time for Choosing"</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Malcolm X: The Ballot or the Bullet</a></li>
<li><a href="#">Martin Luther King, Jr: I Have A Dream</a></li>
<li>
<a href="#"
>Martin Luther King, Jr.: "I've Been to the Mountaintop"</a
>
</li>
<li><a href="#">Barbara Jordan: DNC Keynote Address</a></li>
</ul>
</nav>
</section>
<footer>Rhetoric in the United States © 2018 English (US)</footer>
</body>
</html>