George Washington to New Hampshire, 29 December 1777 (Detail, GLC03706) Interpreting the Constitution: Civil War: The Constitution and the Extension of Slavery by Kenneth Honig Bayside High School Lincoln's First Inaugural Address http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres31.html The question of the extension of slavery finally reached its ultimate conclusion with the election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860. By the time Lincoln took office for his first term, the South's secession from the Union had already begun. Lincoln's election in fact had been the immediate cause of secession. In his first inaugural address, Lincoln addressed the constitutional issue of the extension of slavery. 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 a 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 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. 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. ____ 1. Abraham Lincoln states that the founding fathers could not foresee every problem that might arise. Why do you think that the problems regarding the extension of slavery were not addressed by the founding fathers? 2. Should the issue of the extension of slavery have been addressed by constitutional amendment from 1788 up until Lincoln's election? Explain why or why not? 3. Should constitutional issues be decided upon the will of the majority? Explain your viewpoint. 4. Do you agree or disagree with Lincoln that secession is not a good reaction for a minority to use when they cannot win on their point of view? Explain your viewpoint. 5. If a minority must acquiesce to the opinion of the majority on a constitutional issue, what methods can they use to protect their rights? 6. Should a state have the right to secede from the Union? There has been discussion about whether New York City should secede from New York and create its own state. Should a city, county, or parish be allowed to secede from a state? Why wor why not? If so, how would you distinguish that right from the lack of a right of a state to secede from the Union?