.jpg)
४
मार्च १८६१
अमेरिकेच्या
नागरिकहो,
या
सरकाराइतकेच जुना असलेल्या एका परंपरेनुसार, मी आज
तुमच्यासमोर उपस्थित आहे, आणि राष्ट्राध्यक्ष म्हणून माझ्या राजकीय
आणि प्रशासकीय कार्यास प्रारंभ करण्यापूर्वी अमेरिकेच्या राज्यघटनेनुसार दिला जाणारा
शपथविधी तुमच्या साक्षीने पार पाडणार आहे.
सध्या
जनतेमध्ये विशेष चिंता किंवा खळबळ निर्माण करणाऱ्या प्रशासकीय बाबींवर सविस्तर चर्चा
करणे आवश्यक आहे असे मला वाटत नाही.
दक्षिणेकडील
राज्यांतील लोकांमध्ये अशी भीती दिसून येते की रिपब्लिकन प्रशासनाच्या सत्ताग्रहणामुळे
त्यांची मालमत्ता, शांतता आणि वैयक्तिक सुरक्षितता
धोक्यात येईल. अशा भीतीला तर्कसंगत आधार नाही. उलट, याचे खंडन
करणारे ठोस पुरावे सतत त्यांच्या पाहण्यात आले आहेत. हेच मी यापूर्वी दिलेल्या भाषणांमध्येही
नमूद केले आहे. मी पुन्हा स्पष्ट करतो:
“माझा कुठलाही हेतू नाही, थेट किंवा अप्रत्यक्ष,
की ज्या राज्यांमध्ये गुलामगिरी अस्तित्वात आहे तिथे त्या संस्थेमध्ये
हस्तक्षेप करावा. मला असा कोणताही कायदेशीर अधिकार नाही, आणि
तशी काही इच्छा सुद्धा नाही.”
ज्यांनी
मला निवडून दिले त्यांनी हे विधान पूर्णपणे माहित असतानाच मत दिले. त्यांनी मला स्वीकारण्याकरिता
जे घोषणापत्र दिले, त्यात हे स्पष्टपणे लिहिले
आहे:
“राज्यांच्या हक्कांचे अबाधित रक्षण करणे; विशेषतः प्रत्येक राज्याला आपले
घरगुती व्यवहार स्वेच्छेने ठरविण्याचा हक्क; हे आपल्या संघराज्याच्या अस्तित्वासाठी अत्यावश्यक
आहे, आणि कोणत्याही राज्यात बेकायदेशीर शस्त्रसज्ज हस्तक्षेप
करणे हे अत्यंत गंभीर गुन्ह्यांपैकी एक आहे.”
मी
हे मत पुन्हा अधोरेखित करतो. नवीन प्रशासन कोणत्याही प्रदेशाच्या मालमत्ता,
शांतता आणि सुरक्षिततेला धोका पोहचवेल, याला कोणताही
आधार नाही.
राज्यघटनेतील
एका महत्त्वाच्या तरतुदीकडे लक्ष वेधतो:
"ज्या व्यक्तीवर कोणत्याही राज्यात सेवा अथवा श्रमाची जबाबदारी आहे व जी व्यक्ती
दुसऱ्या राज्यात पळून जाते, ती त्या सेवा अथवा श्रमातून मुक्त
ठरू शकत नाही आणि तिला त्या सेवेच्या हक्कदाराच्या मागणीनुसार परत दिले जाईल."
हा
दृष्टीकोन आपण बाळगला पाहिजे. गुलामांचा प्रश्न असला तरी कायदा आणि मानवतेचे मूलभूत तत्त्व
जपणे गरजेचे आहे. कोणताही माणूस चुकून गुलाम म्हणून परत पाठवला जाऊ नये.
माझा
कोणताही हेतू राज्यघटनेला अतिशय लहान अर्थांनी वा तांत्रिक आधारावर वाकवण्याचा नाही.
मी शपथ घेतो की ही घटना आणि कायदे जसे आहेत, तसेच्या तसे मी त्यांचे पालन करीन.
या
राष्ट्राच्या ७२ वर्षांच्या इतिहासात १५ राष्ट्राध्यक्षांनी ही भूमिका सन्मानपूर्वक
पार पाडली आहे. पण आज मी तीच जबाबदारी अत्यंत अवघड परिस्थितीत स्वीकारतो आहे.
आज
आपल्यासमाेर संघराज्याची (Union) विघटनाची भीती प्रत्यक्ष
निर्माण झाली आहे.
माझा
ठाम विश्वास आहे की आपल्या घटनेनुसार हे संघराज्य "शाश्वत" (perpetual)
आहे. एकाही सरकारने स्वतःच्या समाप्तीचा मार्ग तयार ठेवलेला नाही. जर
आपण राज्यघटनेच्या सर्व तरतुदी अंमलात आणल्या, तरच हे संघराज्य कायम राहील.
जर
हे संघराज्य केवळ एक करार असेल, तर तो करार फक्त
सगळ्या पक्षांच्या सहमतीनेच मोडता येतो. एकतर्फी नाही.
आपली
राज्यघटना १७७४ मध्ये संघाच्या स्वरूपात सुरु झाली. १७७६ मध्ये स्वातंत्र्य जाहीरनाम्यात
अधिक पक्की झाली. १७८७ मध्ये, राज्यघटना लिहिताना
“एक अधिक परिपूर्ण संघ तयार करणे” हे उद्दिष्ट होते.
म्हणून,
जर काही राज्यांनी एकतर्फी वेगळे होणे शक्य असेल, तर ती संघटना मूळापासूनच अपूर्ण ठरते.
आपली शासनयंत्रणा ही लोकांची आहे. जर लोक सध्याच्या सरकारला कंटाळले असतील, तर त्यांना संविधानिक मार्गाने सरकार बदल करण्याचा अधिकार आहे, किंवा क्रांतीद्वारे सरकार उलथवण्याचाही.
राज्यघटना
दुरुस्त करण्याचा प्रस्ताव सध्या चर्चेत आहे. त्यामध्ये असे सुचवले गेले आहे की केंद्र
सरकार राज्यांच्या घरगुती संस्थांमध्ये हस्तक्षेप करणार नाही. मला अशा तरतुदीला कोणताही
आक्षेप नाही.
राष्ट्राध्यक्ष ही पदवी लोकांनी दिलेली आहे. त्यांनी मला राज्ये वेगळी करण्याच्या अटी ठरवण्याचा कुठलाही अधिकार
दिलेला नाही. माझे काम हे सरकार जसे आहे तसे चालवणे आणि त्यात कुठलाही बिघाड न करता
पुढील राष्ट्राध्यक्षाकडे सुपूर्द करणे आहे.
माझ्या
प्रिय देशबांधवांनो – शांतपणे विचार करा. घाईत काहीही चांगले घडत नाही. काही गोंधळलेले
लोक तुम्हाला चुकीच्या मार्गावर ढकलू इच्छित असतील – तर काळजीपूर्वक विचार केल्याने
ते टळेल. पण योग्य हेतूला घाईची गरज नसते.
आजही
तुम्ही असमाधानी असाल, तरी तुम्हाला तीच राज्यघटना
आणि स्वतःच्याच कायद्यांचे संरक्षण आहे. नवीन प्रशासनला लगेच काही बदल करता येणार नाही.
बुद्धिमत्ता,
देशप्रेम, धर्म, आणि प्रभुच्या
न्यायावरील दृढ विश्वासाच्या आधारे आपण हे संकट पार करू शकतो.
हे
अवघड आहे हे मान्य. पण संघर्ष सुरू होईल की नाही हे तुमच्या हाती आहे – सरकार आक्रमण
करणार नाही.
तुम्हीच
आक्रमण केल्याशिवाय संघर्ष सुरू होणार नाही. माझा शपथ आहे – सरकारचे रक्षण करणे,
त्याचे संरक्षण करणे, आणि त्याचे पालन करणे – हे
माझे सर्वोच्च कर्तव्य आहे.
मला
हे भाषण संपवायचे नाही – कारण आपण शत्रू नाही, मित्र
आहोत. आपल्या नात्यांवर तणाव आला असेल, पण आपण तो तोडू नये. देशाच्या
प्रत्येक युद्धभूमी आणि शहीदाच्या कबरीपासून, प्रत्येक घर आणि
हृदयापर्यंत पोचणाऱ्या आठवणींच्या अदृश्य धाग्यांनी आपले बंध जुळले आहेत. हे बंध पुन्हा
एकदा “आपल्या स्वभावातील श्रेष्ठ देवदूतांनी” स्पर्शून, राष्ट्र
एकतेचा स्वर आळवतील.
*******
March 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
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 his office."
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.
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
"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."
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:
"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 under what
pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
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.
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:
"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."
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 well as 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?
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?
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"?
I take the official oath today 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.
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 for
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.
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.
Again: If the United States be not a government
proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it,
as a contract, 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?
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."
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.
The 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 cannot 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.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from
the people, and they have conferred none upon him to fix the terms for the
separation of the States. The people themselves can do this also if 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.
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.
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.
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.
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."
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.
Comments
Post a Comment