Sam Vaknin - "Terrorists and Freedom Fighters"

James Richard Joy - "Ten Englishmen of the Nineteenth Century"

W.W. Jacobs - "Short Cruises"

Nathaniel Hawthorne - "The Scarlet Letter"

State of the Union Addresses of Andrew Johnson

A >> Andrew Johnson >> State of the Union Addresses of Andrew Johnson



This eBook was produced by James Linden.

The addresses are separated by three asterisks: ***

Dates of addresses by Andrew Johnson in this eBook:
December 4, 1865
December 3, 1866
December 3, 1867
December 9, 1868



***

State of the Union Address
Andrew Johnson
December 4, 1865

Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:

To express gratitude to God in the name of the people for the preservation
of the United States is my first duty in addressing you. Our thoughts next
revert to the death of the late President by an act of parricidal treason.
The grief of the nation is still fresh. It finds some solace in the
consideration that he lived to enjoy the highest proof of its confidence by
entering on the renewed term of the Chief Magistracy to which he had been
elected; that he brought the civil war substantially to a close; that his
loss was deplored in all parts of the Union, and that foreign nations have
rendered justice to his memory. His removal cast upon me a heavier weight
of cares than ever devolved upon any one of his predecessors. To fulfill my
trust I need the support and confidence of all who are associated with me
in the various departments of Government and the support and confidence of
the people. There is but one way in which I can hope to gain their
necessary aid. It is to state with frankness the principles which guide my
conduct, and their application to the present state of affairs, well aware
that the efficiency of my labors will in a great measure depend on your and
their undivided approbation.

The Union of the United States of America was intended by its authors to
last as long as the States themselves shall last. "The Union shall be
perpetual" are the words of the Confederation. "To form a more perfect
Union," by an ordinance of the people of the United States, is the declared
purpose of the Constitution. The hand of Divine Providence was never more
plainly visible in the affairs of men than in the framing and the adopting
of that instrument. It is beyond comparison the greatest event in American
history, and, indeed, is it not of all events in modern times the most
pregnant with consequences for every people of the earth? The members of
the Convention which prepared it brought to their work the experience of
the Confederation, of their several States, and of other republican
governments, old and new; but they needed and they obtained a wisdom
superior to experience. And when for its validity it required the approval
of a people that occupied a large part of a continent and acted separately
in many distinct conventions, what is more wonderful than that, after
earnest contention and long discussion, all feelings and all opinions were
ultimately drawn in one way to its support? The Constitution to which life
was thus imparted contains within itself ample resources for its own
preservation. It has power to enforce the laws, punish treason, and insure
domestic tranquillity. In case of the usurpation of the government of a
State by one man or an oligarchy, it becomes a duty of the United States to
make good the guaranty to that State of a republican form of government,
and so to maintain the homogeneousness of all. Does the lapse of time
reveal defects? A simple mode of amendment is provided in the Constitution
itself, so that its conditions can always be made to conform to the
requirements of advancing civilization. No room is allowed even for the
thought of a possibility of its coming to an end. And these powers of
self-preservation have always been asserted in their complete integrity by
every patriotic Chief Magistrate by Jefferson and Jackson not less than by
Washington and Madison. The parting advice of the Father of his Country,
while yet President, to the people of the United States was that the free
Constitution, which was the work of their hands, might be sacredly
maintained; and the inaugural words of President Jefferson held up "the
preservation of the General Government in its whole constitutional vigor as
the sheet anchor of our peace at home and safety abroad." The Constitution
is the work of "the people of the United States," and it should be as
indestructible as the people.

It is not strange that the framers of the Constitution, which had no model
in the past, should not have fully comprehended the excellence of their own
work. Fresh from a struggle against arbitrary power, many patriots suffered
from harassing fears of an absorption of the State governments by the
General Government, and many from a dread that the States would break away
from their orbits. But the very greatness of our country should allay the
apprehension of encroachments by the General Government. The subjects that
come unquestionably within its jurisdiction are so numerous that it must
ever naturally refuse to be embarrassed by questions that lie beyond it.
Were it otherwise the Executive would sink beneath the burden, the channels
of justice would be choked, legislation would be obstructed by excess, so
that there is a greater temptation to exercise some of the functions of the
General Government through the States than to trespass on their rightful
sphere. The "absolute acquiescence in the decisions of the majority" was at
the beginning of the century enforced by Jefferson as "the vital principle
of republics;" and the events of the last four years have established, we
will hope forever, that there lies no appeal to force.

The maintenance of the Union brings with it "the support of the State
governments in all their rights," but it is not one of the rights of any
State government to renounce its own place in the Union or to nullify the
laws of the Union. The largest liberty is to be maintained in the
discussion of the acts of the Federal Government, but there is no appeal
from its laws except to the various branches of that Government itself, or
to the people, who grant to the members of the legislative and of the
executive departments no tenure but a limited one, and in that manner
always retain the powers of redress.

"The sovereignty of the States" is the language of the Confederacy, and not
the language of the Constitution. The latter contains the emphatic words--
This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in
pursuance thereof, and all treaties

made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall
be the supreme law of the land,

and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the
constitution or laws of any State to the

contrary notwithstanding. Certainly the Government of the United States is
a limited government, and so is every State government a limited
government. With us this idea of limitation spreads through every form of
administration--general, State, and municipal--and rests on the great
distinguishing principle of the recognition of the rights of man. The
ancient republics absorbed the individual in the state--prescribed his
religion and controlled his activity. The American system rests on the
assertion of the equal right of every man to life, liberty, and the pursuit
of happiness, to freedom of conscience, to the culture and exercise of all
his faculties. As a consequence the State government is limited--as to the
General Government in the interest of union, as to the individual citizen
in the interest of freedom.

States, with proper limitations of power, are essential to the existence of
the Constitution of the United States. At the very commencement, when we
assumed a place among the powers of the earth, the Declaration of
Independence was adopted by States; so also were the Articles of
Confederation: and when "the people of the United States" ordained and
established the Constitution it was the assent of the States, one by one,
which gave it vitality. In the event, too, of any amendment to the
Constitution, the proposition of Congress needs the confirmation of States.
Without States one great branch of the legislative government would be
wanting. And if we look beyond the letter of the Constitution to the
character of our country, its capacity for comprehending within its
jurisdiction a vast continental empire is due to the system of States. The
best security for the perpetual existence of the States is the "supreme
authority" of the Constitution of the United States. The perpetuity of the
Constitution brings with it the perpetuity of the States; their mutual
relation makes us what we are, and in our political system their connection
is indissoluble. The whole can not exist without the parts, nor the parts
without the whole. So long as the Constitution of the United States
endures, the States will endure. The destruction of the one is the
destruction of the other; the preservation of the one is the preservation
of the other.

I have thus explained my views of the mutual relations of the Constitution
and the States, because they unfold the principles on which I have sought
to solve the momentous questions and overcome the appalling difficulties
that met me at the very commencement of my Administration. It has been my
steadfast object to escape from the sway of momentary passions and to
derive a healing policy from the fundamental and unchanging principles of
the Constitution.

I found the States suffering from the effects of a civil war. Resistance to
the General Government appeared to have exhausted itself. The United States
had recovered possession of their forts and arsenals, and their armies were
in the occupation of every State which had attempted to secede. Whether the
territory within the limits of those States should be held as conquered
territory, under military authority emanating from the President as the
head of the Army, was the first question that presented itself for
decision.

Now military governments, established for an indefinite period, would have
offered no security for the early suppression of discontent, would have
divided the people into the vanquishers and the vanquished, and would have
envenomed hatred rather than have restored affection. Once established, no
precise limit to their continuance was conceivable. They would have
occasioned an incalculable and exhausting expense. Peaceful emigration to
and from that portion of the country is one of the best means that can be
thought of for the restoration of harmony, and that emigration would have
been prevented; for what emigrant from abroad, what industrious citizen at
home, would place himself willingly under military rule? The chief persons
who would have followed in the train of the Army would have been dependents
on the General Government or men who expected profit from the miseries of
their erring fellow-citizens. The powers of patronage and rule which would
have been exercised under the President, over a vast and populous and
naturally wealthy region are greater than, unless under extreme necessity,
I should be willing to intrust to any one man. They are such as, for
myself, I could never, unless on occasions of great emergency, consent to
exercise. The willful use of such powers, if continued through a period of
years, would have endangered the purity of the general administration and
the liberties of the States which remained loyal.

Besides, the policy of military rule over a conquered territory would have
implied that the States whose inhabitants may have taken part in the
rebellion had by the act of those inhabitants ceased to exist. But the true
theory is that all pretended acts of secession were from the beginning null
and void. The States can not commit treason nor screen the individual
citizens who may have committed treason any more than they can make valid
treaties or engage in lawful commerce with any foreign power. The States
attempting to secede placed themselves in a condition where their vitality
was impaired, but not extinguished; their functions suspended, but not
destroyed.

But if any State neglects or refuses to perform its offices there is the
more need that the General Government should maintain all its authority and
as soon as practicable resume the exercise of all its functions. On this
principle I have acted, and have gradually and quietly, and by almost
imperceptible steps, sought to restore the rightful energy of the General
Government and of the States. To that end provisional governors have been
appointed for the States, conventions called, governors elected,
legislatures assembled, and Senators and Representatives chosen to the
Congress of the United States. At the same time the courts of the United
States, as far as could be done, have been reopened, so that the laws of
the United States may be enforced through their agency. The blockade has
been removed and the custom-houses reestablished in ports of entry, so that
the revenue of the United States may be collected. The Post-Office
Department renews its ceaseless activity, and the General Government is
thereby enabled to communicate promptly with its officers and agents. The
courts bring security to persons and property; the opening of the ports
invites the restoration of industry and commerce; the post-office renews
the facilities of social intercourse and of business. And is it not happy
for us all that the restoration of each one of these functions of the
General Government brings with it a blessing to the States over which they
are extended? Is it not a sure promise of harmony and renewed attachment to
the Union that after all that has happened the return of the General
Government is known only as a beneficence?

I know very well that this policy is attended with some risk; that for its
success it requires at least the acquiescence of the States which it
concerns; that it implies an invitation to those States, by renewing their
allegiance to the United States, to resume their functions as States of the
Union. But it is a risk that must be taken. In the choice of difficulties
it is the smallest risk; and to diminish and if possible to remove all
danger, I have felt it incumbent on me to assert one other power of the
General Government--the power of pardon. As no State can throw a defense
over the crime of treason, the power of pardon is exclusively vested in the
executive government of the United States. In exercising that power I have
taken every precaution to connect it with the clearest recognition of the
binding force of the laws of the United States and an unqualified
acknowledgment of the great social change of condition in regard to slavery
which has grown out of the war.

The next step which I have taken to restore the constitutional relations of
the States has been an invitation to them to participate in the high office
of amending the Constitution. Every patriot must wish for a general amnesty
at the earliest epoch consistent with public safety. For this great end
there is need of a concurrence of all opinions and the spirit of mutual
conciliation. All parties in the late terrible conflict must work together
in harmony. It is not too much to ask, in the name of the whole people,
that on the one side the plan of restoration shall proceed in conformity
with a willingness to cast the disorders of the past into oblivion, and
that on the other the evidence of sincerity in the future maintenance of
the Union shall be put beyond any doubt by the ratification of the proposed
amendment to the Constitution, which provides for the abolition of slavery
forever within the limits of our country. So long as the adoption of this
amendment is delayed, so long will doubt and jealousy and uncertainty
prevail. This is the measure which will efface the sad memory of the past;
this is the measure which will most certainly call population and capital
and security to those parts of the Union that need them most. Indeed, it is
not too much to ask of the States which are now resuming their places in
the family of the Union to give this pledge of perpetual loyalty and peace.
Until it is done the past, however much we may desire it, will not be
forgotten, The adoption of the amendment reunites us beyond all power of
disruption; it heals the wound that is still imperfectly closed: it removes
slavery, the element which has so long perplexed and divided the country;
it makes of us once more a united people, renewed and strengthened, bound
more than ever to mutual affection and support.

The amendment to the Constitution being adopted, it would remain for the
States whose powers have been so long in abeyance to resume their places in
the two branches of the National Legislature, and thereby complete the work
of restoration. Here it is for you, fellow-citizens of the Senate, and for
you, fellow-citizens of the House of Representatives, to judge, each of you
for yourselves, of the elections, returns, and qualifications of your own
members.

The full assertion of the powers of the General Government requires the
holding of circuit courts of the United States within the districts where
their authority has been interrupted. In the present posture of our public
affairs strong objections have been urged to holding those courts in any of
the States where the rebellion has existed; and it was ascertained by
inquiry, that the circuit court of the United States would not be held
within the district of Virginia during the autumn or early winter, nor
until Congress should have "an opportunity to consider and act on the whole
subject." To your deliberations the restoration of this branch of the civil
authority of the United States is therefore necessarily referred, with the
hope that early provision will be made for the resumption of all its
functions. It is manifest that treason, most flagrant in character, has
been committed. Persons who are charged with its commission should have
fair and impartial trials in the highest civil tribunals of the country, in
order that the Constitution and the laws may be fully vindicated, the truth
dearly established and affirmed that treason is a crime, that traitors
should be punished and the offense made infamous, and, at the same time,
that the question may be judicially settled, finally and forever, that no
State of its own will has the right to renounce its place in the Union.

The relations of the General Government toward the 4,000,000 inhabitants
whom the war has called into freedom have engaged my most serious
consideration. On the propriety of attempting to make the freedmen electors
by the proclamation of the Executive I took for my counsel the Constitution
itself, the interpretations of that instrument by its authors and their
contemporaries, and recent legislation by Congress. When, at the first
movement toward independence, the Congress of the United States instructed
the several States to institute governments of their own, they left each
State to decide for itself the conditions for the enjoyment of the elective
franchise. During the period of the Confederacy there continued to exist a
very great diversity in the qualifications of electors in the several
States, and even within a State a distinction of qualifications prevailed
with regard to the officers who were to be chosen. The Constitution of the
United States recognizes these diversities when it enjoins that in the
choice of members of the House of Representatives of the United States "the
electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors
of the most numerous branch of the State legislature." After the formation
of the Constitution it remained, as before, the uniform usage for each
State to enlarge the body of its electors according to its own judgment,
and under this system one State after another has proceeded to increase the
number of its electors, until now universal suffrage, or something very
near it, is the general rule. So fixed was this reservation of power in the
habits of the people and so unquestioned has been the interpretation of the
Constitution that during the civil war the late President never harbored
the purpose--certainly never evowed the purpose--of disregarding it; and in
the acts of Congress during that period nothing can be found which, during
the continuance of hostilities much less after their close, would have
sanctioned any departure by the Executive from a policy which has so
uniformly obtained. Moreover, a concession of the elective franchise to the
freedmen by act of the President of the United States must have been
extended to all colored men, wherever found, and so must have established a
change of suffrage in the Northern, Middle, and Western States, not less
than in the Southern and Southwestern. Such an act would have created a new
class of voters, and would have been an assumption of power by the
President which nothing in the Constitution or laws of the United States
would have warranted.

On the other hand, every danger of conflict is avoided when the settlement
of the question is referred to the several States. They can, each for
itself, decide on the measure, and whether it is to be adopted at once and
absolutely or introduced gradually and with conditions. In my judgment the
freedmen, if they show patience and manly virtues, will sooner obtain a
participation in the elective franchise through the States than through the
General Government, even if it had power to intervene. When the tumult of
emotions that have been raised by the suddenness of the social change shall
have subsided, it may prove that they will receive the kindest usage from
some of those on whom they have heretofore most closely depended.

But while I have no doubt that now, after the close of the war, it is not
competent for the General Government to extend the elective franchise in
the several States, it is equally clear that good faith requires the
security of the freedmen in their liberty and their property, their right
to labor, and their right to claim the just return of their labor. I can
not too strongly urge a dispassionate treatment of this subject, which
should be carefully kept aloof from all party strife. We must equally avoid
hasty assumptions of any natural impossibility for the two races to live
side by side in a state of mutual benefit and good will. The experiment
involves us in no inconsistency; let us, then, go on and make that
experiment in good faith, and not be too easily disheartened. The country
is in need of labor, and the freedmen are in need of employment, culture,
and protection. While their right of voluntary migration and expatriation
is not to be questioned, I would not advise their forced removal and
colonization. Let us rather encourage them to honorable and useful
industry, where it may be beneficial to themselves and to the country; and,
instead of hasty anticipations of the certainty of failure, let there be
nothing wanting to the fair trial of the experiment. The change in their
condition is the substitution of labor by contract for the status of
slavery. The freedman can not fairly be accused of unwillingness to work so
long as a doubt remains about his freedom of choice in his pursuits and the
certainty of his recovering his stipulated wages. In this the interests of
the employer and the employed coincide. The employer desires in his workmen
spirit and alacrity, and these can be permanently secured in no other way.
And if the one ought to be able to enforce the contract, so ought the
other. The public interest will be best promoted if the several States will
provide adequate protection and remedies for the freedmen. Until this is in
some way accomplished there is no chance for the advantageous use of their
labor, and the blame of ill success will not rest on them.

I know that sincere philanthropy is earnest for the immediate realization
of its remotest aims; but time is always an element in reform. It is one of
the greatest acts on record to have brought 4,000,000 people into freedom.
The career of free industry must be fairly opened to them, and then their
future prosperity and condition must, after all, rest mainly on themselves.
If they fail, and so perish away, let us be careful that the failure shall
not be attributable to any denial of justice. In all that relates to the
destiny of the freedmen we need not be too anxious to read the future; many
incidents which, from a speculative point of view, might raise alarm will
quietly settle themselves. Now that slavery is at an end, or near its end,
the greatness of its evil in the point of view of public economy becomes
more and more apparent. Slavery was essentially a monopoly of labor, and as
such locked the States where it prevailed against the incoming of free
industry. Where labor was the property of the capitalist, the white man was
excluded from employment, or had but the second best chance of finding it;
and the foreign emigrant turned away from the region where his condition
would be so precarious. With the destruction of the monopoly free labor
will hasten from all pans of the civilized world to assist in developing
various and immeasurable resources which have hitherto lain dormant. The
eight or nine States nearest the Gulf of Mexico have a soil of exuberant
fertility, a climate friendly to long life, and can sustain a denser
population than is found as yet in any part of our country. And the future
influx of population to them will be mainly from the North or from the most
cultivated nations in Europe. From the sufferings that have attended them
during our late struggle let us look away to the future, which is sure to
be laden for them with greater prosperity than has ever before been known.
The removal of the monopoly of slave labor is a pledge that those regions
will be peopled by a numerous and enterprising population, which will vie
with any in the Union in compactness, inventive genius, wealth, and
industry.

Copyright (c) 2007. topbookz.net. All rights reserved.