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 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.

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