The Flag of Treason

[whitehall]

Why does our President support the racist, treasonous Confederate Flag?

1st Amendment right to free expression same as the right to disrespect Old Glory?

 

[Hutch Starskey]

The Confederate Flag is a flag that says.....We HATE America

View attachment 357434

Always has been

Except that's not the Confederate flag.

Pssst.... STILL WAITING for you to address Rick Wilson's cooler.

Yea, yea

Confederate Battle Flag

It is now the symbol of the confederacy and a symbol of racism

You don't get to decide that. I consider it a symbol of harmless regional pride and you to be a race baiting asshole.

Of course I do

Your flag is a symbol of hatred of the United States or a symbol of hatred of blacks

Nope. It's a harmless symbol of regional pride and you are a faggot.

OK Regional pride in what?

That they hated the US so much that they fought against us
That they used to own slaves?

The culture. THe history. The brave fight against great odds. Ect.


What part of this is confusing to you?


THat is a rhetorical question. I know you are just a race baiting troll asshole who is just here to be an asshole and troll.

The culture. THe history. The brave fight against great odds. Ect.


What part of this is confusing to you?

It's not confusing in any way. In fact, it couldn't be more clear.

The culture of white supremacy.
The history of brutal slavery.
The brave fight to preserve their racial supremacy and expand brutal slavery to further their economic windfall from it.

Either you are confused or sympathetic.

You don't get to define what other people care about. You do get to try and reveal yourself to be a dishonest asshole.

don't get to define what other people care about. You do get to try and reveal yourself to be a dishonest asshole.

I'm not defining anything. That's what the confederacy said they were all sbout.
Sorry if you believed otherwise. Rubes seem to abound in the south.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

To me Confederate flags honor family members who died honorably fighting bravely for a good cause.

Fighting against the United States of America and in support of maintaining slavery is a good cause?

The simple fact is that the South wanted to self govern. You can argue the reason they wanted to self govern until the cows come home, it really doesn't matter. They no longer recognized the authority of Washington DC just as the USA no longer recognized the authority of the Crown 80 years prior.

To state their cause was "wrong" is to state our cause was wrong in 1776, because they only difference is the USA won it's war for independence.

They were wrong, the reason they left was because of a perceived threat to Slavery when in fact they had as much clout in the Congress as they did BEFORE lincoln was elected and a President alone could not change the Constitution nor state laws. They were worried that 20 years down the line Free States would out number the slave states enough to effect slavery, and instead of fighting politically to prevent that they instead cut their own throats and ended slavery in 3 years not 20.

*Sigh* Read the post again - the REASON is irrelevant. They wanted independence and they fought for it. Same as we did in 1776. If they were "wrong", so were we.

the REASON is irrelevant.

You all obviously want that to be the case. That's what the lost cause bullshit was meant to do. To change the narrative.
Its not irrelevant. Not at all.
The reason, the self stated reason by the confederate states, is exactly why those monuments and statues are being removed.

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Apparently the negros didn't.

Sure they did. But the vast majority of them chose not to fight for it.

But you didn't answer the question: Do people have the right to self-determination or not?

Sure they did. But the vast majority of them chose not to fight for it.

Liar.
Your revisionist bullshit isn't gonna fly.

The war, for the confederacy was first and foremost about the preservation of their perceived racial superiority, slavery and the economic advanges thereof. As always, don't take my word for it. Take theirs.

There is nothing else. The fact that the average rube, not unlike yourself, never understood that is irrelevant to the fact that they were indeed fighting toward those ends.

Which of those self stated principles of the confederacy, racial superiority, slavery or the economic exploitation of said slaves through forced labor, deserve continued veneration in American society today?

That was their reason for secession. I agree. It's undeniable.

It was NOT the reason for the war, which was to keep the union together.

That was their reason for secession. I agree. It's undeniable.

It was NOT the reason for the war, which was to keep the union together

Derp....
The reason for the confederacy, fool. They weren't fighting to preserve the union. They were fighting to preserve their way of life.
The confederate states threatened civil war for years over the movement toward abolition. They started the war.

Right, but you know what Lincoln said about slavery, right? He said they could continue as long as they did not secede.

So, the war was about secession. Secession was about slavery.

Why is that so hard to accept? What are you trying to prove?

, the war was about secession. Secession was about slavery.

LOL...no shit.
That's my point, dope.
The confederacy was fighting to preserve their way of life. Slavery.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Did them Duke Boys paint a Rebel Flag on their roof to celebrate their hatred of the United States or to remind “negroes” of their proper place?

Did you ask that question in 1980? (you didn't)

I think the show made it pretty clear that they were simply celebrating the South. They were "good ole" Southern boys.

The fact that you are JUST NOW offended by this symbol of "U.S. hatred" or device of "intimidation" makes you look REALLY pathetic.

The fact that you defend a slavery flag is pathetic

You do realize our star spangled banner flew over a slave nation for 89 years, right? The one you get your panties in a twist over only flew for 4.

You do realize our star spangled banner flew over a slave nation for 89 years, right? The one you get your panties in a twist over only flew for 4.

Then they corrected their course and did the right thing. Just as we are now.

And, so did the Southern states, right? They are doing the right thing now, right?

And, so did the Southern states, right? They are doing the right thing now, right?

LOL...
Really? When?
They've been and still are being dragged into change by massive movements of protests and actions by the federal govt.
The vote to change the Mississippi flag came only after overwhelming threats of economic boycotts.

On the one hand, you are dismissing the fact that for 89 years the star sparkled banner flew over a slave nation, and you have no problem with it. To you, the U.S. changed their ways. So they DO NOT need to change the flag.

On the other hand, you are claiming that the South DIDN'T correct their ways and are NOT doing things right SOLELY BECAUSE they haven't CHANGED THEIR FLAG.

Do you hear yourself?

That is your retarded take. Not what I posted, dope.

 

[theHawk]

Why does our President support the racist, treasonous Confederate Flag?

The flag in question isn’t the “Confederate Flag”, it’s the Virginia Battle flag. It was used before the civil war for Southern pride, and after.

Should all southern states change their flags too? After all, they were a part of the Confederacy. Shouldn’t the Democratic Party be abolished too? They were the party that supported slavery and the formation of the Confederacy.

If one flag goes, then it all must go.

 

[Asclepias]

Why does our President support the racist, treasonous Confederate Flag?

The flag in question isn’t the “Confederate Flag”, it’s the Virginia Battle flag. It was used before the civil war for Southern pride, and after.

Should all southern states change their flags too? After all, they were a part of the Confederacy. Shouldn’t the Democratic Party be abolished too? They were the party that supported slavery and the formation of the Confederacy.

If one flag goes, then it all must go.

"If one flag goes, then it all must go."

Says who?

 

[Asclepias]

Why does our President support the racist, treasonous Confederate Flag?

The flag in question isn’t the “Confederate Flag”, it’s the Virginia Battle flag. It was used before the civil war for Southern pride, and after.

Should all southern states change their flags too? After all, they were a part of the Confederacy. Shouldn’t the Democratic Party be abolished too? They were the party that supported slavery and the formation of the Confederacy.

If one flag goes, then it all must go.

" Should all southern states change their flags too? After all, they were a part of the Confederacy. "

Yep. All the ones like Ga trying to keep the confederacy alive.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

SC attacked trespassers who refused to leave. Lincoln had no legal justification for invading Virginia. In fact, it was an act of treason.

Be specific now and cite for us ANY law by any Nation in 1860 that allowed a part of their Country to leave just because they wanted to. Be specific now and cite the SUPPOSED International law in 1860 that made sovereign Territory of one nation the property of another Nation simply because the other Nation said so.

It wasn't "sovereign territory." It was merely property. The transfer agreement made that explicitly clear.

I don't need to post a law that allows it. The absence of any law that prohibits it means it was legal. That's how the law works, dumbass. I don't need a law that says I can ride my bike to the park.

You have a thoroughly Stalinist attitude about law.

Wrong you claimed the US broke International law by protecting their own sovereign territory. You claimed that after being attacked the US illegal i8nvaded the people that attacked it. BE VERY SPECIFIC NOW and CITE the law that allowed a part of one Country to break away from another, make sure it is from 1860.

 

[9thIDdoc]

Why does our President support the racist, treasonous Confederate Flag?

Why do the Democrats call their flag treasonous one hundred and sixty five years later?

Why do racists support the GOP?

Why do racists support the DNC? *yawn*

None of these guys voted for Obama.

If true (and you really have no clue) it's because they are altogether too intelligent and patriotic to vote for that scumbag and even he was altogether too smart to try to run against Trump. He would have pulled Clinton's strings while she killed Americans and generally made a mess of everything she touched as per usual.

 

[Rigby5]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

SC attacked trespassers who refused to leave. Lincoln had no legal justification for invading Virginia. In fact, it was an act of treason.

Be specific now and cite for us ANY law by any Nation in 1860 that allowed a part of their Country to leave just because they wanted to. Be specific now and cite the SUPPOSED International law in 1860 that made sovereign Territory of one nation the property of another Nation simply because the other Nation said so.

It wasn't "sovereign territory." It was merely property. The transfer agreement made that explicitly clear.

I don't need to post a law that allows it. The absence of any law that prohibits it means it was legal. That's how the law works, dumbass. I don't need a law that says I can ride my bike to the park.

You have a thoroughly Stalinist attitude about law.

Wrong you claimed the US broke International law by protecting their own sovereign territory. You claimed that after being attacked the US illegal i8nvaded the people that attacked it. BE VERY SPECIFIC NOW and CITE the law that allowed a part of one Country to break away from another, make sure it is from 1860.

Secession has to be legal because the Constitution is not unilateral, but a contract with obligations on both sides.
For example, the Bill of Rights should make things like the War on Drugs illegal.
So then by the federal government breaking their side of the agreement, then states are more than authorized to leave. It is their inherent rights. That which they have the right to join, they can never lose the right to leave.
And the Declaration of Independence is final proof.
Whenever government becomes abusive, all people have a right to address that abuse by whatever means necessary.

 

[9thIDdoc]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

It clearly means the PROPERTY of the Federal Government REMAINS with the Federal Government NO matter the action of the Individual State, South Carolina did not own Fort Sumnter the Federal Government did. NO action by a State can make Federal land State land.

Nor vice versa. So, the Union can claim Fort Sumnter, but not the rest of South Carolina, right?

Lincoln did NOT attack the South nor invade UNTIL South Carolina Attacked the US at that fort. So much for all the claims otherwise.

Their armed forces remaining on SC territory and and then shipping in more troops was an attack on SC. Lincoln later admitted he intended war but wanted the South to fire the first shot so he forced the issue and got his wish and his unnecessary war. No Country would allow a foreign fort to sit in the middle of a harbor within cannon shot of the mainland. How many miles offshore does the US claim as territorial waters? 5? 15? Lincoln knew how to start a war. He wasn't stupid; just mean and nasty.
If SC started the war by shelling Ft. Sumpter why did the North invade the States that hadn't fired on anybody?

 

[Rye Catcher]

You’re an idiot.

The question is appropriate. He's not an idiot, you need to respond or stfu.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

It clearly means the PROPERTY of the Federal Government REMAINS with the Federal Government NO matter the action of the Individual State, South Carolina did not own Fort Sumnter the Federal Government did. NO action by a State can make Federal land State land.

Nor vice versa. So, the Union can claim Fort Sumnter, but not the rest of South Carolina, right?

Lincoln did NOT attack the South nor invade UNTIL South Carolina Attacked the US at that fort. So much for all the claims otherwise.

Their armed forces remaining on SC territory and and then shipping in more troops was an attack on SC. Lincoln later admitted he intended war but wanted the South to fire the first shot so he forced the issue and got his wish and his unnecessary war. No Country would allow a foreign fort to sit in the middle of a harbor within cannon shot of the mainland. How many miles offshore does the US claim as territorial waters? 5? 15? Lincoln knew how to start a war. He wasn't stupid; just mean and nasty.
If SC started the war by shelling Ft. Sumpter why did the North invade the States that hadn't fired on anybody?

LOL Lincoln REFUSED to call up the Militia and refused to call forth the Army telling the South he wanted to negotiate, to avoid a war. Then South Carolina a Member of the Confederacy with the support of the whole Confederacy attacked a US Fort on US Property. ONLY after that did Lincoln call up the militia and authorize recruitment in the Army. you can lie all you want. I notice you haven't cited a source for your claim.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

Lincoln did NOT want a war, he refused to call up the Army or militia UNTIL South Carolina attacked the US.

You can disagree all you want it is HISTORICAL FACT not opinion.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

"...or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

If you want to secede you have to get off US property.

That applies to territories, not States. Otherwise, there would be no need for this language:
"nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state."

No it applies to property which is right there n the definition. Once you become part of the US you are now US property regardless of if its a state or territory.

"...or other property belonging to the United States;"

So, what was the property of the United States?

Congress...needful rules.....respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States.

All the land within its scope of ownership at that time.

Which was?

All the land mass it owned including the states that attempted to seceed and lost.

WRONG.

I see you IGNORING those arguing that the US started the war yet it clearly states in the Constitution that Federal land remains Federal land no matter what an individual State does, I see you actually ignore that while supporting those that make the claim the US started the war.

You see it wrong.

If the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, it was the South who started the war, because the U.S. had the right to occupy it's property. AT THE SAME TIME, if the U.S. owned Fort Sumter, the States owned all the other property in their boundaries, and secession was NOT ILLEGAL!!!

SO, WHICH IS IT???

The U.S. does not have the right to occupy property within the borders of a foreign country. We have military bases in Germany. If the German government told us to leave, could the federal government refuse?

Obviously not. Your their is in conflict with international law.

That is a different argument and one that COULD have been settled if Lincoln and the South BOTH didn't want a war.

There is a legitimate claim by each side that the other side started it.

Lincoln did NOT want a war, he refused to call up the Army or militia UNTIL South Carolina attacked the US.

Horseshit. Lincoln was doing everything possible to start a war.

Right thats why he did not call for the Militia did nothing while forts were seized and nothing while armories were seized. He did not call the Army out he stated FOR the RECORD he wanted NO WAR. You sir are a lying moron. The facts are clear as a bell.

You can disagree all you want it is HISTORICAL FACT not opinion.

 

[9thIDdoc]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacists voted repub every since the implementation of the southern strategy? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

KKK endorsed Hitlery.

Sure they did. As a practical joke.

So now you think you can speak for the KKK?

 

[Asclepias]

Of course they do but the feds can swoop in and take it over.

Sez WHO???

Emminant domain.

Good Lord, just when I thought you couldn't get any dumber.



What Is Eminent Domain?
Eminent domain is the power of the United States government, states, and municipalities to take private property for public use, following the payment of just compensation.

What a fucking dumb ass you are. You do realize there was private property in all of the confederate states right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

LOL now we go in circles it has been posted ,by agreeing to the Constitution a State became a permanent part of the UNION, the only LEGAL way out is through Congress.

You keep relying on Texas vs. White (1869), even if you don't even realize it.

In 1860, had that been legally adjudicated? Was it STILL a legitimate question of law?

And you have not YET addressed the bullshit claim that Lincoln started the war.

I AM NOT ARGUING THAT POINT.

THERE WAS NO CLEAR PROHIBITION ON SECEDING!!!! OTHERWISE, SHOW ME THE LANGUAGE!!!!

Again the ONLY REASON Lincoln raised armies and attacked was because the Confederacy attacked the US. With out acknowledging that you can not argue anything.

Fort Sumnter was fired on on the 12th of April, Lincoln did NOT call for the Militia until April 15th. FACTS not opinion keep disagreeing with facts doc9 it proves you are beyond stupid.

 

[Asclepias]

You'd have to ask the GOP that question. They are the ones that apologized for using the southern strategy.

A couple of GOP did that, moron. They don't speak for the entire Republican party.

The Republican National Committee chairmen dont speak for the party? Yeah you may want to try convincing someone of that who is brain damaged like yourself.

He may speak for a handfull of party elites, but he doesn't speak for the rank and file. Michael Steal wasn't even around then. That was 40 years before he made the claim. It's horseshit.

Who the fuck is this guy?

A rank and file guy like you were complaining about. Cant you remember what you posted?

He doesn't speak for the rank and file either, moron.

So can you explain why the southern white male vote went from the dems to the repubs? Better yet can you explain why repubs would be so committed to preserving the statues of dead traitor dems?

As white racism declined in the South, the dems lost their grip. What part of that is confusing to you?

Whats confusing to me is why all the white supremacists voted repub every since the implementation of the southern strategy? However, I'm not really confused especially after I heard what Lee Atwater said.

KKK endorsed Hitlery.

Sure they did. As a practical joke.

So now you think you can speak for the KKK?

Nope. I just remember the official KKK newspaper endorsed Drumpf. I let them speak for themselves.

 

[Rye Catcher]

My bad. It was in the constitution. I knew I had read it long ago.

Article IV Section 3

Section 3.
New states may be admitted by the Congress into this union; but no new states shall be formed or erected within the jurisdiction of any other state; nor any state be formed by the junction of two or more states, or parts of states, without the consent of the legislatures of the states concerned as well as of the Congress.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory or other property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to prejudice any claims of the United States, or of any particular state.

Still not seeing it. Nothing in there forbids States from seceding.

It clearly means the PROPERTY of the Federal Government REMAINS with the Federal Government NO matter the action of the Individual State, South Carolina did not own Fort Sumnter the Federal Government did. NO action by a State can make Federal land State land.

Nor vice versa. So, the Union can claim Fort Sumnter, but not the rest of South Carolina, right?

Lincoln did NOT attack the South nor invade UNTIL South Carolina Attacked the US at that fort. So much for all the claims otherwise.

Their armed forces remaining on SC territory and and then shipping in more troops was an attack on SC. Lincoln later admitted he intended war but wanted the South to fire the first shot so he forced the issue and got his wish and his unnecessary war. No Country would allow a foreign fort to sit in the middle of a harbor within cannon shot of the mainland. How many miles offshore does the US claim as territorial waters? 5? 15? Lincoln knew how to start a war. He wasn't stupid; just mean and nasty.
If SC started the war by shelling Ft. Sumpter why did the North invade the States that hadn't fired on anybody?

You claimed, "Lincoln later admitted he intended war but wanted the South to fire the first shot". In Lincoln, A Life of Purpose and Power, by Richard Carwardine I could find nothing to support this claim. In fact, I will quote from his first Inaugural Address:

https://liberalarts.utexas.edu/coretexts/_files/resources/texts/c/1861%20Lincoln%20First%20Inaugural.pdf

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.​

​

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: ​

​

See the link above for the full address.​