President Abraham Lincoln 1st Inaugural Address - Hear and Read the Full Text
Vložit
- čas přidán 13. 02. 2013
- Listen to and read the first Inauguration speech of U.S. Republican President Abraham Lincoln, delivered on March 4, 1861 at the U.S. Capitol in Washington, D.C. President Lincoln defeated John Breckinridge, John Bell, and Stephen Douglas in his election. Narrated by Timelessreader1.
I'm amazed that this video has less then 33,000 hits....
Thank you, such a long speach to read on by oneself.
This speach is so well writting that many Americans today Will have a hard time to understand it...🙂💜
I’m sure most ordinary citizens at the time would find it similarly “wordy”. At the time, those fortunate enough to be educated were taught eruditiously about oratory and writing skills. The far majority were not.
thanks for the video! so helpful for school!!!
inspiring speech, especially in these divided times. Lincoln's arguments are brilliant
lol you thought THAT was divided?
@@suranda. looks like the South did not after all secede from the Union within the first year of Biden's inauguration, so OP is still correct
2-12-21 the 212th birthday of Lincoln
If teaching US history, I would open the part of the course dealing with the ACW with a reading out loud of this speech. It makes Lincoln’s program and policy so much better understood .
Perfectly understandable
Imagine a virtual reality version.
Abraham Lincoln " s speech was so eloquent , emotional , appealing , authoritative and was said to state the obligation of the executive office he held , at the same time when secession was beginning to shape up , and take a broad dimension , during that difficult period.
As a lawyer with an interest in the U S Constitution, I listen with particular interest to Lincoln's argument against the secession of the southern states at 6:17 - 9:17. Lincoln says: "I hold that in contemplation of Universal Law and the Constitution, the union of these states is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. Etc.." I find Lincoln's argument unconvincing, indeed, sheer sophistry. He admits that the Constitution says nothing directly about secession but he says the union is perpetual based on something called "universal law", a fiction that he never defines and that has never existed at all.
He relies heavily on the words "in order to form a more perfect union", contained in the preamble of the Constitution. He argues that "a more perfect union" implies that such "union" must be "perpetual". If the union is "perpetual", then no state or combination of states may lawfully leave it because by leaving it, they destroy it and thus render it less than "perpetual." Surely, this is sheer sophistry.
First of all, the secession of one or more states does not destroy the union at all - it merely diminishes its extent. It still continues among those states that choose to remain in it.
Second, there is no reason to believe that a union from which a state can never withdraw on its own motion, no matter how serious and well founded its grievances against the federal government, is somehow more "perfect" than one that allows for state secession. If the federal government becomes a tyranny and tramples on the rights reserved to the states, then surely a U S Constitution that allows for the aggrieved states to secede would be "more perfect" than one that does not.
Lincoln goes on to argue that even if the Constitution be regarded as a compact among the several states, then it cannot be "rescinded" without the consent of all the states. This is a manifestly incorrect. Any party to a contract, when confronted by a deliberate material breach of the contract terms by another party, has the right to revoke the contract and refuse to perform under its terms. That is contract law 101. Lincoln surely knew this much - he was, after all, a lawyer.
Lincoln's argument for "perpetuity" from the nature of all national governments is likewise unsound. The U S Constitution is the subject under examination here, not any other national governments. past or present. The United States was created by the federation of the erstwhile sovereign states which formed a "union" based on the mutual delegation of certain specific and limited powers from the several states to the federal government. This creation of a national republic through the confederation of several states was unique in the history of the world. Nothing like it had ever been seen before. Nothing like it existed in the world at the time Lincoln became president.
The several states preceded the national government and only delegated a portion of their own sovereign powers to it, retaining all the rest. The states were primary, they created the federal government and invested it with some of their own power. But that power was "delegated" to the federal government by the states - and if anyone "delegates" their power to another, they normally reserve the right to withdraw that delegation. The Tenth Amendment underscores the point that the states are the principals and the federal government is one of delegated powers and that all powers not so delegated are reserved to the states.
In sum, Lincoln's argument that the Constitution prohibits any state or combination of states from leaving the union on its own motion is utterly specious. Nothing in the U S Constitution prohibited the states from leaving the union if they chose to do so.
I welcome feedback and reasoned argument.
stfu
@@41357500 Aren't you ashamed to make such a stupid comment in response to a polite and serious invitation to discussion?
@@syourke3 no you talk 2 much
Mister Tibbs Well fuck you, too!
Old Blackstock The South seceded to preserve slavery which they thought was threatened by Lincoln’s election. Secession was about slavery and nothing but slavery. Read the declarations of secession by S Carolina and see did yourself. But the Civil War was about secession, not about slavery. Lincoln was determined to preserve the union, not to end slavery. He made that absolutely clear many times. I don’t think the Constitution prohibited secession and if not, the states should have been allowed to leave.
I'm working on an essay for Baruch College in New York City.
me writing after 7 years😐:
my teacher wants me to record my self while saying this speech☺️😐
How many minutes did it take for Lincoln to deliver this 3637 word speech? I'm guessing 30-35 minutes.
I heard it was over an hour. Keep in mind that like the State of the Union, it was interrupted by applause.
🐐
Jefferson Davis could have won in court in the protection of his position. That’s why he was denied trial and the taking up of the case against him was dropped by so many.
Hey it's war baby. What are you going to do?
- Abraham Lincoln
1:20 lolz
Compare Washington to Lincoln. Washington chose his country over power. Lincoln chose power over his country. A peaceful dissolution between the north and the south would have merely meant a comfortable coexistence similar to the one that we have with Canada today.
Well he said he would not invade a state or free slaves. That's honest for ya!!
True Democrat.
? He was the first republican president
alternative facts...
He didn't want to but the confederacy attacked so ge wasleft with little choice.
He said he would not invade to free slaves but would do what he had to to preserve the Union. He went to war to get the South back. The end of slavery was a consequence of the war.
Great enunciation and prosody. Little or no interpretation or personality makes this less comprehensible, however.
He free slaves to save Union he didn't care about ending slavery
Perhaps as he stated in his speech he recognized the limitations of his office. Notice how he mentions the constraints of the US CONSTITUTION upon the President's authority? Also notice that he mentions the power of the states and the sovereignty of the people. It appears that he was hoping to preserve the union and the people would deal with slavery. It was already distasteful to many people in the North.
It was important to first save the union. And abolition of slavery paves its way for that achievement . Why cant people appreciate that.Imagine if the union fails America will not be what it is today. And i am not even an American.
@@Knockyourselfout89 If they union were broken up thing would be so much better... Slavery would eventually end and without a war (this happened in all the rest of europe and latin american countries), the usa would also not be envolved in the first world war, thus avoiding the raise of Hitler, the federal government would be weaker, and people would be free! If the union was disolved, not only the usa, but the rest of the world would be a better place
He wanted to halt the expansion of slavery at first because he feared he would lose the Southern states. However he has always been against slavery and considered it to be morally wrong. However the southern slave owners called him a radical and seceded the union, which led to the civil war. Preserving the Union was the top priority, while ending slavery is the byproduct of it.
@@1eyedjacksRwild He also clearly did not ran against institution of slavery, North had full share of slavery and move on to steam power industrial revolution that made them more money and did not needed slavery anymore. Northerners usually pointed fingers at South as if they was not slave owners. Lincoln save Union and slaves got free after result. Saving Union was 1st not freeing slaves.
I feel this was settled by the 10th amendment:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
Therefore the federal government had no power to stop succession and succession was left to the states.
Actually Article 4 Section 2 forbids states from joining in compact or alliance without the authorization of Congress. Though I see why the South did it
Does anyone ever mention the reading ability with people in those years and where not all of the wig party of only fourth and fifth grade reading level as a president
So this president guy had to be like college of University grade if they had those grades in these years and if they did which other graduates from both sides said what about most people of the people who could only read at certain levels so how can everyone know what this guy and everyone else days if it's at university graduate level or college whichever it is
Who taught who to read and if everyone in those years could not and only presidents and those wrote stuff knew what the others are saying because eighty percent of all people could not read
I just trying to figure out how everyone learned to read at the same time to know what all these graduates were saying to people who barely know how everyone learned to read
When it was not just slaves who did not know how to read it was all people and what about the Irish or somewhere on another continent in I think sixteen hundred they had Irish slaves on a potato fathom I don't know what the ara exact and was the same writings for them too
Since everything originated in copy to the united states from them
Everything we have as law they wrote first and if everyone originated from British colonies how did they learn to read too
Something is not adding correctly because everyone could not have read at the same time to all the same grades of graduation of college or university comprehension which this kinda writing is at, and not at no high school grade of comprehension reading or listening
So they divided words and counting between different people who try to comprehend all these kinds of facts or fiction guide
Now, even Hellen Keller knew learning takes a lot of year's than what everyone is saying and I am just trying to count what I read and know to be adding correctly and it not
I am more likely to believe a guy who says he just put on a business suit and they never knew he could not read or write but gets the job every time and there are thousands just like him so why are there not thousands of people not at different grades levels between these years all these different people write and say this kinda stuff only college or university students with good grades comprehend among themselves while everyone else and anyone else is like who said what and is their not an easier version to comprehend such complexity of important information
Not only for graduates who have the money to learn this information as it is intended to learn but it's only for those who know that are of language like grammar how it derived from one origin into other before knowing how to spell it, or know it's the correct meaning or maybe a more modern way of how it different with app learning made on technology continents
I don't know what takes more concentration the how to create for the modern World or the languages used in prehistory to history breaks between worlds or different spoken languages, not spoken by everyone but they know this better than those who people who elected leaders to defeat any other comprehension distraction of the human mind to simply want to comprehend words that President of the university grade wrote about people having different grades levels of reading and writing
And that is what I think Abraham L was saying more of than whatever one else says, I think it knew everyone couldn't read to comprehend those fancy words all at once by all the people who most could not read including none slaves
Great video and I do learn from this channel and like what you all teach I am gonna have to keep trying to catch up with all those fancy words that have multiple means to different people at different reading grades
Basically what I think I trying to ask is any important writing say anything about the people reading at different comprehension grades to know what exactly each of what they say is meant for which people of different reading comprehension a
Something like that and again this is a great learning channel and thank you for teaching but is there anything about different legislation for those who had or have different reading comprehension from that era written for those individuals who were not with reading and writing skills as other learners
Thank you
Abraham Lincoln, as described by those who despised , hated , vilified and denigrated him, called him a unconstitutional tyrant , one wonders how he won this 1861 election , when it is recorded , that this election was so , difficult , in so much , animosity weight against him. Therefore, slavery was the subject , not paying taxes , stealing wealth from the south , destroying the commerce from the south or an attempt to force , laws or statues that would infringe on the authority of each state.These were the confederate infidels who ,as said by,, Abraham Lincoln were morally bent to tear and destroy the union , because of slavery , run away fugitives or any thing that they deemed as bad taste to the constitutionality of their hardcore minds by then.So , it was the American civil war was unavoidable , and it come , was fought , in the end General Sherman T William , and General U Grant , prevailed over evil , abominable , weird beliefs , and useless succession..
absolutely the worst possible narration