oral histories. why are they becoming more and more popular? why are they more important these days? >> i think one reason, and then you can add to it, is that if you want to get at the experiences of everyday people, those often aren't recorded in more traditional sources that end up in archives. so if you want to do a history of the japanese-american incouri incarceration from the perspective of someone who's incarcerated or want to do the history of milwaukee civil rights from somebody on the ground marching, oral histories are a really good way to get those individual stories. each week, american history tv sits in on a lecture with one of the nation's college professors. you can watch the classes here every saturday at 8:00 p.m. and midnight here and sundays at 1:00 p.m. this week, harvard university pressure john stauffer looks at african-americans and the civil war. he examines abraham lincoln's first inaugural address focusing on the president's claim that

secession unwas constitutional. also discussed are the president's efforts to keep the border states in the union. the emancipation proclamation, and the involvement of black soldiers in both the union and confederate armies. harvard university's located in cambridge, massachusetts. this is an hour and 40 minutes. today i want to begin the discussion with the most significant inaugural address in american history which is lincoln's inaugural march 4th of 1861. i'll give you a bit of a background. then i'd like your thoughts on it. lincoln in my view is the nation's greatest literary president. this inaugural address he labored over more than any other. when he gave it seven states had seceded.

confederacy had been formed. and it was the most difficult piece, difficult speech he actually gave. here's a photograph of the u.s. capitol. he gives it right here. his longtime nemesis steven douglas was at his side. held his hat which had fallen off because it was so windy. this is how most americans saw the inaugural address. this is from "harper's weekly" which was the most popular magazine in the country. you can think of "harper's weekly" as the forerunner of "time" magazine or "life" magazine of the 20th century. most americans interpreted and understood "harper's" as authentic representation of

reality. here is the portico here. the capital was unfinished. wonderfully symbolizing the unfinished nature of the united states. herman melville and his collection of civil war poetry. battle pieces and aspigot aspects, convictions in which he describes the iron dome. he says and the iron dome stronger for stress or strain thwart the main. the founder's dream shall flee. for melville and many northerners and after the war certainly southerners the power of the federal government threatened to fling a shadow across the main streets of america and impose unprecedented dominion on communities and towns, destroying the founders teem of a loose confederation of states and a decentralized government. so lincoln, when he gives his address was under such threat he actually has to come into washington, d.c., on the sly.

his detective alan pinkerton thought there was an attempt to assassinate lincoln, in fact, many southerners would make jokes about the desire to assassinate lincoln. the day after his election, south carolina announces its secession convention. southerners threatened, as you know in previous weeks, for years to secede if their rights as slave owners were not respected and lincoln's election begins this swift chain of secession. here's the first seven states to secede. over a month before lincoln even takes the oath of office. the seven states had seceded. so his goal for giving the inaugural address is based on

the oath of office he takes which is to preserve the union. yeah? >> i know there are articles of secession. there was another date when it was actually ratified. >> these are the dates they are ratified. south carolina announces its secession convention the day after the election. so it's in november. after they announce it, they draft the ordinance of secession. actually the ordinance of secession is generally distinct from the declaration of secession i will get to because lincoln refers to it in the inaugural address. these are the dates that actually the delegates of the state prove of secession and so according to southerners, it's legal. it's in every southern state but texas secession was ultimately voted for by delegates rather

than the popular election. citizens voted for the delegates. the delegates went to the state. and then voted for the state. so how do you interpret the inaugural address? whether you probably read it before. yeah? >> it kind of seems like there was almost like a feeling of desperation to it. like he was trying to put on this whole like cool act like, you know, we're not enemies. we're friends, buddies. you know, but at the same time, he is trying to make an argument

which is a very difficult argument to make, which is that the preservation of the union is worth more than sort of the liberty that the southerners so specifically, like, jefferson davis, his argument, when he's speaking in mississippi, he's saying, you know, we're doing the same thing the founders did. we're splitting off. under the lockeian social contract we are splitting up. that's our right. that's our duty. we can do that. he has to say, no, you can't. well, at the same time, he makes this argument based on sort of the need for perpetual government. right? that you need -- that the government needs to keep going for some reason. after reading i still wasn't really sure exactly where that need for having a perpetual government comes from. it seems like that's his answer to the very difficult question of saying, like, you know, you

wanted to be in this, now you don't, but you can't leave. that's a pretty challenging argument to make in this liberal framework. >> yes, that's a great, great point. at the time the notion that secession was unconstitutional, that the union was perpetual was up for debate, up for wide debate and not just among the secessionist southerners. one of lincoln's primary goals is to make the case that secession is unconstitutional, is illegal. he elaborates on why he sees that. yeah? >> i don't think lincoln came off as panicked in the address. obviously we don't get to see a video of it, but based on the text, i thought that he was very much concerned with, like, not so much the states that had already left the union but the

border states that might be considering leaving the union. in that i think he does a very good job building an argument based on logic. >> right. >> i think more than anything it's about -- it was about sending the message so he could set a precedence as a way of almost preparing himself for whatever was going to come next given the other states that would secede. >> that's right. a very good point. one of his central concerns was that the border states do not follow the seven states who have already seceded. if the border slave states secede, washington, d.c., is surrounded. if maryland and virginia surrender, essentially the war is over and confederates have won. so a central goal for lincoln throughout is to prevent the slave states bordering the free states from seceding. what else? these are great points.

let me summarize his main aims. as you pointed out, his primary goal is to placate the upper south. not only maryland and virginia, but north carolina, kentucky, arkansas, virginia, missouri. try to prevent them from seceding. two, he wants to protect federal property in the south. southerners, confederates, had already taken over many federal forts. there were two chief ones left. three, lincoln wanted to buy time and in a sense cool passions. and this notion of having used the inaugural address or his inaugural address to cool passions and buy time reflects a

number of assumptions. one is linking and many northerners believe that the secessionists were bluffing. from the missouri crisis, southerners had threatened to secede. they threatened to secede over the missouri crisis. they threatened to secede during the controversy over the status of the territories acquired from the mexican war. they threatened to seed in 1850, threatened to secede if nebraska and kansas were not passed. that was their main source of really getting what they wanted, this threat to secede. and so there was a long tradition of basically accommodating these southern views. and third -- second is that the majority of southerners, lincoln, himself, believed that the majority of southerners opposed secession. that it was only a minority that actually voted for it.

as i mentioned, there's only one state, texas, in which secession was by popular vote or referendum. every other case is by delegates. one of if not the most noted authority on the south and secession, william freely, in his book, "disunion volume 2" argues if southerners voted, two-thirds were non slave owning southerners. and everyone understood the dire risks that one took by seceding. so linking felt if he could speak to the silent majority of southerners, that would also sway them to come back.

lincoln, also in his inaugural, made it clear, according to his view, that there should be no compromise on the question of extending slavery. the central republican platform in which lincoln was voted, upon which lincoln was elected, was that slavery was evil, prohibit the spread into federal territories, do not allow its extension into federal territories with the goal of ultimate extinction. in the wake of the state seceding and the confederacy was formed, jefferson davis took the oath of office on washington's birthday. many if not most republicans are basically willing to give everything, to abandon their platform of nonextension. lincoln said, no, if we give away the nonextension platform, we give away everything. so those were his chief aims. as you actually -- in the brief

responses, suggest one of my interpretations and that is lincoln's inaugural was both progressive and conservative. progressive because it explicitly and unambiguously tries to argue that secession was unconstitutional. lincoln is very clear. the union is perpetual. like when you quoted it. falls in no state upon its own mere motion can get out of the union. referring to the ordinances of secession. the resolutions to secede are legally void. acts of violence with any state or states against the authority of the united states are insurrectionary or revolutionary. secession is insurrectionary or revolutionary. plainly the idea of secession is anarchy. unconstitutional.

yet for many americans secession was, indeed, considered constitutional. in fact, preeminent legal authority at the time, chief justice roger taney, felt very strongly that secession was, indeed, legal and constitutional. in fact, to his friend, franklin pierce, the former president, he hopes secession can result in a peaceful disunion. a peaceful separation. free institutions in each section. this is the preeminent legal authority in the country. in the land. now, this was a private letter, so it doesn't carry the weight of chief justice's public legal opinion. he made it very clear he believes secession was legal. those arguing secession was legal, not only chief taney but

former president franklin pierce. former president james buchanan. three of the four men who created the timbers of the house that lincoln describes in his "house divided." steven douglas believed secession was unconstitutional. many northern democrats. nathaniel hawthorne said, let the south go. amputate them. let them go. many if not most southern democrats believe ed secession s constitutional. there is a long discussion. until the nullification crisis of 1832-1833 when south carolina threatens to nullify the federal law, essentially the tariff law which penalized cotton producers because it makes their prices more expensive and it helps

northern industrialists so that they can compete better with foreign countries and jackson, president jackson intervened and threatened to send in federal troops to south carolina. essentially the tariff was reduced and there was no violence. until this nullification crisis, most statesmen maintained that the states were sovereign and that the union was compact. a revocable compact. kind of treaty or league. yeah? >> i was just wondering, in lincoln's address he makes homages to jackson's message of the union, not explicitly. would that have been familiar to his audience? >> yes. it would have been familiar. what jackson does during the nullification crisis, jackson is himself a slave owning southerner. he is outraged that south carolina and john c. calhoun are going against him.

and jackson loved nothing more than a fight. so after south carolina threatens to nullify federal law, or threatens to nullify, yeah, federal law, jackson publicly vows to send in federal troops unless they renounce it. unless they repudiate it. and he privately sends a notice to john c. calhoun and other south carolina leaders and said? you don't renounce this nullification, i'm personally going to enjoy watching you hang. he was a strong president. yeah? microphone. do we have more microphones, by the way? >> first, i'd like to point out that south carolina nullified the horse bill after. >> that's true. >> the nullification crisis verbiage based off

kentucky/virginia resolution. it's not just coming out of nowhere. >> that's true. that's a very good point. that's a very good point. that's a very good point. >> thank you. >> so this notion that the union is a revocable compact, a kind of treaty or league, is acknowledged by two of the nation's great federalists, chief -- not justice, but justice joseph's story. one of the founders of harvard law school. he notes or says if the constitution is a compact between the states it operates as a here treaty or convention between them and has obligatory force, no longer than suits its pleasure. if it's a compact, then this union is acceptable. now, story did not believe that it was acceptable because he's saying this in the wake of nullification.

in essence the federalists after the nullification crisis, people like daniel webster's story. they say, no, the constitution is not a come papact, does not represent a compact between the states. here's daniel webster. if a league between sovereign powers containing -- if it's a league between the sovereign powers containing nothing, making it perpetual, it subsists only during the good pleasure of both parties. so if the constitution is the compact between the states, secession is constitutional. and lincoln clearly was arguing that it's not a compact. he's also wanting to argue against a common southern perspective as reflected by jefferson davis who makes a very logical point that one of you pointed out. the colonies had a right to secede from the british, and if the colonies, if we as a nation had the right to leave britain, why suspect it the right of a

sovereign state to secede from the government? a very logical assumption. it's no coincidence that davis gives his inaugural address on washington's birthday, specifically referring to the birthday of the man most identified with the establishment of american independence, an establishment that results out of an act of disunion. and so secession, like the slavery debates which we discussed last week, it self-reflects this constitutional crisis. point out that dred scott creates this constitutional crisis. secession, itself, reflects the constitutional crisis. lincoln said at the end of the cooper union address in which

remember last week it's the best way to understand that it's a legal brief against the supreme court's decision in dred scott. he said that chief justice taney's opinion is wrong. he says, let us have faith that right makes light. in essence, secession became unconstitutional because might made right. after the civil war it became clear that secession or disunion was wrong. and, in fact, that becomes a supreme court ruling in texas v. wyatt in 1868. which explicitly declares secession to be unconstitutional. so lincoln's inaugural address is profoundly progressive in which he establishes far more than any document had the notion that secession is wrong.

that at the time was widely debated. now when texas governor recently, you know, suggested secession, he was mostly just laughed at. that goes back to the influence of this first inaugural. it's also conservative. why is it? forces fugitive slave act. suppresses slave insurrections and protects slavery in states. he explicitly hears from lincoln's inaugural. i have no purpose directly or indirectly to interfere with institution of slavery in the states where it exists. abolitionists reading that, it's like they responded by saying, what about your platform of gradual abolition with the goal of ultimate extinction? i believe i have no lawful right to do so. that was true.

republicans did not believe that they could constitutionally intervene in the slave states where slavery existed. he makes it very clear that he will support the fugitive slave clause of the constitution to send back a suspected fugitive. he also says something that especially outrages frederick douglass and other abolitionists. this is from his inaugural address. i understand and propose amendment to the constitution, which amendment, however, i have not seen has passed congress, to the effect that federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the states including that of persons held to service. anyone know what he's referring to? yeah?

[ inaudible ] he's saying he wouldn't interfere with the states' rights to say whether or not they would -- like slavery would be legal? but -- >> yes. >> i know at one point he said he'd preserve the union, whether that meant freeing all the slaves, none of them or some of them. >> yeah. that comes in august of '62, later. >> did he have his opinion now or was he saying this to appease the border states? >> that's -- i mean, he's clearly wanting to appease the upper south. and appease the south more generally. he's clearly -- you know, that's why he vows not to interfere with slavery in the slave states. but he goes further than to say, i believe i don't have a constitutional right to interfere with slavery in the slave states. he goes further then to say that i'll make sure that fugitives are returned to their property, to their property owners.

what he's referring to is the two days before he gives the inaugural address congress, in its efforts to conciliate with the south, passes a new constitutional amendment. it's the first 13th amendment. you all know the 13th amendment is the amendment that abolishes slavery. the first 13th amendment is the language is really weird because it essentially is an unamendable amendment. it says no amendment shall be made to the constitution which will authorize or give to congress the power to abolish or interfere within any state with domestic institutions thereafter helped or serviced by the laws of the state. it guarantees slavery in the

slave states forever. and lincoln supports it. yeah? >> was it something that meant something that the general public would have known about? or would it be -- >> yes. the general public knew about it. it had just been passed. so in the age of telegraph, two days later they, people living in cities would have known about it. and it was just beginning to spread. it was obviously never ratified, and, but it wasn't everywhere known which is why lincoln elaborates a bit. he acknowledges he hasn't even read -- >> i just feel he was cryptic about it. i think lincoln has the capacity to be explicit and eloquent. i don't understand why he wasn't more explicit when talking about the first 13th amendment. >> because he actually says, i haven't seen it. he hasn't read it. it's just been passed. he knows it's been debated. he hasn't even read the thing, but he says, i have no objection, i support it.

i have supported it in principle. yeah? [ inaudible ] >> it hasn't been ratified. right. and it never would be. yeah. >> yeah, i guess what i was kind of wondering about was the political pressure put on lincoln by the abolitionists. it seems like kind of -- he's playing to, you know, kind of quite literally the middle of america. >> yes. >> especially in supporting this. whereas, you know, i mean, right after he makes the inaugural address, you know, frederick douglass comes out and says, you know, writes that. calls him slave catcher basically. >> yes. yes. >> i guess i was wondering if lincoln ends up, you know, by the end of the war, you know, riding, you know, the emancipation proclamation. what is it that makes him -- i

don't know -- what kind of causes that -- >> that's a great -- we're going to get to a little bit of that today. to what degree do abolitionists influence lincoln? i think a lot. i think douglass -- i mean, we know that lincoln knew of douglass when they first met. douglass was the first black man to meet with the u.s. president in terms of equality and first black man to really advise the president on substantive ifshs. he met lincoln three times. lincoln recognized him immediately. we know frederick douglass was the most photographed american in the united states. more photographs of separate poses of douglass than lincoln, than anyone else. for most of his career as i mentioned last week until 1860 douglass was better known. lichingen lincoln is very familiar with douglass' criticism.