Here is something impossible to understand through a
text-book. Can a history teacher explain this? this mystery of American history?
This is what we have in an e-mail which is in wide circulation.
Abraham Lincoln was elected to Congress in 1846.
John F. Kennedy was elected to Congress in 1946.
Abraham Lincoln was elected President in 1860.
John F. Kennedy was elected President in 1960.
Both were particularly concerned with civil rights.
Both wives lost their children while living in the
White House.
Both Presidents were shot on a Friday.
Both Presidents were shot in the head.
Kennedy's Secretary was named
Both were assassinated by Southerners.
Both were succeeded by Southerners named Johnson.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded
Lyndon Johnson, who succeeded Kennedy, was born in
1908.
John Wilkes Booth, who assassinated
Lee Harvey Oswald, who assassinated Kennedy, was born
in 1939.
Both assassins were known by their three names.
Both names are composed of fifteen letters.
Kennedy was shot in a car called '
Kennedy was shot from a warehouse and his assassin ran
and hid in a theater.
Booth and Oswald were assassinated before their trials.
A week before
A week before Kennedy was shot, he was with Marilyn
Monroe.
Source: an e-mail in circulation. In the following are
excerpts from the inaugural addresses of the two presidents.
Abraham Lincoln First Inaugural Address Monday, 4
March 1861
[The national upheaval of secession was a grim reality
at Abraham Lincoln's inauguration. Jefferson Davis had been inaugurated as the
President of the Confederacy two weeks earlier. The former Illinois Congressman
had arrived in
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." …
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. ... 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:
Resolved, That
the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right
of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to
its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which
the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce
the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no
matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.
I now reiterate these sentiments, and … I add, too,
that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws,
can be given will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded,
for whatever cause—as cheerfully to one section as to another. …
I take the official oath to-day with no mental
reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any
hypercritical rules; and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts
of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer
for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all
those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find
impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional. …
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of
the Constitution the
If the
The
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part
only of the States be lawfully possible, the
It follows from these views that no State upon its own
mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances
to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or
States against the authority of the
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution
and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall
take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws
of the
That there are persons in one section or another who
seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I
will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to
them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak?
Before entering upon so grave a matter as the
destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and
its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you
hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of
the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills
you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the
commission of so fearful a mistake? …
Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of
anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations,
and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and
sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it
does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The
rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so
that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is
all that is left. …
One section of our country believes slavery is right
and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought
not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive-slave
clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave
trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community
where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The
great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a
few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would
be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before.
…
Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not
remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall
between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and
beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our country can not
do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable
or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that
intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than
before? …
This country, with its institutions, belongs to the
people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing
Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it
or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be
ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of
having the National Constitution amended. … I will venture to add that to me
the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate
with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject
propositions originated by others, not especially 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. …
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
virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly
can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well
upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. … If it
were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute,
there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence,
patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken
this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present
difficulty.
In your hands … and not in mine, is the
momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You
can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have
no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the
most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends.
We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our
bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every
battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over
this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the
John F. Kennedy Inaugural Address Friday, 20 January
1961
[Heavy snow fell the night before the inauguration, but
thoughts about cancelling the plans were overruled. The election of 1960 had
been close, and the Democratic Senator from
… we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration
of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as
well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn
oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.
The world is very different now. For man holds in his
mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of
human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears
fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man
come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.
We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that
first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and
foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born
in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud
of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of
those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which
we are committed today at home and around the world.
Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or
ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support
any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of
liberty.
This much we pledge—and more. …
To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United
Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far
outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it
from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new
and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our
adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the
quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science
engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our
arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will
never be employed
But neither can two great and powerful groups of
nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the
cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly
atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the
hand of mankind's final war.
So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that
civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof.
Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead
of belaboring those problems which divide us. …
All this will not be finished in the first 100 days.
Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this
Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us
begin.
In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine,
will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was
founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to
its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to
service surround the globe.
Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear
arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but
a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out,
"rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the
common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself. …
In the long history of the world, only a few
generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of
maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not
believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other
generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor
will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can
truly light the world.
And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country
can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.
My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what
Finally, whether you are citizens of