Looking now to the present and future, and with reference to a resumption of the national authority within the States wherein that authority has been suspended, I have thought fit to issue a proclamation, a copy of which is herewith transmitted.  On examination of this proclamation it will appear, as is believed, that nothing will be attempted beyond what is amply justified by the Constitution.  True, the form of an oath is given, but no man is coerced to take it.  The man is only promised a pardon in case he voluntarily takes the oath.  The Constitution authorizes the Executive to grant or withhold the pardon at his own absolute discretion, and this includes the power to grant on terms, as is fully established by judicial and other authorities.

It is also proffered that if in any of the States named a State government shall be in the mode prescribed set up, such government shall be recognized and guaranteed by the United States, and that under it the State shall, on the constitutional conditions, be protected against invasion and domestic violence.  The constitutional obligation of the United States to guarantee to every State in the Union a republican form of government and to protect the State in the cases stated is explicit and full.  But why tender the benefits of this provision only to a State government set up in this particular way?  This section of the Constitution contemplates a case wherein the element within a State favorable to republican government in the Union may be too feeble for an opposite and hostile element external to or even within the State, and such are precisely the cases with which we are now dealing.

An attempt to guarantee and protect a revived State government, constructed in whole or in preponderating part from the very element against whose hostility and violence it is to be protected, is simply absurd.  There must be a test by which to separate the opposing elements, so as to build only from the sound; and that test is a sufficiently liberal one which accepts as sound whoever will make a sworn recantation of his former unsoundness.

But if it be proper to require as a test of admission to the political body an oath of allegiance to the Constitution of the United States and to the Union under it, why also to the laws and proclamations in regard to slavery?  Those laws and proclamations were enacted and put forth for the purpose of aiding in the suppression of the rebellion.  To give them their fullest effect there had to be a pledge for their maintenance.  In my judgment, they have aided and will further aid the cause for which they were intended.  To now abandon them would be not only to relinquish a lever of power, but would also be a cruel and an astounding breach of faith.  I may add at this point that while I remain in my present position I shall not attempt to retract or modify the emancipation proclamation, nor shall I return to slavery any person who is free by the terms of that proclamation