第一篇：林肯演说词原文范文
林肯葛底斯堡演说词
葛底斯堡演说词——亚伯拉罕·林肯
(这是林肯1863年11月19[4]日在葛底斯堡阵亡将士公墓落成仪式上发表的演说，是公认的英语演讲的最高典范。)
八十七年前，我们的先辈在这个大陆上建立起一个
葛底斯堡演说
崭新的国家。这个国家以自由为理想，奉行所有人生来平等的原则。
我们正在进行一场伟大的国内战争。我们的国家或任何一个有着同样理想与目标的国家能否长久存在，这次战争是一场考验。现在我们——在这场战争的一个伟大战场上——聚会在一起，将这战场上的一小块土地奉献给那些为国家生存而英勇捐躯的人们，作为他们最后的安息之地。我们这样做是完全适当的、应该的。
然而，从深一层的意义上说来，我们没有能力奉献这块土地，没有能力使这块土地变得更为神圣。因为在这里进行过斗争的、活着的和已经死去的勇士们，已经使这块土地变得这样圣洁，我们的微力已不足以对它有所扬抑。我今天在这里说的话，也许世人不会注意也不会记住，但是这些英雄的业绩，人们会永世不忘。
我们后来者应该做的，是献身于英雄们曾在此为之奋斗、努力推进但尚未完成的工作。我们应该献身于他们遗留给我们的伟大任务。我们的先烈已将自己的全部精诚赋予我们的事业，我们应从他们的榜样中汲取更多的精神力量，决心使他们的鲜血不至白流。在上帝的护佑下，我们的国家将获得自由的新生。我们这个民有、民治、民享的政府将永存于世上。
英文版
The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania November 19, 1863 -Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. -Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives. That nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. -But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. -It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotionthat these dead shall not have died in vainand that government of the people, by the people, and for the people, shall not perish from the earth. (By Abraham Lincoln)
第二篇：林肯总统葛提斯堡演说词
背景知识
美国在1776年独立，脱离英国的管治，不足一百年间，已发展成一个超级大国。
由于国土辽阔，南北之间的分歧亦大。
美国北方依靠工商业，要求提高关税以保护他们产品的市场;南方依靠农业，需要自由贸易制度，以便他们的棉花、烟草和大米卖到欧洲各国。
但双方更大的分歧在于是否解放黑奴。
1860年，林肯(Abraham Lincoln) 当选美国总统，尽管南方人也认同林肯的看法，奴隶制最终要从地球上消失，但黑奴种植棉花为他们带来经济繁荣，他们害怕改变。
南方炮兵于1861年4月12日首先开火，美国开始了持续四年的内战。 内战的其中一次主要战役，发生于首都华盛顿附近的盖提斯堡，林肯总统在纪念阵亡士兵的仪式上，向在场的一万人发表了著名的「盖提斯堡演说」(Gettysburg Address)，鼓励人民为人人平等的民主原则而战，时维1863年11月19日。
林肯在1865年3月第二度当选美国总统，六个星期后，他在剧院遇刺，一颗子弹射穿他的大脑，他倒下了。这一年，林肯56岁。
林肯不仅是美国史上最伟大的总统，而且是伟大的演说家。 他的演说充满魅力，文采精炼，是传世的文学作品。 《林肯传》译文：
林肯葛提斯堡演说词
八十七年以前，我们的先辈们在这个大陆上创立了一个新的国家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生来平等的原则。
现在，我们正从事一场伟大的内战，以考验这个国家，或者说考验任何一个孕育于自由和奉行上述原则的国家是否能够长久存在下去。
我们在这场战争中的一个伟大战场上集会。烈士们为了使这个国家能够生存下去而献出了自己的生命。我们在此集会，是为了把这个战场的一部分奉献给他们作为最后安息之所。
我们这样做是完全应该而且非常恰当的。
但是，从更广泛的意义上来说，这块土地我们不能够奉献。我们不能够圣化，我们不能够神化。曾在这里战斗过的勇士们，活着的和去逝的，已经把这块土地神圣化了。这远不是我们微薄的力量所能增减的。
全世界将很少注意到，也不会长期地记起我们今天在这里所说的话，但全世界永远不会忘记勇士们在这里所做过的事。
无宁说，倒是我们这些还活着的人，应该把自己奉献给勇士们，已经如此崇高地先前推进但尚未完成的事业。倒是我们应该在这里把自己奉献于仍然留在我们面前的伟大任务，以便使我们从这些光荣的死者吸取更多的献身精神，来完成那种他们已经完全彻底为之献身的事业;
以便使国家在上帝的福佑下得到自由的新生，并且使这个民有，民治，民享的政府永世长存。
The Gettysburg Address Abraham Lincoln 19 November 1863 Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battlefield of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fit and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicatewe cannot hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember, what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us, the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before usthat this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedomwe cannot consecrate - we cannot hallow this ground. Dedicate和consecrate既押韵、同为三音节、也都是奉献的意思，可见林肯用字的心思。
林肯这篇演讲最为人津津乐道的是最后一句 ︰that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from this earth. 孙中山先生将of the people, by the people, for the people转化成三民主义，即民族、民权、民生。这些英文翻译成中文不容易，但英文本身却是如此浅白，以致美国人一听即难以忘怀。
听完林肯的演讲，如果我们在写求职信的时候，也 用上dedicated这个字眼，在信末加一句Should I have the honour of becoming an employee of this Company, I shall remain dedicated to my career and to the Company. 相信你的未来雇主也会另眼相看!
第三篇：林肯总统在盖茨堡演说讲词中英对照版
林肯總統在蓋茨堡演說講詞的中英對照版
本文為林肯總統在蓋茨堡(Gettysburg)所作的一場演說講詞，全文僅272字、10句話、不到2分鐘，卻是美國史上最偉大的演說之一，那也曾被我國選為高中職英文課本教材，許多人應都背誦過。同學可按此超連結播放講詞錄音，一邊聽一邊閱讀底下文字，將可有另一番領會，最好可一起唸出來，如此可幫助學習。這個講詞架構完整、文字優美、理念深遠，推薦給同學細細品味文字背後所傳遞的高雅價值。
The Gettysburg Address
Four score and seven years1 ago our fathers brought forth2 on this continent, a new nation, conceived3 in liberty, and dedicated4to the proposition5 that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged6 in a great civil war7, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion8 of that field9, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives10 that that nation might live.11 It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this. But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate12 -- we can not hallow13 -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract.14 The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause15 for which they gave the last full measure16 of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall notperish17 from the earth.
蓋茨堡演講詞
八十七年前，我們的祖先在這片大陸上建立了一個新的國家，它孕育於自由，並且獻身給一種理念，即所有人都是生來平等的。 現在，我們正在經歷一場意義重大的內戰，考驗著這個國家，或任何一個有
這種主張和這種信仰的國家，能否長久存在。我們此刻一同聚集在戰爭的一個大戰場上。我們來到這裡，奉獻戰場上的一部分土地，作為在此為國家的生存而犧牲了自己生命的人永久眠息之所。我們應該這樣做，那十分合情合理。 然而，就更宏觀的意義而言，我們無從奉獻這片土地——無從使它成為聖
地——也不可能把它變為人們景仰之所。那些在此奮戰的勇士，活著的和死去的，早已使這塊土地神聖化，遠高於我們的菲薄能力所能增減的境地。世人將鮮少注意，也不會久記我們在此所說的話語，然而世界將永遠緬懷這些勇士在這裡的事蹟。更甚者，我們仍在世的人應繼續獻身、接續那些曾在此奮戰的人們英勇崇高地推動而尚未完成的工作。我們應該在此獻身於餘留在眼前的偉大工作——由於他們的光榮犧牲，我們要更堅定地致力於他們全力盡瘁的那份事業——我們在此堅定立志，不能讓他們白白犧牲——要使這個國家在上帝的庇佑之下，得到新生的自由——要使「民有、民治、民享」的政府永世長存。 (以上中譯文字編修自美國在臺協會官方網站) 針對同學可能遇到的詞彙，補充說明如下：
註1. score：二十，因此「four score and seven」即為「四個二十又七」，亦即87。這樣的表述方式類似我們在自己的母語中偶而會講”一甲子之前…”，風格類似。
註2. bring forth：產生、建造。
註3. conceive：孕育、設想、懷抱著…想法。
例：Who first conceived the idea of building nuclear power plants? 是誰第一個想到建造核電廠? 例：She conceives love for the children. 她愛這些孩子。 註4. dedicate：奉獻(身)或把(時間、精力等)用於(+to)。 註5. proposition：主張、論點。 註6. engage：使從事、聘雇、與...交戰、佔用(時間、精力等)、使訂婚。 例：He was busily engaged in painting the furniture.他忙於油漆傢俱。 例：They engaged a cook for the summer. 那個夏天他們雇了一個廚子。 例：The book engaged my full attention. 這本書把我完全吸引住了。
註7. civil war 內戰。Civil的字意為：公民的、民用的，民事的，意思甚廣。譬如：civil rights為公民權;civil engineering為土木工程;而civil status可指婚姻狀態(單身或已婚)，相當於marital status。
註8. portion：(一)部分，也可當動詞使用，意為把...分成多份、分配[(+out)。另需與proportion區分不同使用方式。
例：He was hungry and ordered two portions of roast chicken. 他很餓，因而叫了兩份烤雞。
例：She portioned out the cake, so everyone had a piece. 她將蛋糕切成多塊，每人可得一份。
註9. field：原野、田地、(戰)場、(遼闊的大片)地、實地、野外，意思甚廣。例如：field trip指實地考察旅行(配合正課到校外作參訪式旅行可用)。field trial常用於新技術或服務即將上線、提供大規模使用之前，所作的實地測試。 註10. 此為life的複數形式(請注意讀法)，意指許多人的生命。
註11. 這邊連續使用二個that並非筆誤;第一個that為關係連接詞，而第二個that為形容詞，與跟在其後的nation形成語意上的一個單元。整個子句「that that nation might live」係用以修飾that之前的lives，可將lives視為nation might live的受詞。舉個例子，我們可說“They live lives of luxury”(他們過著奢華的生活/生命)，在這此例中，lives為live的受詞。同學們注意此例中的lives與live的關係與功能，再回過頭來看原演講文，應即能掌握到整句話的意涵。 註12. consecrate：奉...為神聖、尊崇、現身致力於…。 例：She consecrated her life to art. 她獻身於藝術。
註13. hallo：使神聖、把…視為神聖、崇敬…(類似consecrate)。 註14. detract：減損、降低。
例：The scandal will not detract from his fame. 這個醜聞無損於他的名聲。 註15. cause：原因、起因、動機、目標(理想、事業)。
例：World peace is a cause we should all work for. 世界和平是一項我們都應該為之而努力的事業。
註16. measure：此當名詞用，意為尺寸、分量、(判斷等的)基準、尺度、程度、限度、分寸。
例：I feel a measure of compassion for her. 我對她懷有一定程度的同情。 註17. perish：消滅、卒亡、枯萎、腐爛，亦可當及物動詞或解作「麻痺」。 例：Hundreds of people perished in the earthquake. 數百人在那場地震中喪生。 例：Flowers perish in frost. 花毀於霜凍。
例：Oil on your car tires will perish them. 車胎上的油會毀損車胎。 例：I was perished with cold. 我被凍僵了。 編按：
蓋茨堡演說中的部分理念被其他國家引用，也啟發孫中山先生的三民主義思想。演講的時間雖短，但準備的時間通常很長。有時候講者得花上一整天準備僅5分鐘的講詞。另一經典例子是美國國父華盛頓先生所作的就職總統演說，全文僅133字，亦常被引用。
林肯幼年生長於西部拓荒者的家庭，僅受過約一年的正規教育，但他一直熱衷於學習，辛苦自學出身，青年時期即有高大的體格，具律師背景，這是大家熟知的。他與夫人Mary Todd Lincoln有四位子女，然其中三個孩子先後夭折，這對林肯夫婦造成重大打擊。文獻提及他本身是一位慈愛但無法經常陪伴子女的父親 (“He was an affectionate, though often absent, husband and father of four children.”)。
第四篇：林肯总统就职演说
林肯总统第一次就职演说(1861年3月4日)
林肯
[学术交流网按：林肯是美国人民和政治家推崇的伟大人物之一，他的维护国家同意，反对分裂的主张，反对扩张奴隶制的主张尤其受到广泛赞扬。自2005年3月1日起发布林肯总统有关维护国家统
一、反对分裂的演说、信件、咨文的内容。] 合众国的同胞们： 1861年3月4日
按照一个和我们的政府一样古老的习惯，我现在来到诸位的面前，简单地讲几句话，并在你们的面前，遵照合众国宪法规定一个总统在他“到职视事之前”必须宣誓的仪式，在大家面前宣誓。
我认为没有必要在这里来讨论并不特别令人忧虑和不安的行政方面的问题。
在南方各州人民中似乎存在着一种恐惧心理。他们认为，随着共和党政府的执政，他们的财产，他们的和平生活和人身安全都将遭到危险。这种恐惧是从来没有任何事实根据的。说实在的，大量相反的证据倒是一直存在，并随时可以供他们检查的。那种证据几乎在现在对你们讲话的这个人公开发表的每一篇演说中都能找到。这里我只想引用其中的一篇，在那篇演说中我曾说，“我完全无意，对已经存在奴隶制的各州的这一制度，进行直接或间接的干涉。我深信我根本没有合法权利那样做，而且我无此意图。”那些提名我并选举我的人都完全知道，我曾明确这么讲过，并且还讲过许多类似的话，而且从来也没有收回过我已讲过的这些话。不仅如此，他们还在纲领中，写进了对他们和对我来说，都具有法律效力的一项清楚明白、不容含糊的决议让我接受。这里我来对大家谈谈这一决议：
“决议，保持各州的各种权利不受侵犯，特别是各州完全凭自己的决断来安排和控制本州内部各种制度的权利不受侵犯，乃是我们的政治结构赖以完善和得以持久的权力均衡的至为重要的因素;我们谴责使用武装力量非法入侵任何一个州或准州的土地，这种入侵不论使用什么借口，都是最严重的罪行。”
我现在重申这些观点：而在这样做的时候，我只想提请公众注意，最能对这一点提出确切证据的那就是全国任何一个地方的财产、和平生活和人身安全决不会在任何情况下，由于即将上任的政府而遭到危险。这里我还要补充说，各州只要符合宪法和法律规定，合法地提出保护要求，政府便一定会乐于给予保护,不管是出于什么原因一一而且对任何一个地方都一视同仁。
有一个争论得很多的问题是，关于逃避服务或引渡从劳役中逃走的人的问题。我现在要宣读的条文，也和任何有关其它问题的条款一样，明明白白写在宪法之中：
“凡根据一个州的法律应在该州于服务或从事劳役的人，如逃到另一州，一律不得按照这一州的法律或条例，使其解除该项服务或劳役，而必，须按照有权享有该项服务或劳役当事人的要求，将其引渡。”
毫无疑问，按照制订这一条款的人的意图，此项规定实际指的就是，对我们所说的逃亡奴隶有权索回;而法律制订人的这一意图实际已成为法律。国会的所有议员都曾宣誓遵守宪法中的一切条款——对这一条和其它各条并无两样。因此，关于适合这一条款规定的奴隶应 1 “将其引渡”这一点，他们的誓言是完全一致的。那么现在如果他们心平气和地作一番努力，他们难道不能以几乎同样完全一致的誓言，制订一项法律，以使他们的共同誓言得以实施吗? 究竟这一条款应该由国家当局，还是由州当局来执行，大家的意见还不完全一致;但可以肯定地说，这种分歧并不是什么十分重要的问题。只要奴隶能被交还，那究竟由哪一个当局来交还，对奴隶或对别的人来说，没有什么关系。任何人，在任何情况下，也决不会因为应以何种方式来实。现他的誓言这样一个无关紧要的争执，他便会认为完全可以不遵守自己的誓言吧? 另外，在任何有关这一问题的法律中，应不应该把文明和人道法学中关于自由的各项保证都写上，以防止在任何情况下使一个自由人被作为奴隶交出吗?同时，宪法中还有一条规定，明确保证“每一州的公民都享有其它各州公民所享有公民的一切特权和豁免权”，我们用法律保证使这一条文得以执行，那不是更好吗? 我今天在这里正式宣誓，思想上决无任何保留，也决无意以任何过于挑剔的标准来解释宪法或法律条文。我现在虽不打算详细指出国会的哪些法令必须要遵照执行;但我建议，我们大家，不论以个人身份还是以公职人员的身份，为了有更多的安全，我们最好服从并遵守现在还没有废除的一切法令，而不要轻易相信可以指之为不合宪法，便可以逃脱罪责，而对它们公然违反。
自从第一任总统根据国家宪法宣誓就职以来，七十二年已经过去了。在这期间，十五位十分杰出的公民相继主持过政府的行政部门。他们引导着它度过了许多艰难险阻;一般都获得极大的成功。然而，尽管有这么多可供参考的先例，我现在将在宪法所规定的短短四年任期中来担任这同一任务，却.面临着巨大的非同一般的困难。在此以前，分裂联邦只是受到了威胁，而现在却是已出现力图分裂它的可怕行动了。
从一般法律和我们的宪法来仔细考虑，我坚信，我们各州组成的联邦是永久性的。在一切国民政府的根本大法中永久性这一点，虽不一定写明，却是不言而喻的。我们完全可以肯定说，没有一个名副其实的政府会在自己的根本法中定出一条，规定自己完结的期限。继续执行我国宪法所明文规定的各项条文，联邦便将永远存在下去——除了采取并未见之于宪法的行动，谁也不可能毁灭掉联邦。
还有，就算合众国并不是个名副其实的政府，而只是依靠契约成立的一个各州的联合体，那既有契约的约束，若非参加这一契约的各方一致同意，我们能说取消就把它取消吗?参加订立契约的一方可以违约，或者说毁约;但如果合法地取消这一契约，岂能不需要大家一致同意吗? 从这些总原则出发，我们发现，从法学观点来看，联邦具有永久性质的提法，是为联邦自身的历史所证实的。联邦本身比宪法更为早得多。事实上，它是由1774年，签订的《联合条款》建立的。到1776年的《独立宣言》才使它进一步成熟和延续下来。然后，通过1778年的“邦联条款”使它更臻成熟，当时参加的十三个州便已明确保证要使邦联永久存在下去。最后，到1787年制订的宪法公开宣布的目的之一，便是“组建一个更为完美的联邦”。 但是，如果任何一个州，或几个州也可以合法地把联邦给取消掉，加这个联邦可是比它在宪法制订以前还更不完美了，因为它已失去了它的一个至关重要因素——永久性。 从这些观点我们可以认定，任何一个州，都不可能仅凭自己动议，便能合法地退出联邦——而任何以此为目的的决议和法令在法律上都是无效的;至于任何一州或几州的反对合众国当
2 局的暴力行为，都可以依据具体情况视为叛乱或革命行为。
因此我认为,从宪法和法律的角度来看，联邦是不容分裂的;我也将竭尽全力，按照宪法明确赋于我的责任，坚决负责让联邦的一切法令在所有各州得以贯彻执行。这样做，我认为只是履行我应负的简单职责;只要是可行的，我就一定要履行它，除非我的合法的主人美国人民，收回赋予我的不可缺少的工具，或行使他们的权威，命令我采取相反的行动。我相信我这话决不会被看成是一种恫吓，而只会被看作实现联邦已公开宣布的目的，它必将按照宪法保卫和维持它自己的存在。
要做到这一点并不需要流血或使用暴力，除非有人把它强。加于国家当局，否则便决不会发生那种情况。赋予我的权力将被用来保持、占有和掌管属于政府的一切财产和土地。征收各种税款和关税;但除开为了这些目的确有必要这外，决不会有什么入侵问题——决不会在任何地方对人民，或在人民之间使用武力。任何内地，即使对联邦政府的敌对情绪已十分严重和普遍，以致妨害有能力的当地公民执行联邦职务的时候，政府也决不会强制派进令人厌恶的外来人去担任这些职务。尽管按严格的法律规定，政府有权强制履行这些职责，但一定要那样做，必然非常使人不愉快，也几乎不切实际，所以我认为最好还是暂时先把这些职责放一放。
邮政，除非遭到拒收，仍将在联邦全境运作。在可能的情况下，一定要让各地人民，都享有完善的安全感，这十分有利于冷静思索和反思。我在这里所讲的这些方针必将奉行，除非当前事态和实际经验表明修改或改变方针是合适的。对任何一个事件和紧急问题，我一定会根据当时出现的具体形势谨慎从事，期望以和平手段解决国内纠纷，力图恢复兄弟爱手足情。
至于说某些地方总有些人不顾一切一心想破坏联邦，并不惜以任何借口图谋不轨，我不打算肯定或否定;如果确有这样一些人，我不必要再对他们讲什么。但对那些真正热爱联邦的人,我不可以讲几句吗? 在我们着手研究如此严重的一件事情之前，那就是要把我们的国家组织连同它的一切利益，一切记忆和一切希望全给消灭掉，难道明智的做法不是先仔细研究一下那样做究竟是为了什么?当事实上极有可能你企图逃避的祸害并不存在的时候，你还会不顾一切采取那种贻害无穷的步骤吗?或者你要逃避的灾祸虽确实存在，而在你逃往的地方却有更大的灾祸在等着你;那你会往那里逃吗?你会冒险犯下如此可怕的一个错误吗? 大家都说，如果宪法中所规定的一切权利都确实得到执行，那他也就会留在联邦里。那么，真有什么如宪法申明文规定的权利被否定了吗?我想没有。很幸运，人的头脑是这样构造出来的，没有一个党敢于如此冒天下之大不韪。如果可能，请你们讲出哪怕是一个例子来，说明有什么宪法中明文规定的条款是没有得到执行的。如果多数派完全靠人数上的优势，剥夺掉少数派宪法上明文规定的权利，这件事从道义的角度来看，也许可以说革命是正当的——如果被剥夺的是极为重要的权利，那革命就肯定无疑是合理行动。但我们的情况却并非如此。少数派和个人的一切重要权利，在宪法中，通过肯定和否定、保证和禁令;都一一向他们作了明确保证,以致关于这类问题，从来也没有引起过争论。但是，在制订基本法时却不可能对实际工作中出现的任何问题，都一一写下可以立即加以应用的条文。再高明的预见也不可能料定未来的一切，任何长度适当的文件也不可能包容下针对一切可能发生的问题的条文。逃避劳役的人到底应该由联邦政府交还还是由州政府交还呢?宪法上没有具体规定。国会可以在准州禁止奴隶制吗?宪法没有具体规定。国会必须保护准州的奴隶制吗?宪法也没有具体规定。
从这类问题中引出了我们对宪法问题的争端，并因这类问题使我们分成了多数派和少数派。如果少数派不肯默认，多数派便必须默认，否则政府便只好停止工作了。再没有任何别的路可走;要让政府继续行使职权，便必须要这一方或那一方默认。在这种情况下，如果一
3 个少数派宁可脱离也决不默认，那他们也就开创将来必会使他们分裂和毁灭的先例;因为，当多数派拒绝接受这样一个少数派的控制的时候，他们中的少数派便必会从他们之中再脱离出去。比如说，一个新的联盟的任何一部分，在一两年之后，为什么就不会像现在的联邦中的一些部分坚决要脱离出去一样，执意要从从那个新联盟中脱离出去。所有怀着分裂联邦思想的人现在都正接受着分裂思想的教育。难道要组成一个新联邦的州，它们的利益竟会是那样完全一致，它们只会有和谐，而不会再出现脱离行动吗? 非常清楚，脱离的中心思想实质就是无政府主义。一个受着宪法的检查和限制的约束，总是随着大众意见和情绪的慎重变化而及时改变的多数派，是自由人民的唯一真正的统治者。谁要想排斥他们，便必然走向无政府主义或专制主义。完全一致是根本不可能的;把少数派的统治作为一种长期安排是完全不能接受的，所以，一旦排斥了多数原则，剩下的便只有某种形式的无政府主义或某专制主义了。
我没有忘记某些人的说法，认为宪法问题应该由最高法院来裁决。我也不否认这种裁决，在任何情况下，对诉讼各万，以及诉讼目的，完全具有约束力，而且在类似的情况中，—应受到政府的一切其它部门高度的尊重和重视。尽管非常明显，这类裁决在某一特定案例中都很可能会是错误的，然而，这样随之而来的恶果总只限于该特定案件，同时裁决还有机会被驳回，不致成为以后判案的先例，那这种过失比起其它的过失来当然更让人容易忍受。同时，正直的公民必须承认，如果政府在有关全体人民利害的重大问题的政策，都得由最高法院的裁决，作出决定那一旦对个人之间的一般诉讼作出裁决时，人民便已不再是自己的主人，而达到了将他们的政府交给那个高于一切的法庭的地步了。我这样说，决无意对法院或法官表示不满。一件案子按正常程序送到他们面前，对它作出正当裁决，是他们的不可推卸的责任;如果别的人硬要把他们的判决用来达到政治目的，那并不是他们的过错。
我国有一部分人相信奴隶制是正确的。应该扩展，而另一部分人又相信它是错误的，不应该扩展。这是唯一的实质性的争执，宪法中有关逃亡奴隶的条款，以及制止对外奴隶贸易的法
律，在一个人民的道德观念并不支持该法的，社会里，它们的执行情况也许不次于任何一项法律所能达到的程度。在两种情况下，绝大多数的人都遵守枯燥乏味的法律义务，但又都有少数人不听那一套。关于这一点，我想，要彻底解决是根本不可能的;如果寸巴两个地区分离。以后，情况只会更坏。对外奴隶贸易现在并未能完全加以禁止，最后在一个地区中必将全面恢复;对于逃亡奴隶，在另一个地区，现在送回的只是一部分，将来会完全不肯交出来了。
就自然条件而言，我们是不能分离的。我们决不能把我们的各个地区相互搬开，也不可能在它们之间修建起一道无法逾越的高墙。一对夫妻可以离婚，各走各的路，彼此再不见面。但我们国家的各部分可无法这么办。它们只能面对面相处，友好也罢。仇视也罢，他们仍必须彼此交往。我们维道能有任何办法使得这种交往在分离之后，比分离：之前更为有利，更为令，人满意吗?难道在外人之间订立条约，比在朋友之间制订法律还更为容易吗?难道在外人之间履行条约，比在朋友之间按法律办事还更忠实吗?就算你们决定。诉诸战争，你们，总不能永远打下去吧;最后当两败俱伤而双方都一无所获时，你们停止战斗，那时依照什么条件相互交往，这同一个老问题仍会照样摆在你们面前了。
这个国家，连同它的各种机构，都属于居住在这里的人民。任何时候，他们对现存政府感到厌倦了，他们可以行使他们的宪法权利，改革这个政府，或者行使他们的革命权利解散它或者推翻它。我当然知道，现在就有许多尊贵的、爱国的公民极于想修订我们的宪法。尽管我自己不会那么建议，我却也完全承认他们在这个问题上的合法权利，承认他们可以按照宪法所规定的两种方式中的任何一种来行使这种权利;而且，在目前情况下，我不但不反对，而倒是赞成给人民一个公正的机会让他们去行动。
4 我还不禁要补充一点，在我看来，采取举行会议的方式似乎更好一些，这样可以使修订方案完全由人民自己提出，而不是只让他们去接受或拒绝一些并非特别为此目的而选出的一些人提出的方案，因为也可能那些方案恰恰并不是他们愿意接受或拒绝的。我了解到现在已有人提出一项宪法修正案——这修正案我并没有看到，但在国会中已经通过了，大意说，联邦政府将永远不再干涉各州内部制度，包括那些应服劳役者的问题。为了使我讲的话不致被误解，我现在改变我不谈具体修正案的原来的打算，明确声明，这样一个条款，既然现在可能列入宪法，我不反对使它成为明确而不可改动的条文。
合众国总统的一切权威都来之于人民，人民并没有授于他规定条件让各州脱离出去的权力。人民自己如果要那样干，那自然也是可以的;可是现在的行政当局不能这样做。他的职责，是按照他接任时的样子管理这个政府，然后,毫无损伤地再移交给他的继任者。 我们为什么不能耐心地坚决相信人民的最终的公道呢?难道在整个世界上还有什么更好的，或与之相等的希望吗?在我们今天的分歧中，难道双方不都是认为自己正确吗?如果万国的全能统治者，以他的永恒的真理和公正，站在你们北方一边，或你们南方一边，那么，依照美国人民这一伟大法官的判决，真理和公正必将胜利。
按照目前我们生活其下的现政府的构架，我国人民十分明智;授于他们的公仆的胡作非为的权力是微乎其微的;而且同样还十分明智地规定，即使那点微乎其微的权力，经过很短一段时间后，就必须收回到他们自己手中。
由于人民保持他们的纯正和警惕，任何行政当局，在短短的四年之中，也不可能用极其恶劣或愚蠢的行为对这个政府造成严重的损害。
我的同胞们，请大家对这整个问题平心静气地好好想一想，真正有价值的东西是不会因从容从事而丧失的。如果有个什么目标使你迫不及待地要取得它，你采取的步骤是在审慎考虑的
情况下不会采取的，那个目标的确可能会由于你的从容不迫而达不到;但一个真正好的自标是不会因为从容从事而失去的。你们中现在感到不满的人，仍然必须遵守原封未动的老宪法，新个敏感的问题上，仍然有根据宪法制订的法律;而对此二者，新政府即使想要加以改变，它自身也立即无此权力。即使承认你们那些心怀不满的人在这一争执中站在正确的一边，那也丝毫没有正当的理由要采取贸然行动。明智、爱国主义、基督教精神，以及对从未抛弃过这片得天独厚的土地的上帝的依赖，仍然完全能够以最理想的方式来解决我们当前的一切困难。
决定内战这个重大问题的是你们，我的心怀不满的同胞们，而并非决定于我。政府决不会攻击你们。只要你们自己不当侵略者，就不会发生冲突。你们并没有对天发誓必须毁灭这个政
府，而我却曾无比庄严地宣誓，一定要“保持、保护和保卫”这个政府。
我真不想就此结束我的讲话，我们不是敌人，而是朋友。我们决不能成为敌人。尽管目前的情绪有些紧张，但决不能容许它使我们之间的亲密情感纽带破裂。回忆的神秘琴弦，在整个这片辽阔的土地上，从每一个战场，每一个爱国志士的坟墓，延伸到每一颗跳动的心和每一个家庭，它有一天会被我们的良知所触动，再次奏出联邦合唱曲。
5 第二任就职演说Second Inaugural Address
亚伯拉罕.林肯(ABRAHAM LINCOLN)
在这第二任的就职宣誓典礼中，并不需要像第一任就职时那样发表长篇演说。那时，对当时所要采取的方针政策多少作一些详细说明，似乎是适当的。现在四年任期届满，在这期间于战争的每个重要时刻和阶段──这场战争至今仍为举国所关注、并且占用了国家的大部分力量──我都经常发布文告，所以现在也提不出什么新的主张。我们的军事进展，是一切其它问题的关键所在，大家对其情形和我一样明了，而且我相信进展的情况可以使我们全体人民有理由感到满意和鼓舞。既然将来很有希望，那么我也无须在这方面作什么预言了。 四年前，在与此相同的时刻，所有人的思想都焦虑地集中在一场即将来临的内战上。谁都害怕内战，都想尽办法去避免它。当我在这个地方作就职演说时，我曾想尽量不诉诸战争而保存联邦，然而反叛分子的代理人却设法在这个城市里以不打仗的方式(推毁联邦──他们力图以谈判的方式来瓦解联邦，分享财物。双方都声称反对战争，可是有一方宁愿打仗而不愿让国家生存，另一方则宁可接受战争而不愿让国家灭亡，于是战争就来临了。 我们全国人口的八分之一是黑奴，他们并不是遍布于全国，而是局部地分布于南方。这些奴隶形成一种特殊而重大的利益。大家都知道这种利益可说是这场战争的原因。为了加强、永久保持并扩大这种利益，反叛分子会不惜以战争来分裂联邦，而政府只不过要限制这种利益的地区扩张。当初，任何一方都没有想到战争会发展到目前这么大的范围，持续这么长的时问，也没有料到冲突的原因会随冲突本身终止而终止，甚至会在冲突本身终止以前而终止。双方都在寻求一个较轻易的胜利，都不期盼有什么带根本性的或惊人的结果。双方都诵读同样的圣经，向同一个上帝祈祷，甚至每一方都祈求同一个上帝的帮助以反对另一方。人们竟敢要求公正的上帝来帮助他们夺取他人以血汗换来的面包，这看来似乎很奇怪。可是，我们还是别评判人家，以免别人来评判我们。双方的祈祷都无法如愿，而且从没全部如愿以偿。万能的上帝自有他自己的意旨：“世界由于罪恶而受苦难，因为世界总是有罪恶的，然而那个作恶的人，要受苦难。”假如我们认为美国的奴隶制是这种罪恶之一，而这些罪恶按上帝的意志又在所不免，但既经持续了他所指定的一段时间，他现在便要消除这些罪恶。假如我们认为上帝把这场惨烈的战争加在南北双方的头上，作为对那些作恶的人的责罚，难道我们可以由此认为这有悖于虔奉上帝的信徒们所归诸上帝的那些圣德吗?我们殷切地希塑，热忱地祈祷，但愿这战争的重罚会很快过去。可是，假使上帝要让战争再继续下去，直到二百五十年来奴隶无偿劳动所积聚的财富化为乌有，并像三千年前人们所说的那样，直至被鞭苔所流的每一滴血为刀剑下流的每一滴血所偿付为止，那么，我也只好说：“主的裁判是完全正确而公道的。”
我们对任何人都不怀恶意，我们对任何人都抱好感。上帝让我们看到哪一边是正确的，我们就坚信那正确的一边。让我们继续奋斗，以完成我们正在进行的工作，去治疗国家的创伤，去照顾艰苦作战的战士和他们的遗孀遗孤，尽一切努力实现并维护我们自己之间以及我国与他国之间的公正和持久的和平。
盖兹堡献仪演说--亚.林肯1863年
距进八十七年以前，我们的先辈在这个大陆之上曾经缔造了一个新的国家，这个国家孕育于自由，并以人人生而平等之主张为其奋斗宗旨。目前，我们正在进行一场伟大的国内战争，其结果必将表明，一个如此孕育与如此奋斗而建成的国家(乃至任何这类的国家)，是否能够运作久长。我们今天集会的地方就是这场战争中的伟大战场，而我们来此则是为向那为国捐生因而国赖以存的烈士英灵，恭行献土之仪;从中辟地一方，以为他们殓骨归骸之所。我们这样做乃是完全必要，完全恰当的。但是，从一种更深广的意义来讲，我们却又深感这种献仪的不足，崇仰的不足，至于为墓地增光，就更说不上。一切曾经在这里奋战过的英勇的人们，不论是生者死者，他们所作的奉献之大，远远不是我们所能妄加损益。世人对我们
6 在这里所说的种种，未必会给予注意，或者很快忘记，但对他们所成就的一切，却将永志不忘。对于我们生者来说，有所报效，似更应奋力于他们一向坚贞以赴、多所推进的事业，奋力于留待我们去完成建树的伟绩殊勋;诚能这样，我们必将更能从英魂那里汲引壮志，奋发忠诚，而他们正是为了我们的事业而肝脑涂地，竭尽忠诚;这样，我们必将益发坚信这些死者之不枉牺牲，这样，这个国家，上帝之鉴，必将在自由上重获新生，而这样，一个民有，民治与民享的政府必将在世界上永远立于不败之地。
That we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain; that this nation shall have a new birth of freedom; and that this government of the people, by the people ，for the people, shall not perish from the earth.
主耶稣基督欣赏“简单”之美。
宁可住在房顶的角上，不在宽阔的房屋，与争吵的妇人同住。
你要尽心、尽性、尽意、尽力爱主你的神。其次，就是说，要爱人如己。
救恩的得着，简单的法门，只要“信”。虽然救恩的设立，是一道复杂的过程，但神费尽心思，把救恩的得着，简化成一个“信”字。
——所罗门
第五篇：完整的林肯就职演说
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
Fellow-Citizens of the United States:
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:
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 in doing so I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible that the property, peace, and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. 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.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall in consequence of any law or regulation therein be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due.
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the lawgiver is the law. All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other. To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause "shall be delivered up" their oaths are unanimous. Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done. And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that "the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States"?
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 4
than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.
It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution. During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success. Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.
Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as
acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union."
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
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 6
within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
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 Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself.
In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there
will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices.
The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections.
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?
All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight
can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.
From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this.
Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession?
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.
I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different
practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes.
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. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be
ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other.
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? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you.
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. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. 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. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
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 there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. 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, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, 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 Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature. 永久联邦与总统权力 亚伯拉罕-林肯 第一次就职演讲
星期一,1861年3月4日
我今天正式宣誓时，并没有保留意见，也无意以任何苛刻的标准来解释宪法和法律，尽管我不想具体指明国会通过的哪些法案是适合施行的•但我确实要建议，所有的人，不论处于官方还是私人的地位，都得遵守那些未被废止的法令，这比泰然自若地认为其中某个法案是违背宪法的而去触犯它，要稳当得多。
自从第一任总统根据我国宪法就职以来已经72年了。在此期间，有15位十分杰出的公民相继主持了政府的行政部门。他们在许多艰难险阻中履行职责，大致说来都很成功。然而，虽有这样的先例，我现在开始担任这个按宪法规定任期只有短暂4年的同一职务时，却处 17
在巨大而特殊的困难之下。联邦的分裂，在此以前只是一种威胁，现在却已成为可怕的行动。
从一般法律和宪法角度来考虑，我认为由各州组成的联邦是永久性的。在合国政府的根本法中，永久性即使没有明确规定，也是不盲而喻的。我们有把握说，从来没有哪个正规政府在自己的组织法中列入一项要结束自己执政的条款。继续执行我国宪法明文规定的条款，联邦就将永远存在，毁灭联邦是办不到的，除非采取宪法本身未予规定的某种行动。再者：假如合众国不是名副其实的政府，而只是具有契约性质的各州的联盟，那么，作为一种契约，这个联盟能够毫无争议地由纬约各方中的少数加以取消吗?缔约的一方可以违约——也可以说毁约——但是，合法地废止契约难道不需要缔约各方全都同意吗?从这些一般原则在下推，我们认为，从法律上来说，联邦是永久性的这一主张已经为联邦本身的历史所证实。联邦的历史比宪法长久得多。事实上，它在1774年就根据《联合条款》组成了。1776年，《独立宣言》使它臻子成熟并持续下来。1778年《邦联条款》使联邦愈趋成熟，当时的13个州都信誓旦旦地明确保证联邦应该永存，最后，1787年制定宪法时所宣市的日标之一就是“建设更完善的联邦”。
但是，如果联邦竟能由一个州或几个州按照法律加以取消的话，那么联邦就不如制宪前完善了，因为它丧失了永久性这个重要因素。
根据这些观点，任何一个州都不能只凭自己的动仪就能合法地脱离联邦;凡为此目的而作出的决议和法令在法律上都是无效的，任何一个州或几个州反对合众国当局的暴力行动都应根据憎况视为叛乱或革命。因此，我认为，根据宪法和法律，联邦是不容分裂的;我将按宪法本身明确授予我的权限，就自己能力所及，使联邦法律得以在各州忠实执行。我认为这仅仅是我份内的职责，我将以可行的方法去完成，除非我的合法主人——美国人民，不给予我必要的手段，或以权威的方式作出相反的指示，我相信大家下会把这看作是一种威胁，而只看作是联邦已宣布过的目标：它将按照宪法保卫和维护它自身。
以自然条件而言，我们是不能分开的，我们无法把各个地区彼此挪开，也无法在彼此之间筑起一堵无法逾越的墙垣。夫妻可以离婚，不再见面，互不接触，但是我们国家的各个地区就不可能那样做。它们仍得面对面地相处，它们之间还得有或者友好或者敌对的交往。那么，分开之后的交往是否可能比分开之前更有好处，更令人满意呢?外人之间订立条约难道还比朋友之间制定法律容易吗?外人之间执行条约难道还比朋友之间执行法律忠实吗?假定你们进行战争•你们不可能永远打下去;在双方损失惨重，任何一方都得不到好处之后，你们就会停止战斗，那时你们还会遇到诸如交往条件之类的老问题。
总统的一切权力来自人民，但人民没有授权给他为各州的分离规定条件。如果人民有此意愿，那他们可以这样做，而作为总统来说， 19
则不可能这样做。他的责任是管理交给他的这一届政府，井将它完整地移交给他的继任者。
为什么我们不能对人民所具有的最高的公正抱有坚韧的信念呢?世界上还有比这更好或一样好的希望吗?在我何日前的分歧中，难道双方都缺乏相信自己正确的信心吗?如果万国全能的主宰以其永恒的真理和正义支持你北方这一边，或者支持你南方这一边，那么，那种真理和那种正义必将通过美国人民这个伟大法庭的裁决而取得胜利。
就是这些美国人民，通过我们现有的政府结构，明智地只给他们的公仆很小的权力，使他们不能力害作恶，并且同样明智地每隔很短的时间就把那小小的权力收回到自己手中。只要人民保持其力量和警惕，无论怎样作恶和愚蠢的执政人员都不能在短短4年的任期内十分严重地损害政府。我的同胞们，大家平静而认真地思考整个这一问题吧。任何宝贵的东西都下会因为从容对待而丧失，假使有一个目标火急地催促你们中随便哪一位采取一个措施，而你决不能不慌不忙，那么那个目标会因从容对待而落空;但是，任何好的目标是不会因为从容对待而落空的，你们现在感到不满意的人仍然有着原来的、完好元损的宪法，而且，在敏感问题上，你们有着自己根据这部宪法制定的各项法律;而新的一届政府即使想改变这两种情况，也没有直接的权力那样做。那些不满意的人在这场争论中即使被承认是站在正确的一边，也没有一点正当理由采取鲁莽的行动。理智、爱国精神、基行教 20
义以及对从不抛弃这片幸福土地的上帝的信仰，这些仍然能以最好的方式来解决我们目前的一切困难。不满意的同胞们，内战这个重大问题的关键掌握在你们手中，而不掌握在我手中，政府不会对你们发动攻击。你们不当挑衅者，就下会面临冲突。你们没有对天发誓要毁灭政府，而我却要立下最庄严的誓言：“坚守、维护和捍卫合众国宪法。”我不愿意就此结束演说。我们不是敌人，而是朋友。我们一定不要成为敌人。尽管情绪紧张，也决不应割断我们之间的感情纽带。记忆的神秘琴弦，从每一个战场和爱国志上的坟墓伸向这片广阔土地上的每一颗跳动的心和家庭，必将再度被我们善良的夭性所拨响，那时就会高奏起联邦大团结的乐章。
21