|
’’’’’’’
(ABRAHAM LINCOLN)
第’任’職’說
First Inaugural Address
(American Memory Collection, Library of Congress)
’’’不’’議’’憶之’’’’個戰場’’個’國志’’’墓’’’’’’遼闊’’’’’顆’滿’’’心’’’’個’’’’’我們本’中’善’’’’而’’’’’’’撥動’它們終’重’’’’’’’邦’’曲’
’1860’’’統選’中’民’黨內’’’分裂’爲’’’’’黨’勝’掃’’’路’雖’’’’’選’’’候選’’部分’由’’有溫’’’’’’’’’’’方’還’警’說’’’’’獲勝’’們’脫離’邦’’論’’方還’’方’’’’當選都’’’’對奴隸’’奴隸’’’’’’排斥’’’’’當選之’’’國’個’(’’羅’’’’’’比’’羅裏’’’’巴馬’喬’’’路’斯’那’’’薩斯)脫離’’邦’’’1861’2月4日’’’’巴馬’’’哥馬’組成’國’部邦’’’
’’’國’提’’’項’’國’止奴隸’’憲’’正’’(’項’正’’1865’’批准爲第’’’正’’)
1861’3月4日’’’’華盛’’區國’’’’’’階’’’’職’’’’’分裂’內戰邊’’國民’’’說’’’’’智’’’’’’’說’爲維’’邦’避’戰’’’’最’’次’’’不’’’’’’’示’’邦’’衛’’’脫離’邦’不’’’’’暴’反對’邦’’’’’’’’亂’’’’’’’有’聽’’方邦’’’隊’1861’4月12日’擊’’羅’’’’爾斯’’薩’’堡’內戰由’’’’’薩’’堡陷落之’’維’尼’’’’’’’’’’羅’’’’田’’’都’’’’國’部邦’’
’’’’方’’’’民中’’’’著’種’’’’由’’黨執’’’們’’産’’’’生’’個’’’’’’’’’’’種’’’’’’有任’’由’說實’’’’須’’’最’足’證據’’都’’’’’’’而’公’接’’們檢’’’’’’’’’’’’們’辭’’’’’’有’’’’’講裏找’’我’’僅引用那’’說辭中’’’’’’’
我’’’接’間接’’有’奴’’’裏’’’奴’’’我’’我’有’樣做’’’’’’而’我’’有’樣做’’’’’’
’’’’’統’照國’憲’第’次’職’’’’’’72’’72’裏’15’’類’萃’公民’’管’’’個’’’’’部’’’們領導’個’’’歷’’’’’’而’’’都’’’’成’’’’’儘管有’種’’’我’’’巨’而’’’難’情’’’擔’’’樣’任務’’’’暫’’’’統任期’分裂’邦’’’還’’’種’’’’’’’變成’’生’’’動’
考’’’’’’’’我們’憲’’我’爲’’’’組成’’邦’永’’’’’’有國’’’’基本’’中’’’’有’文’’’永’’’’’’’有’’’’我們’’’言’’有’個正式’’曾’’’組織’中’’’’個’’’壽終正寢’條款’’’我們’續執’國’憲’中’有’’文’’’’個’邦’’永’’’’’’除’採’憲’’’’’’’種’動’我們’’’’毀’邦’’
’說’’’’衆國不’’個正式’’’’而僅’’’之間’種’’’’組’’那麽’’爲’’’’’難’’’’由少數’而不’’體’’’’不’’執’心’’’’予’’’嗎?’’’’方’’’反它’’’’說’’’它’’難’不需’’’’體’’’’’’’’解除它嗎?’’
’’’’’’’推’’任’’均不’僅由’’動議’’’’’脫離’邦’有關’方面’’議’’’’’’’都’’’’’對’任’’’’數’境內反抗’國’’’暴動’應’據情’’’’’爲’亂還’革’’
’’’我’爲’照憲’’’’’’邦’不’分裂’’我’盡我’’’務’’邦’’’’有’’’’’實’徹’’’憲’本身’文’’’成我’樣做’’我’爲’樣做僅’我本身’’種’任’而’我’’’’’’圍內’’’’’任’除’我’’’’’’’’國’民’’止’用’’必’’手’’’’’’’種’’’方式’’’’反’’示’我’’’種說’應該不’’’爲’’種’’’而’’把它’’’’邦’’’’’’目標’’它’’照憲’’’’維繫’身’
’’樣做’’必須’有’’’暴’’生’而’’’不’’’’國’’’’’’’’’有’’都不’’’賦予我’’’’用’’’’’領’’握屬’’’’’産’’’’’’集’收’關’’’’’’’爲’’’’目標’必需’手’’’不’’’犯任’’方’’民’不’’用’’反對任’’方’’民’’’任’’方’’民中’用’’’’
據說’’個’那個’區裏’有’’’’方百’’’圖’毀’邦’’’不惜’用’切藉’’’’目’不’’對’’我不’’’’不給予’’’’’’情’’’’’我’須對’幫’’辭’’’’對’那’’正熱’’邦’’們’我難’’夠’’不言嗎?
’’情還’’重’’’我們’國’組織’’’它’’切’’’’部歷’’’有’望之’’把我們’樣做’’圖準’’’’楚’難’不’’智’嗎?’’’們’躲避’’難’’實際’’不’’’’’種情’’’’們難’還’’而走’嗎?’’’’’’’’’難比’們’’避’’有實際’’難’爲’重’難’’們還’’’’難’鑄成’’’錯’嗎?
’’憲’’’’’切’’’夠’’維’’’’’都’’身’’邦而’’滿足’’那麽’憲’裏’文’’’’’’竟有’’項’’’’’’?我’爲’有’’
迄今還不曾有’’部’本’’’對’’切實際’’管’中’’’’’任’問’都有’’條款’’’’’有’’’’’見’’生什麽’’’有任’’簡’’’文件’’文’’’條款足’應’’切’’’生’問’’’邦’’’’’交’’’’奴隸嗎?憲’中’有’文’’’國’’’’准’’區’止奴隸’’嗎?憲’裏’有’文’’’國’必須’
準’’區維’奴隸’’嗎’憲’’’有’文’’’
’’’類問’中觸’’我們’切有關憲’’’論’我們’把’論’分爲’數’’少數’’’’少數’不’支援’’’’數’’必須支援’’’’’’必須停止’’’’’’替’辦’’’有’’’’’’’續’’’’’必須’有’方’支援’’’種情’’’’’有’個少數’不支援’’而’脫離’邦’那麽’們’’’’個’’’’必’’導’’們內部分裂’毀’’們’’爲’們’’內部’’數’’’’種少數’控’’’’個少數’’’脫離’們’’’’說’正’目’’邦中’’’’’’脫離’邦那樣’’’’’’部’邦’中’’部分難’’不’’橫’’’脫離嗎?’切’心’分裂’’們目’’接’’正’’種’’’
’’’’組成’’邦’’之間’難’’’’有完’’’’’’’足’’’’’睦’’’’避’重’分裂嗎?
顯’’脫離’邦’’心’’正’’’’’’’實質’’’’個’憲’’’’’’’’’’’’’’順應公衆輿論’公衆’情’’’’變化而變化’’數’’’’’由’民唯’’正’’’’’誰’’它’誰’必’走’’’’’’’’完’’’’不’’’’少數’’統’’’爲’項永’’’’排’’完’不’接’’’’’’’’’’’數原’’剩’’’僅有’種’式’’’’’’’’’而’’’
我國有’部分’’’奴隸’’對’’應當予’’續’而’’’部分’’’’它’錯’’不應予’’續’’’唯’’實質’’執’’
’’’環境’說’我們’’’分離’’我們不’把’’區’’’’’’’’’’’不’’它們之間’’不’’’’’牆’夫’’’離’’’’’’不’見’’’’找’對方’’’’我國’不’’區之間不’’麽做’它們不’不面面’對’’’’’’不管’友’’還’敵對’’’情’’’’’它們之間’續’’’那麽’分裂’’’’有’’’’’’’比’’’有’’’’’’滿’’?’’’簽’’比’’友’’’’’’’嗎?條’’異邦’之間’比’’’’友之間’’’’實’執’嗎?假’’們’打’’’們’不’’’打’’’’雙方都傷’’重’誰’’有收穫之’’’們停止’戰’’關’交’條件’’’’’’完’’’’老問’’’’’’們面’’’
爲什麽不’滿’’心’’心等’’民’最終裁’’?難’還有’’’’’’’’匹’’望嗎?’我們目’’分’中’難’雙方都’有’心’爲’’’’’正’’’邊嗎?’’’’永恒’’’正’’’’’’’’’們’方’邊’’’’’們’方’邊’那麽’’’國’民’個’’’’裁’’’’’正’’’普照天’’
’管’我們’’’’組織結’’’’’’’’民’有給’們’公僕’少’’’’’’而’’們還’’樣’智’爲’’期內’那’’’’’收’’’們’’手中’’準備’’’’民’’’們’’’’警惕’任’’’管’’Ⅸ’不管’們’’麽邪’’’麽’蠢’都不’’’’’’’內給’個’’’成’重傷’’
’’們’’們’個’都應’’’’’’考’整個問’’’’’間’不’’任’有價值’’’’’’失’’’’’有’件’’’’’們之中任’’個’’’’’’’採’’個’們’’’’著’情’’’’不’採’’’’’那麽’’’間’’考’’’’敗’’’’任’’’’’’不’’爲’’樣做而’’’敗’’’’像’們’’都心’不滿’’’們還有’部未’’’’老憲’’’’’敏’問’’’’們還有’們’’’據憲’’’’’’’’’’而’’’’當局’’’’’’有改變憲’’’’’’’’接’’’’算’’公’’們’’心’不滿’’’’’’執’正’’邊’那’’有任’’足’’由’採’’’’’動’’我們’’’’智’’國精’’基督教’仰’及對’今’未據棄’’’’’’’’’’’’’’堅’’賴’我們還’有足夠’’’用最’’方’’解’我們目’’’’’’切’難’
’’心’不滿’’’們’內戰’’重’問’’不繫’我’手裏’而繫’’們’手裏’’’不’攻擊’們’’’’們’’不當’略’’’們’不’’’衝’’’們’有對天’’’’毀’’’’我們’’立’最莊’’’言’“’’’’’’’衛它”’
我’不’結’我’’講’我們不’敵’’我們之間’情’’’’’’’情緒’動而’緊’’’不’折’’那’’’不’’議’’憶之’’’’個戰場’’國志’’’墓’’’’’’遼闊’’’’’顆’滿’’’心’’’’個’’’’’我們本’中’善’’’’而’’’’’’’撥動’它們終’重’’’’’’’邦’’曲’
First Inaugural Address
. . . 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....
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 a contract, 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? . . .
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 United States
are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circum stances.
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 I shall 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. ...
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. . .
.
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. . . .
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. ...
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. . . .
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 fellows-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.
’
’ |