第一篇：林肯就職演說

林肯的就職演講稿(中英文版)

2007年07月15日 星期日 下午 12:10The Gettysburg Address

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

November 19, 186

3Fourscore and seven years ago,our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation,conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are egaged in a great civil war,testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and dedicated can long endure.We are met on the battelfield of that war.We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final-resting place for those who gave their lives that the nation might live.It is altogether 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,have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract.The world will little note what we say here,but it can never forget what they did here.It is for us,the living,rather to be dedicated to the great task remaining before us,that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion,that the nation shall have a new birth of freedom,that the goverment of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.主講：亞伯拉罕·林肯

時間：1863年11月19日

地點：美國，賓夕法尼亞，葛底斯堡

八十七年前，我們先輩在這個大陸上創(chuàng)立了一個新國家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生來平等的原則。

我們正從事一場偉大的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)，以考驗這個國家，或者任何一個孕育于自由和奉行上述原則的國家是否能夠長久存在下去。我們在這場戰(zhàn)爭中的一個偉大戰(zhàn)場上集會。烈士們?yōu)槭惯@個國家能夠生存下去而獻(xiàn)出了自己的生命，我們來到這里，是要把這個戰(zhàn)場的一部分奉獻(xiàn)給他們作為最后安息之所。我們這樣做是完全應(yīng)該而且非常恰當(dāng)?shù)摹?/p>

但是，從更廣泛的意義上說，這塊土地我們不能夠奉獻(xiàn)，不能夠圣化，不能夠神化。那些曾在這里戰(zhàn)斗過的勇士們，活著的和去世的，已經(jīng)把這塊土地圣化了，這遠(yuǎn)不是我們微薄的力量所能增減的。我們今天在這里所說的話，全世界不大會注意，也不會長久地記住，但勇士們在這里所做過的事，全世界卻永遠(yuǎn)不會忘記。毋寧說，倒是我們這些還活著的人，應(yīng)該在這里把自己奉獻(xiàn)于勇士們已經(jīng)如此崇高地向前推進(jìn)但尚未完成的事業(yè)。倒是我們應(yīng)該在這里把自已奉獻(xiàn)于仍然留在我們面前的偉大任務(wù)——我們要從這些光榮的死者身上吸取更多的獻(xiàn)身精神，來完成他們已經(jīng)完全徹底為之獻(xiàn)身的事業(yè)；我們要在這里下定最大的決心，不讓這些死者白白犧牲；我們要使國家在上帝福佑下自由的新生，要使這個民有、民治、民享的政府永世長存。

第二篇：完整的林肯就職演說

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.永久聯(lián)邦與總統(tǒng)權(quán)力 亞伯拉罕-林肯 第一次就職演講

星期一,1861年3月4日

我今天正式宣誓時，并沒有保留意見，也無意以任何苛刻的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來解釋憲法和法律，盡管我不想具體指明國會通過的哪些法案是適合施行的?但我確實要建議，所有的人，不論處于官方還是私人的地位，都得遵守那些未被廢止的法令，這比泰然自若地認(rèn)為其中某個法案是違背憲法的而去觸犯它，要穩(wěn)當(dāng)?shù)枚唷?/p>

自從第一任總統(tǒng)根據(jù)我國憲法就職以來已經(jīng)72年了。在此期間，有15位十分杰出的公民相繼主持了政府的行政部門。他們在許多艱難險阻中履行職責(zé)，大致說來都很成功。然而，雖有這樣的先例，我現(xiàn)在開始擔(dān)任這個按憲法規(guī)定任期只有短暫4年的同一職務(wù)時，卻處 17

在巨大而特殊的困難之下。聯(lián)邦的分裂，在此以前只是一種威脅，現(xiàn)在卻已成為可怕的行動。

從一般法律和憲法角度來考慮，我認(rèn)為由各州組成的聯(lián)邦是永久性的。在合國政府的根本法中，永久性即使沒有明確規(guī)定，也是不盲而喻的。我們有把握說，從來沒有哪個正規(guī)政府在自己的組織法中列入一項要結(jié)束自己執(zhí)政的條款。繼續(xù)執(zhí)行我國憲法明文規(guī)定的條款，聯(lián)邦就將永遠(yuǎn)存在，毀滅聯(lián)邦是辦不到的，除非采取憲法本身未予規(guī)定的某種行動。再者：假如合眾國不是名副其實的政府，而只是具有契約性質(zhì)的各州的聯(lián)盟，那么，作為一種契約，這個聯(lián)盟能夠毫無爭議地由緯約各方中的少數(shù)加以取消嗎？締約的一方可以違約——也可以說毀約——但是，合法地廢止契約難道不需要締約各方全都同意嗎？從這些一般原則在下推，我們認(rèn)為，從法律上來說，聯(lián)邦是永久性的這一主張已經(jīng)為聯(lián)邦本身的歷史所證實。聯(lián)邦的歷史比憲法長久得多。事實上，它在1774年就根據(jù)《聯(lián)合條款》組成了。1776年，《獨立宣言》使它臻子成熟并持續(xù)下來。1778年《邦聯(lián)條款》使聯(lián)邦愈趨成熟，當(dāng)時的13個州都信誓旦旦地明確保證聯(lián)邦應(yīng)該永存，最后，1787年制定憲法時所宣市的日標(biāo)之一就是“建設(shè)更完善的聯(lián)邦”。

但是，如果聯(lián)邦竟能由一個州或幾個州按照法律加以取消的話，那么聯(lián)邦就不如制憲前完善了，因為它喪失了永久性這個重要因素。

根據(jù)這些觀點，任何一個州都不能只憑自己的動儀就能合法地脫離聯(lián)邦；凡為此目的而作出的決議和法令在法律上都是無效的，任何一個州或幾個州反對合眾國當(dāng)局的暴力行動都應(yīng)根據(jù)憎況視為叛亂或革命。因此，我認(rèn)為，根據(jù)憲法和法律，聯(lián)邦是不容分裂的；我將按憲法本身明確授予我的權(quán)限，就自己能力所及，使聯(lián)邦法律得以在各州忠實執(zhí)行。我認(rèn)為這僅僅是我份內(nèi)的職責(zé)，我將以可行的方法去完成，除非我的合法主人——美國人民，不給予我必要的手段，或以權(quán)威的方式作出相反的指示，我相信大家下會把這看作是一種威脅，而只看作是聯(lián)邦已宣布過的目標(biāo)：它將按照憲法保衛(wèi)和維護(hù)它自身。

以自然條件而言，我們是不能分開的，我們無法把各個地區(qū)彼此挪開，也無法在彼此之間筑起一堵無法逾越的墻垣。夫妻可以離婚，不再見面，互不接觸，但是我們國家的各個地區(qū)就不可能那樣做。它們?nèi)缘妹鎸γ娴叵嗵?，它們之間還得有或者友好或者敵對的交往。那么，分開之后的交往是否可能比分開之前更有好處，更令人滿意呢？外人之間訂立條約難道還比朋友之間制定法律容易嗎？外人之間執(zhí)行條約難道還比朋友之間執(zhí)行法律忠實嗎？假定你們進(jìn)行戰(zhàn)爭?你們不可能永遠(yuǎn)打下去；在雙方損失慘重，任何一方都得不到好處之后，你們就會停止戰(zhàn)斗，那時你們還會遇到諸如交往條件之類的老問題。

總統(tǒng)的一切權(quán)力來自人民，但人民沒有授權(quán)給他為各州的分離規(guī)定條件。如果人民有此意愿，那他們可以這樣做，而作為總統(tǒng)來說，19

則不可能這樣做。他的責(zé)任是管理交給他的這一屆政府，井將它完整地移交給他的繼任者。

為什么我們不能對人民所具有的最高的公正抱有堅韌的信念呢？世界上還有比這更好或一樣好的希望嗎？在我何日前的分歧中，難道雙方都缺乏相信自己正確的信心嗎？如果萬國全能的主宰以其永恒的真理和正義支持你北方這一邊，或者支持你南方這一邊，那么，那種真理和那種正義必將通過美國人民這個偉大法庭的裁決而取得勝利。

就是這些美國人民，通過我們現(xiàn)有的政府結(jié)構(gòu)，明智地只給他們的公仆很小的權(quán)力，使他們不能力害作惡，并且同樣明智地每隔很短的時間就把那小小的權(quán)力收回到自己手中。只要人民保持其力量和警惕，無論怎樣作惡和愚蠢的執(zhí)政人員都不能在短短4年的任期內(nèi)十分嚴(yán)重地?fù)p害政府。我的同胞們，大家平靜而認(rèn)真地思考整個這一問題吧。任何寶貴的東西都下會因為從容對待而喪失，假使有一個目標(biāo)火急地催促你們中隨便哪一位采取一個措施，而你決不能不慌不忙，那么那個目標(biāo)會因從容對待而落空；但是，任何好的目標(biāo)是不會因為從容對待而落空的，你們現(xiàn)在感到不滿意的人仍然有著原來的、完好元損的憲法，而且，在敏感問題上，你們有著自己根據(jù)這部憲法制定的各項法律；而新的一屆政府即使想改變這兩種情況，也沒有直接的權(quán)力那樣做。那些不滿意的人在這場爭論中即使被承認(rèn)是站在正確的一邊，也沒有一點正當(dāng)理由采取魯莽的行動。理智、愛國精神、基行教 20

義以及對從不拋棄這片幸福土地的上帝的信仰，這些仍然能以最好的方式來解決我們目前的一切困難。不滿意的同胞們，內(nèi)戰(zhàn)這個重大問題的關(guān)鍵掌握在你們手中，而不掌握在我手中，政府不會對你們發(fā)動攻擊。你們不當(dāng)挑釁者，就下會面臨沖突。你們沒有對天發(fā)誓要毀滅政府，而我卻要立下最莊嚴(yán)的誓言：“堅守、維護(hù)和捍衛(wèi)合眾國憲法?！蔽也辉敢饩痛私Y(jié)束演說。我們不是敵人，而是朋友。我們一定不要成為敵人。盡管情緒緊張，也決不應(yīng)割斷我們之間的感情紐帶。記憶的神秘琴弦，從每一個戰(zhàn)場和愛國志上的墳?zāi)股煜蜻@片廣闊土地上的每一顆跳動的心和家庭，必將再度被我們善良的夭性所撥響，那時就會高奏起聯(lián)邦大團(tuán)結(jié)的樂章。

第三篇：林肯總統(tǒng)就職演說

林肯總統(tǒng)第一次就職演說(1861年3月4日)

林肯

[學(xué)術(shù)交流網(wǎng)按：林肯是美國人民和政治家推崇的偉大人物之一，他的維護(hù)國家同意，反對分裂的主張，反對擴(kuò)張奴隸制的主張尤其受到廣泛贊揚。自2005年3月1日起發(fā)布林肯總統(tǒng)有關(guān)維護(hù)國家統(tǒng)一、反對分裂的演說、信件、咨文的內(nèi)容。] 合眾國的同胞們： 1861年3月4日

按照一個和我們的政府一樣古老的習(xí)慣，我現(xiàn)在來到諸位的面前，簡單地講幾句話，并在你們的面前，遵照合眾國憲法規(guī)定一個總統(tǒng)在他“到職視事之前”必須宣誓的儀式，在大家面前宣誓。

我認(rèn)為沒有必要在這里來討論并不特別令人憂慮和不安的行政方面的問題。

在南方各州人民中似乎存在著一種恐懼心理。他們認(rèn)為，隨著共和黨政府的執(zhí)政，他們的財產(chǎn)，他們的和平生活和人身安全都將遭到危險。這種恐懼是從來沒有任何事實根據(jù)的。說實在的，大量相反的證據(jù)倒是一直存在，并隨時可以供他們檢查的。那種證據(jù)幾乎在現(xiàn)在對你們講話的這個人公開發(fā)表的每一篇演說中都能找到。這里我只想引用其中的一篇，在那篇演說中我曾說，“我完全無意，對已經(jīng)存在奴隸制的各州的這一制度，進(jìn)行直接或間接的干涉。我深信我根本沒有合法權(quán)利那樣做，而且我無此意圖?！蹦切┨崦也⑦x舉我的人都完全知道，我曾明確這么講過，并且還講過許多類似的話，而且從來也沒有收回過我已講過的這些話。不僅如此，他們還在綱領(lǐng)中，寫進(jìn)了對他們和對我來說，都具有法律效力的一項清楚明白、不容含糊的決議讓我接受。這里我來對大家談?wù)勥@一決議：

“決議，保持各州的各種權(quán)利不受侵犯，特別是各州完全憑自己的決斷來安排和控制本州內(nèi)部各種制度的權(quán)利不受侵犯，乃是我們的政治結(jié)構(gòu)賴以完善和得以持久的權(quán)力均衡的至為重要的因素；我們譴責(zé)使用武裝力量非法入侵任何一個州或準(zhǔn)州的土地，這種入侵不論使用什么借口，都是最嚴(yán)重的罪行?！?/p>

我現(xiàn)在重申這些觀點：而在這樣做的時候，我只想提請公眾注意，最能對這一點提出確切證據(jù)的那就是全國任何一個地方的財產(chǎn)、和平生活和人身安全決不會在任何情況下，由于即將上任的政府而遭到危險。這里我還要補充說，各州只要符合憲法和法律規(guī)定，合法地提出保護(hù)要求，政府便一定會樂于給予保護(hù),不管是出于什么原因一一而且對任何一個地方都一視同仁。

有一個爭論得很多的問題是，關(guān)于逃避服務(wù)或引渡從勞役中逃走的人的問題。我現(xiàn)在要宣讀的條文，也和任何有關(guān)其它問題的條款一樣，明明白白寫在憲法之中：

“凡根據(jù)一個州的法律應(yīng)在該州于服務(wù)或從事勞役的人，如逃到另一州，一律不得按照這一州的法律或條例，使其解除該項服務(wù)或勞役，而必，須按照有權(quán)享有該項服務(wù)或勞役當(dāng)事人的要求，將其引渡?！?/p>

毫無疑問，按照制訂這一條款的人的意圖，此項規(guī)定實際指的就是，對我們所說的逃亡奴隸有權(quán)索回；而法律制訂人的這一意圖實際已成為法律。國會的所有議員都曾宣誓遵守憲法中的一切條款——對這一條和其它各條并無兩樣。因此，關(guān)于適合這一條款規(guī)定的奴隸應(yīng) 1 “將其引渡”這一點，他們的誓言是完全一致的。那么現(xiàn)在如果他們心平氣和地作一番努力，他們難道不能以幾乎同樣完全一致的誓言，制訂一項法律，以使他們的共同誓言得以實施嗎? 究竟這一條款應(yīng)該由國家當(dāng)局，還是由州當(dāng)局來執(zhí)行，大家的意見還不完全一致；但可以肯定地說，這種分歧并不是什么十分重要的問題。只要奴隸能被交還，那究竟由哪一個當(dāng)局來交還，對奴隸或?qū)e的人來說，沒有什么關(guān)系。任何人，在任何情況下，也決不會因為應(yīng)以何種方式來實?，F(xiàn)他的誓言這樣一個無關(guān)緊要的爭執(zhí)，他便會認(rèn)為完全可以不遵守自己的誓言吧? 另外，在任何有關(guān)這一問題的法律中，應(yīng)不應(yīng)該把文明和人道法學(xué)中關(guān)于自由的各項保證都寫上，以防止在任何情況下使一個自由人被作為奴隸交出嗎?同時，憲法中還有一條規(guī)定，明確保證“每一州的公民都享有其它各州公民所享有公民的一切特權(quán)和豁免權(quán)”，我們用法律保證使這一條文得以執(zhí)行，那不是更好嗎? 我今天在這里正式宣誓，思想上決無任何保留，也決無意以任何過于挑剔的標(biāo)準(zhǔn)來解釋憲法或法律條文。我現(xiàn)在雖不打算詳細(xì)指出國會的哪些法令必須要遵照執(zhí)行；但我建議，我們大家，不論以個人身份還是以公職人員的身份，為了有更多的安全，我們最好服從并遵守現(xiàn)在還沒有廢除的一切法令，而不要輕易相信可以指之為不合憲法，便可以逃脫罪責(zé)，而對它們公然違反。

自從第一任總統(tǒng)根據(jù)國家憲法宣誓就職以來，七十二年已經(jīng)過去了。在這期間，十五位十分杰出的公民相繼主持過政府的行政部門。他們引導(dǎo)著它度過了許多艱難險阻；一般都獲得極大的成功。然而，盡管有這么多可供參考的先例，我現(xiàn)在將在憲法所規(guī)定的短短四年任期中來擔(dān)任這同一任務(wù)，卻．面臨著巨大的非同一般的困難。在此以前，分裂聯(lián)邦只是受到了威脅，而現(xiàn)在卻是已出現(xiàn)力圖分裂它的可怕行動了。

從一般法律和我們的憲法來仔細(xì)考慮，我堅信，我們各州組成的聯(lián)邦是永久性的。在一切國民政府的根本大法中永久性這一點，雖不一定寫明，卻是不言而喻的。我們完全可以肯定說，沒有一個名副其實的政府會在自己的根本法中定出一條，規(guī)定自己完結(jié)的期限。繼續(xù)執(zhí)行我國憲法所明文規(guī)定的各項條文，聯(lián)邦便將永遠(yuǎn)存在下去——除了采取并未見之于憲法的行動，誰也不可能毀滅掉聯(lián)邦。

還有，就算合眾國并不是個名副其實的政府，而只是依靠契約成立的一個各州的聯(lián)合體，那既有契約的約束，若非參加這一契約的各方一致同意，我們能說取消就把它取消嗎?參加訂立契約的一方可以違約，或者說毀約；但如果合法地取消這一契約，豈能不需要大家一致同意嗎? 從這些總原則出發(fā)，我們發(fā)現(xiàn)，從法學(xué)觀點來看，聯(lián)邦具有永久性質(zhì)的提法，是為聯(lián)邦自身的歷史所證實的。聯(lián)邦本身比憲法更為早得多。事實上，它是由1774年，簽訂的《聯(lián)合條款》建立的。到1776年的《獨立宣言》才使它進(jìn)一步成熟和延續(xù)下來。然后，通過1778年的“邦聯(lián)條款”使它更臻成熟，當(dāng)時參加的十三個州便已明確保證要使邦聯(lián)永久存在下去。最后，到1787年制訂的憲法公開宣布的目的之一，便是“組建一個更為完美的聯(lián)邦”。但是，如果任何一個州，或幾個州也可以合法地把聯(lián)邦給取消掉，加這個聯(lián)邦可是比它在憲法制訂以前還更不完美了，因為它已失去了它的一個至關(guān)重要因素——永久性。從這些觀點我們可以認(rèn)定，任何一個州，都不可能僅憑自己動議，便能合法地退出聯(lián)邦——而任何以此為目的的決議和法令在法律上都是無效的；至于任何一州或幾州的反對合眾國當(dāng)

局的暴力行為，都可以依據(jù)具體情況視為叛亂或革命行為。

因此我認(rèn)為,從憲法和法律的角度來看，聯(lián)邦是不容分裂的；我也將竭盡全力，按照憲法明確賦于我的責(zé)任，堅決負(fù)責(zé)讓聯(lián)邦的一切法令在所有各州得以貫徹執(zhí)行。這樣做，我認(rèn)為只是履行我應(yīng)負(fù)的簡單職責(zé)；只要是可行的，我就一定要履行它，除非我的合法的主人美國人民，收回賦予我的不可缺少的工具，或行使他們的權(quán)威，命令我采取相反的行動。我相信我這話決不會被看成是一種恫嚇，而只會被看作實現(xiàn)聯(lián)邦已公開宣布的目的，它必將按照憲法保衛(wèi)和維持它自己的存在。

要做到這一點并不需要流血或使用暴力，除非有人把它強。加于國家當(dāng)局，否則便決不會發(fā)生那種情況。賦予我的權(quán)力將被用來保持、占有和掌管屬于政府的一切財產(chǎn)和土地。征收各種稅款和關(guān)稅；但除開為了這些目的確有必要這外，決不會有什么入侵問題——決不會在任何地方對人民，或在人民之間使用武力。任何內(nèi)地，即使對聯(lián)邦政府的敵對情緒已十分嚴(yán)重和普遍，以致妨害有能力的當(dāng)?shù)毓駡?zhí)行聯(lián)邦職務(wù)的時候，政府也決不會強制派進(jìn)令人厭惡的外來人去擔(dān)任這些職務(wù)。盡管按嚴(yán)格的法律規(guī)定，政府有權(quán)強制履行這些職責(zé)，但一定要那樣做，必然非常使人不愉快，也幾乎不切實際，所以我認(rèn)為最好還是暫時先把這些職責(zé)放一放。

郵政，除非遭到拒收，仍將在聯(lián)邦全境運作。在可能的情況下，一定要讓各地人民，都享有完善的安全感，這十分有利于冷靜思索和反思。我在這里所講的這些方針必將奉行，除非當(dāng)前事態(tài)和實際經(jīng)驗表明修改或改變方針是合適的。對任何一個事件和緊急問題，我一定會根據(jù)當(dāng)時出現(xiàn)的具體形勢謹(jǐn)慎從事，期望以和平手段解決國內(nèi)糾紛，力圖恢復(fù)兄弟愛手足情。

至于說某些地方總有些人不顧一切一心想破壞聯(lián)邦，并不惜以任何借口圖謀不軌，我不打算肯定或否定；如果確有這樣一些人，我不必要再對他們講什么。但對那些真正熱愛聯(lián)邦的人,我不可以講幾句嗎? 在我們著手研究如此嚴(yán)重的一件事情之前，那就是要把我們的國家組織連同它的一切利益，一切記憶和一切希望全給消滅掉，難道明智的做法不是先仔細(xì)研究一下那樣做究竟是為了什么?當(dāng)事實上極有可能你企圖逃避的禍害并不存在的時候，你還會不顧一切采取那種貽害無窮的步驟嗎?或者你要逃避的災(zāi)禍雖確實存在，而在你逃往的地方卻有更大的災(zāi)禍在等著你；那你會往那里逃嗎?你會冒險犯下如此可怕的一個錯誤嗎? 大家都說，如果憲法中所規(guī)定的一切權(quán)利都確實得到執(zhí)行，那他也就會留在聯(lián)邦里。那么，真有什么如憲法申明文規(guī)定的權(quán)利被否定了嗎?我想沒有。很幸運，人的頭腦是這樣構(gòu)造出來的，沒有一個黨敢于如此冒天下之大不韙。如果可能，請你們講出哪怕是一個例子來，說明有什么憲法中明文規(guī)定的條款是沒有得到執(zhí)行的。如果多數(shù)派完全靠人數(shù)上的優(yōu)勢，剝奪掉少數(shù)派憲法上明文規(guī)定的權(quán)利，這件事從道義的角度來看，也許可以說革命是正當(dāng)?shù)摹绻粍儕Z的是極為重要的權(quán)利，那革命就肯定無疑是合理行動。但我們的情況卻并非如此。少數(shù)派和個人的一切重要權(quán)利，在憲法中，通過肯定和否定、保證和禁令；都一一向他們作了明確保證,以致關(guān)于這類問題，從來也沒有引起過爭論。但是，在制訂基本法時卻不可能對實際工作中出現(xiàn)的任何問題，都一一寫下可以立即加以應(yīng)用的條文。再高明的預(yù)見也不可能料定未來的一切，任何長度適當(dāng)?shù)奈募膊豢赡馨菹箩槍σ磺锌赡馨l(fā)生的問題的條文。逃避勞役的人到底應(yīng)該由聯(lián)邦政府交還還是由州政府交還呢?憲法上沒有具體規(guī)定。國會可以在準(zhǔn)州禁止奴隸制嗎?憲法沒有具體規(guī)定。國會必須保護(hù)準(zhǔn)州的奴隸制嗎?憲法也沒有具體規(guī)定。

從這類問題中引出了我們對憲法問題的爭端，并因這類問題使我們分成了多數(shù)派和少數(shù)派。如果少數(shù)派不肯默認(rèn)，多數(shù)派便必須默認(rèn)，否則政府便只好停止工作了。再沒有任何別的路可走；要讓政府繼續(xù)行使職權(quán)，便必須要這一方或那一方默認(rèn)。在這種情況下，如果一 個少數(shù)派寧可脫離也決不默認(rèn)，那他們也就開創(chuàng)將來必會使他們分裂和毀滅的先例；因為，當(dāng)多數(shù)派拒絕接受這樣一個少數(shù)派的控制的時候，他們中的少數(shù)派便必會從他們之中再脫離出去。比如說，一個新的聯(lián)盟的任何一部分，在一兩年之后，為什么就不會像現(xiàn)在的聯(lián)邦中的一些部分堅決要脫離出去一樣，執(zhí)意要從從那個新聯(lián)盟中脫離出去。所有懷著分裂聯(lián)邦思想的人現(xiàn)在都正接受著分裂思想的教育。難道要組成一個新聯(lián)邦的州，它們的利益竟會是那樣完全一致，它們只會有和諧，而不會再出現(xiàn)脫離行動嗎? 非常清楚，脫離的中心思想實質(zhì)就是無政府主義。一個受著憲法的檢查和限制的約束，總是隨著大眾意見和情緒的慎重變化而及時改變的多數(shù)派，是自由人民的唯一真正的統(tǒng)治者。誰要想排斥他們，便必然走向無政府主義或?qū)Ｖ浦髁x。完全一致是根本不可能的；把少數(shù)派的統(tǒng)治作為一種長期安排是完全不能接受的，所以，一旦排斥了多數(shù)原則，剩下的便只有某種形式的無政府主義或某專制主義了。

我沒有忘記某些人的說法，認(rèn)為憲法問題應(yīng)該由最高法院來裁決。我也不否認(rèn)這種裁決，在任何情況下，對訴訟各萬，以及訴訟目的，完全具有約束力，而且在類似的情況中，—應(yīng)受到政府的一切其它部門高度的尊重和重視。盡管非常明顯，這類裁決在某一特定案例中都很可能會是錯誤的，然而，這樣隨之而來的惡果總只限于該特定案件，同時裁決還有機會被駁回，不致成為以后判案的先例，那這種過失比起其它的過失來當(dāng)然更讓人容易忍受。同時，正直的公民必須承認(rèn)，如果政府在有關(guān)全體人民利害的重大問題的政策，都得由最高法院的裁決，作出決定那一旦對個人之間的一般訴訟作出裁決時，人民便已不再是自己的主人，而達(dá)到了將他們的政府交給那個高于一切的法庭的地步了。我這樣說，決無意對法院或法官表示不滿。一件案子按正常程序送到他們面前，對它作出正當(dāng)裁決，是他們的不可推卸的責(zé)任；如果別的人硬要把他們的判決用來達(dá)到政治目的，那并不是他們的過錯。

我國有一部分人相信奴隸制是正確的。應(yīng)該擴(kuò)展，而另一部分人又相信它是錯誤的，不應(yīng)該擴(kuò)展。這是唯一的實質(zhì)性的爭執(zhí)，憲法中有關(guān)逃亡奴隸的條款，以及制止對外奴隸貿(mào)易的法

律，在一個人民的道德觀念并不支持該法的，社會里，它們的執(zhí)行情況也許不次于任何一項法律所能達(dá)到的程度。在兩種情況下，絕大多數(shù)的人都遵守枯燥乏味的法律義務(wù)，但又都有少數(shù)人不聽那一套。關(guān)于這一點，我想，要徹底解決是根本不可能的；如果寸巴兩個地區(qū)分離。以后，情況只會更壞。對外奴隸貿(mào)易現(xiàn)在并未能完全加以禁止，最后在一個地區(qū)中必將全面恢復(fù)；對于逃亡奴隸，在另一個地區(qū)，現(xiàn)在送回的只是一部分，將來會完全不肯交出來了。

就自然條件而言，我們是不能分離的。我們決不能把我們的各個地區(qū)相互搬開，也不可能在它們之間修建起一道無法逾越的高墻。一對夫妻可以離婚，各走各的路，彼此再不見面。但我們國家的各部分可無法這么辦。它們只能面對面相處，友好也罷。仇視也罷，他們?nèi)员仨毐舜私煌Ｎ覀兙S道能有任何辦法使得這種交往在分離之后，比分離：之前更為有利，更為令，人滿意嗎?難道在外人之間訂立條約，比在朋友之間制訂法律還更為容易嗎?難道在外人之間履行條約，比在朋友之間按法律辦事還更忠實嗎?就算你們決定。訴諸戰(zhàn)爭，你們，總不能永遠(yuǎn)打下去吧；最后當(dāng)兩敗俱傷而雙方都一無所獲時，你們停止戰(zhàn)斗，那時依照什么條件相互交往，這同一個老問題仍會照樣擺在你們面前了。

這個國家，連同它的各種機構(gòu)，都屬于居住在這里的人民。任何時候，他們對現(xiàn)存政府感到厭倦了，他們可以行使他們的憲法權(quán)利，改革這個政府，或者行使他們的革命權(quán)利解散它或者推翻它。我當(dāng)然知道，現(xiàn)在就有許多尊貴的、愛國的公民極于想修訂我們的憲法。盡管我自己不會那么建議，我卻也完全承認(rèn)他們在這個問題上的合法權(quán)利，承認(rèn)他們可以按照憲法所規(guī)定的兩種方式中的任何一種來行使這種權(quán)利；而且，在目前情況下，我不但不反對，而倒是贊成給人民一個公正的機會讓他們?nèi)バ袆印?/p>

我還不禁要補充一點，在我看來，采取舉行會議的方式似乎更好一些，這樣可以使修訂方案完全由人民自己提出，而不是只讓他們?nèi)ソ邮芑蚓芙^一些并非特別為此目的而選出的一些人提出的方案，因為也可能那些方案恰恰并不是他們愿意接受或拒絕的。我了解到現(xiàn)在已有人提出一項憲法修正案——這修正案我并沒有看到，但在國會中已經(jīng)通過了，大意說，聯(lián)邦政府將永遠(yuǎn)不再干涉各州內(nèi)部制度，包括那些應(yīng)服勞役者的問題。為了使我講的話不致被誤解，我現(xiàn)在改變我不談具體修正案的原來的打算，明確聲明，這樣一個條款，既然現(xiàn)在可能列入憲法，我不反對使它成為明確而不可改動的條文。

合眾國總統(tǒng)的一切權(quán)威都來之于人民，人民并沒有授于他規(guī)定條件讓各州脫離出去的權(quán)力。人民自己如果要那樣干，那自然也是可以的；可是現(xiàn)在的行政當(dāng)局不能這樣做。他的職責(zé)，是按照他接任時的樣子管理這個政府，然后,毫無損傷地再移交給他的繼任者。我們?yōu)槭裁床荒苣托牡貓詻Q相信人民的最終的公道呢?難道在整個世界上還有什么更好的，或與之相等的希望嗎?在我們今天的分歧中，難道雙方不都是認(rèn)為自己正確嗎?如果萬國的全能統(tǒng)治者，以他的永恒的真理和公正，站在你們北方一邊，或你們南方一邊，那么，依照美國人民這一偉大法官的判決，真理和公正必將勝利。

按照目前我們生活其下的現(xiàn)政府的構(gòu)架，我國人民十分明智；授于他們的公仆的胡作非為的權(quán)力是微乎其微的；而且同樣還十分明智地規(guī)定，即使那點微乎其微的權(quán)力，經(jīng)過很短一段時間后，就必須收回到他們自己手中。

由于人民保持他們的純正和警惕，任何行政當(dāng)局，在短短的四年之中，也不可能用極其惡劣或愚蠢的行為對這個政府造成嚴(yán)重的損害。

我的同胞們，請大家對這整個問題平心靜氣地好好想一想，真正有價值的東西是不會因從容從事而喪失的。如果有個什么目標(biāo)使你迫不及待地要取得它，你采取的步驟是在審慎考慮的

情況下不會采取的，那個目標(biāo)的確可能會由于你的從容不迫而達(dá)不到；但一個真正好的自標(biāo)是不會因為從容從事而失去的。你們中現(xiàn)在感到不滿的人，仍然必須遵守原封未動的老憲法，新個敏感的問題上，仍然有根據(jù)憲法制訂的法律；而對此二者，新政府即使想要加以改變，它自身也立即無此權(quán)力。即使承認(rèn)你們那些心懷不滿的人在這一爭執(zhí)中站在正確的一邊，那也絲毫沒有正當(dāng)?shù)睦碛梢扇≠Q(mào)然行動。明智、愛國主義、基督教精神，以及對從未拋棄過這片得天獨厚的土地的上帝的依賴，仍然完全能夠以最理想的方式來解決我們當(dāng)前的一切困難。

決定內(nèi)戰(zhàn)這個重大問題的是你們，我的心懷不滿的同胞們，而并非決定于我。政府決不會攻擊你們。只要你們自己不當(dāng)侵略者，就不會發(fā)生沖突。你們并沒有對天發(fā)誓必須毀滅這個政

府，而我卻曾無比莊嚴(yán)地宣誓，一定要“保持、保護(hù)和保衛(wèi)”這個政府。

我真不想就此結(jié)束我的講話，我們不是敵人，而是朋友。我們決不能成為敵人。盡管目前的情緒有些緊張，但決不能容許它使我們之間的親密情感紐帶破裂。回憶的神秘琴弦，在整個這片遼闊的土地上，從每一個戰(zhàn)場，每一個愛國志士的墳?zāi)?，延伸到每一顆跳動的心和每一個家庭，它有一天會被我們的良知所觸動，再次奏出聯(lián)邦合唱曲。

第二任就職演說Second Inaugural Address

亞伯拉罕．林肯(ABRAHAM LINCOLN)

在這第二任的就職宣誓典禮中，并不需要像第一任就職時那樣發(fā)表長篇演說。那時，對當(dāng)時所要采取的方針政策多少作一些詳細(xì)說明，似乎是適當(dāng)?shù)摹，F(xiàn)在四年任期屆滿，在這期間于戰(zhàn)爭的每個重要時刻和階段──這場戰(zhàn)爭至今仍為舉國所關(guān)注、并且占用了國家的大部分力量──我都經(jīng)常發(fā)布文告，所以現(xiàn)在也提不出什么新的主張。我們的軍事進(jìn)展，是一切其它問題的關(guān)鍵所在，大家對其情形和我一樣明了，而且我相信進(jìn)展的情況可以使我們?nèi)w人民有理由感到滿意和鼓舞。既然將來很有希望，那么我也無須在這方面作什么預(yù)言了。四年前，在與此相同的時刻，所有人的思想都焦慮地集中在一場即將來臨的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)上。誰都害怕內(nèi)戰(zhàn)，都想盡辦法去避免它。當(dāng)我在這個地方作就職演說時，我曾想盡量不訴諸戰(zhàn)爭而保存聯(lián)邦，然而反叛分子的代理人卻設(shè)法在這個城市里以不打仗的方式(推毀聯(lián)邦──他們力圖以談判的方式來瓦解聯(lián)邦，分享財物。雙方都聲稱反對戰(zhàn)爭，可是有一方寧愿打仗而不愿讓國家生存，另一方則寧可接受戰(zhàn)爭而不愿讓國家滅亡，于是戰(zhàn)爭就來臨了。我們?nèi)珖丝诘陌朔种皇呛谂?，他們并不是遍布于全國，而是局部地分布于南方。這些奴隸形成一種特殊而重大的利益。大家都知道這種利益可說是這場戰(zhàn)爭的原因。為了加強、永久保持并擴(kuò)大這種利益，反叛分子會不惜以戰(zhàn)爭來分裂聯(lián)邦，而政府只不過要限制這種利益的地區(qū)擴(kuò)張。當(dāng)初，任何一方都沒有想到戰(zhàn)爭會發(fā)展到目前這么大的范圍，持續(xù)這么長的時問，也沒有料到?jīng)_突的原因會隨沖突本身終止而終止，甚至?xí)跊_突本身終止以前而終止。雙方都在尋求一個較輕易的勝利，都不期盼有什么帶根本性的或驚人的結(jié)果。雙方都誦讀同樣的圣經(jīng)，向同一個上帝祈禱，甚至每一方都祈求同一個上帝的幫助以反對另一方。人們竟敢要求公正的上帝來幫助他們奪取他人以血汗換來的面包，這看來似乎很奇怪?？墒?，我們還是別評判人家，以免別人來評判我們。雙方的祈禱都無法如愿，而且從沒全部如愿以償。萬能的上帝自有他自己的意旨：“世界由于罪惡而受苦難，因為世界總是有罪惡的，然而那個作惡的人，要受苦難。”假如我們認(rèn)為美國的奴隸制是這種罪惡之一，而這些罪惡按上帝的意志又在所不免，但既經(jīng)持續(xù)了他所指定的一段時間，他現(xiàn)在便要消除這些罪惡。假如我們認(rèn)為上帝把這場慘烈的戰(zhàn)爭加在南北雙方的頭上，作為對那些作惡的人的責(zé)罰，難道我們可以由此認(rèn)為這有悖于虔奉上帝的信徒們所歸諸上帝的那些圣德嗎?我們殷切地希塑，熱忱地祈禱，但愿這戰(zhàn)爭的重罰會很快過去?？墒牵偈股系垡寫?zhàn)爭再繼續(xù)下去，直到二百五十年來奴隸無償勞動所積聚的財富化為烏有，并像三千年前人們所說的那樣，直至被鞭苔所流的每一滴血為刀劍下流的每一滴血所償付為止，那么，我也只好說：“主的裁判是完全正確而公道的?！?/p>

我們對任何人都不懷惡意，我們對任何人都抱好感。上帝讓我們看到哪一邊是正確的，我們就堅信那正確的一邊。讓我們繼續(xù)奮斗，以完成我們正在進(jìn)行的工作，去治療國家的創(chuàng)傷，去照顧艱苦作戰(zhàn)的戰(zhàn)士和他們的遺孀遺孤，盡一切努力實現(xiàn)并維護(hù)我們自己之間以及我國與他國之間的公正和持久的和平。

蓋茲堡獻(xiàn)儀演說－－亞.林肯1863年

距進(jìn)八十七年以前，我們的先輩在這個大陸之上曾經(jīng)締造了一個新的國家，這個國家孕育于自由，并以人人生而平等之主張為其奮斗宗旨。目前，我們正在進(jìn)行一場偉大的國內(nèi)戰(zhàn)爭，其結(jié)果必將表明，一個如此孕育與如此奮斗而建成的國家（乃至任何這類的國家），是否能夠運作久長。我們今天集會的地方就是這場戰(zhàn)爭中的偉大戰(zhàn)場，而我們來此則是為向那為國捐生因而國賴以存的烈士英靈，恭行獻(xiàn)土之儀；從中辟地一方，以為他們殮骨歸骸之所。我們這樣做乃是完全必要，完全恰當(dāng)?shù)?。但是，從一種更深廣的意義來講，我們卻又深感這種獻(xiàn)儀的不足，崇仰的不足，至于為墓地增光，就更說不上。一切曾經(jīng)在這里奮戰(zhàn)過的英勇的人們，不論是生者死者，他們所作的奉獻(xiàn)之大，遠(yuǎn)遠(yuǎn)不是我們所能妄加損益。世人對我們 在這里所說的種種，未必會給予注意，或者很快忘記，但對他們所成就的一切，卻將永志不忘。對于我們生者來說，有所報效，似更應(yīng)奮力于他們一向堅貞以赴、多所推進(jìn)的事業(yè)，奮力于留待我們?nèi)ネ瓿山涞膫タ兪鈩?；誠能這樣，我們必將更能從英魂那里汲引壯志，奮發(fā)忠誠，而他們正是為了我們的事業(yè)而肝腦涂地，竭盡忠誠；這樣，我們必將益發(fā)堅信這些死者之不枉犧牲，這樣，這個國家，上帝之鑒，必將在自由上重獲新生，而這樣，一個民有，民治與民享的政府必將在世界上永遠(yuǎn)立于不敗之地。

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.主耶穌基督欣賞“簡單”之美。

寧可住在房頂?shù)慕巧?，不在寬闊的房屋，與爭吵的婦人同住。

你要盡心、盡性、盡意、盡力愛主你的神。其次，就是說，要愛人如己。

救恩的得著，簡單的法門，只要“信”。雖然救恩的設(shè)立，是一道復(fù)雜的過程，但神費盡心思，把救恩的得著，簡化成一個“信”字。

——所羅門

第四篇：林肯第二次就職演說

*Second Inaugural Address by Abraham Lincoln March 4, 1865

#林肯第二次就職演說（1865年3月4日）

Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first.Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper.Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of his great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented.The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all.With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war.All dreaded it;all sought to avert it.While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving teing delivered from thisurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war-seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation.Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it.Their slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest.All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration, which it has already attained.Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease.Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.That of neither has been answered fully.The Almighty has His own purposes.“Woe unto the world because of offenses;for it must need be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comet.” If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern there in any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away? Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said “The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.”

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the might, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.各位同胞：

在這第二任就職的宣誓典禮上，不必像在第一任的時候那樣做一個長篇的演說。在那時，對于當(dāng)時所采取的政策多少作一點詳細(xì)的說明，自然是適當(dāng)?shù)摹，F(xiàn)在四年任期屆滿，對于眼前這場為全國所關(guān)注并占用了全國力量的重大斗爭的每一重要關(guān)頭和方面，這四年已不斷地發(fā)出公告，所以現(xiàn)在很少有什么新的發(fā)展可以奉告。我們的軍事進(jìn)展，為其他一切問題的關(guān)鍵所在，而各界人士對其情形和我同樣了解，我深切相信，進(jìn)展的狀況可以使我們?nèi)w人民滿意和信任。所以對于將來既然可以寄予極大的希望，那么我們在這一方面就用不著做什么預(yù)測了。

在四年前同一個場合里，所有的思慮都焦急地指向于一場即將來臨的內(nèi)戰(zhàn)。大家害怕它，想盡辦法避免它。當(dāng)正在這里就職演說的時候，盡心盡力地為了使聯(lián)邦不再用戰(zhàn)爭手段而能保存，然而，城內(nèi)叛變分子的內(nèi)奸卻在設(shè)法不用戰(zhàn)爭來破壞聯(lián)邦，在設(shè)法瓦解聯(lián)邦，而以談判的方法來分割聯(lián)邦。雙方都聲稱反對戰(zhàn)爭，可是有一方寧愿打仗而不愿意讓國家生存。另一方則寧可接受打這場仗，也不愿國家滅亡，于是戰(zhàn)爭就來臨了。

我們?nèi)珖丝诘陌朔种皇呛谂?，他們不是遍布于全?lián)邦，而是局部地分布于南方。這些奴隸構(gòu)成了一種奇特而有力的權(quán)益。大家知道大體上這種權(quán)益就是這場戰(zhàn)爭的原因。為了使這種權(quán)益加強，永久不變，而且予以擴(kuò)大，叛變分子曾不惜用戰(zhàn)爭來分裂聯(lián)邦，而政府則只要限制這種權(quán)益而使之區(qū)域化，并沒有再多要求別的權(quán)利。當(dāng)初，任何一方都沒有想到戰(zhàn)爭會弄到目前這么大的范圍和這么長的時間，也沒有料想到?jīng)_突的原因會隨沖突本身的終止而終止，甚至?xí)跊_突本身終止以前而終止。雙方都在尋求一個較為容易的勝利，都沒有期盼一個基本和驚人的結(jié)果。雙方念誦同樣的圣經(jīng)，祈禱同一個上帝，甚至每一方都求助神的援助以反對另一方。任何人都可以要求上帝的幫助，來奪取他人用血汗得來的面包，這似乎很奇怪。可是我們不要批評別人，免得我們雙方的祈禱都不能夠如愿，而且也沒有全部如愿過。上帝自有他自己的主宰?！坝捎谧飷海澜绮艜馐芸嚯y。因為罪惡總是要有的，然而那個制造罪惡的人，要受苦難?！奔偈?的人，要C3攔吶ブ貧仁欽飧齬淼囊恢鄭廡┕碓諫系鄣牧煊蚶鐫謁衙?，但技x丫中慫付ǖ囊歡問奔?，他现哉洩清蠝悘T┕懟Ｍ?，假使晤U且隕系鄣拿迦盟醬郵掄獠伊業(yè)惱秸?，作为堕喦引弃愨疫€淼娜說某頭?，晤U強梢勻銜餳攏腧瞎┓鉅桓齟嬖詰納系鄣男磐矯槍楣τ謁哪切┦サ攏⑽薏鉅?。晤U腔匙派鈧康陌磁甕頤腔匙湃瘸覽雌淼?，希望这战争掉[胤？梢院蕓斕毓??？墑牽偈股系垡謎秸偌絳氯ィ恢鋇鵲?50年來無償勞力所聚積的財富化為烏有，等到鞭打所流的每一滴血，為用刀劍所流的每一滴血所償付，那么我們也只好像三千年前所說的那樣?！爸鞯牟门惺峭耆鎸嵍夜赖??！?/p>

我們不對任何人懷有絲毫惡意，我們對任何人都抱著好感，上帝令我們看到哪一邊是對的，就堅定地信仰對的一邊，讓我們繼續(xù)奮斗完成我們正在進(jìn)行的工作──去治療國家的創(chuàng)傷，去照顧英勇作戰(zhàn)的志士和他的遺屬，去從事一切的努力以達(dá)成并維護(hù)在我們自己之間和我國與各國之間的一個公平而持久的和平.

第五篇：林肯就職演說原文1

林肯的第二任總統(tǒng)就職演說

這篇演說的講稿是人類歷史上最偉大的演說詞，永久地刻在了林肯紀(jì)念堂里，英文原文是：

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office，there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first.Then a statement，somewhat in detail，of a course to be pursued，seemed fitting and proper.Now，at the expiration of four years，during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention，and engrosses the energies of the nation，little that is new could be presented.The progress of our arms，upon which all else chiefly depends，is as well known to the public as to myself;and it is，I trust，reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all.With high hope for the future，no prediction in regard to it is ventured.On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago，all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war.All dreaded it--all sought to avert it.While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place，devoted altogether to saving the Union without war，insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union，and divide effects，by negotiation.Both parties deprecated war;but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive;and the other would accept war rather than let it perish.And the war came.One eighth of the whole population were colored slaves，not

distributed generally over the Union，but localized in the Southern part of it.These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest.All knew that this interest was，somehow，the cause of the war.To strengthen，perpetuate，and extend this interest was the object for which the

insurgents would rend the Union，even by war;while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.Neither party expected for the war，the magnitude，or the duration，which it has already attained.Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with，or even before，the conflict itself should cease.Each looked for an easier triumph，and a result less fundamental and astounding.Both read the same Bible，and astounding to the same God;and each invokes His aid against the other.It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from

the sweat of other men's faces;but let us judge not that we be not judged.The prayers of both could not be answered;that of neither has been answered fully.The Almighty has his own purposes.“Woe unto the world because of offence！for it must needs be that offence s come;but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh！” If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences which，in the providence of God，must needs come，but which，having continued through His appointed time，He now wills to remove，and that He gives to both North and South，this terrible war，as the woe due to those by whom the offence came，shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a Living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope--fervently do we pray--that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.Yet，if God wills that it continue，until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk，and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash，shall be paid by another drawn with the sword，as was said three thousand years ago，so still it must be said “the judgments of the Lord，are true and righteous altogether”

With malice toward none;with charity for all;with firmness in the right，as God gives us to see the right，let us strive on to finish the work we are in;to bind up the nation's wounds;to care for him who shall have borne the battle，and for his widow，and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace，among ourselves，and with all nations.最后兩段譯文：

(交戰(zhàn))每一方都在尋求一個快速的、不傷根本的勝利。雙方都讀同一本圣經(jīng)，向同一位上帝禱告，求祂的幫助?？雌饋碚媸瞧婀郑阂恍┤司蛊笄笊系圩寗e人流汗而使自己可以得到面包；但是，不要讓我們論斷，如果我們自己不想被論斷的話。雙方的禱告不會同時被回答，任何一方的禱告也不會被完全應(yīng)允。全能的神自有其旨意?！暗溤帐澜?！因著必來之罪；禍哉此人，罪因其而來?！比绻覀兗僭O(shè)，美國奴隸制度乃是眾罪之一，此罪到了期限，神便定意除去這個制度，引發(fā)這一場可怖的南北戰(zhàn)爭，因為災(zāi)降于那些罪因其而來的人身上，如同以往圣徒所描寫的神的屬性，神的作為難道會有任何偏差嗎？我們熱切地盼望--恒切地禱告--這場懲罰性的戰(zhàn)爭得以迅速地遠(yuǎn)離我們而去。然而，如果神定意讓戰(zhàn)爭持續(xù)下去，直到我們從所有奴隸在兩百五十年間沒有報酬、困苦勞動之下所累積的財富毀去，及直到每一滴皮鞭上的血跡被報之以刀下每一條冤魂，就如同我們在三千年前所說，而今天仍要再說的那樣：“主的審判信實，合乎公義?！?/p>

不以惡待人，而以仁愛相處。當(dāng)神開啟我們的眼，得見公義時，我們必須持守公義。讓我們?nèi)σ愿埃瓿晌覀兪种械墓ぷ?，醫(yī)治國家的創(chuàng)傷；并照料在戰(zhàn)場上承受苦痛的人，和那些寡婦、孤兒，不忘記關(guān)懷他們-讓我們竭盡全力，達(dá)成在我們中間，及眾民族之間的永久的公義和和平。

簡單統(tǒng)計：

?講演總字?jǐn)?shù)：699

?提到上帝次數(shù)：10(God: 6;The Almighty: 1;Lord: 1;He: 2)?提到禱告次數(shù)：3

?提到圣經(jīng)次數(shù)：1

?引用圣經(jīng)次數(shù)：2

所以只要讀一下這篇講演，就會知道林肯是怎樣一位敬畏上帝，祈求上帝帶領(lǐng)的人了！就如林肯傳記《公民林肯》(Lincoln the Citizen)的作者惠特尼(Henry Whitney)所總結(jié)的：“(這篇演講是)一串向神連綿不斷的祈求，求祂對我們這個如火如荼的國家伸出援手?！?/p>

這篇講演發(fā)生在1865年3月4號上午，當(dāng)時在現(xiàn)場的記者Noah Brooks寫到：“Just at that moment the sun，which had been obscured all day，burst forth in its unclouded meridian splendor，and flooded the spectacle with glory and with light??was already standing in the shadow of death.”(林肯登臺的一瞬間，陽光沖出了已盤踞了一整天的云層，放射出驚人的景象，榮耀和光輝如洪水般涌來??而此時，林肯已經(jīng)站在了死亡的陰影之中。)--僅僅40天后，即同年4月15號，林肯在劇院里被謀殺了。

其實早年的林肯是一個無神論者，作為政治家，認(rèn)為財富和權(quán)力更為重要。然而，隨著美國內(nèi)戰(zhàn)戰(zhàn)局的發(fā)展，林肯越來越感受到上帝的主權(quán)和公義，越來越依靠神，承認(rèn)自己和人的無能為力，開始把國家的命運交托在神的手里。

例如，在1862年9月，在一個本來看似樂觀的形勢下，北方軍卻經(jīng)歷了在Bull Run的第二次戰(zhàn)役的徹底失敗，林肯開始認(rèn)真的反思這次戰(zhàn)爭，并且考慮解放黑奴的具體計劃。這時，他寫下了“Meditation on the Divine Will”(對神旨意的思想)的文章。英文原文是：“The will of God prevails.In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God.Both may be，and one must be，wrong.God can not be for and against the same thing at the same time.In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party-and yet the human instrumentalities，working just as they do，are of the best adaptation to affect His purpose.”翻譯是：“上帝的旨意必成就。在內(nèi)戰(zhàn)中，雙方都認(rèn)為自己所行的符合上帝的旨意，但至少有一方是錯的，因為上帝不可能自相矛盾。上帝的旨意不同于我們的目標(biāo)，但是上帝使用我們作為器皿成就祂的旨意。”

在林肯將被謀殺的最后時刻，據(jù)D.James Kennedy的《What if the Bible had never been written》一書，林肯坐在戲院里，對妻子瑪麗說的最后的話是：“你知道我現(xiàn)在想做什么嗎？我想帶你到中東去旅行?！薄拔覀円サk(主耶穌)

誕生的伯利恒。我們要拜訪伯大尼，隨著那條圣潔腳蹤所行過的路途走。然后我們上耶路(耶路撒冷)??”