亚伯拉罕ˇ林肯
(ABRAHAM LINCOLN)

第一任就职演说
First Inaugural Address

(American Memory Collection, Library of Congress)

一根根不可思议的回忆之弦ˇ从每个战场和每个爱国志士的坟墓ˇ伸展到这片辽阔土地上每一颗充满活力的心房和每一个家庭ˇ只要我们本性中的善念再度ˇ而且一定会ˇ加以拨动ˇ它们终会重新奏出ˇ亮的联邦协奏曲。

在1860年的总统选举中ˇ民主党内的南北分裂ˇ爲林肯和共和党的胜利扫清了道路。虽然林肯被挑选出来作候选人ˇ部分是由于他有温和主义者的名声ˇ但是南方人还是警告说ˇ如果林肯获胜ˇ他们将脱离联邦。无论在南方还是北方ˇ林肯的当选都被看作是对奴隶制和奴隶主政治权力的排斥。就在林肯当选之后ˇ美国七个州(南卡罗来纳、密西西比、佛罗里达、亚拉巴马、乔治亚、路易斯安那、得克萨斯)脱离了联邦ˇ并于1861年2月4日ˇ在亚拉巴马州的蒙哥马利组成美国南部邦联。几 周后ˇ国会提出了一ˇ在美国禁止奴隶制的ˇ法修正案。(这ˇ修正案于1865年被批准爲第十三修正案。)

1861年3月4日ˇ林肯在华盛顿特区国会大厦前的台阶上宣誓就职时ˇˇ处于分裂和内战边沿的国民发表演说。他呼吁理智和冷静。他的演说是爲维护联邦和避免战争所作的最后一次努力。不过ˇ林肯明确表示ˇ联邦将保卫自己ˇ脱离联邦是不合法的ˇ以暴力反对联邦政府将被看作是叛乱。林肯的祈求没有人听。南方邦联的军队于1861年4月12日炮击南卡罗来纳州查尔斯顿的萨姆特堡ˇ内战由此开始。在萨姆特堡ˇ落之后ˇ维吉尼亚州、阿肯色州、北卡罗来纳州和田纳西州都加入了美国南部邦联。

……在南方各州的人民中似乎存在着一种忧虑ˇ即由共和党执政ˇ他们的财産、安定的生活和个人安全将会遭到危ˇ。这种忧虑从来就没有任何理由。说实在的ˇ无须忧虑的最充足的证据一直都是客观存在的ˇ而且公开接受他们检查。这可以在这位ˇ在ˇ你们致辞的人的几乎所有发表过的演讲里找到。我ˇ在仅引用那些演说辞中的一篇来声明ˇ

我无意直接或间接地在有蓄奴制的州里干预蓄奴制度。我ˇ信我没有这样做的合法权利ˇ而且我也没有这样做的意愿。……

自从一位总统依照国家ˇ法第一次就职以来已经过了72年。72年里ˇ15位出类拔萃的公民ˇ继管理了这个政府的行政部门。他们领导这个政府经历了许多危ˇˇ而且一般都取得很大成功。可是。尽管有这种先例ˇ我却是在巨大而特别困难的情况下ˇ担负起同样的任务ˇ履行短暂的四年总统任期。分裂联邦ˇ以前还只是一种威胁ˇˇ在却已变成令人生畏的行动。

考虑到一般的法律和我们的ˇ法ˇ我认爲这些州所组成的联邦是永久性的。在所有国家政府的基本大法中ˇ即使没有明文规定其永久性ˇ也总是含有此意的。我们可以断言ˇ没有一个正式政府曾经在其组织法中ˇ规定一个使自己寿终正寝的条款。只要我们继续执行国家ˇ法中所有的明文规定ˇ这个联邦就会永久存在ˇˇˇ除非采取ˇ法法规以外的某种行动ˇ我们是无法摧毁联邦的。

再说ˇ即使合衆国不是一个正式的政府ˇ而仅是各州之间一种契约性的组合ˇ那麽ˇ作爲一份契约ˇ难道就可以由少数人而不是全体订约人ˇ不经争执ˇ心安理得地予以取ˇ吗?契约的一方可以违反它ˇˇ或者说是破坏它ˇ但难道不需要通过全体订约人就能合法地解除它吗?……

从这些观点可以推定ˇ任何州均不得仅由自己动议ˇ即可合法脱离联邦ˇ有关这方面的决议和法令在法律上都是无效的ˇ对于任何一州或数州境内反抗美国政府的暴动ˇ应依据情况来确定其爲叛乱还是革命。

因此ˇ我认爲依照ˇ法与法律ˇ联邦是不可分裂的ˇ我将尽我所能ˇ务使联邦法律在所有各州得到忠实贯彻ˇ这是ˇ法本身明文规定责成我这样做的。我认爲这样做仅是我本身的一种责任ˇ而且我将在可行的范围内去履行这责任ˇ除非我的合法主人ˇ即美国人民ˇ制止使用这些必要的手段ˇ或者通过某种权威性方式ˇ作出ˇ反的指示。我ˇ信这种说法应该不会被认爲是一种威胁ˇ而只是把它看作是联邦所明确宣布的目标ˇ即它要依照ˇ法保护和维系自身。

要这样做ˇ就必须没有流血和暴力发生ˇ而且只要不是强加于国家权威头上的ˇ哪怕有一点都不行。所赋予我的权力将用来保存、占领和掌握属于政府的财産和地盘ˇ并征集税收和关税ˇ但是ˇ超出爲达到这些目标所必需的手段ˇ就不能去侵犯任何地方的人民ˇ不能使用武力反对任何地方的人民ˇ或在任何地方的人民中使用武力……

据说在这个或那个地区里ˇ有一些人千方百计地企图摧毁联邦ˇ甚至不惜利用一切借口非达此目的不可。对此ˇ我不加肯定也不给予否定。但若事情果真如此ˇ我无须对这帮人致辞。可是ˇ对于那些真正热爱联邦的人们ˇ我难道能够缄默不言吗?

在事情还没严重到破坏我们的国家组织ˇ连同它的一切利益ˇ全部历史和所有希望之前ˇ把我们这样做的意图准确地弄清楚ˇ难道不是明智的吗?如果你们要躲避的灾难可能实际上并不存在ˇ在这种情况下ˇ你们难道还要铤而走ˇ吗?如果你即将遇到的灾难比你们ˇ逃避的所有实际的灾难更爲深重ˇ难道你们还要冒ˇ赴难ˇ铸成可怕的错误吗?

如果ˇ法规定的一切权利能够得到维护ˇ则人人都会以身在联邦而感到满足的。那麽ˇˇ法里明文规定的权利究竟有哪一ˇ真的被否定了?我认爲没有……

迄今还不曾有过一部根本大法ˇ对于一切实际行政管理中可能出ˇ的任何问题都有专门条款来规范ˇ没有先知可以预见会发生什麽ˇ也没有任何繁简适度的文件所明文规定的条款足以应付一切可能发生的问题。联邦和州政府要交出逃亡的奴隶吗?ˇ法中没有明文规定。国会可以在准州地区禁止奴隶制度吗?ˇ法里没有明文规定。国会必须在 准州地区维护奴隶制度吗ˇˇ法也没有明文规定。

就从这类问题中触发出我们一切有关ˇ法的争论ˇ我们可把争论者分爲多数派和少数派。即使少数派不愿支持政府ˇ多数派也必须支持ˇ否则政府就必须停止工作。其它的替代办法是没有的ˇ要使政府继续存在下去ˇ必须得有一方的支持。在这种情况下ˇ如果有一个少数派不支持政府而要脱离联邦ˇ那麽他们就开了一个先例ˇ这必然会导致他们内部分裂并毁了他们ˇ因爲他们自己内部的多数派拒受这种少数派控制时ˇ这个少数派又会脱离他们。举例来说ˇ正如目前联邦中的一些州宣布脱离联邦那样ˇ一两年后南部新邦联中的一部分难道就不会蛮横地再行脱离吗?一切醉心于分裂的人们目前所接受的正是这种思ˇ。

在这些要组成新联邦的州之间ˇ难道真的具有完全一致的利益ˇ足以使彼此和睦共处ˇ并避免重新分裂吗?

ˇ然ˇ脱离联邦的核心思ˇ正是无政府状态的实质所在。一个被ˇ法的强制力和规范所约束ˇ并能顺应公衆舆论和公衆感情的审慎的变化而变化的多数派ˇ才是自由人民唯一真正的治理者。谁否认它ˇ谁就必然走ˇ无政府或专制。完全一致是不可能的。少数人的统治ˇ作爲一ˇ永久性的安排ˇ是完全不能接受的。因此ˇ如果否认多数原则ˇ剩下来的仅有某种形式的无政府状态或专制而已……

我国有一部分人ˇ信奴隶制是对的ˇ应当予以延续ˇ而另外一部分人则ˇ信它是错的ˇ不应予以延续。这是唯一的实质性争执……

从地理环境上说ˇ我们是无法分离的。我们不能把各地区从彼此的位置上挪开ˇ也不能在它们之间筑起不可逾越的城墙。夫妻可以离婚ˇ以后彼此不ˇ见ˇ也无法找到对方ˇ但是ˇ我国的不同地区之间不能这麽做。它们不得不面面ˇ对ˇ彼此往来ˇ不管是友好的还是敌对的ˇ这情形一定会在它们之间继续下去。那麽ˇ分裂以后是否有可能使彼此来往比以前更有利或者更令人满意呢?与外人签约会比与朋友共订法律更容易吗?条约在异邦人之间会比法律在朋友之间得到更忠实的执行吗?假如你们要打仗ˇ你们也不能一直打下去ˇ在双方都伤亡惨重ˇ谁也没有收获之后ˇ你们停止作战时ˇ关于交往条件的一些与以前完全ˇ同的老问题又会摆在你们面前……

爲什麽不能满怀信心ˇ耐心等待人民的最终裁决呢?难道还有更好的或能与此ˇ匹的希望吗?在我们目前的分歧中ˇ难道双方都没有信心认爲自己是站在正确的一边吗?如果代表永恒真理和正义的万能上帝站在你们北方一边或者站在你们南方一边ˇ那麽经过美国人民这个大法庭的裁决ˇ真理和正义定将普照天下。

从管理我们的政府的组织结构来看ˇ聪明的人民没有给他们的公仆多少权力去胡闹ˇ而且他们还以同样的智慧爲在短期内将那一点点权力收回到他们自己手中作了准备。只要人民保持他们的道德和警惕ˇ任何行政管理人员ˇ不管他们是多麽邪恶或多麽愚蠢ˇ都不可能在短短四年内给这个政府造成严重伤害。

同胞们ˇ你们每个人都应冷静地好好思考这整个问题。花点时间是不会使任何有价值的东西遭到损失的。如果真有一件东西驱使你们之中任何一个人十万火急地去采取一个你们在审慎沉着的情况下所决不会采取的步骤ˇ那麽花点时间去思考就可以挫败这东西。任何好的东西是不会因爲你这样做而遭到挫败的。就好ˇ你们ˇ在都心怀不满ˇ可你们还有一部未受损害的老ˇ法可依ˇ在敏感问题上ˇ你们还有你们自己根据ˇ法所制定的法律可依ˇ而新的行政当局即便ˇˇ也没有改变ˇ法或这些法律的直接权力。就算大家公认你们这些心怀不满的人是站在争执的正确一边ˇ那也没有任何充足的理由去采取草率的行动。以我们的聪明才智、爱国精神、基督教信仰以及对至今从未据弃过这片沐浴圣恩的土地的上帝的坚定信赖ˇ我们还是有足够的能力用最好的方武来解决我们目前所遇到的一切困难。

各位心怀不满的同胞们ˇ内战这一重大问题ˇ不系于我的手里ˇ而系于你们的手里。政府不会攻击你们。只要你们自己不当侵略者ˇ你们就不会遇到冲突。你们没有对天发誓要摧毁政府ˇ但我们却要立下最庄严的誓言来“保存、保护和保卫它”。

我真不愿结束我的演讲。我们不是敌人。我们之间感情的纽带ˇ或会因情绪激动而绷紧ˇ但决不可折断。那一根根不可思议的回忆之弦ˇ从每个战场和爱国志士的坟墓ˇ伸展到这片辽阔土地上每一颗充满活力的心房和每一个家庭ˇ只要我们本性中的善念再度ˇ而且一定会ˇ加以拨动ˇ它们终会重新奏出ˇ亮的联邦协奏曲。

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.