引用網頁：http://zhidao.baidu.com/question/23586054.html
一根根不可思議的回憶之弦，從每個戰場和每個愛國志士的墳墓，伸展到這片遼闊土地上每一顆充滿活力的心房和每一個家庭，只要我們本性中的善念再度，而且一定會，加以撥動，它們終會重新奏出響亮的聯邦協奏曲。
——————————————————————————–
在1860年的總統選舉中，民主黨內的南北分裂，為林肯和共和黨的勝利掃清了道路。雖然林肯被挑選出來作候選人，部分是由於他有溫和主義者的名聲，但是南方人還是警告說，如果林肯獲勝，他們將脫離聯邦。無論在南方還是北方，林肯的當選都被看作是對奴隸制和奴隸主政治權力的排斥。就在林肯當選之後，美國七個州(南卡羅來納、密西西比、佛羅里達、亞拉巴馬、喬治亞、路易斯安那、德克薩斯)脫離了聯邦，並於1861年2月4日，在阿拉巴馬州的蒙哥馬利組成美國南部邦聯。幾 周後，國會提出了一項在美國禁止奴隸制的憲法修正案。(這項修正案於1865年被批准為第十三修正案。)
1861年3月4日，林肯在華盛頓特區國會大廈前的臺階上宣誓就職時，向處於分裂和內戰邊沿的國民發表演說。他呼籲理智和冷靜。他的演說是為維護聯邦和避免戰爭所作的最後一次努力。不過，林肯明確表示，聯邦將保衛自己，脫離聯邦是不合法的，以暴力反對聯邦政府將被看作是叛亂。林肯的祈求沒有人聽。南方邦聯的軍隊於1861年4月12日炮擊南卡羅來納州查爾斯頓的薩姆特堡，內戰由此開始。在薩姆特堡陷落之後，維吉尼亞州、阿肯色州、北卡羅來納州和田納西州都加入了美國南部邦聯。
——————————————————————————–
……在南方各州的人民中似乎存在著一種憂慮，即由共和黨執政，他們的財產、安定的生活和個人安全將會遭到危險。這種憂慮從來就沒有任何理由。說實在的，無須憂慮的最充足的證據一直都是客觀存在的，而且公開接受他們檢查。這可以在這位現在向你們致辭的人的幾乎所有發表過的演講裏找到。我現在僅引用那些演說辭中的一篇來聲明：
我無意直接或間接地在有蓄奴制的州裏干預蓄奴制度。我相信我沒有這樣做的合法權利，而且我也沒有這樣做的意願。……
自從一位總統依照國家憲法第一次就職以來已經過了72年。72年裏，15位出類拔萃的公民相繼管理了這個政府的行政部門。他們領導這個政府經歷了許多危險，而且一般都取得很大成功。可是。儘管有這種先例，我卻是在巨大而特別困難的情況下，擔負起同樣的任務，履行短暫的四年總統任期。分裂聯邦，以前還只是一種威脅，現在卻已變成令人生畏的行動。
考慮到一般的法律和我們的憲法，我認為這些州所組成的聯邦是永久性的。在所有國家政府的基本大法中，即使沒有明文規定其永久性，也總是含有此意的。我們可以斷言，沒有一個正式政府曾經在其組織法中，規定一個使自己壽終正寢的條款。只要我們繼續執行國家憲法中所有的明文規定，這個聯邦就會永久存在，——除非採取憲法法規以外的某種行動，我們是無法摧毀聯邦的。
再說，即使合眾國不是一個正式的政府，而僅是各州之間一種契約性的組合，那麽，作為一份契約，難道就可以由少數人而不是全體訂約人，不經爭執，心安理得地予以取消嗎?契約的一方可以違反它——或者說是破壞它，但難道不需要通過全體訂約人就能合法地解除它嗎?……
從這些觀點可以推定，任何州均不得僅由自己動議，即可合法脫離聯邦；有關這方面的決議和法令在法律上都是無效的；對於任何一州或數州境內反抗美國政府的暴動，應依據情況來確定其為叛亂還是革命。
因此，我認為依照憲法與法律，聯邦是不可分裂的；我將盡我所能，務使聯邦法律在所有各州得到忠實貫徹，這是憲法本身明文規定責成我這樣做的。我認為這樣做僅是我本身的一種責任；而且我將在可行的範圍內去履行這責任，除非我的合法主人，即美國人民，制止使用這些必要的手段，或者通過某種權威性方式，作出相反的指示。我相信這種說法應該不會被認為是一種威脅，而只是把它看作是聯邦所明確宣佈的目標，即它要依照憲法保護和維繫自身。
要這樣做，就必須沒有流血和暴力發生，而且只要不是強加于國家權威頭上的，哪怕有一點都不行。所賦予我的權力將用來保存、佔領和掌握屬於政府的財產和地盤，並徵集稅收和關稅，但是，超出為達到這些目標所必需的手段，就不能去侵犯任何地方的人民，不能使用武力反對任何地方的人民，或在任何地方的人民中使用武力……
據說在這個或那個地區裏，有一些人千方百計地企圖摧毀聯邦，甚至不惜利用一切藉口非達此目的不可。對此，我不加肯定也不給予否定。但若事情果真如此，我無須對這幫人致辭。可是，對於那些真正熱愛聯邦的人們，我難道能夠緘默不言嗎?
在事情還沒嚴重到破壞我們的國家組織，連同它的一切利益，全部歷史和所有希望之前，把我們這樣做的意圖準確地弄清楚，難道不是明智的嗎?如果你們要躲避的災難可能實際上並不存在，在這種情況下，你們難道還要鋌而走險嗎?如果你即將遇到的災難比你們想逃避的所有實際的災難更為深重，難道你們還要冒險赴難，鑄成可怕的錯誤嗎?
如果憲法規定的一切權利能夠得到維護，則人人都會以身在聯邦而感到滿足的。那麽，憲法裏明文規定的權利究竟有哪一項真的被否定了?我認為沒有……
迄今還不曾有過一部根本大法，對於一切實際行政管理中可能出現的任何問題都有專門條款來規範；沒有先知可以預見會發生什麽，也沒有任何繁簡適度的檔所明文規定的條款足以應付一切可能發生的問題。聯邦和州政府要交出逃亡的奴隸嗎?憲法中沒有明文規定。國會可以在准州地區禁止奴隸制度嗎?憲法裏沒有明文規定。國會必須在准州地區維護奴隸制度嗎？憲法也沒有明文規定。
就從這類問題中觸發出我們一切有關憲法的爭論，我們可把爭論者分為多數派和少數派。即使少數派不願支持政府，多數派也必須支持，否則政府就必須停止工作。其他的替代辦法是沒有的；要使政府繼續存在下去，必須得有一方的支持。在這種情況下，如果有一個少數派不支持政府而要脫離聯邦，那麽他們就開了一個先例，這必然會導致他們內部分裂並毀了他們，因為他們自己內部的多數派拒受這種少數派控制時，這個少數派又會脫離他們。舉例來說，正如目前聯邦中的一些州宣佈脫離聯邦那樣， 一兩 年後南部新邦聯中的一部分難道就不會蠻橫地再行脫離嗎?一切醉心於分裂的人們目前所接受的正是這種思想。
在這些要組成新聯邦的州之間，難道真的具有完全一致的利益，足以使彼此和睦共處，並避免重新分裂嗎?
顯然，脫離聯邦的核心思想正是無政府狀態的實質所在。一個被憲法的強制力和規範所約束，並能順應公眾輿論和公眾感情的審慎的變化而變化的多數派，才是自由人民唯一真正的治理者。誰否認它，誰就必然走向無政府或專制。完全一致是不可能的。少數人的統治，作為一項永久性的安排，是完全不能接受的。因此，如果否認多數原則，剩下來的僅有某種形式的無政府狀態或專制而已……
我國有一部分人相信奴隸制是對的，應當予以延續，而另外一部分人則相信它是錯的，不應予以延續。這是唯一的實質性爭執……
從地理環境上說，我們是無法分離的。我們不能把各地區從彼此的位置上挪開，也不能在它們之間築起不可逾越的城牆。夫妻可以離婚，以後彼此不相見，也無法找到對方，但是，我國的不同地區之間不能這麽做。它們不得不面面相對，彼此往來，不管是友好的還是敵對的，這情形一定會在它們之間繼續下去。那麽，分裂以後是否有可能使彼此來往比以前更有利或者更令人滿意呢?與外人簽約會比與朋友共訂法律更容易嗎?條約在異邦人之間會比法律在朋友之間得到更忠實的執行嗎?假如你們要打仗，你們也不能一直打下去，在雙方都傷亡慘重，誰也沒有收穫之後，你們停止作戰時，關於交往條件的一些與以前完全相同的老問題又會擺在你們面前……
為什麽不能滿懷信心，耐心等待人民的最終裁決呢?難道還有更好的或能與此相匹的希望嗎?在我們目前的分歧中，難道雙方都沒有信心認為自己是站在正確的一邊嗎?如果代表永恆真理和正義的萬能上帝站在你們北方一邊或者站在你們南方一邊，那麽經過美國人民這個大法庭的裁決，真理和正義定將普照天下。
從管理我們的政府的組織結構來看，聰明的人民沒有給他們的公僕多少權力去胡鬧，而且他們還以同樣的智慧為在短期內將那一點點權力收回到他們自己手中作了準備。只要人民保持他們的道德和警惕，任何行政管理人員，不管他們是多麽邪惡或多麽愚蠢，都不可能在短短四年內給這個政府造成嚴重傷害。
同胞們，你們每個人都應冷靜地好好思考這整個問題。花點時間是不會使任何有價值的東西遭到損失的。如果真有一件東西驅使你們之中任何一個人十萬火急地去採取一個你們在審慎沉著的情況下所決不會採取的步驟，那麽花點時間去思考就可以挫敗這東西。任何好的東西是不會因為你這樣做而遭到挫敗的。就好像你們現在都心懷不滿，可你們還有一部未受損害的老憲法可依，在敏感問題上，你們還有你們自己根據憲法所制定的法律可依，而新的行政當局即便想，也沒有改變憲法或這些法律的直接權力。就算大家公認你們這些心懷不滿的人是站在爭執的正確一邊，那也沒有任何充足的理由去採取草率的行動。以我們的聰明才智、愛國精神、基督教信仰以及對至今從未據棄過這片沐浴聖恩的土地的上帝的堅定信賴，我們還是有足夠的能力用最好的方武來解決我們目前所遇到的一切困難。
各位心懷不滿的同胞們，內戰這一重大問題，不系於我的手裏，而系於你們的手裏。政府不會攻擊你們。只要你們自己不當侵略者，你們就不會遇到衝突。你們沒有對天發誓要摧毀政府，但我們卻要立下最莊嚴的誓言來“保存、保護和保衛它”。
我真不願結束我的演講。我們不是敵人。我們之間感情的紐帶，或會因情緒激動而繃緊，但決不可折斷。那一根根不可思議的回憶之弦，從每個戰場和愛國志士的墳墓，伸展到這片遼闊土地上每一顆充滿活力的心房和每一個家庭，只要我們本性中的善念再度，而且一定會，加以撥動，它們終會重新奏出響亮的聯邦協奏曲。
Inaugural Speech by Abraham Lincoln
March 4th 1861
Speech：
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 labour. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
No person held to service or labour 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 labour, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labour 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 un-kept 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 un-repealed 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.
Top
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?
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 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 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. 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.
Top
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 favourable 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 questio
