- 目錄
第1篇 介紹林肯的演講稿
偉大人物的偉業(yè)，好比夜間天上的一輪明月，使大地有了光明，下面就是小編給大家分享的介紹林肯的演講稿，希望對大家有幫助。
介紹林肯的演講稿 篇一
1820__年2月12日，亞伯拉罕·林肯出生在一個農民的家庭。
小時候，家里很窮，他沒機會上學，每天跟著父親在荒原上勞動。他自己說：“我一生中進學校的時候，加在一起總共不到一年。”但林肯勤奮好學，一有機會就向別人請教。他什么活兒都干，不管干什么，他都非常認真負責，誠實而且守信用。
他十幾歲時當過村了里雜貨店的店員。有一次，一個顧客多付了幾分錢，他為了退這幾分錢跑了十幾里路。還有一次，他發(fā)現(xiàn)少給了顧客二兩茶葉，就跑了幾里路把茶葉送到那人家中。他誠實、好學、謙虛，每到一處，都受到周圍人的喜愛。
1836年，他通過考試當上了律師。當律師以后，由于他精通法律，口才很好，在當?shù)睾苡新曂?。很多人都來找他幫著打官司。但是他為了當事人辯護有一個條件，就是當事人必須是正義的一方。許多窮人沒有錢付給他勞務費，但是只要告訴林肯：“我是正義的，請你幫我討回公道。”林肯就會免費為他辯護。
一次，一個很有錢的人請林肯為他辯護。林肯聽了那個客戶的陳述，發(fā)現(xiàn)那個人是在誣陷好人，于是就說：“很抱歉，我不能替您辯護，因為您的行為是非正義的。”那個人說：“林肯先生，我就是想請您幫我打這場不正義的官司，只要我勝訴，您要多少酬勞都可以。”林肯嚴肅地說：“只要使用一點點法庭辯護的技巧，您的案子很容易勝訴，但是我會對自己說：林肯，你在撒謊。謊話只有在丟掉良心的時候，才能大聲地說出口。所以，請您另請高明。”
那個人聽了，什么也沒說，默默地離開了林肯的辦公室。
介紹林肯的演講稿 篇二
學了《鞋匠的兒子》這一課，讓我們深刻的體會到，林肯的仁愛正義，與寬容大度。想要更加深入的了解林肯嗎?沒問題!請聽我慢慢道來吧!
林肯是美國著名的政治家，著名的演講師和律師。他出生于社會下層，是個鞋匠的兒子，于1861年就任美國總統(tǒng)。林肯成功的關鍵，在于奮發(fā)向上，堅持不懈，以及，敢于迎接生活挑戰(zhàn)的精神。
林肯十五歲的時候，才開始認字母。他買不起算術書，只能向別人借，再用信紙大小的紙片抄下來，然后用麻線縫合，做成一本自制的算術書。他以不定期上課的方式在校求學，知識都是“一點一點學的”。他所受的正規(guī)教育，總計起來上學的日子不過十二個月左右。林肯下田工作的時候，總會將書本帶在身邊，一有空閑就看書。中午吃飯時，也是一手拿著玉米餅，一手捧書。他在被提名為總統(tǒng)候選人以后，曾說：“我能夠達到這一點小成果，完全是日后應各種需要，時時自修取得的知識。”林肯由一個貧窮的孩子，成長為統(tǒng)率美國總統(tǒng)的歷程，深深地打動了我，一股敬佩之情，油然而生。
林肯還是一個十分幽默風趣的人，這也是使他，踏上成功之路的鋪路石。
早在讀書時，有一次考試，老師問他：“你愿意答一道難題，還是兩道容易的題目?”林肯很有把握地答：“答一道難題吧。”“那你回答，雞蛋是怎么來的?”“雞生的。”老師又問：“那雞又是從哪里來的呢?”“老師，這已經是第二道題了。”林肯微笑著說。而在他當上總統(tǒng)之后，也還是如此幽默風趣。
在林肯當上總統(tǒng)后，由于是鞋匠的兒子，經常受人侮辱。一次，他的一個手下，在紙條上寫了“笨蛋”傳給林肯，想要當眾羞辱他。林肯看后，不但沒有生氣，反而沉著冷靜，幽默地說：“我們這里只寫正文，不記名。而這個人只寫了名字，沒寫正文。”
林肯就是這么一個，奮發(fā)向上、堅持不懈的人，一個幽默風趣、寬容大度的人。俗話說得好：沒有暗礁，激不起美麗的浪花，林肯對命運不屈服的精神，更值得我們敬佩。讓我們一起向林肯學習，勇于向困難挑戰(zhàn)，創(chuàng)造出屬于我們自己的佳績吧!
介紹林肯的演講稿 篇三
偉大人物的偉用，好比夜間天上的一輪明月，使大地有了光明，如孫中山，毛澤東，鄧小平，正是他們的脫穎而出，使得中國從貧窮落后，，受人欺詐的半封建半殖民地社會轉變成人民當家作主的社會主義國家。因此，美國這一超級大國，這和那些偉大人物的作用是分不開的。
林肯誕生于美國肯塔基州霍詹維爾城附近一棟簡陋的小木屋里。其祖上是英格蘭移民，林肯的父親托馬斯_林肯是勤勞質樸的擴荒者，靠做木工與墾荒種地為生。母親在他9歲時去世，后來的繼母對他影響很大。林肯的父親沒有念過書，他也反對自己的孩子進學校讀書，開明的繼母還是讓他上了學，但總的來說，他所得到的知識全憑自學。林肯當過農場雇工，也在渡船上當過幫手，青年時的林肯對政界充滿了興趣。每當他看到廣告牌上的黑人奴隸標價讓其特別憤怒，并默默地許下心愿盡他的能力廢除奴隸制。
1832年，林肯發(fā)表文章，宣布跨入政界。1836年，林肯被選為州議員。1856年，林肯參加了共和黨，并很快成為了共和黨的領袖。1860年，林肯正式當選為美國總統(tǒng)。在我看來，林肯這一生所做的最杰出的事情就是簽署了解放宣言，使黑人們得到了自由，在南北戰(zhàn)爭中，林肯收到了大量侮辱性的恐嚇信件和漫畫，面對這些，林肯并沒有被嚇倒，他在給一些官員的信中說，決不能容許奴隸制進一步擴展。如此堅決，絲毫沒有畏懼，在這期間，林肯總統(tǒng)還冒著生命的危險到一些州去發(fā)表演說，在用人方面，林肯也是用盡了心思，這些都促使了北方最后的勝利。內戰(zhàn)結束后，林肯他并沒有對南部所犯的罪惡給予應有的懲罰，而是提倡以溫和，親善的和平政策來對待南部的重建工作，然而他所做的這些還是避免不了他遇刺的結局。1865年4月14日，這一天是耶穌的殉難日。當晚，在劇院看演出是，林肯被子彈擊中后腦。
林肯逝世后，幾乎所有的都市和村鎮(zhèn)都響起了哀鳴的鐘聲，到處都是掛滿黑沙的飾物。我覺得，林肯他為人溫文爾雅，但溫中帶有可怕的剛強，有如鋼針一樣的堅硬，把林肯一生的經歷愈是詳細地加以追究，就愈是覺得他的偉大。英才天縱，非言語文字所能完全詮釋。
第2篇 亞伯拉罕.林肯在葛底斯堡英語演講稿
fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to theproposition that all men are created equal. now, we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation soconceived and so dedicated, can long endure. we are met on a great battlefield of that war. we have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting-place for those who gave their lives that nation might live. it is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
but, in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate, we cannot consecrate, we cannot hallow this ground. the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract. the world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. it is for us, the living, rather to be dedicated 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 this nation, under god, shall have a new birth of freedom; and that government of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.'
87年前，我們的先輩們在這個大陸上創(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?，F(xiàn)在我們正從事一場偉大的內戰(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)場的一部分奉獻給他們作為最后安息之所。我們這樣做是完全應該而且是非常恰當?shù)摹?/p>
但是，從更廣泛的意義上來說，這塊土地我們不能夠奉獻，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，已經把這塊土地圣化了，這遠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，全世界卻永遠不會忘記。毋寧說，倒是我們這些還活著的人，應該在這里把自己奉獻于勇士們已經如此崇高地向前推進但尚未完成的事業(yè)。倒是我們應該在這里把自己奉獻于仍然留在我們面前的偉大任務——我們要從這些光榮的死者身上汲取更多的獻身精神，來完成他們已經完全徹底為之獻身的事業(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得到自由的新生，要使這個民有、民治、民享的政府永世長存。亞伯拉罕.林肯
第3篇 美國總統(tǒng)林肯的就職演講
美國總統(tǒng)林肯的就職演講
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 e_ecution 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 an_iety or e_citement.
apprehension seems to e_ist 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 e_isted 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 e_ists. 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 e_clusively, 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 prete_t, 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 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 e_ecutive 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 e_pressed, 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 e_ecute all the e_press provisions of our national constitution, and the union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it e_cept 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 e_pressly 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 e_tent of my ability, i shall take care, as the constitution itself e_pressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the union be faithfully e_ecuted 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 obno_ious strangers among the people for that object. while the strict legal right may e_ist in the government to enforce the e_ercise 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 e_perience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and e_igency my best discretion will be e_ercised, according to circumstances actually e_isting 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 prete_t 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 e_istence? 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 e_press provisions for all possible questions. shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by state authority? the constitution does not e_pressly say. may congress prohibit slavery in the territories? the constitution does not e_pressly say. must congress protect slavery in the territories? the constitution does not e_pressly 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 e_act 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 fi_ed 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 e_tent 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 e_tended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be e_tended. 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 e_isting government, they can e_ercise 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 e_ercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and i should, under e_isting 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 e_press and irrevocable.
the chief magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fi_ terms for the separation of the states. the people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the e_ecutive 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 e_treme 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.
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準來解釋憲法和法律，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，這比泰然自若地認為其中某個法案是違背憲法的而去觸犯它，要穩(wěn)當?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，大致說來都很成功。然而，雖有這樣的先例，我現(xiàn)在開始擔任這個按憲法規(guī)定任期只有短暫4年的同一職務時，卻處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，我們認為，從法律上來說，聯(lián)邦是永久性的這一主張已經為聯(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，當時的13個州都信誓旦旦地明確保證聯(lián)邦應該永存，最后，1787年制定憲法時所宣市的日標之一就是“建設更完善的聯(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局的暴力行動都應根據(jù)憎況視為叛亂或革命。因此，我認為，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。我認為這僅僅是我份內的職責，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：它將按照憲法保衛(wèi)和維護它自身。
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。它們仍得面對面地相處，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?假定你們進行戰(zhàn)爭?你們不可能永遠打下去;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)的一切權力來自人民，但人民沒有授權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，則不可能這樣做。他的責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)有的政府結構，明智地只給他們的公仆很小的權力，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年的任期內十分嚴重地損害政府。我的同胞們，大家平靜而認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，那么那個目標會因從容對待而落空;但是，任何好的目標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，也沒有直接的權力那樣做。那些不滿意的人在這場爭論中即使被承認是站在正確的一邊，也沒有一點正當理由采取魯莽的行動。理智、愛國精神、基行教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，內戰(zhàn)這個重大問題的關鍵掌握在你們手中，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的誓言：“堅守、維護和捍衛(wèi)合眾國憲法?！蔽也辉敢饩痛私Y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)場和愛國志上的墳墓伸向這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)邦大團結的樂章。
