亞伯拉罕‧林肯
(ABRAHAM LINCOLN)

第一任就職演說
First Inaugural Address

(American Memory Collection, Library of Congress)

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、佛羅裏達、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，在亞拉巴馬州的蒙哥馬利組成美國南部邦聯。幾 週後，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，那麼，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，而且只要不是強加於國家權威頭上的，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。那麼，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麼，也沒有任何繁簡適度的文件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 準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。即使少數派不願支援政府，多數派也必須支援，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，必須得有一方的支援。在這種情況下，如果有一個少數派不支援政府而要脫離聯邦，那麼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麼做。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。那麼，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……

為什麼不能滿懷信心，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，那麼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，不管他們是多麼邪惡或多麼愚蠢，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沈著的情況下所決不會採取的步驟，那麼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，不繫於我的手裏，而繫於你們的手裏。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。

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.