總統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定條件。接下來由本站小編為大家推薦美國總統林肯的就職演講，希望對你有所幫助!
美國總統林肯的就職演講
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 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 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 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.
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，並沒有保留意見，也無意以任何苛刻的標準來解釋憲法和法律，儘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，不論處於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，要穩當得多。
自從第一任總統根據我國憲法就職以來已經72年了。在此期間，有15位十分傑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，大致説來都很成功。然而，雖有這樣的先例，我現在開始擔任這個按憲法規定任期只有短暫4年的同一職務時，卻處在巨大而特殊的困難之下。聯邦的分裂，在此以前只是一種威脅，現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定，也是不盲而喻的。我們有把握説，從來沒有哪個正規政府在自己的組織法中列入一項要結束自己執政的條款。繼續執行我國憲法明文規定的條款，聯邦就將永遠存在，毀滅聯邦是辦不到的，除非採取憲法本身未予規定的某種行動。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盟，那麼，作為一種契約，這個聯盟能夠毫無爭議地由緯約各方中的少數加以取消嗎?締約的一方可以違約——也可以説毀約——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，從法律上來説，聯邦是永久性的這一主張已經為聯邦本身的歷史所證實。聯邦的歷史比憲法長久得多。事實上，它在1774年就根據《聯合條款》組成了。1776年，《獨立宣言》使它臻子成熟並持續下來。1778年《邦聯條款》使聯邦愈趨成熟，當時的13個州都信誓旦旦地明確保證聯邦應該永存，最後，1787年制定憲法時所宣市的日標之一就是“建設更完善的聯邦”。
但是，如果聯邦竟能由一個州或幾個州按照法律加以取消的話，那麼聯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。
根據這些觀點，任何一個州都不能只憑自己的動儀就能合法地脱離聯邦;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憎況視為叛亂或革命。因此，我認為，根據憲法和法律，聯邦是不容分裂的;我將按憲法本身明確授予我的權限，就自己能力所及，使聯邦法律得以在各州忠實執行。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，而只看作是聯邦已宣佈過的目標：它將按照憲法保衞和維護它自身。
以自然條件而言，我們是不能分開的，我們無法把各個地區彼此挪開，也無法在彼此之間築起一堵無法逾越的牆垣。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。那麼，分開之後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?外人之間執行條約難道還比朋友之間執行法律忠實嗎?假定你們進行戰爭•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後，你們就會停止戰鬥，那時你們還會遇到諸如交往條件之類的老問題。
總統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定條件。如果人民有此意願，那他們可以這樣做，而作為總統來説，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。
為什麼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恆的真理和正義支持你北方這一邊，或者支持你南方這一邊，那麼，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，通過我們現有的政府結構，明智地只給他們的公僕很小的權力，使他們不能力害作惡，並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採取一個措施，而你決不能不慌不忙，那麼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，你們現在感到不滿意的人仍然有着原來的、完好元損的憲法，而且，在敏感問題上，你們有着自己根據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採取魯莽的行動。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，政府不會對你們發動攻擊。你們不當挑釁者，就下會面臨衝突。你們沒有對天發誓要毀滅政府，而我卻要立下最莊嚴的誓言：“堅守、維護和捍衞合眾國憲法。”我不願意就此結束演説。我們不是敵人，而是朋友。我們一定不要成為敵人。儘管情緒緊張，也決不應割斷我們之間的感情紐帶。記憶的神祕琴絃，從每一個戰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，那時就會高奏起聯邦大團結的樂章。