林肯演讲赏析

由于整篇的基调是稳健的劝和，

本篇演讲在修辞手法上主要采用语气缓和 但

不乏节奏感的同义词叠韵：

with

no

mental

reservations

and

with

no

purpose

、

fraternal sympathies and affections.

在句型的处理上，

近义词反复是他的惯用的手段，

此外还有同义词反复出现，

每一次都增加一个修饰语，

句型由简单句慢慢过渡到复杂句，

层层推进，

最终调

动听粽情绪：

It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association. It was matured and

continued by the Declaration of Independence. It was further matured, and the faith of

all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual.

And

finally,

one

of

the

declared

objects

for

ordaining

and

establishing

the

Constitution was

“

to form a more perfect Unio n.

”同时篇章中的句型长短错落有致，

在长句中穿插音近异义 的介词短语，

使得文章朗朗上口：

They have conducted it

through many perils, and generally with great success.

这篇演讲最大的特点就是他的真情实意贯穿全文。虽然 在开篇有点谦卑妥

协，但是娓娓道来，慢慢展开主题，点燃了民众与联邦同生共死的激情 ，联邦的

情感、

人民赋予的重托、

责任 和意识贯穿整个演讲中。

其中佳句迭出：

“

Physically

speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each

each

other

nor

build

an

impassable

wall

between

them

“

”

We

are

not

enemies,

but

friends. We must not be enemies.

”

结尾是演讲的升 华，充满了激情四溢的语句：

“

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 n ature.

”使得整个演

讲在此处，声情并茂、情深意长，而 且全篇从整体上将，收放自如，情感拿捏得

体，看成演讲中的珍品。

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.

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

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

in the several States

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

perfect Union.

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