林肯总统就职演讲中英文对照

林肯总统在

1861

年的第一次就职演说

--

英文版

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

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

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

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 direc

t 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 w

ill

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

dec

isions

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