第一篇：林肯的歷次演講 中英文

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 2 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 13 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 14 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.合眾國的同胞們：

1861年3月4日

按照一個和我們的政府一樣古老的習慣，我現在來到諸位的面前，簡單地講幾句話，并在你們的面前，遵照合眾國憲法規定一個總統在他“到職視事之前”必須宣誓的儀式，在大家面前宣誓。

我認為沒有必要在這里來討論并不特別令人憂慮和不安的行政方面的問題。

在南方各州人民中似乎存在著一種恐懼心理。他們認為，隨著共和黨政府的執政，他們的財產，他們的和平生活和人身安全都將遭到危險。這種恐懼是從來沒有任何事實根據的。說實在的，大量相反的證據倒是一直存在，并隨時可以供他們檢查的。那種證據幾乎在現在對你們講話的這個人公開發表的每一篇演說中都能找到。這里我只想引用其中的一篇，在那篇演說中我曾說，“我完全無意，對已經存在奴隸制的各州的這一制度，進行直接或間接的干涉。我深信我根本沒有合法權利那樣做，而且我無此意圖。”那些提名我并選舉我的人都完全知道，我曾明確這么講過，并且還講過許多類似的話，而且從來也沒有收回過我已講過的這些話。不僅如此，他們還在綱領中，寫進了對他 17 們和對我來說，都具有法律效力的一項清楚明白、不容含糊的決議讓我接受。這里我來對大家談談這一決議：

“決議，保持各州的各種權利不受侵犯，特別是各州完全憑自己的決斷來安排和控制本州內部各種制度的權利不受侵犯，乃是我們的政治結構賴以完善和得以持久的權力均衡的至為重要的因素；我們譴責使用武裝力量非法入侵任何一個州或準州的土地，這種入侵不論使用什么借口，都是最嚴重的罪行。”

我現在重申這些觀點：而在這樣做的時候，我只想提請公眾注意，最能對這一點提出確切證據的那就是全國任何一個地方的財產、和平生活和人身安全決不會在任何情況下，由于即將上任的政府而遭到危險。這里我還要補充說，各州只要符合憲法和法律規定，合法地提出保護要求，政府便一定會樂于給予保護,不管是出于什么原因一一而且對任何一個地方都一視同仁。

有一個爭論得很多的問題是，關于逃避服務或引渡從勞役中逃走的人的問題。我現在要宣讀的條文，也和任何有關其它問題的條款一樣，明明白白寫在憲法之中：

“凡根據一個州的法律應在該州于服務或從事勞役的人，如逃到另一州，一律不得按照這一州的法律或條例，使其解除該項服務或勞役，而必，須按照有權享有該項服務或勞役當事人的要求，將其引渡。”

毫無疑問，按照制訂這一條款的人的意圖，此項規定實際指的就是，對我們所說的逃亡奴隸有權索回；而法律制訂人的這一意圖實際已成為法律。國會的所有議員都曾宣誓遵守憲法中的一切條款——對這一條和其它各條并無兩樣。因此，關于適合這一條款規定的奴隸應“將其引渡”這一點，他們的誓言是完全一致的。那么現在如果他們心平氣和地作一番努力，他們難道不能以幾乎同樣完全一致的誓言，制訂一項法律，以使他們的共同誓言得以實施嗎?

究竟這一條款應該由國家當局，還是由州當局來執行，大家的意見還不完全一致；但可以肯定地說，這種分歧并不是什么十分重要的問題。只要奴隸能被交還，那究竟由哪一個當局來交還，對奴隸或對別的人來說，沒有什么關系。任何人，在任何情況下，也決不會因為應以何種方式來實。現他的誓言這樣一個無關緊要的爭執，他便會認為完全可以不遵守自己的誓言吧?

另外，在任何有關這一問題的法律中，應不應該把文明和人道法學中關于自由的各項保證都寫上，以防止在任何情況下使一個自由人被作為奴隸交出嗎?同時，憲法中還有一條規定，明確保證“每一州的公 民都享有其它各州公民所享有公民的一切特權和豁免權”，我們用法律保證使這一條文得以執行，那不是更好嗎?

我今天在這里正式宣誓，思想上決無任何保留，也決無意以任何過于挑剔的標準來解釋憲法或法律條文。我現在雖不打算詳細指出國會的哪些法令必須要遵照執行；但我建議，我們大家，不論以個人身份還是以公職人員的身份，為了有更多的安全，我們最好服從并遵守現在還沒有廢除的一切法令，而不要輕易相信可以指之為不合憲法，便可以逃脫罪責，而對它們公然違反。

自從第一任總統根據國家憲法宣誓就職以來，七十二年已經過去了。在這期間，十五位十分杰出的公民相繼主持過政府的行政部門。他們引導著它度過了許多艱難險阻；一般都獲得極大的成功。然而，盡管有這么多可供參考的先例，我現在將在憲法所規定的短短四年任期中來擔任這同一任務，卻．面臨著巨大的非同一般的困難。在此以前，分裂聯邦只是受到了威脅，而現在卻是已出現力圖分裂它的可怕行動了。

從一般法律和我們的憲法來仔細考慮，我堅信，我們各州組成的聯邦是永久性的。在一切國民政府的根本大法中永久性這一點，雖不一定寫明，卻是不言而喻的。我們完全可以肯定說，沒有一個名副其實的政府會在自己的根本法中定出一條，規定自己完結的期限。繼續執行 我國憲法所明文規定的各項條文，聯邦便將永遠存在下去——除了采取并未見之于憲法的行動，誰也不可能毀滅掉聯邦。

還有，就算合眾國并不是個名副其實的政府，而只是依靠契約成立的一個各州的聯合體，那既有契約的約束，若非參加這一契約的各方一致同意，我們能說取消就把它取消嗎?參加訂立契約的一方可以違約，或者說毀約；但如果合法地取消這一契約，豈能不需要大家一致同意嗎?

從這些總原則出發，我們發現，從法學觀點來看，聯邦具有永久性質的提法，是為聯邦自身的歷史所證實的。聯邦本身比憲法更為早得多。事實上，它是由1774年，簽訂的《聯合條款》建立的。到1776年的《獨立宣言》才使它進一步成熟和延續下來。然后，通過1778年的“邦聯條款”使它更臻成熟，當時參加的十三個州便已明確保證要使邦聯永久存在下去。最后，到1787年制訂的憲法公開宣布的目的之一，便是“組建一個更為完美的聯邦”。

但是，如果任何一個州，或幾個州也可以合法地把聯邦給取消掉，加這個聯邦可是比它在憲法制訂以前還更不完美了，因為它已失去了它的一個至關重要因素——永久性。

從這些觀點我們可以認定，任何一個州，都不可能僅憑自己動議，便能合法地退出聯邦——而任何以此為目的的決議和法令在法律上都是無效的；至于任何一州或幾州的反對合眾國當

局的暴力行為，都可以依據具體情況視為叛亂或革命行為。

因此我認為,從憲法和法律的角度來看，聯邦是不容分裂的；我也將竭盡全力，按照憲法明確賦于我的責任，堅決負責讓聯邦的一切法令在所有各州得以貫徹執行。這樣做，我認為只是履行我應負的簡單職責；只要是可行的，我就一定要履行它，除非我的合法的主人美國人民，收回賦予我的不可缺少的工具，或行使他們的權威，命令我采取相反的行動。我相信我這話決不會被看成是一種恫嚇，而只會被看作實現聯邦已公開宣布的目的，它必將按照憲法保衛和維持它自己的存在。

要做到這一點并不需要流血或使用暴力，除非有人把它強。加于國家當局，否則便決不會發生那種情況。賦予我的權力將被用來保持、占有和掌管屬于政府的一切財產和土地。征收各種稅款和關稅；但除開為了這些目的確有必要這外，決不會有什么入侵問題——決不會在任何地方對人民，或在人民之間使用武力。任何內地，即使對聯邦政府的敵對情緒已十分嚴重和普遍，以致妨害有能力的當地公民執行聯邦職務的時候，政府也決不會強制派進令人厭惡的外來人去擔任這些職 務。盡管按嚴格的法律規定，政府有權強制履行這些職責，但一定要那樣做，必然非常使人不愉快，也幾乎不切實際，所以我認為最好還是暫時先把這些職責放一放。

郵政，除非遭到拒收，仍將在聯邦全境運作。在可能的情況下，一定要讓各地人民，都享有完善的安全感，這十分有利于冷靜思索和反思。我在這里所講的這些方針必將奉行，除非當前事態和實際經驗表明修改或改變方針是合適的。對任何一個事件和緊急問題，我一定會根據當時出現的具體形勢謹慎從事，期望以和平手段解決國內糾紛，力圖恢復兄弟愛手足情。

至于說某些地方總有些人不顧一切一心想破壞聯邦，并不惜以任何借口圖謀不軌，我不打算肯定或否定；如果確有這樣一些人，我不必要再對他們講什么。但對那些真正熱愛聯邦的人,我不可以講幾句嗎?

在我們著手研究如此嚴重的一件事情之前，那就是要把我們的國家組織連同它的一切利益，一切記憶和一切希望全給消滅掉，難道明智的做法不是先仔細研究一下那樣做究竟是為了什么?當事實上極有可能你企圖逃避的禍害并不存在的時候，你還會不顧一切采取那種貽害無窮的步驟嗎?或者你要逃避的災禍雖確實存在，而在你逃往的地方卻有更大的災禍在等著你；那你會往那里逃嗎?你會冒險犯下如此可怕的一個錯誤嗎?

大家都說，如果憲法中所規定的一切權利都確實得到執行，那他也就會留在聯邦里。那么，真有什么如憲法申明文規定的權利被否定了嗎?我想沒有。很幸運，人的頭腦是這樣構造出來的，沒有一個黨敢于如此冒天下之大不韙。如果可能，請你們講出哪怕是一個例子來，說明有什么憲法中明文規定的條款是沒有得到執行的。如果多數派完全靠人數上的優勢，剝奪掉少數派憲法上明文規定的權利，這件事從道義的角度來看，也許可以說革命是正當的——如果被剝奪的是極為重要的權利，那革命就肯定無疑是合理行動。但我們的情況卻并非如此。少數派和個人的一切重要權利，在憲法中，通過肯定和否定、保證和禁令；都一一向他們作了明確保證,以致關于這類問題，從來也沒有引起過爭論。但是，在制訂基本法時卻不可能對實際工作中出現的任何問題，都一一寫下可以立即加以應用的條文。再高明的預見也不可能料定未來的一切，任何長度適當的文件也不可能包容下針對一切可能發生的問題的條文。逃避勞役的人到底應該由聯邦政府交還還是由州政府交還呢?憲法上沒有具體規定。國會可以在準州禁止奴隸制嗎?憲法沒有具體規定。國會必須保護準州的奴隸制嗎?憲法也沒有具體規定。

從這類問題中引出了我們對憲法問題的爭端，并因這類問題使我們分成了多數派和少數派。如果少數派不肯默認，多數派便必須默認，否則政府便只好停止工作了。再沒有任何別的路可走；要讓政府繼續行 使職權，便必須要這一方或那一方默認。在這種情況下，如果一個少數派寧可脫離也決不默認，那他們也就開創將來必會使他們分裂和毀滅的先例；因為，當多數派拒絕接受這樣一個少數派的控制的時候，他們中的少數派便必會從他們之中再脫離出去。比如說，一個新的聯盟的任何一部分，在一兩年之后，為什么就不會像現在的聯邦中的一些部分堅決要脫離出去一樣，執意要從從那個新聯盟中脫離出去。所有懷著分裂聯邦思想的人現在都正接受著分裂思想的教育。難道要組成一個新聯邦的州，它們的利益竟會是那樣完全一致，它們只會有和諧，而不會再出現脫離行動嗎?

非常清楚，脫離的中心思想實質就是無政府主義。一個受著憲法的檢查和限制的約束，總是隨著大眾意見和情緒的慎重變化而及時改變的多數派，是自由人民的唯一真正的統治者。誰要想排斥他們，便必然走向無政府主義或專制主義。完全一致是根本不可能的；把少數派的統治作為一種長期安排是完全不能接受的，所以，一旦排斥了多數原則，剩下的便只有某種形式的無政府主義或某專制主義了。

我沒有忘記某些人的說法，認為憲法問題應該由最高法院來裁決。我也不否認這種裁決，在任何情況下，對訴訟各萬，以及訴訟目的，完全具有約束力，而且在類似的情況中，—應受到政府的一切其它部門高度的尊重和重視。盡管非常明顯，這類裁決在某一特定案例中都很可能會是錯誤的，然而，這樣隨之而來的惡果總只限于該特定案件，同時裁決還有機會被駁回，不致成為以后判案的先例，那這種過失比起其它的過失來當然更讓人容易忍受。同時，正直的公民必須承認，如果政府在有關全體人民利害的重大問題的政策，都得由最高法院的裁決，作出決定那一旦對個人之間的一般訴訟作出裁決時，人民便已不再是自己的主人，而達到了將他們的政府交給那個高于一切的法庭的地步了。我這樣說，決無意對法院或法官表示不滿。一件案子按正常程序送到他們面前，對它作出正當裁決，是他們的不可推卸的責任；如果別的人硬要把他們的判決用來達到政治目的，那并不是他們的過錯。

我國有一部分人相信奴隸制是正確的。應該擴展，而另一部分人又相信它是錯誤的，不應該擴展。這是唯一的實質性的爭執，憲法中有關逃亡奴隸的條款，以及制止對外奴隸貿易的法

律，在一個人民的道德觀念并不支持該法的，社會里，它們的執行情況也許不次于任何一項法律所能達到的程度。在兩種情況下，絕大多數的人都遵守枯燥乏味的法律義務，但又都有少數人不聽那一套。關于這一點，我想，要徹底解決是根本不可能的；如果寸巴兩個地區分離。以后，情況只會更壞。對外奴隸貿易現在并未能完全加以禁止，最后在一個地區中必將全面恢復；對于逃亡奴隸，在另一個地區，現在送回的只是一部分，將來會完全不肯交出來了。就自然條件而言，我們是不能分離的。我們決不能把我們的各個地區相互搬開，也不可能在它們之間修建起一道無法逾越的高墻。一對夫妻可以離婚，各走各的路，彼此再不見面。但我們國家的各部分可無法這么辦。它們只能面對面相處，友好也罷。仇視也罷，他們仍必須彼此交往。我們維道能有任何辦法使得這種交往在分離之后，比分離：之前更為有利，更為令，人滿意嗎?難道在外人之間訂立條約，比在朋友之間制訂法律還更為容易嗎?難道在外人之間履行條約，比在朋友之間按法律辦事還更忠實嗎?就算你們決定。訴諸戰爭，你們，總不能永遠打下去吧；最后當兩敗俱傷而雙方都一無所獲時，你們停止戰斗，那時依照什么條件相互交往，這同一個老問題仍會照樣擺在你們面前了。

這個國家，連同它的各種機構，都屬于居住在這里的人民。任何時候，他們對現存政府感到厭倦了，他們可以行使他們的憲法權利，改革這個政府，或者行使他們的革命權利解散它或者推翻它。我當然知道，現在就有許多尊貴的、愛國的公民極于想修訂我們的憲法。盡管我自己不會那么建議，我卻也完全承認他們在這個問題上的合法權利，承認他們可以按照憲法所規定的兩種方式中的任何一種來行使這種權利；而且，在目前情況下，我不但不反對，而倒是贊成給人民一個公正的機會讓他們去行動。

我還不禁要補充一點，在我看來，采取舉行會議的方式似乎更好一些，這樣可以使修訂方案完全由人民自己提出，而不是只讓他們去接受或拒絕一些并非特別為此目的而選出的一些人提出的方案，因為也可能那些方案恰恰并不是他們愿意接受或拒絕的。我了解到現在已有人提出一項憲法修正案——這修正案我并沒有看到，但在國會中已經通過了，大意說，聯邦政府將永遠不再干涉各州內部制度，包括那些應服勞役者的問題。為了使我講的話不致被誤解，我現在改變我不談具體修正案的原來的打算，明確聲明，這樣一個條款，既然現在可能列入憲法，我不反對使它成為明確而不可改動的條文。

合眾國總統的一切權威都來之于人民，人民并沒有授于他規定條件讓各州脫離出去的權力。人民自己如果要那樣干，那自然也是可以的；可是現在的行政當局不能這樣做。他的職責，是按照他接任時的樣子管理這個政府，然后,毫無損傷地再移交給他的繼任者。

我們為什么不能耐心地堅決相信人民的最終的公道呢?難道在整個世界上還有什么更好的，或與之相等的希望嗎?在我們今天的分歧中，難道雙方不都是認為自己正確嗎?如果萬國的全能統治者，以他的永恒的真理和公正，站在你們北方一邊，或你們南方一邊，那么，依照美國人民這一偉大法官的判決，真理和公正必將勝利。

按照目前我們生活其下的現政府的構架，我國人民十分明智；授于他們的公仆的胡作非為的權力是微乎其微的；而且同樣還十分明智地規定，即使那點微乎其微的權力，經過很短一段時間后，就必須收回到他們自己手中。

由于人民保持他們的純正和警惕，任何行政當局，在短短的四年之中，也不可能用極其惡劣或愚蠢的行為對這個政府造成嚴重的損害。

我的同胞們，請大家對這整個問題平心靜氣地好好想一想，真正有價值的東西是不會因從容從事而喪失的。如果有個什么目標使你迫不及待地要取得它，你采取的步驟是在審慎考慮的

情況下不會采取的，那個目標的確可能會由于你的從容不迫而達不到；但一個真正好的自標是不會因為從容從事而失去的。你們中現在感到不滿的人，仍然必須遵守原封未動的老憲法，新個敏感的問題上，仍然有根據憲法制訂的法律；而對此二者，新政府即使想要加以改變，它自身也立即無此權力。即使承認你們那些心懷不滿的人在這一爭執中站在正確的一邊，那也絲毫沒有正當的理由要采取貿然行動。明智、愛國主義、基督教精神，以及對從未拋棄過這片得天獨厚的土地的上帝的依賴，仍然完全能夠以最理想的方式來解決我們當前的一切困難。決定內戰這個重大問題的是你們，我的心懷不滿的同胞們，而并非決定于我。政府決不會攻擊你們。只要你們自己不當侵略者，就不會發生沖突。你們并沒有對天發誓必須毀滅這個政

府，而我卻曾無比莊嚴地宣誓，一定要“保持、保護和保衛”這個政府。

我真不想就此結束我的講話，我們不是敵人，而是朋友。我們決不能成為敵人。盡管目前的情緒有些緊張，但決不能容許它使我們之間的親密情感紐帶破裂。回憶的神秘琴弦，在整個這片遼闊的土地上，從每一個戰場，每一個愛國志士的墳墓，延伸到每一顆跳動的心和每一個家庭，它有一天會被我們的良知所觸動，再次奏出聯邦合唱曲。

The Gettysburg Address

Gettysburg, Pennsylvania

November 19, 1863

Fourscore and seven years ago,our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation,conceived and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are egaged in a great civil war,testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and dedicated can long endure.We are met on the battelfield 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 the nation might live.It is altogether and proper that we should do this.But, in a larger sense,we can not dedicate,we can not consecrate,we can not hallow this ground.The brave men,living and dead,have consecrated it far above our power to add or detract.The world will little note 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 the nation shall have a new birth of freedom,that the goverment of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.主講：亞伯拉罕〃林肯

時間：1863年11月19日

地點：美國，賓夕法尼亞，葛底斯堡

八十七年前，我們先輩在這個大陸上創立了一個新國家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生來平等的原則。

我們正從事一場偉大的內戰，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。我們在這場戰爭中的一個偉大戰場上集會。烈士們為使這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非常恰當的。

但是，從更廣泛的意義上說，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。倒是我們應該在這里把自已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吸取更多的獻身精神，來完成他們已經完全徹底為之獻身的事業；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自由的新生，要使這個民有、民治、民享的政府永世長存。

Abraham Lincoln 亞伯拉罕．林肯（1809－1865），美國第十六任總統（1861－1865）。他自修法律，以反對奴隸制的綱領當選為總統，導致南方諸州脫離聯邦。在由此引起的南北戰爭（1861－1865）中，他作為總統，發揮了美國歷史上最有效、最鼓舞人心的領導作用，以其堅定的信念、深遠的眼光和完美無缺的政治手腕，成功地引導一個處于分裂的國家度過了其歷史上流血最多的內戰，從而換救了聯邦。他致力于推進全人類的民主、自由和平等，以最雄辯的語言闡述了人道主義的思想，不失時機地發表《解放黑奴宣言》，因而被后人尊稱為“偉大的解放者”。林肯不僅是一個偉大的總統，更是一個偉人。他出生于社會低層，具有勤勞簡樸、謙虛和誠懇的美德。在美國歷屆總統中，林肯堪稱是最平易近人的一位。林肯的著作主要是演講詞和書信，以樸素莊嚴、觀點明確、思想豐富、表達靈活、適應對象并具有特殊的美國風味見稱。此篇演講是美國文學中最漂亮、最富有詩意的文章之一。雖然這是一篇慶祝軍事勝利的演說，但它沒有好戰之氣。相反，這是一篇感人肺腑的頌辭，贊美那些作出最后犧牲的人們，以及他們為之獻身的那些理想。其中“政府應為民有、民治、民享”的名言被人們廣為傳頌。

Fellow-Countrymen:

At this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office there is

less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first.Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper.Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of his great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented.The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all.With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war.All dreaded it;all sought to avert it.While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving teing delivered from thisurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war-seeking to dissolve the union and divide effects by negotiation.Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it.Their slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest.All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.To

strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration, which it has already attained.Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease.Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other.It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged.That of neither has been answered fully.The Almighty has His own purposes.”Woe unto the world because of offenses;for it must need be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense comet.“ If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern there in any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?

Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray that this mighty scourge of war

may speedily pass away? Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago so still it must be said ”The judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."

With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the might, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations

【導讀】在林肯總統發表這第二次就職演說時，南方叛軍敗局已定。在過去的六個月，謝爾曼的軍隊橫掃亞特蘭大直至西海岸，又率軍北征；格蘭特的軍隊已把弗吉尼亞殘余南軍圍在里奇蒙特，林肯總統也會見了南部的首批和談代表。勝利之時，林肯總統憂心忡忡，這

在他站在國會山的第二次就職演說中均有反應。他最后表達的 With malice toward none;with charity for all “休懷歹念，善待人人” 飽含寬恕和慈愛，而今已響徹全世界。全文讀來音韻鏗鏘，典雅高貴，雄渾凝重，是英文的典范，堪與其葛底斯堡演說相媲美，堪稱是林肯總統一生政治思想凝練成的璞玉純金，也可以說是林肯總統的天鵝之歌或臨終遺言，六周以后，在復活節的前夜，林肯總統被刺，死在一家旅館陌生人的床上。后來南方人也漸漸認識到這次布斯刺殺林肯事件意味著什么，稱之為“弒父”。林肯總統有著耶穌一樣的慈悲心，有著數不清的傳說。在我心目中，他是美國的驕傲。至于他在美國文學史上的地位自不待言，美國的權威評論一致認為他是駕馭英語的大師。而這文字就是出自一個沒有受過多少正規教育的西部荒野的自學成才的窮孩子之手！關鍵就在于林肯總統有一顆仁愛的心，“他的作品永遠代表人民的心聲，并融合著質樸和崇高。而他不得不說出來的那些話總是很好地體現了人類的同情和高貴。他的文字已經作為人類語言自身的精華被世界接受和珍藏。”

現在，讓我們來誦讀這一經典吧。

同胞們：

值此第二次宣誓就任總統之際，實無必要像第一次宣誓時發表長篇演說。但對所追求的事業詳細闡明自己的主張是相宜和適當的。在過去的四年里，公共輿論一再就這重大軍事行動的方方面面爭論不休，迄

今仍若人注意，耗費著國力，我實在沒有什么新見解呈上。我們的軍事進展，乃國運之所系，大家和我一樣耳熟能詳。而且這一點，我相信，我們有理由滿意和受到鼓舞。除了對未來寄予厚望，我實在無話

可說。

相比四年前，所有的心思都導向迫在眉睫的戰爭。大家都害怕它，都想設法避免它。當時的就職演說就發自這里，表明要全力以赴不通過戰爭拯救聯邦。本城的叛亂官員也曾千方百計想兵不血刃摧毀聯邦，通過媾和，消解聯邦和使其失效。兩黨都不主張戰爭，但其中一黨寧愿開戰不惜讓聯邦解體，而另一黨則接受戰爭為合眾國的生存。于

是，戰爭就來了。

這國家有八分之一的人是有色人種奴隸，且分布并不平衡，基本集中于南部。這些奴隸組成了一個特殊的強大的利益群體。眾所周知，這群體的利益就是戰爭的部分起因。加強，持久并擴大這一利益就是叛亂者迫使聯邦要做的，甚至不惜武力；而政府宣稱除了限制無權擴大其領地范圍。沒有哪一方希望戰爭，因為數量和現狀是既成事實。沒有哪一方認為以前，或今后沖突的原因會隨著沖突本身停止。雙方都在尋找輕而易舉的勝利，結果不要那樣突然和徹底。雙方都讀著同一本圣經，祈求同一個上帝，祈求他的幫助去反對對方。這似乎有點奇怪，有人竟敢祈求公正的上帝去幫助自己搶奪別人通過汗水獲得的面包，不過，還是讓我們不要評判他人免得被他人所評判，雙方的祈禱都未得到回應，或沒有完全被回應。全能的主有他的用意。“這世界有禍了，因為將人絆倒！絆倒人的事是免不了的，但那絆倒人的有禍

了！”如果我們設想美國的奴隸制是獲得上帝允許的一種難以避免的不公，那么也已經延續到他收回的時間。他現在要把它移除。于是他給了北方和南方這場可怕的戰爭，這場災禍，給絆倒人的人們。對于那些虔誠信仰和贊美他并相信他活生生存在的人們，還能有別的解釋嗎？我們虔誠地希望----我們熱誠地祈禱，這巨大的戰爭苦難能趕快過去。而且，如果這是上帝的意旨，二百五十年奴隸們積累的財富要毀于一旦，皮鞭上抽出的每一滴血都要通過刀劍來償還，正如三千年前所說，仍然必須承認：“主的審判是真實和正義的。” 休懷歹念，善待人人。堅信正義，因為上帝讓我們親見。讓我們戮力完成未竟的事業，包扎好國家的傷口。緬懷烈士，悉心照看好遺孀和遺孤，竭盡全力在我們中和同所有的民族，達成并保持公正持久的和

平。

第二篇：林肯演講

The Gettysburg Address

Abraham Lincoln

Fourscore and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.We are met on a great battlefield of that war.We have come to dedicate a portion of it as the final resting place of those who here gave their lives that 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 poor 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 here to the unfinished work that they have thus far so nobly advanced.It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us,that from those honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion;that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain;that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.最后一句參考譯文如下：

在此，我們將獻身于有待我們去完成的偉大事業，即我們將更加致力于完成先烈們曾為之獻身的這一事業，即在此我們將下定決心，不使先烈的鮮血白流，即這個國家在上帝的庇佑之下，必將得到自由的新生,一個民有、民治、民享的政府，必將永世長存。

這一段是這樣翻譯出來的：

(1)It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us─(2)that from those honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause(3)for which they gave the last full measure of devotion─(2)that we here highly resolve

(3)that these dead shall not have died in vain─(2)that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom─(2)and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perishfrom the earth.分析：

這是林肯總統的“Gettysburg Address”中最后、最重要、也是最長的一句話。詞句雖稍長，并列結構多，但層次還是清楚的，一目了然。層次也不是很復雜，全句只有三個層次：主句，在全句的開始，前面標有（1）；從句，在每個“──”號之后，前面標有（2），表示第二個層次，共有四個；從句中的從句，前面標有（3），表示第三個層次，共有兩個。關鍵是弄清這幾層之間的關系：第二層次的四個并列從句皆為task 的同位語從句；第一個第三層次的從句為 cause 的定語從句，第二個則為 resolve 的賓語從句。每個層次還有一些其它結構，如 government 后就有三個著名于世的并列的 of 短語作定語，就不一一分析了。注意全句末尾反譯（反面正譯）手段的運用，比較原句反面的表達：“必不致從地球上消滅。”

參考譯文：

主講：亞伯拉罕·林肯

時間：1863年11月19日

地點：美國，賓夕法尼亞，葛底斯堡

八十七年以前，我們的祖先在這大陸上建立了一個國家，它孕育于自由，并且獻身給一種理念，即所有人都是聲來平等的。

當前，我們正在從事一次偉大的內戰，我們在考驗，究竟這個國家，或任何一個有這種主張和這種信仰的國家，是否能長久存在。我們在那次戰爭的一個偉大的戰場上集會。我們來到這里，奉獻那個戰場上的一部分土地，作為在此地為那個國家的生存而犧牲了自己生命的人的永久眠息之所。我們這樣做，是十分合情合理的。

可是，就更深一層意義而言，我們是無從奉獻這片土地的--無從使它成為圣地--也不能把它變為人們景仰之所。那些在這里戰斗的勇士，活著的和死去的，已使這塊土地神圣化了，遠非我們的菲薄能力所能左右。世人會不大注意，更不會長久記得我們在此地所說的話，然而他們將永遠忘不了這些人在這里所做的事。相反，我們活著的人應該獻身于那些曾在此作戰的人們所英勇推動而尚未完成的工作。我們應該在此獻身于我們面前所留存的偉大工作--由于他們的光榮犧牲，我們要更堅定地致力于他們曾作最后全部貢獻的那個事業--我們在此立志宣誓，不能讓他們白白死去--要使這個國家在上帝的庇佑之下，得到新生的自由--要使那民有、民治、民享的政府不致從地球上消失。(翻譯可能不很準確，如要準確，請查詢專業書籍)

第三篇：林肯演講

Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent a new Nation, conceived inLiberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now, we are engaged in a great Civil War, testing whether that Nation, or any nation so conceived 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。現在我們正從事一場偉大的內戰，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。我們在這場戰爭中的一個偉大戰場上集會。烈士們為使這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的。

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。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；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

第四篇：林肯葛底斯堡演講 中英文

在八十七年前，我們的國父們在這塊土地上創建一個新的國家，乃基于對自由的堅信，并致力于所有人皆生而平等的信念。Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.當下吾等被卷入一場偉大的內戰，以考驗是否此國度，或任何肇基于和奉獻于斯者，可永垂不朽。吾等現相逢于此戰中一處浩大戰場。而吾等將奉獻此戰場之部分，作為這群交付彼者生命讓那國度勉能生存的人們最后安息之處。此乃全然妥切且適當而為吾人應行之舉。

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.We are met on a great battle field of that war.We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives to that nation might live.It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.但，于更大意義之上，吾等無法致力、無法奉上、無法成就此土之圣。這群勇者，無論生死，曾于斯奮戰到底，早已使其神圣，而遠超過吾人卑微之力所能增 減。這世間不曾絲毫留意，也不長久記得吾等于斯所言，但永不忘懷彼人于此所為。吾等生者，理應當然，獻身于此輩鞠躬盡瘁之未完大業。吾等在此責無旁貸獻身 于眼前之偉大使命：自光榮的亡者之處吾人肩起其終極之奉獻—吾等在此答應亡者之死當非徒然—此國度，于神佑之下，當享有自由之新生—民有、民治、民享之政府當免于凋零。

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground.The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor 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 here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.It is rather for us to be here 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 we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

第五篇：葛底斯堡演講林肯中英文對照

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.We are met on a great battle-field of that war.We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate--we can not consecrate--we can not hallow--this ground.The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor 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 here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.It is rather for us to be here 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 we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.87年前，我們的先輩在這個大陸上創建了一個新的國家。她孕育于自由之中，奉行人人生來平等的信條。

現在我們正進行一場偉大的內戰，以考驗這個國家，或者任何一個孕育于自由和奉行人人生來平等信條的國家是否能夠長久堅持下去。我們相聚在這場戰爭的一個偉大戰場上，我們來到這里把這戰場的一部分奉獻給那些為國家生存而捐軀的人們，作為他們最后的安息之所。我們這樣做是完全適合的、恰當的。但是，從更高的意義上說，我們是不能奉獻，不能圣化，也不能神化這片土地的，因為那些曾經在這里戰斗過的人們，活著的和死去的人們，已經圣化了這片土地，他們所做的遠非我們的微薄之力所能揚抑。這個世界不大會注意也不會長久記得我們今天在這里所說的話，但是，它永遠不會忘記勇士們在這里所做的事。

毋寧說，我們活著的人，應該獻身于留在我們面前的偉大任務：從這些光榮的死者身上汲取更多的獻身精神，以完成他們精誠所至的事業；我們在此下定最大的決心，以不讓死者白白犧牲；讓這個國家在上帝的保佑下獲得自由的新生；讓這個民有、民治、民享的政府與世長存。