林肯总统就职演讲中英文对照
林肯总统在 1 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 "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. 林肯 总统第一次 就职演说1 (1861 年 年 3 3 月 月 4 4 日) )
林肯
[学术交流网按:林肯是美国人民和政治家推崇的伟大人物之一,他的维护国家同意,反对分裂的主张,反对扩张奴隶制的主张尤其受到广泛赞扬。自 2005 年 3 月 1 日起发布林肯总统有关维护国家统一、反对分裂的演说、信件、咨文的内容。]
合众国的同胞们:
1861 年 3 月 4 日
按照一个和我们的政府一样古老的习惯,我现在来到诸位的面前,简单地讲几句话,并在你们的面前,遵照合众国宪法规定一个总统在他“到职视事之前”必须宣誓的仪式,在大家面前宣誓。
我认为没有必要在这里来讨论并不特别令人忧虑和不安的行政方面的问题。
在南方各州人民中似乎存在着一种恐惧心理。他们认为,随着共和党政府的执政,他们的财产,他们的和平生活和人身安全都将遭到危险。这种恐惧是从来没有任何事实根据的。说实在的,大量相反的证据倒是一直存在,并随时可以供他们检查的。那种证据几乎在现在对你们讲话的这个人公开发表的每一篇演说中都能找到。这里我只想引用其中的一篇,在那篇演说中我曾说,“我完全无意,对已经存在奴隶制的各州的这一制度,进行直接或间接的干涉。我深信我根本没有合法权利那样做,而且我无此意图。”那些提名我并选举我的人都完全知道,我曾明确这么讲过,并且还讲过许多类似的话,而且从来也没有收回过我已讲过的这些话。不仅如此,他们还在纲领中,写进了对他们和对我来说,都具有法律效力的一项清楚明白、不容含糊的决议让我接受。这里我来对大家谈谈这一决议:
“决议,保持各州的各种权利不受侵犯,特别是各州完全凭自己的决断来安排和控制本州内部各种制度的权利不受侵犯,乃是我们的政治结构赖以完善和得以持久的权力均衡的至为重要的因素;我们谴责使用武装力量非法入侵任何一个州或准州的土地,这种入侵不论使用什么借口,都是最严重的罪行。”
我现在重申这些观点:而在这样做的时候,我只想提请公众注意,最能对这一点提出确切证据的那就是全国任何一个地方的财产、和平生活和人身安全决不会在任何情况下,由于即将上任的政府而遭到危险。这里我还要补充说,各州只要符合宪法和法律规定,合法地提出保护要求,政府便一定会乐于给予保护,不管是出于什么原因一一而且对任何一个地方都一视同仁。
有一个争论得很多的问题是,关于逃避服务或引渡从劳役中逃走的人的问题。我现在要宣读的条文,也和任何有关其它问题的条款一样,明明白白写在宪法之中:
“凡根据一个州的法律应在该州于服务或从事劳役的人,如逃到另一州,一律不得按照这一州的法律或条例,使其解除该项服务或劳役,而必,须按照有权享有该项服务或劳役当事人的要求,将其引渡。”
毫无疑问,按照制订这一条款的人的意图,此项规定实际指的就是,对我们所说的逃亡奴隶有权索回;而法律制订人的这一意图实际已成为法律。国会的所有议员都曾宣誓遵守宪法中的一切条款——对这一条和其它各条并无两样。因此,关于适合这一条款规定的奴隶应“将其引渡”这一点,他们的誓言是完全一致的。那么现在如果他们心平气和地作一番努力,他们难道不能以几乎同样完全一致的誓言,制订一项法律,以使他们的共同誓言得以实施吗?
究竟这一条款应该由国家当局,还是由州当局来执行,大家的意见还不完全一致;但可以肯定地说,这种分歧并不是什么十分重要的问题。只要奴隶能被交还,那究竟由哪一个当局来交还,对奴隶或对别的人来说,没有什么关系。任何人,在任何情况下,也决不会因为应以何种方式来实。现他的誓言这样一个无关紧要的争执,他便会认为完全可以不遵守自己的誓言吧?
另外,在任何有关这一问题的法律中,应不应该把文明和人道法学中关于自由的各项保证都写上,以防止在任何情况下使一个自由人被作为奴隶交出吗?同时,宪法中还有一条规定,明确保证“每一州的公民都享有其它各州公民所享有公民的一切特权和豁免权”,我们用法律保证使这一条文得以执行,那不是更好吗?
我今天在这里正式宣誓,思想上决无任何保留,也决无意以任何过于挑剔的标准来解释宪法或法律条文。我现在虽不打算详细指出国会的哪些法令必须要遵照执行;但我建议,我们大家,不论以个人身份还是以公职人员的身份,为了有更多的安全,我们最好服从并遵守现在还没有废除的一切法令,而不要轻易相信可以指之为不合宪法,便可以逃脱罪责,而对它们公然违反。
自从第一任总统根据国家宪法宣誓就职以来,七十二年已经过去了。在这期间,十五位十分杰出的公民相继主持过政府的行政部门。他们引导着它度过了许多艰难险阻;一般都获得极大的成功。然而,尽管有这么多可供参考的先例,我现在将在宪法所规定的短短四年任期中来担任这同一任务,却.面临着巨大的非同一般的困难。在此以前,分裂联邦只是受到了威胁,而现在却是已出现力图分裂它的可怕行动了。
从一般法律和我们的宪法来仔细考虑,我坚信,我们各州组成的联邦是永久性的。在一切国民政府的根本大法中永久性这一点,虽不一定写明,却是不言而喻的。我们完全可以肯定说,没有一个名副其实的政府会在自己的根本法中定出一条,规定自己完结的期限。继续执行我国宪法所明文规定的各项条文,联邦便将永远存在下去——除了采取并未见之于宪法的行动,谁也不可能毁灭掉联邦。
还有,就算合众国并不是个名副其实的政府,而只是依靠契约成立的一个各州的联合体,那既有契约的约束,若非参加这一契约的各方一致同意,我们能说取消就把它取消吗?参加订立契约的一方可以违约,或者说毁约;但如果合法地取消这一契约,岂能不需要大家一致同意吗?
从这些总原则出发,我们发现,从法学观点来看,联邦具有永久性质的提法,是为联邦自身的历史所证实的。联邦本身比宪法更为早得多。事实上,它是由 1774 年,签订的《联合条款》建立的。到 1776 年的《独立宣言》才使它进一步成熟和延续下来。然后,通过 1778
年的“邦联条款”使它更臻成熟,当时参加的十三个州便已明确保证要使邦联永久存在下去。最后,到 1787 年制订的宪法公开宣布的目的之一,便是“组建一个更为完美的联邦”。
但是,如果任何一个州,或几个州也可以合法地把联邦给取消掉,加这个联邦可是比它在宪法制订以前还更不完美了,因为它已失去了它的一个至关重要因素——永久性。
从这些观点我们可以认定,任何一个州,都不可能仅凭自己动议,便能合法地退出联邦——而任何以此为目的的决议和法令在法律上都是无效的;至于任何一州或几州的反对合众国当
局的暴力行为,都可以依据具体情况视为叛乱或革命行为。
因此我认为,从宪法和法律的角度来看,联邦是不容分裂的;我也将竭尽全力,按照宪法明确赋于我的责任,坚决负责让联邦的一切法令在所有各州得以贯彻执行。这样做,我认为只是履行我应负的简单职责;只要是可行的,我就一定要履行它,除非我的合法的主人美国人民,收回赋予我的不可缺少的工具,或行使他们的权威,命令我采取相反的行动。我相信我这话决不会被看成是一种恫吓,而只会被看作实现联邦已公开宣布的目的,它必将按照宪法保卫和维持它自己的存在。
要做到这一点并不需要流血或使用暴力,除非有人把它强。加于国家当局,否则便决不会发生那种情况。赋予我的权力将被用来保持、占有和掌管属于政府的一切财产和土地。征收各种税款和关税;但除开为了这些目的确有必要这外,决不会有什么入侵问题——决不会在任何地方对人民,或在人民之间使用武力。任何内地,即使对联邦政府的敌对情绪已十分严重和普遍,以致妨害有能力的当地公民执行联邦职务的时候,政府也决不会强制派进令人厌恶的外来人去担任这些职务。尽管按严格的法律规定,政府有权强制履行这些职责,但一定要那样做,必然非常使人不愉快,也几乎不切实际,所以我认为最好还是暂时先把这些职责放一放。
邮政,除非遭到拒收,仍将在联邦全境运作。在可能的情况下,一定要让各地人民,都享有完善的安全感,这十分有利于冷静思索和反思。我在这里所讲的这些方针必将奉行,除非当前事态和实际经验表明修改或改变方针是合适的。对任何一个事件和紧急问题,我一定会根据当时出现的具体形势谨慎从事,期望以和平手段解决国内纠纷,力图恢复兄弟爱手足情。
至于说某些地方总有些人不顾一切一心想破坏联邦,并不惜以任何借口图谋不轨,我不打算肯定或否定;如果确有这样一些人,我不必要再对他们讲什么。但对那些真正热爱联邦的人,我不可以讲几句吗?
在我们着手研究如此严重的一件事情之前,那就是要把我们的国家组织连同它的一切利益,一切记忆和一切希望全给消灭掉,难道明智的做法不是先仔细研究一下那样做究竟是为了什么?当事实上极有可能你企图逃避的祸害并不存在的时候,你还会不顾一切采取那种贻害无穷的步骤吗?或者你要逃避的灾祸虽确实存在,而在你逃往的地方却有更大的灾祸在等着你;那你会往那里逃吗?你会冒险犯下如此可怕的一个错误吗?
大家都说,如果宪法中所规定的一切权利都确实得到执行,那他也就会留在联邦里。那么,真有什么如宪法申明文规定的权利被否定了吗?我想没有。很幸运,人的头脑是这样构造出来的,没有一个党敢于如此冒天下之大不韪。如果可能,请你们讲出哪怕是一个例子来,说明有什么宪法中明文规定的条款是没有得到执行的。如果多数派完全靠人数上的优势,剥夺掉少数派宪法上明文规定的权利,这件事从道义的角度来看,也许可以说革命是正当的——如果被剥夺的是极为重要的权利,那革命就肯定无疑是合理行动。但我们的情况却并非
如此。少数派和个人的一切重要权利,在宪法中,通过肯定和否定、保证和禁令;都一一向他们作了明确保证,以致关于这类问题,从来也没有引起过争论。但是,在制订基本法时却不可能对实际工作中出现的任何问题,都一一写下可以立即加以应用的条文。再高明的预见也不可能料定未来的一切,任何长度适当的文件也不可能包容下针对一切可能发生的问题的条文。逃避劳役的人到底应该由联邦政府交还还是由州政府交还呢?宪法上没有具体规定。国会可以在准州禁止奴隶制吗?宪法没有具体规定。国会必须保护准州的奴隶制吗?宪法也没有具体规定。
从这类问题中引出了我们对宪法问题的争端,并因这类问题使我们分成了多数派和少数派。如果少数派不肯默认,多数派便必须默认,否则政府便只好停止工作了。再没有任何别的路可走;要让政府继续行使职权,便必须要这一方或那一方默认。在这种情况下,如果一个少数派宁可脱离也决不默认,那他们也就开创将来必会使他们分裂和毁灭的先例;因为,当多数派拒绝接受这样一个少数派的控制的时候,他们中的少数派便必会从他们之中再脱离出去。比如说,一个新的联盟的任何一部分,在一两年之后,为什么就不会像现在的联邦中的一些部分坚决要脱离出去一样,执意要从从那个新联盟中脱离出去。所有怀着分裂联邦思想的人现在都正接受着分裂思想的教育。难道要组成一个新联邦的州,它们的利益竟会是那样完全一致,它们只会有和谐,而不会再出现脱离行动吗?
非常清楚,脱离的中心思想实质就是无政府主义。一个受着宪法的检查和限制的约束,总是随着大众意见和情绪的慎重变化而及时改变的多数派,是自由人民的唯一真正的统治者。谁要想排斥他们,便必然走向无政府主义或专制主义。完全一致是根本不可能的;把少数派的统治作为一种长期安排是完全不能接受的,所以,一旦排斥了多数原则,剩下的便只有某种形式的无政府主义或某专制主义了。
我没有忘记某些人的说法,认为宪法问题应该由最高法院来裁决。我也不否认这种裁决,在任何情况下,对诉讼各万,以及诉讼目的,完全具有约束力,而且在类似的情况中,—应受到政府的一切其它部门高度的尊重和重视。尽管非常明显,这类裁决在某一特定案例中都很可能会是错误的,然而,这样随之而来的恶果总只限于该特定案件,同时裁决还有机会被驳回,不致成为以后判案的先例,那这种过失比起其它的过失来当然更让人容易忍受。同时,正直的公民必须承认,如果政府在有关全体人民利害的重大问题的政策,都得由最高法院的裁决,作出决定那一旦对个人之间的一般诉讼作出裁决时,人民便已不再是自己的主人,而达到了将他们的政府交给那个高于一切的法庭的地步了。我这样说,决无意对法院或法官表示不满。一件案子按正常程序送到他们面前,对它作出正当裁决,是他们的不可推卸的责任;如果别的人硬要把他们的判决用来达到政治目的,那并不是他们的过错。
我国有一部分人相信奴隶制是正确的。应该扩展,而另一部分人又相信它是错误的,不应该扩展。这是唯一的实质性的争执,宪法中有关逃亡奴隶的条款,以及制止对外奴隶贸易的法
律,在一个人民的道德观念并不支持该法的,社会里,它们的执行情况也许不次于任何一项法律所能达到的程度。在两种情况下,绝大多数的人都遵守枯燥乏味的法律义务,但又都有少数人不听那一套。关于这一点,我想,要彻底解决是根本不可能的;如果寸巴两个地区分离。以后,情况只会更坏。对外奴隶贸易现在并未能完全加以禁止,最后在一个地区中必将全面恢复;对于逃亡奴隶,在另一个地区,现在送回的只是一部分,将来会完全不肯交出来了。
就自然条件而言,我们是不能分离的。我们决不能把我们的各个地区相互搬开,也不可能在它们之间修建起一道无法逾越的高墙。一对夫妻可以离婚,各走各的路,彼此再不见面。但我们国家的各部分可无法这么办。它们只能面对面相处,友好也罢。仇视也罢,他们仍必须彼此交往。我们维道能有任何办法使得这种交往在分离之后,比分离:之前更为有利,更为令,人满意吗?难道在外人之间订立条约,比在朋友之间制订法律还更为容易吗?难道在外
人之间履行条约,比在朋友之间按法律办事还更忠实吗?就算你们决定。诉诸战争,你们,总不能永远打下去吧;最后当两败俱伤而双方都一无所获时,你们停止战斗,那时依照什么条件相互交往,这同一个老问题仍会照样摆在你们面前了。
这个国家,连同它的各种机构,都属于居住在这里的人民。任何时候,他们对现存政府感到厌倦了,他们可以行使他们的宪法权利,改革这个政府,或者行使他们的革命权利解散它或者推翻它。我当然知道,现在就有许多尊贵的、爱国的公民极于想修订我们的宪法。尽管我自己不会那么建议,我却也完全承认他们在这个问题上的合法权利,承认他们可以按照宪法所规定的两种方式中的任何一种来行使这种权利;而且,在目前情况下,我不但不反对,而倒是赞成给人民一个公正的机会让他们去行动。
我还不禁要补充一点,在我看来,采取举行会议的方式似乎更好一些,这样可以使修订方案完全由人民自己提出,而不是只让他们去接受或拒绝一些并非特别为此目的而选出的一些人提出的方案,因为也可能那些方案恰恰并不是他们愿意接受或拒绝的。我了解到现在已有人提出一项宪法修正案——这修正案我并没有看到,但在国会中已经通过了,大意说,联邦政府将永远不再干涉各州内部制度,包括那些应服劳役者的问题。为了使我讲的话不致被误解,我现在改变我不谈具体修正案的原来的打算,明确声明,这样一个条款,既然现在可能列入宪法,我不反对使它成为明确而不可改动的条文。
合众国总统的一切权威都来之于人民,人民并没有授于他规定条件让各州脱离出去的权力。人民自己如果要那样干,那自然也是可以的;可是现在的行政当局不能这样做。他的职责,是按照他接任时的样子管理这个政府,然后,毫无...
- 范文大全
- 职场知识
- 精美散文
- 名著
- 讲坛
- 诗歌
- 礼仪知识
-
超星尔雅学习通《对话大国工匠致敬劳动模范》题库附答案
超星尔雅学习通《对话大国工匠致敬劳动模范》题库附答案 1、历史只会眷顾坚定者、奋进者、搏击者,而不会
【入党申请书】 日期:2021-05-12
-
对于政治生态考核整改工作方案
本文系作者原创投稿,仅供学习参考,请勿照搬照抄! 关于政治生态考核整改工作的方案 为做好推进风清气正
【经济工作】 日期:2020-06-05
-
大学生学习2024年两会精神心得感悟
大学生学习2024年两会精神心得感悟过去一年,是全面贯彻二十大精神的开局之年,中国共产党带领全国各族人民,付出艰辛努力,换来重大成
【心得体会】 日期:2024-03-07
-
中国传统故事英文版 中国古代故事英文版
历史学科蕴含着许多丰富的、生动的、有趣的素材,每一个历史事件、历史人物都有相关的、动人的历史小故事,都能给人以启迪。你对中国古代的故事了解多少呢?下面是小编为您...
【调查报告】 日期:2019-05-22
-
基尔霍夫定律验证实验报告
基尔霍夫定律的验证的实验报告本文关键词:基尔,定律,霍夫,验证,实验基尔霍夫定律的验证的实验报告本文
【思想宣传】 日期:2021-03-08
-
中小学党建工作实施意见
中小学党建设工作实施意见中小学校担负着培养德智体美全面发展的社会主义建设者和接班人的重要使命。加强中
【爱国演讲】 日期:2020-09-22
-
地藏经诵读仪规(完整版)
地藏经诵读仪规(完整版) 恭请文: 恭请大慈大悲大愿地藏王菩萨、护法诸天菩萨慈悲加持护念弟子***能
【个人简历】 日期:2021-03-31
-
青年学生学习全国人大十四届二次会议心得感想16篇
青年学生学习全国人大十四届二次会议心得感想16篇报告中提到政府在经济调控、消费政策、基础设施和制造业投资、房地产调控以及地方债务
【心得体会】 日期:2024-03-07
-
小学党建工作制度
小学党建工作制度33篇 党建工作责任制度 1 党支部年初制定全年党建工作计划,将目标任务分解到有关部
【思想学习】 日期:2021-02-10
-
材料力学考题
材料力学考题本文关键词:材料力学,考题材料力学考题本文简介:材料力学1、简易起重设备中,AC杆由两根
【入党申请书】 日期:2021-03-06
-
执行信息公开网
执行信息公开网 执行信息公开网 执行信息公开网: zhi*ing (点击下图可直接进行访问) 全国
【职场知识】 日期:2020-07-03
-
年国家开放大学电大电子商务单选题题库
单选: 1、EDI是指A、电子商务B、电子数据交换C、电子交易 D、移动数据交换 答案: B 2、电
【职场知识】 日期:2020-06-05
-
大学教师毕业设计指导记录4篇
大学教师毕业设计指导记录4篇 毕业设计是指工、农、林科高等学校和中等专业学校学生毕业前夕总结性的独立作业。是实践性教学最后一
【职场知识】 日期:2022-05-11
-
“以学生为中心”的教学原则
以学生为中心的教学原则教师在开展以学生为中心的教学实践中,必须谨记学习目标不再是知识的获得,能力要比知识更重要。以下是蒲公英阅读网
【职场知识】 日期:2023-01-05
-
有机磷酸酯类中毒及其解救(实验报告范文)
有机磷酸酯类中毒及其解救XXX、XXX一、实验目的1 观察有机磷酸酯类农药敌百虫中毒时的症状。 2
【职场知识】 日期:2020-08-30
-
组工干部学习谈治国理政第三卷《共建创新包容开放型世界经济》心得体会
组工干部学习谈治国理政第三卷《共建创新包容的开放型世界经济》心得体会 《习近平谈治国理政》第三卷第七
【职场知识】 日期:2020-09-22
-
2021教育基础知识试题(附答案)
2021教育基础知识精选试题(附答案) 1、主张恢复西方传统教育核心价值,反对“进步教育
【职场知识】 日期:2021-03-17
-
男一分钟仰卧起坐标准表
表表11--13 男生一分钟仰卧起坐、引体向上单项评分表(单位:次) 等级 单项 得分 三年级 四年
【职场知识】 日期:2021-05-08
-
心理健康黑板报_心理健康黑板报图片
虽然工作上难免压力,但是只要正视压力,一切就不会太辛苦。下面就随小编看看心理健康黑板报内容,希望喜欢哦。 心理健康黑板报图片欣赏 心理健康黑板报图片1 心理健...
【职场知识】 日期:2020-02-26
-
“从青风公司审计案例看销售与收款循环审计”案例说明书
“从青风公司审计案例看销售与收款循环审计”案例说明书一、本案例要解决的关键问
【职场知识】 日期:2020-09-28
-
唐代诗人李昂个人信息
唐代诗人李昂个人信息 导读:我根据大家的需要整理了一份关于《唐代诗人李昂个人信息》的内容,具体内容:
【古典文学】 日期:2020-11-07
-
[关于中秋的朗诵诗词] 关于爱国的朗诵诗词
中秋,热闹的街头树起了灯彩,舞起了火龙。你知道多少关于中秋的朗诵诗词?下面小编为你整理了几篇关于中秋的朗诵诗词,希望对你有帮助。 关于中秋的朗诵诗词一 中秋佳节...
【古典文学】 日期:2019-06-06
-
叠加原理实验报告
一、实验目的1、通过实验来验证线性电路中的叠加原理以及其适用范围。 2、学习直流仪器仪表的测试方法。
【古典文学】 日期:2020-11-12
-
输血查对制度
输血查对制度依据卫生部《临床输血技术规范》的要求,制订抽血交叉配备查对制度、取血查对制度、输血查对制
【古典文学】 日期:2020-09-24
-
大气唯美黑板报【国庆节大气黑板报】
日本在投降的那一天,再也没有昔日的嚣张,我们中国的屈辱得到洗刷。下面就随小编看看国庆节大气黑板报内容,希望喜欢哦。 国庆节大气黑板报图片欣赏 国庆节大气黑板报...
【古典文学】 日期:2019-05-05
-
【二人旅游英语情景对话】 二人英语对话2分钟旅游
随着国内外旅游业市场的不断扩大,旅游英语人才成为社会的紧缺人才。小编精心收集了二人旅游英语情景对话,供大家欣赏学习! 二人旅游英语情景对话1 A:Itsmyfirsttimeto...
【古典文学】 日期:2020-02-29
-
怎样认识世界处于百年未有之大变局
怎样认识世界处于百年未有之大变局 首先,“大变局”是对国际格局发生巨大变迁的
【古典文学】 日期:2020-10-28
-
2021公安专业知识考试练习题(附答案)
2021公安专业知识考试练习题(附答案) 1 甲地公安机关接到群众举报,在当天举行的大型娱乐活动中,
【古典文学】 日期:2021-01-29
-
法律知识手抄报图片大全|法律知识手抄报
我国开展了全面的普法宣传工作,法制宣传教育、普及法律常识作为经常的重要任务。做法制教育手抄报,普及法律知识。下面是小编为大家带来的法律知识手抄报图片大全,希望大家...
【古典文学】 日期:2020-03-10
-
乳糖检测方法
附录A(规范性附录) 乳糖的测定A 1原理牛乳或乳粉样液经沉淀剂澄清后,样液中的乳糖在苯酚、氢氧化钠
【古典文学】 日期:2020-12-08
-
时尚女装店面装修效果图|韩式女装店面装修
在服装店的设计之中,我们要将多变、创新、品牌自身的定位与发展趋势相结合,用一种可持续的设计方式呈现出来,以便更加适应不断更新的展示主体。下面小编就为大家解开时尚女装店...
【中国文学】 日期:2019-05-16
-
2021年超星尔雅学习通《辩论与修养》章节测试试题(共183题附答案)
2021年超星尔雅学习通《辩论与修养》章节测试试题(共183题附答案)1、辩论的目的不是单纯获得某种
【中国文学】 日期:2021-05-12
-
天地人格最佳搭配起名技巧|天地人格的五行怎么算
天地有阴有阳,物体刚柔表里,而数字则有一个诱导力,那么你知道怎么计算天地人格来取名吗?今天小编为你整理了天地人格最佳搭配起名技巧,一起来看看用天地人格取名的方法有哪些...
【中国文学】 日期:2019-06-06
-
信息技术重要性
信息技术的重要性 信息技术与课程整合将带来课程内容的革新,信息技术的高速发展,要求传统的课程必须适应
【中国文学】 日期:2021-02-11
-
【世界上最大的半岛】阿拉伯半岛
你知道世界上最大的半岛是什么吗?下面由小编来介绍一下。 阿拉伯半岛的简介 阿拉伯半岛(阿拉伯文:)位于亚洲,是世界上最大的半岛。沙特阿拉伯、也门、阿曼、阿拉伯联合...
【中国文学】 日期:2019-05-24
-
2022年当前世界下中国面临国际形势论文范本
和平与发展仍然是当今时代的主题。谋和平、求合作、促发展是各国人民的共同愿望。为了大家学习方便,下面是小编为大家整理的当前世界下中国面临的国际形势论文范文内容,以供参...
【中国文学】 日期:2022-03-31
-
古代人物漫画女生唯美图片欣赏 漫画人物图片女孩唯美
中国漫画始于清末民初,而平面设计虽然其名称是在改革开放以后确立的,但设计活动却自古就有,二者的相互影响是本文的主要讨论范围。小编整理了唯美古代女生人物漫画,欢迎阅读!...
【中国文学】 日期:2020-03-19
-
雪天安全行车注意事项_雪天安全行车提示语
维护城市交通秩序,争做河源文明市民。你们想看看雪天安全行车提示语有哪些吗?以下是小编推荐雪天安全行车提示语给大家,欢迎大家阅读! 安全行车温馨提示语【经典篇】 1...
【中国文学】 日期:2020-03-15
-
2021年5月时事政治热点(国内+国际)
2021年年5月时事政治热点(国内+国际)国内部分 1 55月月66日,由商务部和海南省人民政府共同
【中国文学】 日期:2021-06-10
-
普通高中通用技术学生设计作品图文材料
普通高中通用技术学生设计作品图文材料 一、基本情况作品名称:竹刻大佛笔筒设计人员:xxx学校班级:海
【中国文学】 日期:2020-09-28
-
改革开放大事记简表(改革开放新时期1978-2012年)
改革开放大事记简表 (1978-2012年) 时间1978年12月18日至22日地点北京事件党的十一
【外国名著】 日期:2021-06-17
-
山东省生产经营单位安全生产主体责任规定(303号令)
山东省生产经营单位安全生产主体责任规定(2013年2月2日山东省人民政府令第260号公布根据2016
【外国名著】 日期:2020-10-22
-
大学生音乐欣赏论文 大学音乐鉴赏论文3000
今天小编就为你介绍关于大学生音乐欣赏论文,下面是!小编给你搜集了相关资料!希望可以能帮助到大家。 大学生音乐欣赏论文—第一篇 音乐是生活不可缺少的一部分,学会欣...
【外国名著】 日期:2019-05-27
-
材料力学金属扭转实验报告
材料力学金属扭转实验报告 【实验目的】 1、验证扭转变形公式,测定低碳钢的切变模量G。;测定低碳钢和
【外国名著】 日期:2020-11-27
-
长豆角家常做法怎么做好吃营养 炒豆角的家常做法
豆角在我们日常生活中是很常见的食材,可能我们只知道它含有优质蛋白和维生素,其实它还有其他的营养价值。它也是可以和很多食材做搭配的。下面小编为大家整理了长豆角的做法...
【外国名著】 日期:2020-02-26
-
白烛葵的花语:白烛葵的不死幻想症
白烛葵,花名,花语为“不感兴趣”。现又指《知音漫客》上连载漫画《极度分裂》里主要角色之一。下面小编为你整理了白烛葵的花语。欢迎阅读。 白烛葵的花语:不感兴趣 ...
【外国名著】 日期:2019-05-11
-
(新版)就业知识竞赛题库及答案解析
(新版)就业知识竞赛题库(全真题库) 一、单选题1 (单选):在职业生涯规划工具中,组织在展开员工职
【外国名著】 日期:2021-07-21
-
植物装饰画黑白图片欣赏|荷花装饰画黑白图片
装饰画是一种装饰性艺术,是装饰性和创造性相结合的艺术设计形式。小编整理了植物装饰画黑白,欢迎阅读! 植物装饰画黑白图片展示 植物装饰画黑白图片1 植物装饰画黑白...
【外国名著】 日期:2019-05-31
-
坚定不移全面从严管党治警研讨发言稿
坚定不移全面从严管党治警研讨发言稿政治建警、从严治警是党在新时代的建警治警方针。一年前的全国公安工作
【外国名著】 日期:2020-09-18
-
把脉人力资源管理的风向标 什么是风向标
把脉人力资源管理的风向标 外部经营环境的巨大变化,不可避免地给身处其中的企业及其经营管理带来新的、深刻的变化和挑战:市场需求在明显萎缩;而买方市场中,客户要求
【外国名著】 日期:2019-09-04
-
梧桐花的花语|梧桐花的功效与作用
梧桐花为梧桐科植物梧桐的花,植物形态详梧桐子条。今天小编为你整理了梧桐花的花语,欢迎阅读。 梧桐花的花语是:情窦初开 在春季里晚开的花朵,有着恬淡的气息。 ...
【寓言童话】 日期:2020-03-03
-
西部计划笔试题库(99题含答案)
西部计划笔试题库(99题含答案) 1 第十三届全国人大三次会议表决通过了《中华人民共和国民法典》,自
【寓言童话】 日期:2021-06-16
-
大学生音乐欣赏论文 大学音乐鉴赏论文3000
今天小编就为你介绍关于大学生音乐欣赏论文,下面是!小编给你搜集了相关资料!希望可以能帮助到大家。 大学生音乐欣赏论文—第一篇 音乐是生活不可缺少的一部分,学会欣...
【寓言童话】 日期:2020-03-12
-
年学生资助诚信教育主题活动方案
各二级学院(部): 为深入贯彻落实习近平总书记关于教育的重要论述,落实立德树人根本任务,增强当代大学
【寓言童话】 日期:2020-06-21
-
主题教育调查研究工作方案2篇
主题教育调查研究工作方案1根据省、市、县开展“不忘初心、牢记使命”主题教育工
【寓言童话】 日期:2021-03-19
-
油管、套管规格尺寸对照表
API油管规格及尺寸 公称尺寸(in) 不加厚外径(mm) 不加厚内径(mm) 加厚外径(mm) 加
【寓言童话】 日期:2020-08-31
-
惊悚鬼故事50字 令人惊悚的故事
这些惊悚故事在短短的篇幅和时间之内让您感受到故事里传达出来的恐怖感,令你感到害怕。下面就是小编给大家整理的令人惊悚的故事,希望对你有用! 令人惊悚的故事篇1:学校...
【寓言童话】 日期:2019-05-13
-
读《李光耀观天下》有感_李光耀观天下txt在线读
务实与真诚 ——读《李光耀观天下》有感 原创:雁过留声ly 购于北大,在出差的飞机和高铁上读完,这本《李光耀观天下》给予我很多启示。严格地说,这本书没有详
【寓言童话】 日期:2019-05-05
-
【古代男生漫画图片大全】男生漫画头像
漫画和动画组成了动漫产业的两大支柱。然而,与动画相比,漫画在业界和学界皆相对冷清。小编整理了古代男生漫画,欢迎阅读! 古代男生漫画图片展示 古代男生漫画图片1 ...
【寓言童话】 日期:2019-05-27
-
北京最好吃的自助餐厅 北京高档自助餐排名
自助餐简直就是拯救大胃王的最佳饮食!没有之一!世界上没有什么事情是吃一顿自助餐解决不了的,如果有,那就吃两顿!下面小编给大家推荐北京几家好吃的自助餐。 北京最好吃的...
【寓言童话】 日期:2020-02-25
-
学生高考动员演讲稿
学生高考动员演讲稿3篇高考动员演讲稿11 老师们、同学们: 大家下午好!漫漫高考长征路已经进入尾声了
【百家讲坛】 日期:2021-09-22
-
企业安全演讲稿2021
最新企业安全的演讲稿5篇 演讲稿是作为在特定的情境中供口语表达使用的文稿。在充满活力,日益开放的今天
【百家讲坛】 日期:2021-09-22
-
XX镇扶贫项目实施专项整治工作总结_1
XX镇扶贫项目实施专项整治工作总结 为深入贯彻精准扶贫精准脱贫基本方略,认真落实党中央、国务院,省委
【百家讲坛】 日期:2021-09-22
-
对乡镇领导班子干部成员批评意见例文
对乡镇领导班子干部成员的批评看法范文 一、对党委书记XXX同志的批评看法〔3条〕 1、与干部交流偏少
【百家讲坛】 日期:2021-09-22
-
群英乡扶贫资金项目芬坡村祖埇村生产道路硬化工程绩效自评报告
群英乡扶贫资金项目((芬坡村祖埇村生产道路硬化工程))绩效自评报告 一、基本情况(一)群英乡扶贫资金
【百家讲坛】 日期:2021-09-22
-
党委书记警示教育大会上讲话2021汇编
党委书记在警示教育大会上的讲话55篇汇编 党委书记在警示教育大会上的讲话(一) 同志们: 根据省州委
【百家讲坛】 日期:2021-09-22
-
对于2021年召开巡视整改专题民主生活会对照检查材料
关于12021年召开巡视整改专题民主生活会对照检查材料 按照中央巡视组要求和省、市、区委统一部署,区
【百家讲坛】 日期:2021-08-14
-
消防安全知识培训试题.doc
消防安全知识培训试题姓名: 部门班组: 成绩: 一:填空题,每空4分,共44分。 1、灭火剂是通过隔
【百家讲坛】 日期:2021-08-14
-
涉疫重点人员“五包一”居家隔离医学观察工作流程
涉疫重点人员“五包一”居家隔离医学观察工作流程 目前,全球疫情仍处于大流行状
【百家讲坛】 日期:2021-08-14
-
疫情防控致全体师生员工及家长一封信
疫情防控致全体师生员工及家长的一封信 各位师生员工及全体家长朋友: 暑假已至,近期我省部分地方发现确
【百家讲坛】 日期:2021-08-14