【正文】 某些形式的無政府狀態(tài)和專制。盡管在司法中這類裁斷可能出現(xiàn)錯(cuò)誤，仍會(huì)產(chǎn)生不良后果，但局限在特定的案例中，有機(jī)會(huì)可以去改變，決不會(huì)成為其他案例的一個(gè)榜樣，比起其他實(shí)踐所產(chǎn)生的不良后果，它更容易忍受。從這個(gè)觀點(diǎn)看不存在對法官或法庭的指責(zé)?！　∥覀儑乙徊糠謪^(qū)域的人相信蓄奴制是對的，應(yīng)該繼續(xù)下去，而另一部分區(qū)域的人相信它是錯(cuò)的，不應(yīng)該繼續(xù)下去。憲法中有關(guān)逃奴的條款和禁止外國奴隸貿(mào)易的法律都得到良好的執(zhí)行，也許，就像人民的道義觀念不完全同意法律本身，但法律仍得到執(zhí)行一樣。對于此，我認(rèn)為，不可能完全予以消除，在一部分地區(qū)分裂出去之后，會(huì)比以前更糟?！　【偷鼐壎?，我們不可能分離。丈夫和妻子可以離婚，不再相見，互不來往，我們國家的不同部分卻不能這樣做。那么交往在分裂后會(huì)比分裂前更為方便或更為適當(dāng)嗎？外國人之間訂立協(xié)議會(huì)比朋友間制定法律更容易嗎？陌生人之間的協(xié)議會(huì)比朋友間的法律更為忠實(shí)地被執(zhí)行嗎？假設(shè)你要進(jìn)行戰(zhàn)爭，你不能一直打下去，當(dāng)雙方損失巨大、毫無所獲時(shí)，你會(huì)停止戰(zhàn)斗，作為交往的方式，這個(gè)完全同一的老問題再次擺在你的面前。任何時(shí)候他們對現(xiàn)政府產(chǎn)生了厭惡，他們可以根據(jù)改進(jìn)政府的憲法權(quán)利來行動(dòng)，或者用革命的權(quán)利進(jìn)行分割或者摧毀現(xiàn)政府。盡管我沒有提出修改的建議，但我坦承人民在整個(gè)事情上擁有合法的權(quán)利，去運(yùn)用憲法自身規(guī)定的任一模式；在目前的形勢下，我不會(huì)阻礙而會(huì)幫助人民運(yùn)用公正的機(jī)會(huì)正實(shí)行這種權(quán)利。我知道一項(xiàng)憲法修改的提議——這項(xiàng)修正案，畢竟，我沒有看到——國會(huì)已經(jīng)通過了，其目的是聯(lián)邦決不能介入各州內(nèi)部機(jī)構(gòu)，包括人員服役的事宜?！　∽罡邎?zhí)政官所擁有的一切權(quán)力都來自于人民，他們從未指定他去確立分裂各州的條款。他的職責(zé)是管理他執(zhí)掌的政府，把政府毫無損害地傳遞到他的繼任者?！　∽鳛槲覀冑囈陨娴恼畽C(jī)構(gòu)，人民為了避免傷害明智地只給予他們的公務(wù)員一點(diǎn)點(diǎn)權(quán)力，同樣高明的是規(guī)定只隔很短的時(shí)間就把那點(diǎn)權(quán)力收回到他們自己手中?！　∥业膰藗儯腥艘黄鹄潇o地、好好地思考這整個(gè)問題。如果你們中任何一個(gè)人慌慌忙忙對一個(gè)目標(biāo)邁出了熱情沖動(dòng)的一步，這一步你絕對沒有經(jīng)過深思熟慮，這個(gè)目標(biāo)隨著時(shí)間流逝而無法抵達(dá)，不好的目標(biāo)只能受到挫敗。如果表明不滿的人在這場爭論中占據(jù)了正確的一邊，也沒有單獨(dú)的好理由去貿(mào)然行事?！　≡谀銈兊氖掷?，我的同胞，不是在我的手里，握有內(nèi)戰(zhàn)的抉擇權(quán)。你們不會(huì)受到攻擊，除非你們自己挑釁?！薄　∥也辉敢饩痛私Y(jié)束。盡管激情會(huì)讓我們的情感關(guān)系扭曲，但沒必要繃斷。　　已經(jīng)是三月底了，安德森那里的情況越來越危急，或許現(xiàn)在要塞里的將士們已經(jīng)開始挨餓了。上百雙幸災(zāi)樂禍的眼睛在等待著林肯出丑。明天的泰晤士報(bào)記者準(zhǔn)又能寫出這位新任總統(tǒng)講的許多故事了：關(guān)于他喝醉了的馬車夫，或是他在西部生活時(shí)遇到的種種趣事。事實(shí)上，這歌舞升平的一幕不過是林肯有意安排，避人耳目的。招待會(huì)結(jié)束之后，部長們都留了下來，林肯通知大家說，斯科特將軍催他們趕快放棄薩姆特要塞，問大家該怎么辦。幾個(gè)小時(shí)之后，也就是第二天一早，他們還要再去參加一次會(huì)議，聽取總統(tǒng)的意見。倘若南方反應(yīng)正常，那么一舉兩得：一則政府的聲望得到了保障，再則要塞內(nèi)官兵性命也都保住了；若是南方真像幾個(gè)星期以前所叫囂的那樣，動(dòng)用起武力來，那么雖然戰(zhàn)爭打響，但挑釁的罪名卻自然而然地落到了南方人的頭上，是他們先放了第一炮，引發(fā)了緊張局勢，他們理應(yīng)為此負(fù)責(zé)。 　　　First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln 　　MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861　　FellowCitizens of the United States: In pliance 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 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 ining 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 causeas 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 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 seventytwo 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 itbreak it, so to speakbut does it not require all to lawf