林肯3分钟演讲稿中英文版
林肯总统就职演说中英文对照
林肯总统就职演说中英文对照此主题相关图片如下：First Inaugural Address of Abraham LincolnMONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861Fellow-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 S tates 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. Y et, 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 S tates be not a government proper, but an association of S tates in the nature of contractmerely, 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 S tate 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 beoverruled 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 hu**and 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 fixterms 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. Y ou can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. Y ou 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.永久联邦与总统权力亚伯拉罕-林肯第一次就职演讲星期一,1861年3月4日我今天正式宣誓时，并没有保留意见，也无意以任何苛刻的标准来解释宪法和法律，尽管我不想具体指明国会通过的哪些法案是适合施行的•但我确实要建议，所有的人，不论处于官方还是私人的地位，都得遵守那些未被废止的法令，这比泰然自若地认为其中某个法案是违背宪法的而去触犯它，要稳当得多。
林肯在葛底斯堡的演讲 中英文对照
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 battlefield 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 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 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.八十七年前，我们的先辈们在这个大陆上给我们带来了一个新的共和国，她受孕于自由的理念，并献身于一切人生来平等的理想。
林肯三分钟演讲
the gettysburg addressgettysburg, pennsylvanianovember 19, 1863four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, anew nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men arecreated equal.but, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we cannot hallow -- this ground. the brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, haveconsecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. the world will littlenote, 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 whichthey who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. it is rather for us to be herededicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead wetake increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure ofdevotion -- 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 governmentof the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.时间：1863年11月19日地点：美国，宾夕法尼亚，葛底斯堡八十七年前，我们先辈在这个大陆上创立了一个新国家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生来平等的原则。
林肯葛底斯堡演讲中英文（5篇）
林肯葛底斯堡演讲中英文（5篇）第一篇：林肯葛底斯堡演讲中英文林肯葛底斯堡演讲The Gettysburg AddressGettysburg, PennsylvaniaNovember 19, 1863Fourscore 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 offreedom,that the goverment of the people by the people and for the people shall not perish from the earth.主讲：亚伯拉罕·林肯时间：1863年11月19日地点：美国，宾夕法尼亚，葛底斯堡八十七年前，我们先辈在这个大陆上创立了一个新国家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生来平等的原则。
林肯就职演讲英文
林肯总统在1861年的第一次就职演说--英文版there has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. indeed, the mostample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to theirinspection. it is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addressesyou. 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 stateswhere it exists. i believe i have no lawful right to do so, and i have no inclinationto do so. those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that i hadmade this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more thanthis, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves andto me, the clear and emphatic resolution which i now read: resolved, that themaintenance inviolate of the rights of the states, and especially the right of eachstate to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgmentexclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection andendurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion byarmed force of the soil of any state or territory, no matter what pretext, as amongthe gravest of crimes.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 nationalor by state authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one. if theslave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to othersby which authority it is done. and should anyone in any case be content that his oathshall 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 knownin civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be notin any case surrendered as a slave? and might it not be well at the same time to provideby law for the enforcement of that clause in the constitution which guarantees that the citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privilegesand immunities of citizens in the several states? i take the official oath to-daywith no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the constitution or lawsby any hypercritical rules; and while i do not choose now to specify particular actsof congress as proper to be enforced, i do suggest that it will be much safer forall, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those actswhich stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in havingthem held to be unconstitutional. it is seventy-two years since the first inaugurationof a president under our national constitution. during that period fifteen differentand greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the government. they have conducted itthrough many perils, and generally with great success. yet, with all this scope of precedent, i now enter upon the same task for thebrief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. adisruption of the federal union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted. i hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the constitutionthe union of these states is perpetual. perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, inthe fundamental law of all national governments. it is safe to assert that nogovernment 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 theunion will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some actionnot provided for in the instrument itself. again: if the united states be not agovernment 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 requireall to lawfully rescind it? descending from these general principles, we find theproposition that in legal contemplation the union is perpetual confirmed by thehistory 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 maturedand 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 thatit should be perpetual, by the articles of confederation in 1778. and finally, in1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the constitutionwas to form a more perfect union. but if destruction of the union by one or by a partonly of the states be lawfully possible, the union is less perfect than before theconstitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. it follows from these viewsthat no state upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the union; that resolvesand ordinances to that 林肯的第二任总统就职演说这篇演说的讲稿是人类历史上最伟大的演说词，永久地刻在了林肯纪念堂里，英文原文是：at this second appearing to take the oath of the presidential office，there isless 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，atthe expiration of four years，during which public declarations have been constantlycalled forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs theattention，and engrosses the energies of the nation，little that is new could bepresented. the progress of our arms，upon which all else chiefly depends，is as wellknown to the public as to myself; and it is，i trust，reasonably satisfactory andencouraging to all. with high hope for the future，no prediction in regard to it isventured. on the occasion corresponding to this four years ago，all thoughts were anxiouslydirected to an impending civil war. all dreaded it--all sought to avert it. whilethe inaugural address was being delivered from this place，devoted altogether tosaving the union without war，insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroyit 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 nationsurvive; 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.these slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. all knew that this interestwas，somehow，the cause of the war. to strengthen，perpetuate，and extend this interestwas the object for which theinsurgents would rend the union，even by war; while the government claimed noright to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. neither partyexpected 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 astounding to the same god; and each invokes his aidagainst the other. it may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just godsassistance in wringing their bread from with malice toward none; with charity for all; with firmness in the right，asgod gives us to see the right，let us strive on to finish the work we are in; to bindup the nations wounds; to care for him who shall have borne the battle，and for hiswidow，and his orphan--to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lastingpeace，among ourselves，and with all nations.最后两段译文：(交战)每一方都在寻求一个快速的、不伤根本的胜利。
关于林肯生平的英文演讲稿
关于林肯生平的英文演讲稿Ladies and gentlemen,Today, I am honored to stand before you and share the life story of one of the greatest leaders in American history – Abraham Lincoln. Often referred to as "Honest Abe," Lincoln's journey from a humble log cabin in Kentucky to the presidency is a testament to his unwavering determination, integrity, and visionary leadership.Born on February 12, 1809, in Hardin County, Kentucky, Lincoln grew up in a modest family that valued education. Despite facing numerous hardships during his childhood, including the death of his mother and economic struggles, Lincoln's thirst for knowledge was insatiable. He avidly read books and newspapers, educating himself on various subjects, including law and politics.At the age of 25, Lincoln moved to Salem, Illinois, where he began his legal career. Known for his adeptness in public speaking, he soon became a prominent figure in the local community. In 1834, Lincoln won his first electoral victory, securing a seat in the Illinois State Legislature. This marked the beginning of his political career.One of Lincoln's most memorable speeches, and one that truly showcased his remarkable oratory skills, was the Gettysburg Address. On November 19, 1863, following a bloody battle that claimed thousands of lives, Lincoln delivered a concise yet profound speech at the dedication of the Gettysburg National Cemetery in Pennsylvania.In this iconic speech, Lincoln reminded the nation of its founding principles and the purpose that the soldiers' sacrifice was serving. He emphasized the importance of preserving unity and democracy, stating, "government of the people, by the people, for the people." With these words, Lincoln encapsulated the essence of America's core values and its enduring commitment to equality and freedom.Lincoln's commitment to preserving the Union was tested during the American Civil War, which erupted in 1861. As the 16th President of the United States, he faced the immense challenge of leading a divided nation through its darkest hour. Through his unwavering resolve and strategic leadership, Lincoln successfully navigated the country through this tumultuous period.One of Lincoln's distinctive traits was his ability to surround himself with a team of advisers who possessed varying viewpoints. He recognized the importance of hearing diverse perspectives and engaging in rigorous intellectual discussions. This approach enabled him to make informed decisions and create effective policies.Among Lincoln's greatest accomplishments is the Emancipation Proclamation, which he issued on January 1, 1863. This historic document declared that all enslaved people in Confederate territory were to be set free. Although the proclamation did not immediately free all slaves, it marked a significant step towards ending slavery and paved the way for the eventual passage of the Thirteenth Amendment.Beyond his political achievements, Lincoln is remembered for his profound wisdom and compassion. His second inaugural address, deliveredon March 4, 1865, just weeks before his assassination, displayed his deep understanding of the complexities of war and the need for healing and reconciliation. In this address, he expressed his hope for a united and peaceful nation, stating, "With malice toward none, with charity for all."Sadly, Lincoln's life was cut short on April 15, 1865, when he was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth at Ford's Theatre in Washington, D.C. His untimely death left a nation in mourning and a legacy that would never be forgotten.In conclusion, Abraham Lincoln's life and contributions to the United States serve as an inspiring example of leadership, resilience, and moral fortitude. From his early years of hardship to his presidency during a turbulent time in American history, Lincoln's unwavering commitment to justice and equality remain an enduring legacy. As we reflect on his life and legacy, let us strive to emulate his principles and work towards a better, more united future for all. Thank you.女士们先生们，今天，我很荣幸站在这里，与大家分享美国历史上最伟大的领导者之一——亚伯拉罕·林肯的人生故事。
林肯(Abraham Lincoln)著名的葛底斯堡演说【中英对照版】
林肯(Abraham Lincoln)著名的葛底斯堡演说中英对照版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.八十七年以前，我们的祖先在这大陆上建立了一个国家，它孕育于自由，并且献身给一种理念，即所有人都是生来平等的。
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.当前，我们正在从事一次伟大的内战，我们在考验，究竟这个国家，或任何一个有这种主张和这种信仰的国家，是否能长久存在。
我们在那次战争的一个伟大的战场上集会。
我们来到这里，奉献那个战场上的一部分土地，作为在此地为那个国家的生存而牺牲了自己生命的人的永久眠息之所。
我们这样做，是十分合情合理的。
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.可是，就更深一层意义而言，我们是无从奉献这片土地的--无从使它成为圣地--也不能把它变为人们景仰之所。
英语演讲稿-美国总统林肯（合集）
英语演讲稿-美国总统林肯（合集）第一篇：英语演讲稿-美国总统林肯I am honored to be with you today for your commencement from one of the finest universities in the world.Truth be told, I never graduated from college.And this is the closest I've ever gotten to a college graduation.Today I want to tell you three stories from my life.That's it.No big deal.Just three stories.今天，我很荣幸能和你们一起参加毕业典礼，斯坦福大学是世界上最好的大学之一。
说实话，（虽然）我从来没有从大学中毕业，但今天是我生命中离大学毕业最近的一天了。
今天我想向你们讲述我生活中的三个故事。
不说大道理，就是三个故事而已。
The first story is about connecting the dots.第一个故事是关于如何把生命中的点点滴滴串连起来。
I dropped out of Reed College after the first 6 months, but then stayed around as a drop-in for another 18 months or so before I really quit.So why did I drop out?我在里德学院读了六个月之后就退学了，但是在十八个月以后，我还经常去学校。
我为什么要退学呢？It started before I was born.My biological mother was a young, unwed college graduate student, and she decided to put me up for adoption.She felt very strongly that I should be adopted by college graduates, so everything was all set for me to be adopted at birth by a lawyer and his wife.Except that when I popped out they decided at the last minute that they really wanted a girl.So my parents, who were on a waiting list, got a call in the middle of the night aski ng: “We have an unexpected baby boy;doyou want him?” They said: “Of course.” My biological mother later found out that my mother had never graduatedfrom college and that my father had never graduated from high school.She refused to sign the final adoption papers.She only relented a few months later when my parents promised that I would someday go to college.This was the start in my life.故事要从我的出生说起。
林肯的著名演讲（英汉）
林肯的著名演讲（英汉）林肯的著名演讲（英汉对照）AbrahamLincoln亚伯拉罕．林肯（1809－1865），美国第十六任总统（1861－1865）。
他自修法律，以反对奴隶制的纲领当选为总统，导致南方诸州脱离联邦。
在由此引起的南北战争（1861－1865）中，他作为总统，发挥了美国历史上最有效、最鼓舞人心的领导作用，以其坚定的信念、深远的眼光和完美无缺的政治手腕，成功地引导一个处于分裂的国家度过了其历史上流血最多的内战，从而换救了联邦。
他致力于推进全人类的民主、自由和平等，以最雄辩的语言阐述了人道主义的思想，不失时机地发表《解放黑奴宣言》，因而被后人尊称为“伟大的解放者”。
林肯不仅是一个伟大的总统，更是一个伟人。
他出生于社会低层，具有勤劳简朴、谦虚和诚恳的美德。
在美国历届总统中，林肯堪称是最平易近人的一位。
林肯的著作主要是演讲词和书信，以朴素庄严、观点明确、思想丰富、表达灵活、适应对象并具有特殊的美国风味见称。
此篇演讲是美国文学中最漂亮、最富有诗意的文章之一。
虽然这是一篇庆祝军事胜利的演说，但它没有好战之气。
相反，这是一篇感人肺腑的颂辞，赞美那些作出最后牺牲的人们，以及他们为之献身的那些理想。
其中“政府应为民有、民治、民享”的名言被人们广为传颂。
The Gettysburg AddressGettysburg, PennsylvaniaNovember 19, 1863Four 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. Itis 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.主讲：亚伯拉罕·林肯时间：1863年11月19日地点：美国，宾夕法尼亚，葛底斯堡八十七年前，我们先辈在这个大陆上创立了一个新国家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生来平等的原则。
林肯第二次就职演讲（英文）
林肯第二次就职演讲（英文）第一篇：林肯第二次就职演讲(英文)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 regardto 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.T o strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgentswould 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 passaway? 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 righteousaltogether.”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 allnations.第二篇：林肯第二次就职演讲在我现在第二次来到这里宣誓就任总统职位的时候，就不十分必要像第一次就职时那样作长篇演说了。
林肯竞选总统时的演讲稿
今天，我站在这里，满怀激动和自豪，因为这是我有幸参加美国总统竞选的时刻。
在这个伟大的国家，历史的车轮滚滚向前，每一个时代都有其独特的使命和挑战。
今天，我们正处在一个充满变革和挑战的时代，我们的国家需要一位坚定的领导者，引领我们走向更加光明的未来。
首先，我要感谢那些一直支持我、鼓励我的人。
正是因为有了你们的信任和期待，我才有勇气站在这个舞台上，为我们的国家献出我的一份力量。
同胞们，女士们，先生们，我们的国家正面临着前所未有的挑战。
南北战争，这场历史上最残酷的战争，给我们的国家带来了巨大的创伤。
今天，我们必须团结起来，共同面对这个时代的挑战，为我们的后代创造一个和平、繁荣的未来。
我深知，这场战争并不是一夜之间爆发的，而是由一系列深层次的社会、经济和政治问题引发的。
因此，我的竞选口号是：“团结我们的国家，结束分裂，重建联邦。
”以下是我在竞选总统期间将致力于实现的目标：一、结束南北战争，维护国家统一南北战争是美国的悲剧，我们必须以史为鉴，汲取教训。
作为总统，我将采取一切必要措施，确保国家的统一和完整。
我将与国会密切合作，推动和平解决方案，结束这场无休止的战争。
二、重建联邦，恢复经济战争给我们的国家带来了巨大的经济负担。
作为总统，我将致力于重建联邦，恢复经济增长。
我将推动基础设施重建，鼓励工业发展，提高农业生产力，创造更多的就业机会，让每一个人都能分享到国家发展的成果。
三、改革政府，提高效率政府是国家的基石，我们必须改革政府，提高效率。
我将推动政府机构改革，减少冗余，提高工作效率。
同时，我将坚决打击腐败，确保政府清正廉洁，为民众谋福祉。
四、促进教育，培养人才教育是国家发展的关键，我将推动教育改革，提高教育质量。
我将鼓励创新，培养更多的人才，为国家的未来储备力量。
五、维护和平，促进国际合作作为总统，我将致力于维护世界和平，促进国际合作。
我将与其他国家领导人保持密切沟通，共同应对全球性挑战，如气候变化、恐怖主义等。
林肯就职演讲稿
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861Fellow-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。
林肯的葛底斯堡演说（中英文）
林肯的葛底斯堡演说（中英文）林肯的讲话是极简短、极朴素的。
这往往使那些滔滔不绝的讲演家大瞧不起。
葛底斯堡战役后，决定为死难烈士举行盛大葬礼。
掩葬委员会发给总统一张普通的请帖，他们以为他是不会来的，但林肯答应了。
既然总统来，那一定要讲演的，但他们已经请了著名演说家艾佛瑞特来做这件事，因此，他们又给林肯写了信，说在艾佛瑞特演说完毕之后，他们希望他“随便讲几句适当的话”。
这是一个侮辱，但林肯平静地接受了。
两星期内，他在穿衣、刮脸、吃点心时也想着怎样演说。
演说稿改了两三次，他仍不满意。
到了葬礼的前一天晚上，还在做最后的修改，然后半夜找到他的同僚高声朗诵。
走进会场时，他骑在马上仍把头低到胸前默想着演说辞。
那位艾佛瑞特讲演了两个多小时，将近结束时，林肯不安地掏出旧式眼镜，又一次看他的讲稿。
他的演说开始了，一位记者支上三角架准备拍摄照片，等一切就绪的时候，林肯已走下讲台。
这段时间只有两分钟，而掌声却持续了10分钟。
后人给以极高评价的那份演说辞，在今天译成中文，也不过400字。
林肯的这篇演说是演说史上著名的篇章，其思想的深刻，行文的严谨，语言的冼练，确实是不愧彪炳青史的大手笔。
GETTYSBURG ADDRESS AbrahamLincoln Delivered on the 19th Day of November, 1863 Cemetery Hill,Gettysburg, PennsylvaniaFour 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.葛底斯堡演说亚伯拉罕·林肯，1963年11月19日87年前，我们的先辈们在这个大陆上创立了一个新国家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生来平等的原则。
林肯3分钟演讲稿中英文版
林肯3分钟演讲稿中英文版亚伯拉罕·林肯(1809年2月12日-1865年4月15日)，美国政治家、思想家，黑人奴隶制的废除者。
第16任美国总统，其任总统期间，美国爆发内战，史称南北战争，林肯坚决反对国家分裂。
他废除了叛乱各州的奴隶制度，颁布了《宅地法》、《解放黑人奴隶宣言》。
林肯击败了南方分离势力，维护了美利坚联邦及其领土上不分人种、人人生而平等的权利。
内战结束后不久，林肯遇刺身亡，是第一个遭遇刺杀的美国总统，也是首位共和党籍总统，曾位列最伟大总统排名第一位。
也是美国最有作为的总统之一(其他3位为乔治·华盛顿、富兰克林·罗斯福、托马斯·杰斐逊)。
以下是店铺整理了林肯3分钟演讲稿中英文版，供你参考。
林肯3分钟演讲稿英文版：Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on 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 sodedicated, 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 cannot dedicate—we can not consecrate—we can not hallow—this ground. The bravemen, 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 sonobly 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.林肯3分钟演讲稿中文版：八十七年前吾辈先祖于这大陆上，创建一个新的国度，乃孕育于自由，且致力于凡人“皆生而平等”此信念。
林肯第二次就职演讲稿
林肯第二次就职演讲稿【篇一：林肯第二次就职演讲(中文)】在我现在第二次来到这里宣誓就任总统职位的时候，就不十分必要像第一次就职时那样作长篇演说了。
那时，一篇关于我将采取的方针的比较详尽的说明，似乎是比较合适和理所当然的。
可是现在，四年任期刚刚结束，在这期间，关于那至今仍吸引着举国上下的注意，消耗着全民的精力的巨大斗争的各个阶段的任何一个细节，随时都有公告发奉，现在也实在再没有多少新东西可讲了。
关于我们的军事进展情况——它是其它一切的主要依靠所在——，公众也了解得和我本人一样清楚；而且我相信对所有的人来说都是相当满意和令人鼓舞的。
既然对未来充满了希望，那么在这里也就无意冒昧作出预测了。
也正是在四年之前我就任总统的那一场合，所有的人都在为即将来临的内战惴惴不安。
所有的人都害怕内战——都竭力想避免内战发生。
而当我在这里发表就职演说，决定不惜采用一切力量，但不用战争，拯救联邦的时候，叛乱分子的代理人却在全城到处活动，力求不用战争摧毁联邦——力求通过谈判瓦解联邦，分裂国家。
——双方都声称反对战争；但可是他们中的一方却宁愿发动战争也不让这个国家生存下去；另一方也则宁可接受战争也不能眼看着国家灭亡。
于是战争便打起来了。
在全国人口中有八分之一是黑人奴隶，他们并非遍布在全国各地，而是大部分集中在我国南方。
这些黑人构成一个特殊强有力的权益。
大家都知道这权益是导致战争的原因。
为了达到加强、永久化保持和扩大这个权益的目的，叛乱分子甚至不惜通过战争瓦解联邦；而政府方面，只不过是要求有权限制奴隶制扩大其地域。
双方谁也没有料想到，战争竟会达到现在已出现了这种规模，或持续这么久。
双方谁也不曾料到，冲突的缘由可能会随着冲突的结束而结束，或甚至在冲突本身结束之前，便已终止；每一方都寻求能比较轻易地获得胜利，战争的结果也不那么带有根本性和惊人。
双方都读着同一部《圣经》，祈祷于同一个上帝；每一方都求上帝帮助他们一方，而反对另一方。
这看来也许有些不可思议，怎么可能有人公然敢于祈求公正的上帝帮助他从别人的血汗中榨取面包；不过，我们且不要论断别人，以免自己遭到论断吧。
林肯就职演讲稿doc
林肯就职演讲稿篇一：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 LincolnMONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861Fellow-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 dobut 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 mostconclusive 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 ofcitizens 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 uepealed 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 successionadministered 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 formidablyattempted. 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 bythe 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 simpleduty 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 wouldbe 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 toascertain 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 concerningthem. 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, whymay 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 entitledto 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 tobe 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 ourcountry can not do this. They can not but remainface 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 takingtime. 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篇二：林肯的就职演讲稿林肯的就职演讲稿(中英文版)XX年07月15日星期日下午 12:10The Gettysburg AddressGettysburg, PennsylvaniaNovember 19, 1863Fourscore(80年 and seven years ago,our fathers brought forth upon this continent （大陆 a new nation,conceived（设想 and dedicated （奉献的to theproposition （主题that all men are created equal.Now we are egaged in a great civil（民族间的war,testing whether that nation or anynation so conceived （设想的and dedicated can long endure（忍耐）.We are met on the battelfield of that war.We have come to dedicate （致力a portion （部分of that field as a final-resting （安息之所place for those who gave their lives that the nation might live.It is altogether（整个and proper（适当的 that we should do this.But, in a larger sense,we can not dedicate(奉献,we can not consecrate（神圣的,we can not hallow（视什么为神圣的this ground.The brave men,living and dead,have consecrated（被奉为神 it far above our power to add or detract（减损.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（尺寸 of devotion,that the nation shall have a new birth of freedom,that the goverment of the people by the peopleand for the people shall not perish （死亡from the earth.主讲：亚伯拉罕·林肯时间：1863年11月19日地点：美国，宾夕法尼亚，葛底斯堡八十七年前，我们先辈在这个大陆上创立了一个新国家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生来平等的原则。
林肯公园 中英对译 演讲稿
Linkin Park——世界上最优秀的现场表 演金属核团团体之一，你可以说以前从 没有听说过，也可以用你对音乐对时尚 最挑剔的眼光审视他们，但是无论如何， 林肯公园的确是这个时代最独一无二的 混种音乐霸王，对New metal、PopMetal、Hip-Hop、Post-Grunge、RapMetal、Alternative Metal等各种摇滚 风格的诠释早已在全球大放异彩，尽情 炫出E时on of the band ,he is a coffee shop clerk. Linkin Park (LP) is not the first band for him, before that, he worked in the Grey Daze as a lead singer.
主管DJ混音与采样的Mr.Hahn是韩裔美国 人，而乐队的灵魂人物、负责说唱部分的 主唱Mike则是日美混血儿，两位有亚裔血 统的成员使乐团在整个亚洲市场都具有了 很强的说服力，加上成员之间的默契配合 与冲劲与乐队双主唱的巧妙编制，没有哪 一支乐队如此。
LINKIN PARK members
★主唱-查斯特(Chester Bennington)：
★吉他手—brad delson
Before the formation of the band ,he was a college student Received master's degree in economics
Linkin Park——one of the best live
performance of metal-core groups in world, you could say I have never heard about it, can also be used in music to fashion most discerning look at them, but in any case, Linkin Park was a mixture of music of the era's most unique fighter, against New metal, Pop-Metal, and Hip-Hop, Post-Grunge, and Rap-Metal, and Alternative Metal and other rock and roll style of interpretation have flourished in the world, have a fancy e-era music style.
林肯的历次演讲 中英文
First Inaugural Address of Abraham LincolnMONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861Fellow-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 thelaws, 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 Unionbe 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 thatsense 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 soconstituted 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 willsecede 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 theobject 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 thelaw 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 beimplied 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 orfolly 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。
- 1、下载文档前请自行甄别文档内容的完整性，平台不提供额外的编辑、内容补充、找答案等附加服务。
- 2、"仅部分预览"的文档,不可在线预览部分如存在完整性等问题,可反馈申请退款(可完整预览的文档不适用该条件!)。
- 3、如文档侵犯您的权益，请联系客服反馈,我们会尽快为您处理(人工客服工作时间：9:00-18:30)。
林肯3分钟演讲稿中英文版
----WORD文档，下载后可编辑修改----
下面是小编收集整理的范本，欢迎您借鉴参考阅读和下载，侵删。
您的努力学习是为了更美好的未来！
林肯3分钟演讲稿英文版：
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth on 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 sodedicated, 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 cannot dedicate--we can not consecrate--we can not hallow--this ground. The bravemen, 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.
林肯3分钟演讲稿中文版：
八十七年前吾辈先祖于这大陆上，创建一个新的国度，乃孕育于自由，且致力于凡人“皆生而平等”此信念。
吾等被卷入一场伟大的内战，以考验是否此国家，或任何孕育于和奉献于斯者，可永垂不朽。
吾等现相逢于此战中一个浩大战场。
而吾等将奉献出此战场之一部分，作为这群交付出自己生命、让国家得以为继的人们的安息之处。
此举乃全然妥当、且为吾人应行之举。
但，于更大意义之上，吾等不可致力、不可奉上、不可成就此土地之神圣。
曾于此奋战到底的勇士，无论生死，早已使其神圣，而远非吾人卑微之力所能增减。
这世间，将不会丝毫留意，也不会长久记得吾等在此所言，但将永不忘怀勇士们在此所为。
吾等生者，应献身于勇士们鞠躬尽瘁之未完大业。
吾等在此责无旁贷献身于眼前之伟大使命：自光荣的亡者之处汲取其献身精神----
吾等在此答应，亡者之牺牲当非徒然----此国家，于上帝庇佑之下，当享有自由之新生;民有、民治、民享之政府，当免于凋零。
林肯第二次就职演说
(1865年3月4日)
各位同胞：
在这第二次的宣誓就职典礼中，不像第一次就职的时候那样需要发表长篇演说。
在那个时候，对于当时所要进行的事业多少作一详细的说明，似乎是适当的。
如今四年任期已满，在这段战争期间的每个重要时刻和阶段中----这个战争至今仍为举国所关怀，还且占用了国家大部分力量----都经常发布文告，所以如今很少有什么新的发展可以奉告。
我们的军事进展，是一切其它问题的关键所在，各界人士对此情形是跟我一样熟悉的，而我相信进展的情况，可以使我们全体人民有理由感到满意和鼓舞。
既然可以对将来寄予极大的希望，那么我们也就用不着在这一方面作什么预言了。
四年之前在与此同一场合里，所有的人都焦虑地注意一场即将来临的内战。
大家害怕它，想尽了方法去避免它。
当时我正在这里作就职演说，竭尽全力想不用战争方法而能保存联邦，然而本城的反叛分子的代理人却没法不用战争而破坏联邦----他们力图瓦解联邦，并以谈判的方法来分割联邦。
双方都声称反对战争，可是有一方宁愿打仗而不愿让国家生存，另一方则宁可接受这场战争，而不愿国家灭亡，于是战争就来临了。
我们全国人口的八分之一是黑奴，他们并非遍布整个联邦，而是局部地分布于南方。
这些奴隶构成了一种特殊而重大的权益。
大家知
道这种权益可说是这场战争的原因。
为了加强、保持及扩大这种权益，反叛分子会不惜以战争来分裂联邦，而政府只不过要限制这种权益所在地区的扩张。
当初，任何一方都没有想到这场战争会发展到那么大的范围，持续那么长的时间。
也没有料到冲突的原因会随冲突本身的终止而终止，甚至会在冲突本身终止以前而终止。
双方都在寻求一个较轻易的胜利，都没有期望获致带根本性的和惊人的结果。
双方念诵同样的圣经，祈祷于同一个上帝，甚至于每一方都求助同一上帝的援助以反对另一方，人们竟敢求助于上帝，来夺取他人以血汗得来的面包，这看来是很奇怪的。
可是我们不要判断人家，免得别人判断我们。
我们双方的祈祷都不能够如愿，而且断没全部如愿以偿。
上苍自有他自己的目标。
由于罪恶而世界受苦难，因为罪恶总是要来的;然而那个作恶的人，要受苦难」假使我们以为美国的奴隶制度是这种罪恶之一，而这些罪恶按上帝的意志在所不免，但既经持续了他所指定的一段时间，他如今便要消除这些罪恶;假使我们认为上帝把这场惨烈的战争加在南北双方的头上，作为对那些招致罪恶的人的责罚，难道我们可以认为这件事有悖于虔奉上帝的信徒们所归诸上帝的那些圣德吗? 我们天真地希望着，我们热忱地祈祷着，希望这战争的重罚可以很快地过去。
可是，假使上帝要让战争再继续下去，直到二百五十年来奴隶无偿劳动所积聚的财富化为乌有，并像三千年前所说的那样，等到鞭笞所流的每一滴血，被刀剑之下所流的每一滴血所抵消，那么我们仍然只能说，「主的裁判是完全正确而且公道的。
我们对任何人都不怀恶意，我们对任何人都抱好感，上帝让我们看到正确的事，
我们就坚定地信那正确的事，让我们继续奋斗，以完成我们正在进行的工作，去治疗国家的创伤，去照顾艰苦作战的志士和他的孤儿遗孀，尽力实现并维护在我们自己之间和我国与各国之间的公正和持久的和平。
学习啦小编分享了林肯3分钟演讲稿中英文版，你阅读了有什么感想?。