林肯就职演讲稿doc

林肯的第一次就职演说林肯１８６１年３月４日，在国会广场举行的总统就职典礼上林肯发表了这篇演说。

威廉·西华德是这篇演说的主要起草人之一，甚至北部民主党党魁、奴隶主的代言人史蒂芬·道格拉斯也参加了起草工作。

这篇演说实际上是共和党统治集团的政策宣言，它规定了林肯政府的基本方针和政策。

演说有三个基本要点：１、用资产阶级法制说明联邦是“永存”的，是“不可分裂”的；２、保证联邦政府“不会以任何方式使任何地区的财产”受到威胁；３、保证与南方奴隶主友好相处。

演说中对当时争论最激烈的问题──奴隶制的存废问题──竟不置一词。

相反却大谈保证“财产”不受威胁。

早在林肯就职前一个月，即２月４日，南部六州已在亚拉巴马州蒙哥马片利城宣布脱离联邦，成立了“南部同盟”。

林肯的这篇软弱无力的演说，进一步助长了这种分裂活动，终于导致了武装叛乱。

……南方诸州的人民似乎存在着顾虑，以为共和党执政就会使他们的财产、他们的安宁与人身安？全遭到威胁。

这样的顾虑是从来没有任何正当理由的。

事实上，一直摆着供他们考查的是大量相反的证据。

这种证据在现在正向你们讲话的这个人的几乎一切公布的演说中都可以找到。

我仅引证一次讲话，我曾声明过，“我没有直接或间接干预各州的现存奴隶制的企图。

我认为我没有如此行事的法律权力，并且也不打算这样作。

”……现在，我要重申这些意见；并且，我这样作的目的，不过想提请公众注意这一情况的最无可置疑的证据，即现在行将执政的政府无论如何都不会使任何地区的财产、安宁与安全遭到威胁。

我还要补充说，当提出合法的要求时，凡是按照宪法和法律能给予的保护，无论其原因为何，政府都将愉快地给予所有的州，不分地区，一样愉快地加以对待。

……我认为，根据普遍法则和宪法来看，联邦是永久的。

永久性即使未经明文规定，也是包含于国家政府的一切基本法则之中的。

可以确切断言，从来没有一个名副其实的政府在自己的组织法中为本身的完结作出过规定。

只要继续执行我国宪法的一切明文规定，联邦就会永存，它是不可能破坏的，除非采用了并非由此文件本身所提供的某种行动。

大家好！今天，我站在这里，怀着无比崇敬的心情，为大家讲述一位伟大的历史人物——亚伯拉罕·林肯。

他是美国历史上一位杰出的总统，一位坚定的民族英雄，一位英勇的民主战士。

今天，我要向大家分享的，是林肯在葛底斯堡战役后的著名演讲——《葛底斯堡演讲》。

在1863年11月19日，葛底斯堡战役结束后的第四天，林肯总统来到了这片曾经浴血奋战的土地。

在这里，他发表了一篇简短而深刻的演讲，这篇演讲至今仍被世人传颂。

林肯总统在演讲中首先对那些在战争中英勇牺牲的烈士表示了深切的哀悼。

他说：“四百七十五年以来，我们在这片大陆上建立了一个新的国家，它孕育于自由之中，致力于人人生而平等的理想。

”这句话简洁明了地表达了美国的立国之本。

接着，林肯总统回顾了美国历史上的辉煌与挫折。

他说：“我们今天在这里集会，是为了把这一场伟大的战争继续下去，是为了使这个国家能够从这些伟大的牺牲中永垂不朽，是为了让这个国家能够长久地存在下去。

”这段话表达了他对国家未来的坚定信念。

在演讲的高潮部分，林肯总统阐述了“民有、民治、民享”的民主理念。

他说：“这个国家是由人民所建，属于人民，为了人民。

政府的存在，不是对人民的压迫，而是为了保障人民的权利。

人民是政府的根基，政府是人民的仆人。

”这段话振聋发聩，彰显了民主制度的真谛。

最后，林肯总统对听众提出了期望。

他说：“在这个伟大的国家，我们都要为自由、平等、正义而努力奋斗。

让我们永远铭记那些为国家的自由和独立献出生命的烈士，让他们的事迹激励我们前行，让这个国家永远充满希望和活力。

”这篇演讲虽然简短，却蕴含着深刻的哲理。

林肯总统以崇高的情怀、坚定的信念，为我们树立了光辉的榜样。

他的一生，充满了对自由、平等、正义的追求，为我们留下了宝贵的精神财富。

今天，我们纪念林肯总统，就是要学习他那种崇高的精神品质，传承他那种坚定的信念，为实现民族复兴、国家繁荣而努力奋斗。

让我们共同缅怀这位伟大的民族英雄，让他的精神永存于我们心中！谢谢大家！。

林肯竞选总统演讲稿尊敬的各位美国公民：我站在这里，向全国人民郑重承诺，如果我当选为美利坚合众国的第十六任总统，我将竭尽全力为国家和人民谋福祉，为实现国家的繁荣和人民的幸福而努力奋斗。

在这个关键的时刻，美国正面临着前所未有的挑战和困难。

我们的国家正处于内战的风险之中，我们的人民正饱受着战争的痛苦和煎熬。

同时，我们的经济也面临着严峻的考验，失业率居高不下，贫困问题日益严重，国家的发展面临着重重困难和阻碍。

在这样的情况下，我们需要一个有远见、有智慧、有勇气的领导者，来引领我们走出困境，重振国家的雄风。

作为一个普通的美国人，我深知国家和人民的疾苦，我深知战争的残酷和破坏，我深知经济的困难和挑战。

因此，我决心竞选总统，不是为了名利，而是为了国家和人民，为了让每一个美国人都能过上幸福安康的生活，为了让我们的国家在世界上扬眉吐气，展现出强大的力量和魅力。

我相信，只有团结一致，我们才能战胜一切困难和挑战。

只有秉持着正义和公平的原则，我们才能建立一个更加美好的国家。

只有以勇气和智慧，我们才能开创美国的未来。

因此，我呼吁全国人民团结起来，共同努力，为实现国家的繁荣和人民的幸福而奋斗。

在我当选为总统之后，我将致力于推动国家的和平发展，努力建立一个公正、平等、和谐的社会。

我将采取有效的措施，解决国家面临的各种问题，改善人民的生活，促进国家的繁荣。

我将倡导开放、包容、合作的国际关系，推动世界的和平与发展。

我将努力推动科技创新，促进经济的持续增长，为国家的繁荣打下坚实的基础。

最后，我要向全国人民郑重承诺，我将忠实履行总统的职责，恪守宪法和法律，保护国家的利益，维护人民的权益。

我将竭尽全力，为国家和人民谋福祉，为实现国家的繁荣和人民的幸福而努力奋斗。

各位美国公民，让我们携起手来，共同努力，为美国的未来而奋斗！让我们共同努力，开创一个更加美好的明天！让我们共同努力，实现国家的繁荣和人民的幸福！谢谢大家！。

林肯总统在1861年的第一次就职演说--英文版First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln MONDAY, MARCH 4, 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 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 equalunanimity 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 thateffect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority?The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession? Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of ourcountry can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people. By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken thisfavored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty. In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The Government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it." I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.。

林肯演讲稿1.12.23.3双方也没有预期冲突的根源会随着冲突本身而消除甚至会提前消除，也没有一方的祷告全部得到应验，年月日林肯于葛底斯堡的演讲是其一生最著名的演讲，我们在这场战争中的一个伟大战场上集会。

林肯演讲稿2017-08-12 17:27:08 | #1楼Second Inaugural Addreof Abraham LincolnSATURDAY, MARCH 4, 1865Fellow-Countrymen:At this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is leoccasion for an extended addrethan 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 the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progreof our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural addrewas being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, insurgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war--seeking to dissolve the Union and divideeffects 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. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result lefundamental 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. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." 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 Souththis terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from thosedivine 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 paaway. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmnein the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.亚伯拉罕·林肯第二次演讲星期六,1865年3月4日包扎好国家的创伤同胞们：在这第二次宣誓就任总统时，我不必像第一次那样发表长篇演说。

林肯的演讲稿
1863年11月19日，美国总统亚伯拉罕·林肯在葛底斯堡国家公墓的落成典礼
上发表了一篇著名的演讲。

这篇演讲被誉为美国历史上最伟大的演讲之一，它不仅激励了当时的美国人民，也成为后世领袖们学习的典范。

林肯在演讲中强调了人民的平等、自由和民主，展现了他对美国国家命运的信念和决心。

林肯在演讲一开始就引用了美国独立宣言中的名言，“我们认为这些真理是不
言而喻的，即人人生而平等，造物者赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利。

”这句话不仅体现了林肯对美国价值观的坚定信念，也为他接下来的演讲奠定了基调。

他认为，美国的建国理念是建立在人人平等的基础上的，而这一理念将永远激励着美国人民不断前行。

接着，林肯提到了那些在葛底斯堡战役中为自由和国家献出生命的士兵们。

他
称赞这些勇士们为国家的未来付出了最高的代价，他们的牺牲将激励后人继续为自由而战。

林肯的这番话语感人至深，让人们深刻感受到了自由和民主的珍贵。

在演讲的最后，林肯呼吁全体美国人民团结一心，继续为实现国家的自由和民
主而努力奋斗。

他相信，只有当全体人民齐心协力，才能够实现美国的伟大梦想。

这番演讲不仅激励了当时的美国人民，也为后世的美国领袖们树立了榜样。

总的来说，林肯的这篇演讲充分展现了他对美国国家命运的信念和决心。

他深
刻阐述了人人生而平等、自由和民主的重要性，同时也激励了美国人民继续为自由和民主而努力奋斗。

这篇演讲至今仍然激励着全世界的人们，成为了自由和民主的永恒典范。

林肯第二次就职演说译文篇一：林肯第二次就职演说的全文如下:同胞们,我在今天站在这里,向大家发表这篇演说,是因为我知道,我们的国家需要更多的英雄来领导我们。

我们的国家曾经历了无数的痛苦和磨难,但我们有足够的勇气和智慧来克服这些困难。

我们需要一个领袖,一个能够为我们的国家和人民利益而战斗的领袖。

我们的国家曾经被背叛和破坏,我们失去了我们的自由和尊严。

但现在,我们需要更多的英雄来重建我们的国家,让我们重新找回我们的自由和尊严。

我们需要一个领袖,一个能够领导我们走向自由和民主的领袖。

我们的国家需要更多的英雄来领导我们,因为我们的国家正在面临着各种挑战。

我们的社会和经济正在不断变化,我们需要一个领袖来适应这些变化,并为我们的国家提供新的希望和方向。

我们的国家需要更多的英雄来领导我们,因为我们的国家需要更多的英雄来保护我们的文化和传统。

我们的文化和传统是我们人民的文化遗产,我们需要一个领袖来保护和传承这些文化遗产,并让我们的国家更加多元化和包容。

同胞们,我是一个公民,我有责任为我的祖国服务。

我相信,如果我们团结一心,如果我们共同努力,我们一定能够创造更加美好的未来。

让我们携手前行,为了我们的梦想和我们的祖国。

谢谢大家。

篇二：林肯第二次就职演说的译文如下:尊敬的联邦人民:我林肯,今天站在这里,代表联邦人民发表这篇就职演说,感到非常荣幸。

在过去的一年中,我们经历了许多挑战和困难。

我们的国家面临着分裂和危险,我们的人民面临着无数的痛苦和苦难。

然而,我相信,我们有一个强大的国家和一个伟大的人民,我们能够克服这些挑战,重振我们的国家,让我们的人民过上更加美好的生活。

我们的国家在过去几十年中取得了巨大的进步。

我们的人民通过团结合作,克服了许多困难和挑战。

我们建立了一个强大的国家,一个能够为我们的所有人民提供安全和繁荣的国家。

但是,我们需要继续保持我们的团结和合作,以便我们能够在未来取得更大的成就。

我们需要继续团结一致,为我们的国家和我们的人民创造一个更加美好的世界。

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。

林肯总统在1861年的第一次就职演说——英文版First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln MONDAY, MARCH 4， 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。

林肯的第一次就职演说林肯的第一次就职演说１８６１年３月４日，在国会广场举行的总统就职典礼上林肯发表了这篇演说。

威廉·西华德是这篇演说的主要起草人之一，甚至北部民主党党魁、奴隶主的代言人史蒂芬·道格拉斯也参加了起草工作。

这篇演说实际上是共和党统治集团的政策宣言，它规定了林肯政府的基本方针和政策。

演说有三个基本要点：１、用资产阶级法制说明联邦是“永存”的，是“不可分裂”的；２、保证联邦政府“不会以任何方式使任何地区的财产”受到威胁；３、保证与南方奴隶主友好相处。

演说中对当时争论最激烈的问题──奴隶制的存废问题──竟不置一词。

相反却大谈保证“财产”不受威胁。

早在林肯就职前一个月，即２月４日，南部六州已在亚拉巴马州蒙哥马片利城宣布脱离联邦，成立了“南部同盟”。

林肯的这篇软弱无力的演说，进一步助长了这种分裂活动，终于导致了武装叛乱。

南方诸州的人民似乎存在着顾虑，以为共和党执政就会使他们的财产、他们的安宁与人身安？全遭到威胁。

这样的顾虑是从来没有任何正当理由的。

事实上，一直摆着供他们考查要各方同意吗？……我们发现，从法律上看联邦是永久性的这一论点，还为联邦本身的历史所肯定。

联邦比宪法存在久得多。

事实上，联邦是根据１７７４年的“联合条例”而形成的。

１７７６年的《独立宣言》使联邦趋于成熟并延续下来。

１７７８年的“邦联条例”使它进一步成熟起来，当时十三州全体都在条例上明确约定；联邦应该是永久的。

最后，１７８７年为制定和确立宪法而公开宣布的目标之一，就是要“组成一个更加完善的联邦”。

但是，如果仅仅其中一个州或一部分州就能够合法地破坏联邦的话，那么联邦就反而不及制宪前完善了，因为它失去了永久性这一重要因素。

这些观点可以说明：没有一个州能够仅仅根据自己的动议而合法地脱离联邦；由此制订的决议和法令在法律上都是无效的；在任何一个州或一些州内侵犯合众国权威的行为，是叛乱性的还是革命性的，须视情况而定。