Sunday, January 23, 2011

Abraham Lincoln: Diễn văn Gettysburg -Government of the people, by the people, for the people.

The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863

Abraham Lincoln: Diễn văn Gettysburg
Government of the people, by the people, for the people.


Abraham Lincoln đã nói Chính quền của dân, do dân và vì dân từ năm 1863.


Bài diễn văn nổi tiếng Gettysburg của Abraham Lincoln
Tổng thống thứ 16 của Mỹ Abraham Lincoln được đánh giá là người có phong cách diễn thuyết tuyệt vời với những lí lẽ và luận điểm đầy thuyết phục. Người có công chấm dứt Nội chiến Mỹ năm 1861-1865, giải phóng vĩnh viễn chế độ nô lệ miền Nam nước Mỹ và thống nhất hai miền đất nước chính là tác giả của một trong số các bài phát biểu nổi tiếng nhất trong lịch sử nước Mỹ - bài diễn văn Gettysburg.

Tổng thống Abraham Lincoln

Edward Everett - cựu Bộ trưởng Mỹ, cựu Hiệu trưởng trường đại học Harvard - được coi là nhà diễn thuyết tài ba nhất thời đại của ông. Ông được mời tới để phát biểu một bài quan trọng trong lễ tưởng niệm tại Nghĩa trang Liệt sĩ Quốc gia ở Gettysburg, bang Pennsylvania vào ngày 23/9/1863, sau khi diễn ra trận đánh Gettysburg.

Tuy nhiên, do thời gian quá gấp gáp, e rằng mình không thể chuẩn bị kĩ cho bài phát biểu, Everett đề nghị ban tổ chức lui lại một thời gian. Ban tổ chức đồng ý và lễ kỉ niệm được hoãn tới ngày 19/11. Sau khi cân nhắc, David Wills, Chủ tịch ban tổ chức quyết định mời cả Tổng thống Abraham Lincoln đến để "đưa ra vài nhận xét".

Everett phát biểu trước, và đó gần như là bài diễn văn hay nhất về thời chiến của ông. Sau khi nói trong vòng 2 tiếng đồng hồ, Everett ngồi xuống và đến lượt Lincoln. Tuy nhiên, Lincoln chỉ nói trong vòng đúng có 2 phút.

Nhưng cuối cùng, bài phát biểu 2 phút của ông lại trở thành một trong những bài phát biểu nổi tiếng nhất trong lịch sử nước Mỹ. Ngày hôm sau, Everett viết một bức thư ngắn gửi Lincoln đánh giá cao tính ngắn gọn của bài phát biểu của Lincoln. Ông nói: "Tôi rất vui nếu như tôi có thể tự đề cao mình rằng tôi đã đạt đến gần ý tưởng chính của lễ kỉ niệm trong vòng hai giờ, như là ông làm được trong hai phút ấy".

Bài diễn văn nổi tiếng chỉ vẻn vẹn trong vòng 266 từ, với nội dung như sau:

87 năm trước đây, trên lục địa này, ông cha ta đã khai sinh ra một quốc gia mới - một quốc gia được sinh ra trong tự do, và cống hiến cho một tuyên bố rằng tất cả mọi người sinh ra đều bình đẳng.



Giờ đây chúng ta đang tham gia vào một cuộc nội chiến vĩ đại, để thử thách xem dân tộc ta hay bất cứ quốc gia nào khác được sinh ra có thể tồn tại lâu dài hay không. Chúng ta gặp nhau trên chiến trường vĩ đại và rộng lớn của trận chiến. Chúng ta phải cống hiến một phần cho chiến trường, như là nơi an nghỉ cuối cùng cho những người đã hiến dâng mạng sống của mình để dân tộc tồn tại. Điều này hoàn toàn phù hợp, đúng đắn và chúng ta nên làm vậy.



Nhưng trong một ý nghĩa rộng lớn hơn, chúng ta không thể cống hiến, chúng ta không thể hiến dâng, chúng ta không thể thần thánh hoá mảnh đất này. Những con người dũng cảm, còn sống hay đã khuất, những người đã chiến đấu tại nơi đây mới chính là người đã thần thánh hoá nó... Thế giới có thể sẽ không nhớ những điều chúng ta đã nói tại nơi này, nhưng thế giới không thể nào quên những gì mà những con người dũng cảm đó đã làm tại đây.



Đối với chúng ta - những người đang đứng đây, nhiệm vụ của chúng ta là sống chứ không phải tiếp tục cho công việc mà họ còn dang dở - công việc chiến đấu và tiến lên đầy vinh quang.... Đối với chúng ta, có mặt tại nơi này là phải cống hiến cho nhiệm vụ cao cả đang chờ phía trước. Từ những người đã hi sinh trong vinh dự này, chúng ta hãy cống hiến hơn nữa cho sự nghiệp mà họ đã cống hiến trọn vẹn đến cùng. Chúng ta có mặt ở nơi này để thể hiện sự quyết tâm rằng sự hi sinh của những liệt sĩ ấy không phải là vô ích. Quốc gia này, dưới sự che chở của Chúa, sẽ khai sinh ra một nền tự do mới, và chính quyền của dân, do dân và vì dân sẽ không bao giờ lụi tàn



Kim Dung
Theo Anecdotage


The Gettysburg Address
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
November 19, 1863
Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate — we can not consecrate — we can not hallow — this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us — that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion — that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain — that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom — and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.


Chào các bạn,
Đây là bài diễn văn nổi tiếng nhất của tổng thống Mỹ Abraham Lincoln, trong thời chiến tranh Nam Bắc. Và là bài diễn văn nổi tiếng nhất trong lịch sử nước Mỹ. Bài này chỉ dài hai phút, nhưng mang ra hết nền tảng và ước muốn sâu thẳm của người Mỹ cũng như mọi dân tộc trên thế giới.
Chúc anh chị một ngày tươi hồng.
Hiển
.
Vào ngày mồng 1 tháng 6 năm 1865, thượng nghị sĩ Charles Sumner bày tỏ ý kiến về bài diễn văn mà bây giờ được coi là nổi tiếng nhất của tống thống Abraham Lincoln. Trong điếu văn ca ngợi ngài tổng thống bị ám sát, ông gọi bài diễn văn này là “một hành động vĩ đại.” Ông nói Lincoln đã nhầm rằng “thế giới sẽ chẳng để y’, hay không nhớ được lâu điều chúng ta nói ở đây.” Nhưng, vị thượng nghĩ sĩ người Boston này nhận xét, “Thế giới để y’ ngay điều tổng thống Lincoln nói, và sẽ không bao giờ ngừng ghi nhớ điều đó. Chính cuộc chiến không quan trọng bằng bài diễn văn đó”.
.
Bài diễn văn Gettysburg
Gettysburg, Pennsylvania
Tháng 11, ngày 19, năm 1863
Tám mươi bẩy năm về trước, cha ông chúng ta đem đến trên lục địa này, một quốc gia mới, thai nghén trong Tự Do, và dâng hiến cho nguyên l‎y’ rằng mọi người được sinh ra bình đẳng.
Bây giờ chúng ta đang ở trong một cuộc nội chiến lớn, thử nghiệm xem quốc gia đó, hay bất kỳ quốc gia nào khác, thai nghén như vậy và dâng hiến như vậy, có thể tồn tại lâu dài. Chúng ta gặp nhau trên một bãi chiến trường lớn của cuộc chiến tranh đó. Chúng ta đã đến để hiến dâng một phần của bãi chiến trường này làm nơi an nghỉ cuối cùng cho những người hy sinh đời mình ở đây để tổ quốc có thể sống. Thật là thích hợp và thỏa đáng để chúng ta làm thế.
Nhưng, ở một ý nghĩa rộng lớn hơn, chúng ta không thể dâng hiến – chúng ta không thể thánh hóa – chúng ta không thể linh thiêng hóa – bãi đất này. Những người anh dũng, đang sống cũng như đã chết, những người đã đấu tranh ở đây, đã thánh hóa mảnh đất này, cao xa hơn năng lực yếu kém của chúng ta có thể thêm hay bớt điều gì. Thế giới không để y’, và không nhớ được lâu điều chúng ta nói ở đây, nhưng thế giới không bao giờ quên được điều các anh hùng đã làm ở đây. Chúng ta, những người còn đang sống, nên được dâng hiến ở đây cho công việc còn dang dở mà những người liệt sĩ nơi đây đã oanh liệt tiến đẩy cho đến mức này. Chúng ta nên được dâng hiến ở đây cho nhiệm vụ to lớn còn lại trước chúng ta – từ tay những anh hùng liệt sĩ, chúng ta chấp nhận hiến thân nhiều hơn cho sự nghiệp họ đã hiến thân, đến mức thành tâm tối hậu– chúng ta quyết tâm không để những người chết ở đây chết đi vô ích – quốc gia này, trong Chúa, sẽ tái sinh trong tự do—và chính phú của dân, do dân và vì dân sẽ không biến mất trên trái đất này.

.

Abraham Lincoln -The Gettysburg address
The Gettysburg address

Four score and seven years ago
Tám mươi bảy năm trước
our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation
ông cha chúng ta đã khai sinh ra trên lục địa này một quốc gia mới
conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.
được thai nghén trong Tự do, và sống hiến dâng cho lý tưởng được đề ra, rằng tất cả mọi người được tạo hóa sinh ra bình đẳng.


Now we are engaged in a great civil war,
Giờ đây chúng ta bị lâm vào một cuộc nội chiến lớn
testing whether that nation,
thử thách xem quốc gia này,
or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.
hay bất cứ quốc gia nào được thai nghén và sống hiến dâng như thế, có thể tồn tại được lâu dài hay không
We are met on a great battle-field of that war.
Chúng ta gặp nhau trên một chiến trường lớn của cuộc chiến này.
We have come to dedicate a portion of that field,
Chúng ta đến để hiến dâng một phần đất nhỏ của chiến trường này
as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.
làm nơi an nghỉ cuối cùng cho những người đã để lại mạng sống mình tại đây, để cho quốc gia này có thể tồn tại. ( quyet tu de to quoc quyet sinh)
It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.
Tất cả đều phù hợp và chính đáng để chúng ta làm việc này.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate
Tuy nhiên, theo một nghĩa rộng hơn, chúng ta không thể hiến dâng
-- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground.
không thể tôn phong – không thể thánh hóa – miếng đất này.
The brave men, living and dead,
Chính những con người dũng cảm đã chiến đấu tại đây, dù còn sống hay đã chết
who struggled here, have consecrated it,
đã làm thiêng liêng nó,
far above our poor power to add or detract.
vượt xa khả năng kém cỏi của chúng ta để thêm hay bớt đi điều gì cho nó.
The world will little note
Thế giới sẽ ít chú ý,
, nor long remember what we say here,
hay nhớ lâu những gì chúng ta nói ở đây,
but it can never forget what they did here.
nhưng sẽ không bao giờ quên điều gì họ đã làm ở đây.
It is for us the living,
Chính chúng ta, những người còn sống,
rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work
mới phải hiến dâng mình cho công việc dở dang
which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.
mà những người chiến đấu ở đây đã tiến hành một cách cao quý.
It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us
Chính chúng ta mới là những người phải hiến dâng mình cho nhiệm vụ lớn còn ở trước mặt
-- that from these honored dead
rằng từ những người chết được vinh danh này
we take increased devotion to that cause
chúng ta sẽ nhận lấy sự tận tụy nhiều hơn
for which they gave the last full measure of devotion
cho sự nghiệp mà họ đã cống hiến đến hơi thở cuối cùng
-- that we here highly resolve that
rằng chúng ta ở đây sẽ có quyết tâm cao
these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation,
để cho những người đã ngã xuống sẽ không hy sinh một cách phí hoài – rằng quốc gia này,
under God, shall have a new birth of freedom
dưới ơn trên của Chúa, sẽ chứng kiến một cuộc sinh nở mới của tự do
-- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people,
và rằng chính quyền của dân, do dân và vì dân,
shall not perish from the earth.
sẽ không biến mất khỏi trái đất này.





Abraham Lincoln






Đền tưởng niệm Lincoln ở Washington DC
On June 1, 1865, Senator Charles Sumner commented on what is now considered the most famous speech by President Abraham Lincoln. In his eulogy on the slain president, he called it a “monumental act.” He said Lincoln was mistaken that “the world will little note, nor long remember what we say here.” Rather, the Bostonian remarked, “The world noted at once what he said, and will never cease to remember it. The battle itself was less important than the speech.”



Abraham Lincoln
First Inaugural Address
Monday, March 4, 1861

First Inaugural Address
March 4, 1861
Washington, D.C.
This speech had its origins in the back room of a store in Springfield, Illinois. Abraham Lincoln, who lived in Springfield for nearly 25 years, wrote the speech shortly before becoming America's sixteenth President. As President-elect, he took refuge from hordes of office seekers at his brother-in-law's store in January 1861. There he used just four references in his writing: Henry Clay's 1850 Speech on compromise, Webster's reply to Hayne, Andrew Jackson's proclamation against nullification, and the U.S. Constitution. The desk Lincoln used has been preserved by the State of Illinois.
A local newspaper, the Illinois State Journal, secretly printed the first draft, which he took on his inaugural journey to Washington. He entrusted the speech to his son Robert, who temporarily lost the suitcase, causing a minor uproar until it was found. Once in Washington, Lincoln allowed a handful of people to read the speech before delivering it. William H. Seward, his Secretary of State, offered several suggestions which softened its tone and helped produce its famous closing. Although meant to allay the fears of Southerners, the speech did not dissuade them from starting the war, which broke out the following month.
Californians read the speech after it traveled via telegraph and Pony Express. It was telegraphed from New York to Kearney, Nebraska, then taken by Pony Express to Folsom, California, where it was telegraphed to Sacramento for publication. Today you can see the First Inaugural Address manuscript and the Bible from the inaugural ceremony online or at the American Treasures exhibit, Library of Congress, Washington, D.C.
Fellow-citizens of the United States:
In compliance with a custom as old as the government itself, I appear before you to address you briefly, and to take, in your presence, the oath prescribed by the Constitution of the United States, to be taken by the President "before he enters on the execution of this office."
I do not consider it necessary at present for me to discuss those matters of administration about which there is no special anxiety or excitement.
Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States, that by the accession of a Republican Administration, their property, and their peace, and personal security, are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed, and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that "I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so." Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this, and many similar declarations, and had never recanted them. And more than this, they placed in the platform, for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves, and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes."
I now reiterate these sentiments; and in doing so, I only press upon the public attention the most conclusive evidence of which the case is susceptible, that the property, peace and security of no section are to be in any wise endangered by the now incoming Administration. I add too, that all the protection which, consistently with the Constitution and the laws, can be given, will be cheerfully given to all the States when lawfully demanded, for whatever cause -- as cheerfully to one section as to another.
There is much controversy about the delivering up of fugitives from service or labor. The clause I now read is as plainly written in the Constitution as any other of its provisions:
"No person held to service or labor in one State, under the laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in consequence of any law or regulation therein, be discharged from such service or labor, but shall be delivered up on claim of the party to whom such service or labor may be due."
It is scarcely questioned that this provision was intended by those who made it, for the reclaiming of what we call fugitive slaves; and the intention of the law-giver 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," 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 any one, 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 for [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 a contract, 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 [the] destruction of the Union, by one, or by a part only, of the States, be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.
It follows from these views that no State, upon its own mere motion, can lawfully get out of the Union, -- that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence, within any State or States, against the authority of the United States, are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.
I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws, the Union is unbroken; and to the extent of my ability I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part; and I shall 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 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 so 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 with all, 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 over-ruled, 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, cannot 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 cannot 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 cannot do this. They cannot 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 cannot 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 cannot be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the national Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it.
I will venture to add that to me the Convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions, originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution, which amendment, however, I have not seen, has passed Congress, to the effect that the federal government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments, so far as to say that holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable.
The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose; but the executive, as such, has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present government, as it came to his hands, and to transmit it, unimpaired by him, to his successor.
Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope, in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of nations, with his eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth, and that justice, will surely prevail, by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people.
By the frame of the government under which we live, this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief; and have, with equal wisdom, provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals.
While the people retain their virtue and vigilance, no administration, by any extreme of wickedness or folly, can very seriously injure the government in the short space of four years.
My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well, upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you, in hot haste, to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied, hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for precipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him, who has never yet forsaken this favored land, are still competent to adjust, in the best way, all our present difficulty.
In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war. The government will not assail you. You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors. You have no oath registered in Heaven to destroy the government, while I shall have the most solemn one to "preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close. We are not enemies, but friends. We must not be enemies. Though passion may have strained, it must not break our bonds of affection. The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battle-field, and patriot grave, to every living heart and hearth-stone, 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


.

No comments:

Post a Comment