林肯,就职演说

篇一：林肯就职演说原文1

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 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 the 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 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 address was 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 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. 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 less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible，and astounding 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 offence！ for it must needs be that offence s come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh！" If we shall suppose that American Slavery is one of those offences 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 offence came，shall we discern therein 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 pass away. Yet，if God wills that it continue，until all the wealth piled by the bond-man's two hundred and fifty years of uequited 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 firmness in 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.

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。双方都读同一本圣经，向同一位上帝祷告，求祂的帮助。看起来真是奇怪：一些人竟企求上帝让别人流汗而使自己可以得到面包；但是，不要让我们论断，如果我们自己不想被论断的话。双方的祷告不会同时被回答，任何一方的祷告也不会被完全应允。全能的神自有其旨意。“祸哉世界！因着必来之罪；祸哉此人，罪因其而来。”如果我们假设，美国奴隶制度乃是众罪之一，此罪到了期限，神便定意除去这个制度，引发这一场可怖的南北战争，因为灾降于那些罪因其而来的人身上，如同以往圣徒所描写的神的属性，神的作为难道会有任何偏差吗？我们热切地盼望--恒切地祷告--这场惩罚性的战争得以迅速地远离我们而去。然而，如果神定意让战争持续下去，直到我们从所有奴隶在两百五十年间没有报酬、困苦劳动之下所累积的财富毁去，及直到每一滴皮鞭上的血迹被报之以刀下每一条冤魂，就如同我们在三千年前所说，而今天仍要再说的那样：“主的审判信实，合乎公义。”

不以恶待人，而以仁爱相处。当神开启我们的眼，得见公义时，我们必须持守公义。让我们全力以赴，完成我们手中的工作，医治国家的创伤；并照料在战场上承受苦痛的人，和那些寡妇、孤儿，不忘记关怀他们 - 让我们竭尽全力，达成在我们中间，及众民族之间的永久的公义和和平。

简单统计：

? 讲演总字数：699

? 提到上帝次数：10(God: 6; The Almighty: 1; Lord: 1; He: 2) ? 提到祷告次数：3

? 提到圣经次数：1

? 引用圣经次数：2

所以只要读一下这篇讲演，就会知道林肯是怎样一位敬畏上帝，祈求上帝带领的人了！就如林肯传记《公民林肯》(Lincoln the Citizen)的作者惠特尼(Hey Whitney)所总结的：“(这篇演讲是)一串向神连绵不断的祈求，求祂对我们这个如火如荼的国家伸出援手。”

这篇讲演发生在1865年3月4号上午，当时在现场的记者Noah Brooks写到：“Just at that moment the sun，which had been obscured all day，burst forth in its unclouded meridian splendor，and flooded the spectacle with glory and with light??was already standing in the shadow of death.”(林肯登台的一瞬间，阳光冲出了已盘踞了一整天的云层，放射出惊人的景象，荣耀和光辉如洪水般涌来??而此时，林肯已经站在了死亡的阴影之中。) -- 仅仅40天后，即同年4月15号，林肯在剧院里被谋杀了。

其实早年的林肯是一个无神论者，作为政治家，认为财富和权力更为重要。然而，随着美国内战战局的发展，林肯越来越感受到上帝的主权和公义，越来越依靠神，承认自己和人的无能为力，开始把国家的命运交托在神的手里。

例如，在1862年9月，在一个本来看似乐观的形势下，北方军却经历了在Bull Run的第二次战役的彻底失败，林肯开始认真的反思这次战争，并且考虑解放黑奴的具体计划。这时，他写下了“Meditation on the Divine Will”(对神旨意的思想)的文章。英文原文是：“The will of God prevails. In great contests each party claims to act in accordance with the will of God. Both may be，and one must be，wrong. God can not be for and against the same thing at the same time. In the present civil war it is quite possible that God's purpose is something different from the purpose of either party-and yet the human instrumentalities，working just as they do，are of the best adaptation to affect His purpose.”翻译是：“上帝的旨意必成就。在内战中，双方都认为自己所行的符合上帝的旨意，但至少有一方是错的，因为上帝不可能自相矛盾。上帝的旨意不同于我们的目标，但是上帝使用我们作为器皿成就祂的旨意。”

在林肯将被谋杀的最后时刻，据D. James Kennedy的《What if the Bible had never been written》一书，林肯坐在戏院里，对妻子玛丽说的最后的话是：“你知道我现在想做什么吗？我想带你到中东去旅行。”“我们要去祂(主耶稣)

诞生的伯利恒。我们要拜访伯大尼，随着那条圣洁脚踪所行过的路途走。然后我们上耶路(耶路撒冷)??”

篇二：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。双方的祈祷都不可能得到回应；任何一方的祈祷也没有得到充分的回应。全能的上帝另有他自己的目标。“由于种种罪过，世界受难了!因为这些罪过是不可避免的；但是，让那引来罪过的人去受罪吧。”*如果我们假定美国的奴隶制是这里所说的罪恶之一，它按上帝的意旨是不可避免的，而现在在经过了上帝规定的时限之后，他决心要消灭它，再假定上帝使得南北双方进行了这场可怕的战争，以作为那些犯下罪过的人应该遭受到的苦难，那么我们从中能看出有什么地方有悖于信仰上帝的信徒们总是赋于永远存在的上帝的那种神性吗?我们衷心地希望——热情地祈祷——但愿这可怕的战争灾祸能迅速过去。然而，如果上帝一定要让它继续下去，一直到奴隶们通过二百五十年的无偿劳动所堆积起来的财富烟消云散，一直到，如三千年前人们所说的那样，用鞭子抽出的每一滴血都要用刀剑刺 出的另一滴血来偿还，而到那时，我们也仍然得说，“主的审判是完全公正无误的”。**

我们对任何人也不怀恶意，我们对所有的人都宽大为怀，坚持正义；上帝既使我们认识正义，让我们继续努力向前，完成我们正在进行的事业；包扎起国家的创伤，关心那些为战争作出牺牲的人，关心他们的遗孀和孤儿——尽一切力量，以求在我们自己之间，以及我们和所有

的国家之间实现并维护一个公正和持久的和平。

篇三：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 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 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 succession

administered the executive branch of the Government. They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success.

Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty. A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably

attempted. I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself. Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it? Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older than the Constitution.

It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was "to form a more perfect Union." But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity. It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union; that resolves and ordinances to that

effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances. I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the Union be faithfully executed in all the States. Doing this I deem to be only a simple duty on my part, and Ishall perform it so far as practicable unless my rightful masters, the American people, shall withhold the requisite means or in some authoritative manner direct the contrary. I trust this will not be regarded as a menace, but only as the declared purpose of the Union that it will constitutionally defend and maintain itself. In doing this there needs to be no bloodshed or violence, and there shall be none unless it be forced upon the national authority. The power confided to me will be used to hold, occupy, and possess the property and places belonging to the Government and to collect the duties and imposts; but beyond what may be necessary for these objects, there will be no invasion, no using of force against or among the people anywhere. Where hostility to the United States in any interior locality shall be so great and universal as to prevent competent resident citizens from holding the Federal offices, there will be no attempt to force obnoxious strangers among the people for that object. While the strict legal right may exist in the Government to enforce the exercise of these offices, the attempt to do so would be so irritating and so nearly impracticable withal that I deem it better to forego for the time the uses of such offices. The mails, unless repelled, will continue to be furnished in all parts of the Union. So far as possible the people everywhere shall have that sense of perfect security which is most favorable to calm thought and reflection. The course here indicated will be followed unless current events and experience shall show a modification or change to be proper, and in every case and exigency my best discretion will be exercised, according to circumstances actually existing and with a view and a hope of a peaceful solution of the national troubles and the restoration of fraternal sympathies and affections. That there are persons in one section or another who seek to destroy the Union at all events and are glad of any pretext to do it I will neither affirm nor deny; but if there be such, I need address no word to them. To those, however, who really love the Union may I not speak? Before entering upon so grave a matter as the destruction of our national fabric, with all its benefits, its memories, and its hopes, would it not be wise to ascertain precisely why we do it? Will you hazard so desperate a step while there is any possibility that any portion of the ills you fly from have no real existence? Will you, while the certain ills you fly to are greater than all the real ones you fly from, will you risk the commission of so fearful a mistake? All profess to be content in the Union if all constitutional rights can be maintained. Is it true, then, that any right plainly written in the Constitution has been denied? I think not. Happily, the human mind is so constituted that no party can reach to the audacity of doing this. Think, if you can, of a single instance in which a plainly written provision of the Constitution has ever been denied. If by the mere force of numbers a majority should deprive a minority of any clearly written constitutional right, it might in a moral point of view justify revolution; certainly would if such right were a vital one. But such is not our case. All the vital rights of minorities and of individuals are so plainly assured to them by affirmations and negations, guaranties and prohibitions, in the Constitution that controversies never arise concerning them. But no organic law can ever be framed with a provision specifically applicable to every question which may occur in practical administration. No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority?

The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. From questions of this class spring all our constitutional controversies, and we divide upon them into majorities and minorities. If the minority will not acquiesce, the majority must, or the Government must cease. There is no other alternative, for continuing the Government is acquiescence on one side or the other. If a minority in such case will secede rather than acquiesce, they make a precedent which in turn will divide and ruin them, for a minority of their own will secede from them whenever a majority refuses to be controlled by such minority. For instance, why may not any portion of a new confederacy a year or two hence arbitrarily secede again, precisely as portions of the present Union now claim to secede from it? All who cherish disunion sentiments are now being educated to the exact temper of doing this. Is there such perfect identity of interests among the States to compose a new union as to produce harmony only and prevent renewed secession? Plainly the central idea of secession is the essence of anarchy. A majority held in restraint by constitutional checks and limitations, and always changing easily with deliberate changes of popular opinions and sentiments, is the only true sovereign of a free people. Whoever rejects it does of necessity fly to anarchy or to despotism. Unanimity is impossible. The rule of a minority, as a permanent arrangement, is wholly inadmissible; so that, rejecting the majority principle, anarchy or despotism in some form is all that is left. I do not forget the position assumed by some that constitutional questions are to be decided by the Supreme Court, nor do I deny that such decisions must be binding in any case upon the parties to a suit as to the object of that suit, while they are also entitled to very high respect and consideration in all parallel cases by all other departments of the Government. And while it is obviously possible that such decision may be erroneous in any given case, still the evil effect following it, being limited to that particular case, with the chance that it may be overruled and never become a precedent for other cases, can better be borne than could the evils of a different practice. At the same time, the candid citizen must confess that if the policy of the Government upon vital questions affecting the whole people is to be irrevocably fixed by decisions of the Supreme Court, the instant they are made in ordinary litigation between parties in personal actions the people will have ceased to be their own rulers, having to that extent practically resigned their Government into the hands of that eminent tribunal. Nor is there in this view any assault upon the court or the judges. It is a duty from which they may not shrink to decide cases properly brought before them, and it is no fault of theirs if others seek to turn their decisions to political purposes. One section of our country believes slavery is right and ought to be extended, while the other believes it is wrong and ought not to be extended. This is the only substantial dispute. The fugitive- slave clause of the Constitution and the law for the suppression of the foreign slave trade are each as well enforced, perhaps, as any law can ever be in a community where the moral sense of the people imperfectly supports the law itself. The great body of the people abide by the dry legal obligation in both cases, and a few break over in each. This, I think, can not be perfectly cured, and it would be worse in both cases after the separation of the sections than before. The foreign slave trade, now imperfectly suppressed, would be ultimately revived without restriction in one section, while fugitive slaves, now only partially surrendered, would not be surrendered at all by the other. Physically speaking, we can not separate. We can not remove our respective sections from each other nor build an impassable wall between them. A husband and wife may be divorced and go out of the presence and beyond the reach of each other, but the different parts of our

country can not do this. They can not but remain face to face, and intercourse, either amicable or hostile, must continue between them. Is it possible, then, to make that intercourse more advantageous or more satisfactory after separation than before? Can aliens make treaties easier than friends can make laws? Can treaties be more faithfully enforced between aliens than laws can among friends? Suppose you go to war, you can not fight always; and when, after much loss on both sides and no gain on either, you cease fighting, the identical old questions, as to terms of intercourse, are again upon you. This country, with its institutions, belongs to the people who inhabit it. Whenever they shall grow weary of the existing Government, they can exercise their constitutional right of amending it or their revolutionary right to dismember or overthrow it. I can not be ignorant of the fact that many worthy and patriotic citizens are desirous of having the National Constitution amended. While I make no recommendation of amendments, I fully recognize the rightful authority of the people over the whole subject, to be exercised in either of the modes prescribed in the instrument itself; and I should, under existing circumstances, favor rather than oppose a fair opportunity being afforded the people to act upon it. I will venture to add that to me the convention mode seems preferable, in that it allows amendments to originate with the people themselves, instead of only permitting them to take or reject propositions originated by others, not especially chosen for the purpose, and which might not be precisely such as they would wish to either accept or refuse. I understand a proposed amendment to the Constitution--which amendment, however, I have not seen--has passed Congress, to the effect that the Federal Government shall never interfere with the domestic institutions of the States, including that of persons held to service. To avoid misconstruction of what I have said, I depart from my purpose not to speak of particular amendments so far as to say that, holding such a provision to now be implied constitutional law, I have no objection to its being made express and irrevocable. The Chief Magistrate derives all his authority from the people, and they have referred none upon him to fix terms for the separation of the States. The people themselves can do this if also they choose, but the Executive as such has nothing to do with it. His duty is to administer the present Government as it came to his hands and to transmit it unimpaired by him to his successor. Why should there not be a patient confidence in the ultimate justice of the people? Is there any better or equal hope in the world? In our present differences, is either party without faith of being in the right? If the Almighty Ruler of Nations, with His eternal truth and justice, be on your side of the North, or on yours of the South, that truth and that justice will surely prevail by the judgment of this great tribunal of the American people. By the frame of the Government under which we live this same people have wisely given their public servants but little power for mischief, and have with equal wisdom provided for the return of that little to their own hands at very short intervals. While the people retain their virtue and vigilance no Administration by any extreme of wickedness or folly can very seriously injure the Government in the short space of four years. My countrymen, one and all, think calmly and well upon this whole subject. Nothing valuable can be lost by taking time. If there be an object to hurry any of you in hot haste to a step which you would never take deliberately, that object will be frustrated by taking time; but no good object can be frustrated by it. Such of you as are now dissatisfied still have the old Constitution unimpaired, and, on the sensitive point, the laws of your own framing under it; while the new Administration will have no immediate power, if it would, to change either. If it were admitted that you who are dissatisfied hold the right side in the dispute, there still is no single good reason for pr

ecipitate action. Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this