美国总统林肯的小故事（共11篇）
篇1：美国总统林肯的小故事
在林肯当律师时，有一次，他得悉朋友的儿子小阿姆斯特朗被控为谋财害命，已初步判定有罪。他以被告律师的资格，到法院查阅了全部案卷。知道全案的关键在于原告方面的一位证人福尔逊，因为他发誓说在10月18日的月光下，清楚地目击小阿姆斯特朗用枪击毙了死者。对此，林肯要求复审。在这场精彩的复审中，有以下一段对话。 林肯问证人：你发誓说看清了小阿姆斯特朗? 福尔逊：是的。 林肯：你在草堆后，小阿姆斯特朗在大树下，两处相距二三十米，能认清吗? 福尔逊：看得很清楚，因为月光很亮。 林肯：你肯定不是从衣着方面看清他的吗? 福尔逊：不是的，我肯定看清了他的脸，因为月光照亮了他的脸。
林肯：你能肯定时间是在11时吗? 福尔逊：充分肯定，因为我回屋看了钟，那时是11时15分。 林肯问到达里，就转过身来，发表了一席惊人的谈话：“我不能不告诉大家，这个证人是一个彻头彻尾的骗子。他一口咬定10月18日晚上11时在月光下看清了被告的脸。请大家想想，10月18日那天是上弦月，晚上11时月亮已经下山，哪里还有月光?退一步说，也许他时间记得不十分精确，时间稍有提前。但那时，月光是从西往东照，草堆在东，大树在西，如果被告的脸面对草堆，脸上是不可能有月光的!”大家先是一阵沉默，紧接着掌声、欢呼声一起进发出来。福尔逊傻了眼。
篇2：美国总统林肯的小故事
青年时代的林肯在伊利诺斯州的圣加蒙加入了民兵。他的上校指挥官是一个矮个子，而林肯的身材特别高大，大大的超过了这位指挥官。由于自己觉得身材高，林肯习惯于垂着头、弯着腰走路。上校看见他那弯腰曲背的姿势十分生气，把他找来训斥一顿。 “听着，阿伯，”上校大声喊道，“把头高高地抬起来，你这个家伙!” “遵命，先生。”林肯恭敬地回答。 “你的头要高高地抬起来，你这家伙，”上校坚持己见，“要再抬高一些。”
林肯只得把身体挺直，脖子伸得长长的，问道：“这样可以吗?” “还要再抬高点。”上校说。 “是不是要我永远这个样子?”林肯问道。 “当然，你这个家伙，这还用问吗?”上校冒火啦。 “对不起，上校，”林肯面带愁容地说：“那么只好与你说声再会啦，因为我将永远看不见你了!”
篇3：美国总统林肯的小故事
你知道不知道这样一个故事:
亚里山德拉大图书馆被烧之后, 只有一本书被保存了下来, 但并不是一本很有价值的书, 于是一个识得几个字的穷人用几个铜板买下了这本书。这本书的内容并不怎么有趣, 但里面却有一个非常有趣的东西———窄窄的一条羊皮纸上面写着“点金石”的秘密。
点金石是一块小小的石子, 它能将任何一种普通金属变成纯金。羊皮纸上的文字解释说, 点金石就在黑海的海滩上, 和成千上万与它看起来一模一样的小石子混在一起, 但真正的点金石摸上去很温暖, 而普通的石子摸上去是冰凉的。然后这个人变卖了他为数不多的财产, 买了一些简单的装备, 在黑海边扎起帐篷, 开始翻检那些石子。
他知道, 如果他捡起一块摸上去冰凉的普通石子就将其扔在地上, 他就有可能几百次捡拾起同一块石子, 所以当他摸着冰凉的石子的时候, 就将它扔进大海里。他这样干了一整天, 却没有捡到一块点金石。然后他又这样干了一个星期、一个月、一年、三年, 但是他还是没有找到点金石。但他仍继续这样干下去:捡起一块石子, 是凉的, 将它扔进海里;又捡起另一块, 若还是凉的, 再把它扔进海里……
但是有一天他捡起了一块石子, 这块石子是温暖的, 但他仍把它随手扔进了海里。因为他已经形成了一种习惯, 把他捡到的所有石子都扔进海里。他已经如此习惯于做扔石子的动作, 以至于当他真正捡到点金石时, 他也还是将其扔进了海里!
这个故事告诉我们一个浅显的道理, 习惯有时会成为获取成功的障碍, 让人们扔掉握在手里的机会———坏的习惯尤其如此。
如果人们能够在那个人的大脑和神经系统中看到他的习惯发展轨迹, 就会发现一条弯弯曲曲的小径, 一开始出现了, 它带来了一些看似无关紧要的不良行为。正是这些行为直接导致那个人的结果。一切专业教育和技术教育都基于这样的理论:如果神经系统对习惯的刺激变得越来越敏感, 也就能越来越快地做出反应。
人们总是容易忽略习惯形成的生理基础。对一个行为的每一次重复, 都会增加人们再次实施它的机率。人们还发现自己的体内有一种神奇的机制, 那就是倾向于不断地重复甚至是永久性的重复, 而且这种倾向的灵活机敏性也随着重复次数的增加而不断地提高。最终的结果是, 开始的行为, 由于自然的条件反射, 成了自动的行为, 不再受大脑的控制。
通常, 人们不懂得告诉那些性格扭曲的人:严峻的斗争仍然摆在他们面前, 考验还远远没有结束, 必须进行长期的、艰苦卓绝的战斗, 以无比虔诚的心态和无比坚定的意志力来控制自己的行为, 同过去的坏习惯决裂, 才能为以后形成更好的习惯奠定坚实的基础。没有人告诉他们, 无论他们付出多大的努力, 在某些松懈的时候, 一些陈旧的开关仍然可能会被不小心地打开, 沉淀在心中的欲望仍然会决堤而出, 而且很可能在他意识到这一问题之前, 自己已经再一次屈服于旧习惯的诱惑了, 尽管他已经下了千百次的决心要克服和抵制这种诱惑。
有人认为坏习惯可以轻而易举地克服, 就姑息它, 日久天长, 坏习惯像锁链一样缠住了他, 只有靠坚定的意志、反复做出正确的行为、经过一个艰苦的过程才能加以纠正。
坏习惯就像一棵长弯的小树, 人们不可能一下子把它弄直。要想纠正它, 人们可以搬来两块大石头, 夹住它, 用绳子捆紧。它不是一朝一夕能纠正的, 这需要几个月, 甚至几年。
“怎样才能改变一个习惯?”
唯一的答案是:当初怎么养成这个习惯, 现在就怎么来克服它。
倘若以前是一步步堕入了恶习, 现在就一步步走出泥淖。
倘若以前是屈服于诱惑, 现在就坚定地拒绝它。
儿子, 凡是渴望成功的人, 都应该对自己平时的习惯做深刻的检讨, 把那些妨碍成功的恶习 ———如举止慌乱、急躁不安、萎靡不振、言语尖刻、不守时、马马虎虎等永远摒弃, 你要勇于承认自己身上的不良习惯, 不要找借口搪塞。把它们记下来, 对照它们引起的错误, 想想今后应该怎么做。若能持之以恒地纠正它们, 就一定会有巨大的收获———改正了过去的不良习惯。
爸爸相信你一定能做得很好!
思念你的父亲
篇4：美国总统林肯的言谈招法
林肯的一生是在接踵不断的磨难中度过的。挫折是他生活的主旋律，抑郁是他个人的大敌。但林肯还是挺了过来，直到最后一刻!
不光如此，林肯喜欢笑，因为笑是他缓解压力的药方，笑可使他从无尽的烦恼中获得片刻的休息。更重要的是，笑可以升华林肯的情绪，使他及周围的人从“苦恼人的笑”中获取智慧的提示。
一次，林肯与竞选对手道格拉斯进行辩论。道格拉斯在辩论中指控林肯说一套做一套，是一个地地道道的两面派。待林肯上来讲话，他首先说“道格拉斯说我有两张脸，大家说说看，如果我有另一张脸的话，我能带着这张脸来见大家吗?”他的话逗得哄堂大笑，连道格拉斯本人也跟着笑了起来。
林肯初任总统时，曾有’个议员取笑林肯的父亲是个鞋匠，林肯回应说：“不错，我父亲是个鞋匠，但我希望我治国能像我父亲做鞋那样地娴熟高超。”他的话立即博得人们的一片喝彩。
一天，林肯和他的大儿子罗伯特乘马车上街，街口被路过的军队堵塞了，林肯开门踏出一只脚问一位路人：“请问这是什么?”林肯的意思是这是哪个部队，那路人以为他不认识军队，便答道“联邦的军队呀，你真他妈的是个大笨蚩。”林肯说了声“谢谢”，关上车门，然后严肃地对儿子说：“有人在你面前说老实话，这是一种幸福。”紧接着那路人又说：“我的确是个他妈的大笨蛋!”
还有一天，林肯与国务卿威廉姆·西华德、秘书约翰·海前往新任联邦军波托马克军团司令的麦克累伦将军的寓所拜访(他是美国内战爆发后林肯任命的第一位军团司令)。仆人告诉林肯将军外出参加婚礼未归，大约等了一个小时，麦克累伦将军回来，却不睬林肯等人径直上了楼。又等了约半小时，仆人再次前去禀报，得到的却是一句冷冰冰的回话：“将军已经上床睡觉了。”
住回家的路上，西华德和海都对麦克累伦的傲慢行为感到愤慨无比，林肯却不以为然。他反而劝慰俩人不要计较细节，末了还一脸认真地说：“只要麦克累伦能为我们赢得胜利，我情愿为他牵马。”
麦克累伦后来被证明是一个胆小如鼠的将领，林肯不得不撤换他。倒霉的是，林肯后来换上的几个将领也都不足胜任，直到最后换上了格兰特将军，才在前线捷报频传。可没多久，有人向林肯投诉格兰特将军在前线时常喝酒，对此林肯笑笑说：“我真想知道格兰特喝的哪一种酒，这样我就可以给前线的每一个将领送一瓶去。”
林肯喜欢讲笑话，每当他讲笑话时，他的脸会放光，他的眼睛会发亮，他的声音会颤抖，有时他还会手舞足蹈地先大笑起来。可笑过之后，林肯的情绪时常会立刻低落下来，一脸忧伤地望着众人。这，就是林肯的幽默性格。
心理学大师弗洛伊德认为：笑话给予我们快感，是通过把一个充满能量和紧张度的有意识过程转化为一个轻松的无意识过程。
篇5：美国总统林肯的故事
林肯出身于一个鞋匠家庭,没有任何贵族血统,而当时的美国社会是非常看重门第的。竞选总统前夕,一个参议员为了让林肯退出竞选,故意羞辱他:“林肯先生,在你开始演讲之前,我希望你记住,你是一个鞋匠的儿子。”
面对他人的羞辱,林肯没有恼羞成怒、愤然失态,而是自豪而又谦卑地解释说:“我非常感谢你使我想起我的父亲,他已经去世了。但我一定会记住你的忠告,我知道我做总统无法做得像我父亲做鞋匠那么好。据我所知,我父亲以前也为你的家人做过鞋子,如果你的鞋子不合脚,我可以帮你修改。虽然我不是鞋匠,但我跟父亲学到了做鞋子的技术。”
接着,林肯又对所有的议员说:“对参议院的任何人都一样,如果你们穿的那双鞋是我父亲做的,而它们需要修理或改善,我一定尽可能帮忙。但是,有一件事是肯定的,我无法比我父亲修得好,他的手艺是无人能及的。”说到这里,林肯流下了热泪。面对林肯的真诚,顿时,所有的嘲笑都化为热烈的掌声。
林肯的相貌并不出众,相反,有些丑陋,这也成为竞选对手攻击他的托词。他跟史蒂芬生·道格拉斯一起竞选总统,在进行辩论时,道格拉斯指责林肯是个两面派,有两张面孔。林肯听了之后,不慌不忙地回答说:“如果我有两张面孔,我还会情愿戴这一副吗?”他的勇于自嘲,立刻赢得了台下不约而同的叫好声。
道格拉斯竞选失败后一直心怀不满,总想找机会当众羞辱林肯。有一天,道格拉斯见到林肯,便挖苦他说:“林肯先生,我初次认识你的时候,你是一家杂货店的老板,站在一大堆杂物中卖雪茄和威士忌。真是个难得的酒店招待呀。”然而,林肯并没有觉得难堪,而是不以为然地说道:“先生们,道格拉斯说得一点儿也不错,我确实开过一家杂货店,卖些棉花、蜡烛、雪茄什么的,当然也卖威士忌。我记得那时候道格拉斯是我最好的顾客了。多少次他站在柜台的那一头,我站在柜台的这一头,卖给他威士忌。”然后,林肯话锋一转,微笑着说:“不过,现在不同的是,我早已从柜台的这一头离开了,可是道格拉斯先生依然顽强地坚守在那一头,不肯离去。”林肯这么一说,周围的人都哈哈大笑起来,称赞林肯回答得很风趣很巧妙。
林肯在入主白宫之前,生活颠沛困顿,又加上其貌不扬,不修边幅,因此,在他初到白宫任职时,内阁中的阔佬没有一个瞧得起他。陆军部长斯坦东曾公开宣称:“我不愿意与那个笨蛋、老憨、长臂猴为伍。”林肯听后,大度地说:“我决心牺牲一部分自尊,要派斯坦东任陆军部长,因为他绝对忠于国家。”
斯坦东任职后仍不停地对林肯进行谩骂,甚至拒不执行林肯的指示。有一次,有位议员带着林肯的手令去找斯坦东,斯坦东竟公开抗命,并拍案大叫:“假如总统给你这样的命令,那么他就是一个浑人。”那位议员满以为林肯会因此而将斯坦东撤职,可是,林肯听了汇报后却说:“假如斯坦东认为我是一个浑人,那么我一定是了,因为他几乎一切都是对的。”林肯为了顾全大局,能够容才之短、用才之长的博雅气度让斯坦东极为感动。事后,斯坦东马上到林肯跟前表达了诚挚的歉意。
海纳百川,有容乃大。荷兰哲学家斯宾诺沙说:“人心不靠武力征服,而是靠爱和宽容大度去征服。”林肯以宽容大度之心化敌为友,既消除矛盾隔阂,赢得了对手的尊重,又形成了合力,成就了事业。
篇6：美国总统林肯名言
除了凭着对过去的经验加以类推之外，我们对今后的事一无所知。(美国总统 林肯 . a .)
查看更多：
超酷的美国俚语
西班牙裔美国哲学家、桑塔亚那名言
赞美国庆节的名言
美国谚语
美国吉诺·鲍洛奇
篇7：美国总统林肯的小故事
译文比较：美国总统林肯葛底斯堡演说词
The Gettysburg Address
Abraham Lincoln
Four score and seven years ago, our fathers brought forth upon this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure.We are met on a great battlefield of that war.We have come to dedicate a portion of that field as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live.It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.But in a larger sense, we cannot dedicate--we cannot consecrate--we cannot hallow--this ground.The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it far above our poor power to add or detract.The world will little note nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here.It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced.It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us--that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion--that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain--that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom--and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.译文一：张培基：《英汉翻译教程》，上海外语教育出版社1980年
葛底斯堡演说词
亚伯拉罕·林肯
八十七年前，我们的先辈们在这个大陆上创立了一个新国家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生来平等的原则。
现在我们正从事一场伟大的内战，以考验这个国家，或者说以考验任何一个孕育于自由而奉行上述原则的国家是否能够长久存在下去。
我们在这场战争中的一个伟大战场上集合。烈士们为使这个国家能够生存下去而献出了自己的生命，我们在此集会是为了把这个战场的一部分奉献给他们作为最后安息之所。我们这样做是完全应该而且非常恰当的。
但是，从更广泛的意义上来说，这块土地我们不能够奉献，我们不能够圣化，我们不能够神化。曾在这里战斗过的勇士们，活着的和去世的，已经把这块土地神圣化了，这远不是我们微薄的力量所能增减的。全世界将很少注意到，也不会长久地记起我们今天在这里所说的话，但全世界永远不会忘记勇士们在这里所做过的事。无宁说，倒是我们这些还活着的人，应该在这里把自己奉献于勇士们已经如此崇高地向前推进但尚未完成的事业。倒是我们应该在这里把自己奉献于仍然留在我们面前的伟大任务，以便使我们从这些光荣的死者身上汲取更多的献身精神，来完成他们已经完全彻底为之献身的事业；以便使我们在这里下定最大的决心，不让这些死者白白牺牲；以便使国家在上帝福佑下得到自由的新生，并且使这个民有、民治、民享的政府永世长存。
译文二：朱曾汶
葛底斯堡演说词
亚伯拉罕·林肯
八十七年前，我们的先辈们在这个大陆上创立了一个新的国家，它孕育于自由之中，奉行一切人生来平等的原则。
现在我们正从事一场伟大的内战，以考验这个国家，或者任何一个孕育于自由和奉行上述原则的国家是否能够长久存在下去。我们在这场战争中的一个伟大战场上集合。烈士们为使这个国家能够生存下去而献出了自己的生命，我们来到这里，是要把这个战场的一部分奉献给他们作为最后的安息之所。我们这样做是完全应该而且非常恰当的。
但是，从更广泛的意义上来说，这块土地我们不能够奉献，不能够圣化，不能够神化。那些曾在这里战斗过的勇士们，活着的和去世的，已经把这块土地圣化了，这远不是我们微薄的力量所能增减的。我们今天在这里所说的话，全世界不大会注意，也不会长久记住，但勇士们在这里所做过的事，全世界却永远不会忘记。毋宁说，倒是我们这些还活着的人，应该在这里把自己奉献于勇士们已经如此崇高地向前推进但尚未完成的事业。倒是我们应该在这里把自己奉献于仍然留在我们面前的伟大任务 ——我们要从这些光荣的死者身上汲取更多的献身精神，来完成他们已经完全彻底为之献身的事业；我们要在这里下定最大的决心，不让这些死者白白牺牲；我们要使国家在上帝的福佑下得到自由的新生，要使这个民有、民治、民享的政府永世长存。
译文三：洪丽珠
葛底斯堡演说词
亚伯拉罕·林肯
八十七年前，先民在这个大陆上创建一个新国，信仰自由、致力于人生来而平等的主张。现在我们正从事伟大的内战，以测验这个国家，或任何有着相同信仰或相同主张的国家，能否维持长久。我们就是在这场战争的一个大战场上集合，为了要将这片土地的一部分，献给那些为了国家生存而捐躯的战士们，作为最终的安息之所。我们这样做是十分恰当的。但是，从较广的层面来说，我们根本没有资格奉献这块土地，使它成为圣土。
篇8：美国前总统林肯的人生经验等
——美国作家泰勒·费莱明经典妙句
容忍老板，是看在银子份上；容忍老婆，是看在孩子份上。
——为何要容忍
所谓辩论家，就是能说服太太穿貂皮大衣会显得臃肿的家伙。
——最好能让太太听说要买貂皮大衣就害怕得尖叫
书店里有两大畅销书：一种是烹调书，一种是减肥书。烹调书告诉你如何做饭，减肥书告诉你怎样节食。
——生活质量提高的佐证
男人讨厌女人猜疑，因为她们常常猜准。初恋的情人喜欢用眼睛说话，老练的情人习惯用形体说话。
——依萌《爱情三明智》
成功是女人最好的补药。
——刘晓庆感慨
随着年级增加，中小学生品德分逐渐下降。
——一项对小学四年级至六年级、初中一年级至三年级的学生品德得分调查显示，小学四年级学生品德分最高，初中三年级学生品德分则跌至最低谷
我不要太多，甚至也不要最好，我要我！
——新青年的一种价值观
聪明的女人会选择爱一个没什么野心的男人，野心家没有时间谈情说爱。
——陈香梅
把事情变得复杂很简单，把事情变简单很复杂。
——上一句说女人，下一句说男人
碰到挫折时，我告诉自己，里面一定藏了一个宝贝，是你看不到的。
——换一种思维
上联：情已欠费，爱已停机，缘分不在服务区
下联：思无应答，想正占线，感情无法再充电
横批：爱若移动，心无联通
——妙趣对联
在感情里，谁最容易怀旧，谁就输了，输给了时间这个对手。
——但是，总有输得心甘情愿之人
作为女人，请珍惜并更多关心你所拥有的男人，尤其是在他失意或郁闷的时候。否则他将很难抵制外面的诱惑，这可能会造成令你追悔莫及的后果。
——守住“围城”之忠告
男人喜欢流行的女人，却不喜欢流言中的女人。
——妙论男女关系
一个不犯错误的人，通常不能成就任何事业，没有缺点的人，往往优点也很少。
——美国前总统林肯的人生经验
人生的一半是倒霉，另一半是如何处理倒霉
——一种自我安慰
人类如鸟，有双翼，一翼是男，一翼是女。除非两翼健壮并以共同的力量来推动它，否则，这只鸟不能飞向天空。
——哲学家巴哈欧拉说
婚姻不是1+1=2，而是0?郾５+0?郾５=1。即：两个人各削去自己的个性和缺点，然后凑合在一起。
——青年作家张弘的婚姻公式
抓牢情侣的办法是让对方有点醋意，失去情侣的办法是让对方有太多的醋意。
——醋意如盐，少了无味，太多则倒牙，让人难以下咽
做一些你认为根本做不到的事情。
——心有多大，路有多远
三只手偷出了巨贪，三陪女供出了赃官；走私的搬出了特权，造假者端出了靠山；犯罪警察终于被法办，作弊考官终于被罢免；豆腐渣工程终于清算，死去的冤魂终于平反……
篇9：林肯的小故事
1861年3月4日，林肯在白宫东门口发表总统就职演说。当他缓慢地走上演讲台时，台下人头攒动，掌声四起，人们向他表示热烈的欢迎。
然而，事先没有预料到的一个细节却让林肯有些局促，甚至是无比尴尬；演讲台上没有桌子，让他不明白该把手杖和硕大的帽子放在哪里才好。他向四周望了望，最后看到一处栅栏，便将手杖挂在上面，而帽子呢，栅栏太高，挂不上去。放在地上吧？显然不适宜；戴着吗？他也不能这么做。应对全国民众演讲，脱帽是务必的礼仪。
正在他尴尬之际，联邦议员道格拉斯走上前来，伸手接过林肯的帽子，捧在手里，直到所有仪式都结束了，林肯友好地向道格拉斯点头示意，道格拉斯才把帽子递了回去。其实，道格拉斯与林肯从年轻时就有许多恩怨纠葛。
道格拉斯出生名门，年轻时就是美国政坛的一颗明星，而林肯出身贫寒，两人同在春田市时（52article.），都曾追求过玛丽，玛丽最终成了林肯的夫人，道格拉斯为此一向耿耿于怀。两个人的政见分歧也很大，个性是在对待美国黑奴问题上，更是针锋相对，互不相让。道格拉斯代表民主党跟代表共和党的林肯竞选国会议员时，林肯向道格拉斯发起论战邀约，两人就在伊利诺斯州针锋相对开展多次辩论。一年前，两人又分别作为两党的总统候选人展开激烈角逐。竞选议员，道格拉斯胜出；竞选总统，林肯获胜。而道格拉斯虽败犹荣，因为他的失败是由于民主党的分裂，林肯只以微弱的优势胜出。
篇10：林肯的小故事
林肯回答说：“夫人，你们—家三代为国服务，对国家的贡献实在够多了，我深表敬意。此刻你能不能给别人—个为国效命的机会?”那妇人无话可说，只好悄悄走了。
有人认为林肯对待政敌的态度不够强硬，对他说：“你为什么要让他们成为朋友呢?你就应想办法消灭他们才对。”“我难道不是在消灭政敌吗?当我使他们成为我的朋友时，政敌就不存在了。”林肯温和地说。
青年时代的林肯在伊利诺斯州的圣加蒙加入民兵。上校指挥官是—个矮个子，身高只有四英尺多—点，而林肯的身材个性高大，大大超过指挥官。由于林肯自己觉得身材高，他习惯于垂着头、弯着腰走路。上校看见他那弯腰曲背的姿势十分生气，把他找来训斥—顿。
“听着，阿伯，”上校大声喊道：“把头高高地抬起来，你这家伙!”
“遵命，先生。”林肯恭敬地回答。
“还要再抬高点。”上校说。
“是不是要我永远这个样貌?”林肯问道。
“当然啦，你这家伙，这还用问吗?”上校冒火啦。
“对不起，上校，”林肯面带愁容地说，“那么只好与你说声再会啦，因为我永远看不见你了!”
拓展资料:
亚伯拉罕·林肯(Abraham Lincoln，182月12日—1865年4月15日)，美国政治家、思想家、演说家，共和党人，美利坚合众国第16任美国总统，首位共和党籍总统，黑人奴隶制的废除者，多次被评价为最伟大的总统。
篇11：林肯总统的就职演讲
First Inaugural Address of Abraham Lincoln
MONDAY, MARCH 4, 1861
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 lawgiver is the law.All members of Congress swear their support to the whole Constitution--to this provision as much as to any other.To the proposition, then, that slaves whose cases come within the terms of this clause ”shall be delivered up“ their oaths are unanimous.Now, if they would make the effort in good temper, could they not with nearly equal unanimity frame and pass a law by means of which to keep good that unanimous oath?
There is some difference of opinion whether this clause should be enforced by national or by State authority, but surely that difference is not a very material one.If the slave is to be surrendered, it can be of but little consequence to him or to others by which authority it is done.And should anyone in any case be content that his oath shall go unkept on a merely unsubstantial controversy as to how it shall be kept?
Again: In any law upon this subject ought not all the safeguards of liberty known in civilized and humane jurisprudence to be introduced, so that a free man be not in any case surrendered as a slave? And might it not be well at the same time to provide by law for the enforcement of that clause in the Constitution which guarantees that ”the citizens of each State shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several States“?
I take the official oath to-day with no mental reservations and with no purpose to construe the Constitution or laws by any hypercritical rules;and while I do not choose now to specify particular acts of Congress as proper to be enforced, I do suggest that it will be much safer for all, both in official and private stations, to conform to and abide by all those acts which stand unrepealed than to violate any of them trusting to find impunity in having them held to be unconstitutional.It is seventy-two years since the first inauguration of a President under our National Constitution.During that period fifteen different and greatly distinguished citizens have in succession administered the executive branch of the Government.They have conducted it through many perils, and generally with great success.Yet, with all this scope of precedent, I now enter upon the same task for the brief constitutional term of four years under great and peculiar difficulty.A disruption of the Federal Union, heretofore only menaced, is now formidably attempted.I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual.Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination.Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as acontract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it--break it, so to speak--but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?
Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself.The Union is much older than the Constitution.It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774.It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776.It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778.And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was ”to form a more perfect Union.“
But if destruction of the Union by one or by a part only of the States be lawfully possible, the Union is less perfect than before the Constitution, having lost the vital element of perpetuity.It follows from these views that no State upon its own mere motion can lawfully get out of the Union;that resolves and ordinances to that effect are legally void, and that acts of violence within any State or States against the authority of the United States are insurrectionary or revolutionary, according to circumstances.I therefore consider that in view of the Constitution and the laws the Union is unbroken, and to the extent of my ability, I shall take care, as the Constitution itself expressly enjoins upon me, that the laws of the 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 precipitate action.Intelligence, patriotism, Christianity, and a firm reliance on Him who has never yet forsaken this favored land are still competent to adjust in the best way all our present difficulty.In your hands, my dissatisfied fellow-countrymen, and not in mine, is the momentous issue of civil war.The Government will not assail you.You can have no conflict without being yourselves the aggressors.You have no oath registered in heaven to destroy the Government, while I shall have the most solemn one to ”preserve, protect, and defend it."
I am loath to close.We are not enemies, but friends.We must not be enemies.Though passion may have strained it must not break our bonds of affection.The mystic chords of memory, stretching from every battlefield and patriot grave to every living heart and hearthstone all over this broad land, will yet swell the chorus of the Union, when again touched, as surely they will be, by the better angels of our nature.【中文译文】：
永久联邦与总统权力
亚伯拉罕-林肯
第一次就职演讲
星期一,1861年3月4日
我今天正式宣誓时，并没有保留意见，也无意以任何苛刻的标准来解释宪法和法律，尽管我不想具体指明国会通过的哪些法案是适合施行的•但我确实要建议，所有的人，不论处于官方还是私人的地位，都得遵守那些未被废止的法令，这比泰然自若地认为其中某个法案是违背宪法的而去触犯它，要稳当得多。
自从第一任总统根据我国宪法就职以来已经72年了。在此期间，有15位十分杰出的公民相继主持了政府的行政部门。他们在许多艰难险阻中履行职责，大致说来都很成功。然而，虽有这样的先例，我现在开始担任这个按宪法规定任期只有短暂4年的同一职务时，却处在巨大而特殊的困难之下。联邦的分裂，在此以前只是一种威胁，现在却已成为可怕的行动。
从一般法律和宪法角度来考虑，我认为由各州组成的联邦是永久性的。在合国政府的根本法中，永久性即使没有明确规定，也是不盲而喻的。我们有把握说，从来没有哪个正规政府在自己的组织法中列入一项要结束自己执政的条款。继续执行我国宪法明文规定的条款，联邦就将永远存在，毁灭联邦是办不到的，除非采取宪法本身未予规定的某种行动。再者：假如合众国不是名副其实的政府，而只是具有契约性质的各州的联盟，那么，作为一种契约，这个联盟能够毫无争议地由纬约各方中的少数加以取消吗？缔约的一方可以违约——也可以说毁约——但是，合法地废止契约难道不需要缔约各方全都同意吗？从这些一般原则在下推，我们认为，从法律上来说，联邦是永久性的这一主张已经为联邦本身的历史所证实。联邦的历史比宪法长久得多。事实上，它在1774年就根据《联合条款》组成了。1776年，《独立宣言》使它臻子成熟并持续下来。1778年《邦联条款》使联邦愈趋成熟，当时的13个州都信誓旦旦地明确保证联邦应该永存，最后，1787年制定宪法时所宣市的日标之一就是“建设更完善的联邦”。
但是，如果联邦竟能由一个州或几个州按照法律加以取消的话，那么联邦就不如制宪前完善了，因为它丧失了永久性这个重要因素。
根据这些观点，任何一个州都不能只凭自己的动仪就能合法地脱离联邦；凡为此目的而作出的决议和法令在法律上都是无效的，任何一个州或几个州反对合众国当局的暴力行动都应根据憎况视为叛乱或革命。因此，我认为，根据宪法和法律，联邦是不容分裂的；我将按宪法本身明确授予我的权限，就自己能力所及，使联邦法律得以在各州忠实执行。我认为这仅仅是我份内的职责，我将以可行的方法去完成，除非我的合法主人——美国人民，不给予我必要的手段，或以权威的方式作出相反的指示，我相信大家下会把这看作是一种威胁，而只看作是联邦已宣布过的目标：它将按照宪法保卫和维护它自身。
以自然条件而言，我们是不能分开的，我们无法把各个地区彼此挪开，也无法在彼此之间筑起一堵无法逾越的墙垣。夫妻可以离婚，不再见面，互不接触，但是我们国家的各个地区就不可能那样做。它们仍得面对面地相处，它们之间还得有或者友好或者敌对的交往。那么，分开之后的交往是否可能比分开之前更有好处，更令人满意呢？外人之间订立条约难道还比朋友之间制定法律容易吗？外人之间执行条约难道还比朋友之间执行法律忠实吗？假定你们进行战争•你们不可能永远打下去；在双方损失惨重，任何一方都得不到好处之后，你们就会停止战斗，那时你们还会遇到诸如交往条件之类的老问题。
总统的一切权力来自人民，但人民没有授权给他为各州的分离规定条件。如果人民有此意愿，那他们可以这样做，而作为总统来说，则不可能这样做。他的责任是管理交给他的这一届政府，井将它完整地移交给他的继任者。
为什么我们不能对人民所具有的最高的公正抱有坚韧的信念呢？世界上还有比这更好或一样好的希望吗？在我何日前的分歧中，难道双方都缺乏相信自己正确的信心吗？如果万国全能的主宰以其永恒的真理和正义支持你北方这一边，或者支持你南方这一边，那么，那种真理和那种正义必将通过美国人民这个伟大法庭的裁决而取得胜利。