評論
打印
That might recommend to suspicion that I agree with the rebs
這的確可能讓人懷疑我與南軍看法相同
that their slaves are property in the first place. Of course I don't.
懷疑我從一開始就認為 奴隸是財產 但我當然不那么認為
I never have, I'm glad to see any man free,
我從不那樣認為 任何人獲得自由都令我高興
and if calling a man property, or war contraband does the trick, why I caught at the opportunity.
況且若把人視乎財產或戰時禁運品 即能解放黑奴 我又何苦大費周章
Now here's where it gets truly slippery.
棘手的地方是
I use the law allowing for the seizure of property in a war knowing it applies
我應用法律準許戰爭中沒收財產 因為知道
only to the property of governments and citizens of belligerent nations.But the South ain't a nation.
它僅適用于好戰國的政府財產和公民 但南方不是一個國家
That's why I can't negotiate with 'em.
因此我無法跟他們談判
So if in fact the Negroes are property according to law,
那要是我堅稱他們只是叛民
have I the right to take the rebels' property from 'em,if I insist they're rebels only,and not citizens of a belligerent country?
并非好戰國公民 法律規定黑人確實是財產 我有權把他們沒收回來嗎
And slipperier still: I maintain that it ain't our actual Southern states in rebellion,
更麻煩的是 我堅持認為并非我國南方叛亂
but only the rebels living in those states,the laws of which states remain in force.
只是因為叛民居于南方 而南方依法為戰時狀態
The laws of which states remain in force.
依法為戰時狀態
That means, that since it's states' laws that determine whether Negroes can be sold as slaves, as property,
即是說既然是由憲法決定 黑人能否作為奴隸或財產買賣
the Federal government doesn't have a say in that,at least not yet,
聯邦政府不能予以干涉 起碼至今還不能
then Negroes in those states are slaves, hence property, hence my war powers allow me to confiscate 'em as such, so I confiscated 'em.
那些州的奴隸因此便是財產 因此我的開戰權讓我得以 如此執行沒收 我就這么做了
