2024新教育“新英语”研讨会 | 中学英语大课程:《林肯传》写作

英语传记课程，是贞元学校中学英语的特色课程。课程学习了不起的历史人物的生平故事，课程内容包括：阅读英语原版传记、课堂讨论人物的遭遇和精神，写作、演讲甚至包括写剧本，演出等。

目前传记课程已经开发了：《亚历山大-汉密尔顿》《乔治-华盛顿》《富兰克林》《乔布斯》《海伦-凯勒》和《林肯》等传记课程。

开设这样的课程，不仅可以大大提高学生英语水准，更是希望，青春期的学生们能够从伟大的人物的生命中汲取营养，当下或者未来，无论处于何种境遇，都可以从这些人物身上获得力量。

本文是噵海学院佳韵同学的英文写作，同时，我们将会持续推送其他同学的传记文章，欢迎持续关注！

How to understand Abraham Lincoln's greatness?

（文章附中文版本）

When we think of Abraham Lincoln, the first thing that naturally comes to  our mind is his great achievement—abolition of slavery. Abolishing slavery is a symbol of justice and freedom for humanity. So, we often regard Lincoln as a champion of human justice and freedom, a man of greatness and high moral standards. This has always been my belief as well. In fact, I originally planned to talk about the goodness of Lincoln's character today.

But when I thought more deeply about how to approach this theme, I found myself at a dead end. I started to question myself—if I took this perspective, what else could we learn from this person? At first, I wanted to highlight Lincoln's “goodness,” which because he abolished slavery. But who doesn't know that we should all strive for “good” and that slavery is a despicable thing? That made me stop and think—was Lincoln’s greatness only because of the justice and freedom represented by abolishing slavery? After a long time of reflection, I came up with a new idea: I suppose that Lincoln’s greatness, beyond anyone else’s, lies in his capability to balance and manage the complex, profound interactions between his ideals and the realities of his time.

Lincoln spent his life trying to abolish slavery, and that’s true right? But the question is, was what Lincoln did only because he believed that slavery was inhumane, oppressive, caused suffering, so Lincoln fought against slavery purely from a moral standpoint? However, Lincoln once wrote an open letter to the New York Tribune, saying: 

“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and it is not either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves, I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. ” Therefore, Lincoln’s higher goal was to save the Union.

With this understanding, doesn't it feel like Lincoln goes from being a righteous fighter for humanity's liberation to simply being a US president trying to maintain national unity and stability? There’s definitely no doubt that saving the Union was a tremendous achievement, but it seems that Lincoln becomes somewhat less towering, less heroic than before, due to his purpose. Although Lev Tolstoy once said, “Lincoln belongs not only to the American people, he belongs to all mankind. His spirit is now stronger than ever. He surpasses his age and his nation. He is a model for all humanity.” But maybe what Lincoln did was merely because he knew that without ending slavery, there‘s no chance that the Union could be saved, and so he had to do it. In that time, achieving such a goal was an incredible accomplishment. From this perspective, it seems that Lincoln was not necessarily a leader for all humanity, maybe a title of national hero, America hero will be more appropriate.

But If Lincoln had been someone who purely despised slavery on moral grounds, what would he have done? He might said, “I need to rise up! I will become the president, and I will completely abolish slavery and immediately declare war against those evil Southern slaveholders!” Doesn’t this sound more heroic, righteous, and full of humanitarian spirit than what Lincoln actually did in the history—the Emancipation Proclamation didn’t even cover the border states that still had slavery, and then passing the Thirteenth Amendment, which only granted basic freedom and left many inequalities between Black and White people?

But was it really a good way? What was America like back then? The North and the South were deeply divided over slavery—almost irreconcilable. Starting a war right away, treating the South as enemies, calling them morally corrupt, and putting forward radical, sweeping policies—would this really lead to ultimate justice? I don’t think so. Instead, I believe it would have led to greater suffering and loss, and more people would have been hurt.

Why did I think this way? First of all, the South’s economy was entirely dependent on slave labor. To destroy this economy in such a short time would greatly intensify conflict, leaving Southerners with no room for negotiation. Even those slaveholders who were initially tend to compromise might have been pushed too far and finally toward extreme resistance. Second, many people at that time were even not ready to accept the idea of freedom for Black people—let alone such a radical shift! Such policies would have undoubtedly led to severe racial and national conflict, causing extreme social unrest and violence. The ultimate result would have been a country torn apart and completely broken. Will you call that the real justice?

So what did Lincoln actually do? Whether it was starting the war, issuing the Emancipation Proclamation, or working hard to pass the Thirteenth Amendment, Lincoln’s highest purpose was to save the Union and keep the country together. He drew on the Declaration of Independence—“All men are created equal, endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness”—to conclude that Black people were also human beings and thus should not be slaves. At the same time, he recognized that in the South, slaves were legally property whatever it is morally good or bad, and the abolition of slavery would be a violation of the slaveholders' property rights. He also believed that the North shared some of the guilt for slavery’s development and should not entirely blame the South. Even after the South’s defeat, Lincoln never saw Southerners as the vanquished or treated their soldiers as prisoners of war. Instead, he always viewed them as American citizens with equal rights. He even extended to help the defeated Southern armies. After the Thirteenth Amendment was passed, Lincoln did not use violence to enforce emancipation. He always sought to mediate and avoid inflaming social tensions or creating more chaos. Lincoln's actions were not simply about moral justice, which could have led to disastrous outcomes; instead, he always considered the bigger picture. Guided by the goal of saving the Union, he worked to maximize the happiness of as many people as possible, while reaching the greatest possible level of justice and freedom in his era.

What’s more,  it would be unfair to say that Lincoln had no moral judgment against slavery. He certainly saw it as unjust and inhumane. In the same letter to the New York Tribune, Lincoln also expressed his personal wish: “I have always hated slavery, I think as much as any Abolitionist. My personal wish has always been that all people everywhere could be free.” When Lincoln was still a young man, a trip to New Orleans had shocked him deeply, seeing slave auction advertisements that read:

He saw men and women in chains, whipped, and humiliated, and it deeply hurt him. A lad who once worked as a clerk in the 'Lincoln-Berry' store recalled Lincoln after his trip: "After he went on that flatboat journey to New Orleans, whenever anyone brought up the subject of Black people, his expression would turn very serious. Whenever he talked about that trip, he felt sick, as if he was going to throw up..."

In conclusion, Lincoln was morally against slavery. But no matter how deeply he despised it, he understood that blindly abolishing it could weaken or even destroy the Union, leading to greater widespread suffering. He recognized that saving the Union wasn’t just about winning a war or passing an amendment— because social and racial conflicts still existed among the people. Lincoln's focus was clear: we didn’t need to become true enemies with the South; Southerners and Northerners were equal citizens, and we all needed to come together to form a real nation, using the Constitution and laws to protect everyone's rights. It was this complex and profound consideration and decision, fully demonstrated Lincoln's exceptional greatness in managing the complex interactions between his firm ideals and the realities he faced, which deeply moved me.

It also reminds me of King Lear, which we recently studied. In the story, the elderly king is mistreated by his two daughters. But his youngest daughter, who is far away in France, was furious and determined to seek justice for her father—this was her unwavering belief. But how did she interact with reality? She chose the most extreme and radical way—war. However, this essentially meant invading another country and harming innocent people. This uncompromising pursuit of her “justice” actually led to more harm, and she paid with her life. So What is the proper way to interact with reality? In our class discussion, we were left with this question, and I found it difficult to answer. But through my ongoing study of Lincoln, I’ve gained a clearer understanding of this dilemma.

Perhaps that’s the value of studying biographies—something literature  can’t offer. Literature dramatizes conflict, pushing it toward a climax , and ultimately raising questions for us to ponder. But biographies give us a glimpse into how real people, facing similar life struggles to our own, managed to resolve these conflicts and overcome challenges. They show us the process of how they built their greatness and provide practical inspiration for navigating the difficulties we encounter in our lives.

中文版本：

一想到林肯所作出的伟大事迹，我们的脑子里很自然会最先蹦出——废除奴隶制。而废除奴隶制，是伸张人类正义、自由的象征。所以我们通常都会觉得林肯是人类正义自由的斗士，它是一个伟大、道德水平极为高尚的人。我也是这么认为的。甚至我一开始，就准备今天讲讲林肯的人性之善。

但是进一步想该如何写这个主题的时候，我陷入了僵局，我突然开始反思，如果我从这个角度入手，这个人物还有什么可以学的呢？我要凸显他的“good”，而他“good”是因为废奴。那谁不知道应该追求“good”，而奴隶制是卑劣的东西呢？这就比较麻烦——林肯的伟大仅仅是因为废奴背后所代表的自由正义吗？经过很长时间的思索，我给出了否定的答案。并且我有了新的想法：我认为，林肯比其他所有的人都更加伟大的地方，就是在于他所呈现出的，对于自己所坚守的理想信念和现实之间的复杂、深刻的衡量与互动。

林肯一生推行奴隶制的废除，仅仅是因为他觉得奴隶制是反人类，具有压迫性质的，给人带来苦难的，纯粹出于这样一种道德层面的考量吗？实际上林肯曾经在《纽约论坛报》上发表公开信：“这场战争我要达到的主要目的是捍卫联邦，不是为了挽救、或是摧毁奴隶制度。如果不解放奴隶就能挽救联邦的话，我会义无反顾；如果解放所有奴隶，就能挽救联邦的话，我会义无反顾；如果解放一部分奴隶，保留另一部分奴隶，就能挽救联邦的话，我也会义无反顾。我对奴隶制度和有色种族所做的一切，都是因为我相信，这样做能够挽救联邦。我认为这是我的职责。”所以说，林肯更上位的目标是挽救联邦。

这样一说，会不会有一种感觉：林肯从为人类解放事业举大旗的正义斗士，变成了一个只求维护国家统一稳定的美国总统。虽然毫无疑问，挽救联邦是一项非常了不起的事业，但是好像林肯就显得没有之前那么伟岸了。虽说列夫·托尔斯泰曾评价他：“林肯不仅属于美国人民，他属于全人类。他的精神，如今甚至比他生前更有力量…他超越了他的时代和他的民族…他是全人类的典范。” 但他只是恰好不废除奴隶制，就挽救不了国家，所以他就废除了。而在那个时代下，从结果上而言就是能够达到这种高度的。所以这么来看，好像林肯也不算什么全人类领袖。

那假设说林肯真的是一位纯粹对奴隶制道德层面上极度痛恨的人，那么他可能怎么做？他说我要rise up！我要成为总统，我要彻底废除奴隶制，向南方这群可恶的奴隶主，立刻宣战！这听起来可比林肯所做出来的事——都发表《解放奴隶宣言》了，还不包括蓄奴的border states，最后十三修正案也只是给予黑奴基本的自由，但是黑人依然与白人又着许多的不平等——要更加的伟大、正义、充满人道主义精神吗？

可结果真的会这样？当时美国是出于一种什么样的状态？北方和南方对于奴隶制的分歧和矛盾极大，几乎是水火不容。立刻挑起战争，并且把蓄奴的南方视为仇视的敌人，认为他们道德败坏十恶不赦，并且发布激进而彻底的政策。先不谈着有没有可能实现，但这样做真的会带来最终的正义吗？我并不这么认为，反而，我认为会带来更加惨痛的损失，会有更多的人因此而受苦受难。

为什么？首先，南方所有的经济全部都依赖于黑奴的劳作，这么就相当于在极短的时间内彻底摧毁了南方的经济，会极度激化矛盾，会让南方大多数人认为没有谈判的余地，甚至于原本倾向于温和或妥协的奴隶主会转而分歧对抗北方。其次，更重要的，在那个时代，很多人都难以接受黑奴可以拥有自由，更别说更加彻底的。如果真的有这样的政策，必然会引起极大，极为严峻的民族、种族矛盾，造成剧烈的社会动荡、暴力冲突。最后必然面临的是整个国家支离破碎，分崩瓦解。你能说这么做是正义的？

那林肯究竟是怎么做的？无论是挑起战争，还是发表《解放奴隶宣言》，还是最后费尽心思让十三修正案通过，最上位的目的就是为了拯救联邦，维护国家统一。他从独立宣言——“人人生而平等，造物主赋予他们若干不可剥夺的权利，其中包括生命权、自由权和追求幸福的权利”推出：既然黑奴也是人，而作为美国建国之根基的独立宣言赫然写道：人人生而平等。所以黑人不应该沦为黑奴。也是从独立宣言中对于“追求幸福的权利”，也就是私有财产神圣不可侵犯的权利的规定，推出：因为在南方，实际上黑奴就是种植园主的财产，无论他正义与否，在南方都是一个铁板钉钉的事实，所以废除奴隶制实际上对于南方奴隶主来说，就是侵害他们财产权的行为，他们应当得到赔偿。而且他觉得，对于奴隶制的产生和发展，北方人的罪过实际上并不比南方人要少。在南方战败以后，他始终没有把南方人视作为被征服者，把南方的军队作为战俘来看待。反而，南方人始终都是美国公民，与北方人享有完全平等的权利。甚至给战败的，被困住的南方军队提供各种帮助。在十三修正案通过以后，林肯也没有用暴力手段来解放奴隶。他从来都是协调各方，避免更加激烈的社会矛盾被点燃，避免出现更加混乱的局面。林肯的举动不是像前面所说的那样，仅仅是从道德出发点上是“正义”，可结果却极为可怕；林肯实际上一直都从大局考虑，在“拯救联邦”这个目标的引领下，最大程度上维护了更多人的幸福，同时也达成了在那个时代正常所能触及的正义与自由的最顶峰。

而且，如果我们说林肯没有对于奴隶制本身的价值判断，也是不公平的。林肯也一定认为奴隶制是一种不正义的，反人道主义的制度。林肯在《纽约论坛报》上发表的公开信中实际上还提到：**“当然了，这也不会改变我只代表我个人的愿望，那就是，看到世界上所有人都能拥有自由。”在他年轻时的一次去新奥尔良的南方之旅中，扑入眼帘的买卖奴隶的广告使他震惊不已。其中两则写道：

“愿出高价购买各种黑人，并即付现金；也可以代客销售，收取佣金。备有专存黑人的圈栏和囚笼。”“出售10至18岁小妞数名，24岁青年妇女一名，25岁的能干女人一名，外带三个壮实小孩。”

看见那些被铁链锁住，挨皮鞭抽打的奴隶，林肯的心被深深刺痛。曾在“林肯-贝里”小店中做过伙计的年轻人回忆林肯时说：“在他驾驶平底船去了一趟新奥尔良后，只要有人提起黑人的事，他表情就变得十分严肃。一谈起这次旅行，他就恶心，像要呕吐似的…”

总而言之，林肯在道德层面上，也绝对是反对奴隶制的。只是无论他这种对于奴隶制的罪恶有多痛心，他也清醒地意识到，如果因盲目的废奴而削弱了，甚至于毁灭了联邦，那么带来的是更加广泛的、惨重的代价。同时对于“拯救联邦”，他也认识到实现它绝对不仅仅是赢得一场内战，通过一个废奴修正案的事情，因为人民中间的社会和种族矛盾仍然存在。所以林肯的重点就是：我们不需要和南方成为真正的敌人，南方人和北方人都是平等的公民，我们都要需要凝聚成真正的国家，在国家中用宪法法律来维护所有人的权利。这样复杂而深刻的考量，决策，真是淋漓尽致体现了林肯在**处理自己所坚守的理想信念与现实的互动关系**的卓绝伟大之处。也让我深深的被震撼到了！

同时，我也想起来了我们最近学的《李尔王》这部戏剧。里面的老国王被两个女儿虐待，被远嫁到法国当皇后的小女儿知道了，她盛怒之下要为父亲讨回公道，主持正义——这是这位小公主所坚守的信念。然而她与现实互动的方式呢？她选择了最极端激进的方式——出兵攻打英国。可是，这相当于就是在侵略别国，伤及了无辜之人啊！这种不管不顾，一位坚持自己心中的正义，但可能却带来了更多的不正义，而这位小女儿最后也付出了生命的代价。当时在课上解读完戏剧我们只是抛出了这样一个问题，我感觉我难以回答。但是我在后续对林肯的不断学习和思考中，则对这个问题的解决有了更加清晰和深刻的认识。

我想，可能这就是我们学习传记的意义，而这是文学作品代替不了的——那就是，文学作品会把这种矛盾激化甚至于最后推向毁灭的结局，或者其他的方式，但它只需要把这个问题抛向你，让你感受到它的复杂和深刻，引发你的思考；然而，我们可以从传记所撰写的人生中，看到传记人物与我们相似的生命困境，并且从中窥见他们是如何化解这些矛盾与冲突，从而造就了他们伟大的人格，从而给我们解决自己遇到的生命困境带来现实性的启发。