the writings-4-第21部分

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！



never　treat　it　as　a　wrong。　　What　other　thing　that　you　consider　as　a

wrong　do　you　deal　with　as　you　deal　with　that？　　Perhaps　you　say　it　is

wrongbut　your　leader　never　does；　and　you　quarrel　with　anybody　who

says　it　is　wrong。　　Although　you　pretend　to　say　so　yourself；　you　can

find　no　fit　place　to　deal　with　it　as　a　wrong。　　You　must　not　say

anything　about　it　in　the　free　States；　because　it　is　not　here。　　You

must　not　say　anything　about　it　in　the　slave　States；　because　it　is

there。　　You　must　not　say　anything　about　it　in　the　pulpit；　because

that　is　religion；　and　has　nothing　to　do　with　it。　　You　must　not　say

anything　about　it　in　politics；　because　that　will　disturb　the　security

of　〃my　place。〃　　There　is　no　place　to　talk　about　it　as　being　a　wrong；

although　you　say　yourself　it　is　a　wrong。　　But；　finally；　you　will

screw　yourself　up　to　the　belief　that　if　the　people　of　the　slave

States　should　adopt　a　system　of　gradual　emancipation　on　the　slavery

question；　you　would　be　in　favor　of　it。　　You　would　be　in　favor　of　it。

You　say　that　is　getting　it　in　the　right　place；　and　you　would　be　glad

to　see　it　succeed。　　But　you　are　deceiving　yourself。　　You　all　know

that　Frank　Blair　and　Gratz　Brown；　down　there　in　St。　　Louis；　undertook

to　introduce　that　system　in　Missouri。　　They　fought　as　valiantly　as

they　could　for　the　system　of　gradual　emancipation　which　you　pretend

you　would　be　glad　to　see　succeed。　　Now；　I　will　bring　you　to　the　test。

After　a　hard　fight　they　were　beaten；　and　when　the　news　came　over

here；　you　threw　up　your　hats　and　hurrahed　for　Democracy。　　More　than

that；　take　all　the　argument　made　in　favor　of　the　system　you　have

proposed；　and　it　carefully　excludes　the　idea　that　there　is　anything

wrong　in　the　institution　of　slavery。　　The　arguments　to　sustain　that

policy　carefully　exclude　it。　　Even　here　to…day　you　heard　Judge

Douglas　quarrel　with　me　because　I　uttered　a　wish　that　it　might

sometime　come　to　an　end。　　Although　Henry　Clay　could　say　he　wished

every　slave　in　the　United　States　was　in　the　country　of　his　ancestors；

I　am　denounced　by　those　pretending　to　respect　Henry　Clay　for　uttering

a　wish　that　it　might　sometime；　in　some　peaceful　way；　come　to　an　end。

The　Democratic　policy　in　regard　to　that　institution　will　not　tolerate

the　merest　breath；　the　slightest　hint；　of　the　least　degree　of　wrong

about　it。　　Try　it　by　some　of　Judge　Douglas's　arguments。　　He　says　he

〃don't　care　whether　it　is　voted　up　or　voted　down〃　in　the　Territories。


I　do　not　care　myself；　in　dealing　with　that　expression；　whether　it　is

intended　to　be　expressive　of　his　individual　sentiments　on　the

subject；　or　only　of　the　national　policy　he　desires　to　have

established。　　It　is　alike　valuable　for　my　purpose。　　Any　man　can　say

that　who　does　not　see　anything　wrong　in　slavery；　but　no　man　can

logically　say　it　who　does　see　a　wrong　in　it；　because　no　man　can

logically　say　he　don't　care　whether　a　wrong　is　voted　up　or　voted

down。　　He　may　say　he　don't　care　whether　an　indifferent　thing　is　voted

up　or　down；　but　he　must　logically　have　a　choice　between　a　right　thing

and　a　wrong　thing。　　He　contends　that　whatever　community　wants　slaves

has　a　right　to　have　them。　　So　they　have；　if　it　is　not　a　wrong。　　But

if　it　is　a　wrong；　he　cannot　say　people　have　a　right　to　do　wrong。　　He

says　that　upon　the　score　of　equality　slaves　should　be　allowed　to　go

in　a　new　Territory；　like　other　property。　　This　is　strictly　logical　if

there　is　no　difference　between　it　and　other　property。　　If　it　and

other　property　are　equal；　this　argument　is　entirely　logical。　　But　if

you　insist　that　one　is　wrong　and　the　other　right；　there　is　no　use　to

institute　a　comparison　between　right　and　wrong。　　You　may　turn　over

everything　in　the　Democratic　policy　from　beginning　to　end；　whether　in

the　shape　it　takes　on　the　statute　book；　in　the　shape　it　takes　in　the

Dred　Scott　decision；　in　the　shape　it　takes　in　conversation；　or　the

shape　it　takes　in　short　maxim…like　arguments；it　everywhere

carefully　excludes　the　idea　that　there　is　anything　wrong　in　it。



That　is　the　real　issue。　　That　is　the　issue　that　will　continue　in　this

country　when　these　poor　tongues　of　Judge　Douglas　and　myself　shall　be

silent。　　It　is　the　eternal　struggle　between　these　two　principles

right　and　wrongthroughout　the　world。　　They　are　the　two　principles

that　have　stood　face　to　face　from　the　beginning　of　time；　and　will

ever　continue　to　struggle。　　The　one　is　the　common　right　of　humanity；

and　the　other　the　divine　right　of　kings。　　It　is　the　same　principle　in

whatever　shape　it　develops　itself。　　It　is　the　same　spirit　that　says；

〃You　work　and　toil　and　earn　bread；　and　I'll　eat　it。〃　　No　matter　in

what　shape　it　comes；　whether　from　the　mouth　of　a　king　who　seeks　to

bestride　the　people　of　his　own　nation　and　live　by　the　fruit　of　their

labor；　or　from　one　race　of　men　as　an　apology　for　enslaving　another

race；　it　is　the　same　tyrannical　principle。　　I　was　glad　to　express　my

gratitude　at　Quincy；　and　I　re…express　it　here；　to　Judge　Douglas；

that　he　looks　to　no　end　of　the　institution　of　slavery。　　That　will

help　the　people　to　see　where　the　struggle　really　is。　　It　will

hereafter　place　with　us　all　men　who　really　do　wish　the　wrong　may　have

an　end。　　And　whenever　we　can　get　rid　of　the　fog　which　obscures　the

real　question；　when　we　can　get　Judge　Douglas　and　his　friends　to　avow

a　policy　looking　to　its　perpetuation；we　can　get　out　from　among　that

class　of　men　and　bring　them　to　the　side　of　those　who　treat　it　as　a

wrong。　　Then　there　will　soon　be　an　end　of　it；　and　that　end　will　be

its　〃ultimate　extinction。〃　　Whenever　the　issue　can　be　distinctly

made；　and　all　extraneous　matter　thrown　out　so　that　men　can　fairly　see

the　real　difference　between　the　parties；　this　controversy　will　soon

be　settled；　and　it　will　be　done　peaceably　too。　　There　will　be　no　war；

no　violence。　　It　will　be　placed　again　where　the　wisest　and　best　men

of　the　world　placed　it。　　Brooks　of　South　Carolina　once　declared　that

when　this　Constitution　was　framed　its　framers　did　not　look　to　the

institution　existing　until　this　day。　　When　he　said　this；　I　think　he

stated　a　fact　that　is　fully　borne　out　by　the　history　of　the　times。

But　he　also　said　they　were　better　and　wiser　men　than　the　men　of　these

days；　yet　the　men　of　these　days　had　experience　which　they　had　not；

and　by　the　invention　of　the　cotton…gin　it　became　a　necessity　in　this

country　that　slavery　should　be　perpetual。　　I　now　say　that；　willingly

or　unwillinglypurposely　or　without　purpose；　Judge　Douglas　has　been

the　most　prominent　instrument　in　changing　the　position　of　the

institution　of　slavery；which　the　fathers　of　the　government　expected

to　come　to　an　end　ere　this；　and　putting　it　upon　Brooks's　cotton…gin

basis；　placing　it　where　he　openly　confesses　he　has　no　desire　there

shall　ever　be　an　end　of　it。



I　understand　I　have　ten　minutes　yet。　　I　will　employ　it　in　saying

something　about　this　argument　Judge　Douglas　uses；　while　he　sustains

the　Dred　Scott　decision；　that　the　people　of　the　Territories　can　still

somehow　exclude　slavery。　　The　first　thing　I　ask　attention　to　is　the

fact　that　Judge　Douglas　constantly　said；　before　the　decision；　that

whether　they　could　or　not；　was　a　question　for　the　Supreme　Court。　　But

after　the　court　had　made　the　decision　he　virtually　says　it　is　not　a

question　for　the　Supreme　Court；　but　for　the　people。　　And　how　is　it　he

tells　us　they　can　exclude　it？　　He　says　it　needs　〃police　regulations；〃

and　that　admits　of　〃unfriendly　legislation。〃　　Although　it　is　a　right

established　by　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　to　take　a　slave

into　a　Territory　of　the　United　States　and　hold　him　as　property；　yet

unless　the　Territorial　Legislature　will　give　friendly　legislation；

and　more　especially　if　they　adopt　unfriendly　legislation；　they　can

practically　exclude　him。　　Now；　without　meeting　this　proposition　as　a

matter　of　fact；　I　pass　to　consider　the　real　constitutional

obligation。　　Let　me　take　the　gentleman　who　looks　me　in　the　face

before　me；　and　let　us　suppose　that　he　is　a　member　of　the　Territorial

Legislature。　　The　first　thing　he　will　do　will　be　to　swear　that　he

will　support　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。　　His　neighbor　by

his　side　in　the　Territory　has　slaves　and　needs　Territorial

legislation　to　enable　him　to　enjoy　that　constitutional　right。　　Can　he

withhold　the　legislation　which　his　neighbor　needs　for　the　enjoyment

of　a　right　which　is　fixed　in　his　favor　in　the　Constitution　of　the

United　States　which　he　has　sworn　to　support？　　Can　he　withhold　it

without　violating　his　oath？　　And；　more　especially；　can　he　pass

unfriendly　legislation　to　violate　his　oath？　　Why；　this　is　a　monstrous

sort　of　talk　about　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States！　　There　has

never　been　as　outlandish　or　lawless　a　doctrine　from　the　mouth　of　any

respectable　man　on　earth。　　I　do　not　believe　it　is　a　constitutional

right　to　hold　slaves　in　a　Territory　of　the　United　States。　　I　believe

the　decision　was　improperly　made　and　I　go　for　reversing　it。　　Judge

Douglas　is　furious　against　those　who　go　for　reversing　a　decision。

But　he　is　for　legislating　it　out　of　all　force　while　the　law　itself

stands。　　I　repeat　that　there　has　never　been　so　monstrous　a　doctrine

uttered　from　the　mouth　of　a　respectable　man。



I　suppose　most　of　us　（I　know　it　of　myself）　believe　that　the　people　of

the　Southern　States　are　entitled　to　a　Congressional　Fugitive　Slave

law；that　is　a　right　fixed　in　the　Constitution。　　But　it　cannot　be

made　available　to　them　without　Congressional　legislation。　　In　the

Judge's　language；　it　is　a　〃barren　right；〃　which　needs　legislation

before　it　can　become　efficient　and　valuable　to　the　persons　to　whom　it

is　guaranteed。　　And　as　the　right　is　constitutional；　I　agree　that　the

legislation　shall　be　granted　to　it；　and　that　not　that　we　like　the

institution　of　slavery。　　We　profess　to　have　no　taste　for　running　and

catching　niggers；　at　least；　I　profess　no　taste　for　that　job　at　all。

Why　then　do　I　yield　support　to　a　Fugitive　Slave　law？　　Because　I　do

not　understand　that　the　Constitution；　which　guara