the writings-5-第10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！



of　Congress　in　regard　to　the　admission　of　Missouri；　by　which　the

Missouri　Compromise　was　established　and　slavery　excluded　from　a

country　half　as　large　as　the　present　United　States。　　All　this　is　left

out　of　his　history；　and　in　nowise　alluded　to　by　him；　so　far　as　I　can

remember；　save　once；　when　he　makes　a　remark；　that　upon　his　principle

the　Supreme　Court　were　authorized　to　pronounce　a　decision　that　the

act　called　the　Missouri　Compromise　was　unconstitutional。　　All　that

history　has　been　left　out。　　But　this　part　of　the　history　of　the

country　was　not　made　by　the　men　of　the　Revolution。



There　was　another　part　of　our　political　history；　made　by　the　very　men

who　were　the　actors　in　the　Revolution；　which　has　taken　the　name　of

the　Ordinance　of　'87。　　Let　me　bring　that　history　to　your　attention。

In　1784；　I　believe；　this　same　Mr。　Jefferson　drew　up　an　ordinance　for

the　government　of　the　country　upon　which　we　now　stand；　or；　rather；　a

frame　or　draft　of　an　ordinance　for　the　government　of　this　country；

here　in　Ohio；　our　neighbors　in　Indiana；　us　who　live　in　Illinois；　our

neighbors　in　Wisconsin　and　Michigan。　　In　that　ordinance；　drawn　up　not

only　for　the　government　of　that　Territory；　but　for　the　Territories

south　of　the　Ohio　River；　Mr。　Jefferson　expressly　provided　for　the

prohibition　of　slavery。　　Judge　Douglas　says；　and　perhaps　is　right；

that　that　provision　was　lost　from　that　ordinance。　　I　believe　that　is

true。　　When　the　vote　was　taken　upon　it；　a　majority　of　all　present　in

the　Congress　of　the　Confederation　voted　for　it；　but　there　were　so

many　absentees　that　those　voting　for　it　did　not　make　the　clear

majority　necessary；　and　it　was　lost。　　But　three　years　after　that；　the

Congress　of　the　Confederation　were　together　again；　and　they　adopted　a

new　ordinance　for　the　government　of　this　Northwest　Territory；　not

contemplating　territory　south　of　the　river；　for　the　States　owning

that　territory　had　hitherto　refrained　from　giving　it　to　the　General

Government；　hence　they　made　the　ordinance　to　apply　only　to　what　the

Government　owned。　　In　fact；　the　provision　excluding　slavery　was

inserted　aside；　passed　unanimously；　or　at　any　rate　it　passed　and

became　a　part　of　the　law　of　the　land。　　Under　that　ordinance　we　live。

First　here　in　Ohio　you　were　a　Territory；　then　an　enabling　act　was

passed；　authorizing　you　to　form　a　constitution　and　State　Government；

provided　it　was　republican　and　not　in　conflict　with　the　Ordinance　of

'87。　　When　you　framed　your　constitution　and　presented　it　for

admission；　I　think　you　will　find　the　legislation　upon　the　subject

will　show　that；　whereas　you　had　formed　a　constitution　that　was

republican；　and　not　in　conflict　with　the　Ordinance　of　'87；　therefore

you　were　admitted　upon　equal　footing　with　the　original　States。　　The

same　process　in　a　few　years　was　gone　through　with　in　Indiana；　and　so

with　Illinois；　and　the　same　substantially　with　Michigan　and

Wisconsin。



Not　only　did　that　Ordinance　prevail；　but　it　was　constantly　looked　to

whenever　a　step　was　taken　by　a　new　Territory　to　become　a　State。

Congress　always　turned　their　attention　to　it；　and　in　all　their

movements　upon　this　subject　they　traced　their　course　by　that

Ordinance　of　'87。　　When　they　admitted　new　States；　they　advertised

them　of　this　Ordinance；　as　a　part　of　the　legislation　of　the　country。

They　did　so　because　they　had　traced　the　Ordinance　of　'87　throughout

the　history　of　this　country。　　Begin　with　the　men　of　the　Revolution；

and　go　down　for　sixty　entire　years；　and　until　the　last　scrap　of　that

Territory　comes　into　the　Union　in　the　form　of　the　State　of　Wisconsin；

everything　was　made　to　conform　with　the　Ordinance　of　'87；　excluding

slavery　from　that　vast　extent　of　country。



I　omitted　to　mention　in　the　right　place　that　the　Constitution　of　the

United　States　was　in　process　of　being　framed　when　that　Ordinance　was

made　by　the　Congress　of　the　Confederation；　and　one　of　the　first　Acts

of　Congress　itself；　under　the　new　Constitution　itself；　was　to　give

force　to　that　Ordinance　by　putting　power　to　carry　it　out　in　the　hands

of　the　new　officers　under　the　Constitution；　in　the　place　of　the　old

ones；　who　had　been　legislated　out　of　existence　by　the　change　in　the

Government　from　the　Confederation　to　the　Constitution。　　Not　only　so；

but　I　believe　Indiana　once　or　twice；　if　not　Ohio；　petitioned　the

General　Government　for　the　privilege　of　suspending　that　provision　and

allowing　them　to　have　slaves。　　A　report　made　by　Mr。　Randolph；　of

Virginia；　himself　a　slaveholder；　was　directly　against　it；　and　the

action　was　to　refuse　them　the　privilege　of　violating　the　Ordinance　of

'87。



This　period　of　history；　which　I　have　run　over　briefly；　is；　I　presume；

as　familiar　to　most　of　this　assembly　as　any　other　part　of　the　history

of　our　country。　I　suppose　that　few　of　my　hearers　are　not　as　familiar

with　that　part　of　history　as　I　am；　and　I　only　mention　it　to　recall

your　attention　to　it　at　this　time。　　And　hence　I　ask　how　extraordinary

a　thing　it　is　that　a　man　who　has　occupied　a　position　upon　the　floor

of　the　Senate　of　the　United　States；　who　is　now　in　his　third　term；　and

who　looks　to　see　the　government　of　this　whole　country　fall　into　his

own　hands；　pretending　to　give　a　truthful　and　accurate　history　o　the

slavery　question　in　this　country；　should　so　entirely　ignore　the　whole

of　that　portion　of　our　historythe　most　important　of　all。　　Is　it　not

a　most　extraordinary　spectacle　that　a　man　should　stand　up　and　ask　for

any　confidence　in　his　statements　who　sets　out　as　he　does　with

portions　of　history；　calling　upon　the　people　to　believe　that　it　is　a

true　and　fair　representation；　when　the　leading　part　and　controlling

feature　of　the　whole　history　is　carefully　suppressed？



But　the　mere　leaving　out　is　not　the　most　remarkable　feature　of　this

most　remarkable　essay。　His　proposition　is　to　establish　that　the

leading　men　of　the　Revolution　were　for　his　great　principle　of

nonintervention　by　the　government　in　the　question　of　slavery　in　the

Territories；　while　history　shows　that　they　decided；　in　the　cases

actually　brought　before　them；　in　exactly　the　contrary　way；　and　he

knows　it。　　Not　only　did　they　so　decide　at　that　time；　but　they　stuck

to　it　during　sixty　years；　through　thick　and　thin；　as　long　as　there

was　one　of　the　Revolutionary　heroes　upon　the　stage　of　political

action。　　Through　their　whole　course；　from　first　to　last；　they　clung

to　freedom。　　And　now　he　asks　the　community　to　believe　that　the　men　of

the　Revolution　were　in　favor　of　his　great　principle；　when　we　have　the

naked　history　that　they　themselves　dealt　with　this　very　subject

matter　of　his　principle；　and　utterly　repudiated　his　principle；　acting

upon　a　precisely　contrary　ground。　　It　is　as　impudent　and　absurd　as　if

a　prosecuting　attorney　should　stand　up　before　a　jury　and　ask　them

to　convict　A　as　the　murderer　of　B；　while　B　was　walking　alive　before

them。



I　say；　again；　if　judge　Douglas　asserts　that　the　men　of　the　Revolution

acted　upon　principles　by　which；　to　be　consistent　with　themselves；

they　ought　to　have　adopted　his　popular　sovereignty；　then；　upon　a

consideration　of　his　own　argument；　he　had　a　right　to　make　；you

believe　that　they　understood　the　principles　of　government；　but

misapplied　them；　that　he　has　arisen　to　enlighten　the　world　as　to　the

just　application　of　this　principle。　　He　has　a　right　to　try　to

persuade　you　that　he　understands　their　principles　better　than　they

did；　and；　therefore；　he　will　apply　them　now；　not　as　they　did；　but　as

they　ought　to　have　done。　　He　has　a　right　to　go　before　the　community

and　try　to　convince　them　of　this；　but　he　has　no　right　to　attempt　to

impose　upon　any　one　the　belief　that　these　men　themselves　approved　of

his　great　principle。　　There　are　two　ways　of　establishing　a

proposition。　　One　is　by　trying　to　demonstrate　it　upon　reason；　and　the

other　is；　to　show　that　great　men　in　former　times　have　thought　so　and

so；　and　thus　to　pass　it　by　the　weight　of　pure　authority。　　Now；　if

Judge　Douglas　will　demonstrate　somehow　that　this　is　popular

sovereignty；the　right　of　one　man　to　make　a　slave　of　another；

without　any　right　in　that　other　or　any　one　else　to　object；…

…demonstrate　it　as　Euclid　demonstrated　propositions；there　is　no

objection。　　But　when　he　comes　forward；　seeking　to　carry　a　principle

by　bringing　to　it　the　authority　of　men　who　themselves　utterly

repudiate　that　principle；　I　ask　that　he　shall　not　be　permitted　to　do

it。



I　see；　in　the　judge's　speech　here；　a　short　sentence　in　these　words：

〃Our　fathers；　when　they　formed　this　government　under　which　we　live；

understood　this　question　just　as　well；　and　even　better　than；　we　do

now。〃　　That　is　true；　I　stick　to　that。　　I　will　stand　by　Judge　Douglas

in　that　to　the　bitter　end。　　And　now；　Judge　Douglas；　come　and　stand　by

me；　and　truthfully　show　how　they　acted；　understanding　it　better　than

we　do。　　All　I　ask　of　you；　Judge　Douglas；　is　to　stick　to　the

proposition　that　the　men　of　the　Revolution　understood　this　subject

better　than　we　do　now；　and　with　that　better　understanding　they　acted

better　than　you　are　trying　to　act　now。



I　wish　to　say　something　now　in　regard　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　as

dealt　with　by　Judge　Douglas。　　In　that　〃memorable　debate〃　between

Judge　Douglas　and　myself；　last　year；　the　judge　thought　fit　to

commence　a　process　of　catechising　me；　and　at　Freeport　I　answered　his

questions；　and　propounded　some　to　him。　　Among　others　propounded　to

him　was　one　that　I　have　here　now。　　The　substance；　as　I　remember　it；

is；　〃Can　the　people　of　a　United　States　Territory；　under　the　Dred

Scott　decision；　in　any　lawful　way；　against　the　wish　of　any　citizen　of

the　United　States；　exclude　slavery　from　its　limits；　prior　to　the

formation　of　a　State　constitution？〃　　He　answered　that　they　could

lawfully　exclude　slavery　from　the　United　States　Territories；

notwithstanding　the　Dred　Scot　decision。　　There　was　something　about

that　answer　that　has　probably　been　a　trouble　to　the　judge　ever　since。



The　Dred　Scott　decision　expressly　gives　every　citizen　of　t