the writings-5-第26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！



species　of　property　do　really　see　it　as　it　is；　it　is　not　for　me　to

say；　but　if　they　do；　they　see　it　as　it　is　through　two　thousand

millions　of　dollars；　and　that　is　a　pretty　thick　coating。　　Certain　it

is　that　they　do　not　see　it　as　we　see　it。　　Certain　it　is　that　this　two

thousand　millions　of　dollars；　invested　in　this　species　of　property；

all　so　concentrated　that　the　mind　can　grasp　it　at　oncethis　immense

pecuniary　interesthas　its　influence　upon　their　minds。



But　here　in　Connecticut　and　at　the　North　slavery　does　not　exist；　and

we　see　it　through　no　such　medium。



To　us　it　appears　natural　to　think　that　slaves　are　human　beings；　men；

not　property；　that　some　of　the　things；　at　least；　stated　about　men　in

the　Declaration　of　Independence　apply　to　them　as　well　as　to　us。

I　say　we　think；　most　of　us；　that　this　charter　of　freedom　applies　to

the　slaves　as　well　as　to　ourselves；　that　the　class　of　arguments　put

forward　to　batter　down　that　idea　are　also　calculated　to　break　down

the　very　idea　of　a　free　government；　even　for　white　men；　and　to

undermine　the　very　foundations　of　free　society。　　We　think　slavery　a

great　moral　wrong；　and；　while　we　do　not　claim　the　right　to　touch　it

where　it　exists；　we　wish　to　treat　it　as　a　wrong　in　the　Territories；

where　our　votes　will　reach　it。　　We　think　that　a　respect　for

ourselves；　a　regard　for　future　generations　and　for　the　God　that　made

us；　require　that　we　put　down　this　wrong　where　our　votes　will　properly

reach　it。　　We　think　that　species　of　labor　an　injury　to　free　white　men

in　short；　we　think　slavery　a　great　moral；　social；　and　political

evil；　tolerable　only　because；　and　so　far　as；　its　actual　existence

makes　it　necessary　to　tolerate　it；　and　that　beyond　that　it　ought　to

be　treated　as　a　wrong。



Now　these　two　ideas；　the　property　idea　that　slavery　is　right；　and　the

idea　that　it　is　wrong；　come　into　collision；　and　do　actually　produce

that　irrepressible　conflict　which　Mr。　Seward　has　been　so　roundly

abused　for　mentioning。　　The　two　ideas　conflict；　and　must　conflict。



Again；　in　its　political　aspect；　does　anything　in　any　way　endanger　the

perpetuity　of　this　Union　but　that　single　thing；　slavery？　　Many　of　our

adversaries　are　anxious　to　claim　that　they　are　specially　devoted　to

the　Union；　and　take　pains　to　charge　upon　us　hostility　to　the　Union。

Now　we　claim　that　we　are　the　only　true　Union　men；　and　we　put　to　them

this　one　proposition：　Whatever　endangers　this　Union；　save　and　except

slavery？　　Did　any　other　thing　ever　cause　a　moment's　fear？　　All　men

must　agree　that　this　thing　alone　has　ever　endangered　the　perpetuity

of　the　Union。　　But　if　it　was　threatened　by　any　other　influence；　would

not　all　men　say　that　the　best　thing　that　could　be　done；　if　we　could

not　or　ought　not　to　destroy　it；　would　be　at　least　to　keep　it　from

growing　any　larger？　　Can　any　man　believe；　that　the　way　to　save　the

Union　is　to　extend　and　increase　the　only　thing　that　threatens　the

Union；　and　to　suffer　it　to　grow　bigger　and　bigger？



Whenever　this　question　shall　be　settled；　it　must　be　settled　on　some

philosophical　basis。　No　policy　that　does　not　rest　upon　some

philosophical　opinion　can　be　permanently　maintained。　　And　hence　there

are　but　two　policies　in　regard　to　slavery　that　can　be　at　all

maintained。　　The　first；　based　on　the　property　view　that　slavery　is

right；　conforms　to　that　idea　throughout；　and　demands　that　we　shall　do

everything　for　it　that　we　ought　to　do　if　it　were　right。　　We　must

sweep　away　all　opposition；　for　opposition　to　the　right　is　wrong；　we

must　agree　that　slavery　is　right；　and　we　must　adopt　the　idea　that

property　has　persuaded　the　owner　to　believe　that　slavery　is　morally

right　and　socially　elevating。　　This　gives　a　philosophical　basis　for　a

permanent　policy　of　encouragement。



The　other　policy　is　one　that　squares　with　the　idea　that　slavery　is

wrong；　and　it　consists　in　doing　everything　that　we　ought　to　do　if　it

is　wrong。　　Now；　I　don't　wish　to　be　misunderstood；　nor　to　leave　a　gap

down　to　be　misrepresented；　even。　　I　don't　mean　that　we　ought　to

attack　it　where　it　exists。　　To　me　it　seems　that　if　we　were　to　form　a

government　anew；　in　view　of　the　actual　presence　of　slavery　we　should

find　it　necessary　to　frame　just　such　a　government　as　our　fathers　did…

…giving　to　the　slaveholder　the　entire　control　where　the　system　was

established；　while　we　possessed　the　power　to　restrain　it　from　going

outside　those　limits。　　From　the　necessities　of　the　case　we　should　be

compelled　to　form　just　such　a　government　as　our　blessed　fathers　gave

us；　and；　surely；　if　they　have　so　made　it；　that　adds　another　reason

why　we　should　let　slavery　alone　where　it　exists。



If　I　saw　a　venomous　snake　crawling　in　the　road；　any　man　would　say　I

might　seize　the　nearest　stick　and　kill　it；　but　if　I　found　that　snake

in　bed　with　my　children；　that　would　be　another　question。　　I　might

hurt　the　children　more　than　the　snake；　and　it　might　bite　them。　　Much

more　if　I　found　it　in　bed　with　my　neighbor's　children；　and　I　had

bound　myself　by　a　solemn　compact　not　to　meddle　with　his　children

under　any　circumstances；　it　would　become　me　to　let　that　particular

mode　of　getting　rid　of　the　gentleman　alone。　　But　if　there　was　a　bed

newly　made　up；　to　which　the　children　were　to　be　taken；　and　it　was

proposed　to　take　a　batch　of　young　snakes　and　put　them　there　with

them；　I　take　it　no　man　would　say　there　was　any　question　how　I　ought

to　decide！



That　is　just　the　case。　　The　new　Territories　are　the　newly　made　bed　to

which　our　children　are　to　go；　and　it　lies　with　the　nation　to　say

whether　they　shall　have　snakes　mixed　up　with　them　or　not。　　It　does

not　seem　as　if　there　could　be　much　hesitation　what　our　policy　should

be！



Now　I　have　spoken　of　a　policy　based　on　the　idea　that　slavery　is

wrong；　and　a　policy　based　on　the　idea　that　it　is　right。　　But　an

effort　has　been　made　for　a　policy　that　shall　treat　it　as　neither

right　nor　wrong。　　It　is　based　upon　utter　indifference。　　Its　leading

advocate　＇Douglas＇　has　said；　〃I　don't　care　whether　it　be　voted　up　or

down。〃　〃It　is　merely　a　matter　of　dollars　and　cents。〃　〃The　Almighty

has　drawn　a　line　across　this　continent；　on　one　side　of　which　all　soil

must　forever　be　cultivated　by　slave　labor；　and　on　the　other　by　free。〃

〃When　the　struggle　is　between　the　white　man　and　the　negro；　I　am　for

the　white　man；　when　it　is　between　the　negro　and　the　crocodile；　I　am

for　the　negro。〃　Its　central　idea　is　indifference。　　　It　holds　that　it

makes　no　more　difference　to　us　whether　the　Territories　become　free　or

slave　States　than　whether　my　neighbor　stocks　his　farm　with　horned

cattle　or　puts　in　tobacco。　　All　recognize　this　policy；　the　plausible

sugar…coated　name　of　which　is　〃popular　sovereignty。〃



This　policy　chiefly　stands　in　the　way　of　a　permanent　settlement　of

the　question。　　I　believe　there　is　no　danger　of　its　becoming　the

permanent　policy　of　the　country；　for　it　is　based　on　a　public

indifference。　　There　is　nobody　that　〃don't　care。〃　All　the　people　do

care　one　way　or　the　other！　　I　do　not　charge　that　its　author；　when　he

says　he　〃don't　care；〃　states　his　individual　opinion；　he　only

expresses　his　policy　for　the　government。　　I　understand　that　he　has

never　said　as　an　individual　whether　he　thought　slavery　right　or

wrongand　he　is　the　only　man　in　the　nation　that　has　not！　Now　such　a

policy　may　have　a　temporary　run；　it　may　spring　up　as　necessary　to　the

political　prospects　of　some　gentleman；　but　it　is　utterly　baseless：

the　people　are　not　indifferent；　and　it　can　therefore　have　no

durability　or　permanence。



But　suppose　it　could：　Then　it　could　be　maintained　only　by　a　public

opinion　that　shall　say；　〃We　don't　care。〃　There　must　be　a　change　in

public　opinion；　the　public　mind　must　be　so　far　debauched　as　to　square

with　this　policy　of　caring　not　at　all。　　The　people　must　come　to

consider　this　as　〃merely　a　question　of　dollars　and　cents；〃　and　to

believe　that　in　some　places　the　Almighty　has　made　slavery　necessarily

eternal。　　This　policy　can　be　brought　to　prevail　if　the　people　can　be

brought　round　to　say　honestly；　〃We　don't　care〃；　if　not；　it　can　never

be　maintained。　　It　is　for　you　to　say　whether　that　can　be　done。



You　are　ready　to　say　it　cannot；　but　be　not　too　fast！　Remember　what　a

long　stride　has　been　taken　since　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri

Compromise！　Do　you　know　of　any　Democrat；　of　either　branch　of　the

partydo　you　know　one　who　declares　that　he　believes　that　the

Declaration　of　Independence　has　any　application　to　the　negro？　Judge

Taney　declares　that　it　has　not；　and　Judge　Douglas　even　vilifies　me

personally　and　scolds　me　roundly　for　saying　that　the　Declaration

applies　to　all　men；　and　that　negroes　are　men。　　　Is　there　a　Democrat

here　who　does　not　deny　that　the　Declaration　applies　to　the　negro？　Do

any　of　you　know　of　one？　Well；　I　have　tried　before　perhaps　fifty

audiences；　some　larger　and　some　smaller　than　this；　to　find　one　such

Democrat；　and　never　yet　have　I　found　one　who　said　I　did　not　place　him

right　in　that。　　I　must　assume　that　Democrats　hold　that；　and　now；　not

one　of　these　Democrats　can　show　that　he　said　that　five　years　ago！　I

venture　to　defy　the　whole　party　to　produce　one　man　that　ever　uttered

the　belief　that　the　Declaration　did　not　apply　to　negroes；　before　the

repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise！　Four　or　five　years　ago　we　all

thought　negroes　were　men；　and　that　when　〃all　men〃　were　named；　negroes

were　included。　　But　the　whole　Democratic　party　has　deliberately　taken

negroes　from　the　class　of　men　and　put　them　in　the　class　of　brutes。

Turn　it　as　you　will　it　is　simply　the　truth！　Don't　be　too　hasty；　then；

in　saying　that　the　people　cannot　be　brought　to　this　new　doctrine；　but

note　that　long　stride。　　One　more　as　long　completes　the　journey　from

where　negroes　are　estimated　as　men　to　where　they　are　estimated　as

mere　brutesas　rightful　property！



That　saying　〃In　the　struggle　between　white　men　and　the　negro；〃　etc。；

which　I　know　came　from　the　same　source　as　this　policythat　saying

marks　another　step。　　There　is　a　falsehood　wrapped