the writings-5-第10章

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！



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　the　United

States　a　right　to　carry　his　slaves　into　the　United　States

Territories。　　And　now　there　was　some　inconsistency　in　saying　that　the

decision　was　right；　and　saying；　too；　that　the　people　of　the　Territory

could　lawfully　drive　slavery　out　again。　　When　all　the　trash；　the

words；　the　collateral　matter；　was　cleared　away　from　it；　all　the　chaff

was　fanned　out　of　it；　it　was　a　bare　absurdity；no　less　than　that　a

thing　may　be　lawfully　driven　away　from　where　it　has　a　lawful　right　to

be。　　Clear　it　of　all　the　verbiage；　and　that　is　the　naked　truth　of　his

proposition；that　a　thing　may　be　lawfully　driven　from　the　place

where　it　has　a　lawful　right　to　stay。　　Well；　it　was　because　the　judge

could　n't　help　seeing　this　that　he　has　had　so　much　trouble　with　it；

and　what　I　want　to　ask　your　especial　attention　to；　just　now；　is　to

remind　you；　if　you　have　not　noticed　the　fact；　that　the　judge　does　not

any　longer　say　that　the　people　can　exclude　slavery。　　He　does　not　say

so　in　the　copyright　essay；　he　did　not　say　so　in　the　speech　that　he

made　here；　and；　so　far　as　I　know；　since　his　re…election　to　the　Senate

he　has　never　said；　as　he　did　at　Freeport；　that　the　people　of　the

Territories　can　exclude　slavery。　　He　desires　that　you；　who　wish　the

Territories　to　remain　free；　should　believe　that　he　stands　by　that

position；　but　he　does　not　say　it　himself。　　He　escapes　to　some　extent

the　absurd　position　I　have　stated；　by　changing　his　language　entirely。

What　he　says　now　is　something　different　in　language；　and　we　will

consider　whether　it　is　not　different　in　sense　too。　　It　is　now　that

the　Dred　Scott　decision；　or　rather　the　Constitution　under　that

decision；　does　not　carry　slavery　into　the　Territories　beyond　the

power　of　the　people　of　the　Territories　to　control　it　as　other

property。　　He　does　not　say　the　people　can　drive　it　out；　but　they　can

control　it　as　other　property。　　The　language　is　different；　we　should

consider　whether　the　sense　is　different。　　Driving　a　horse　out　of　this

lot　is　too　plain　a　proposition　to　be　mistaken　about；　it　is　putting

him　on　the　other　side　of　the　fence。　　Or　it　might　be　a　sort　of

exclusion　of　him　from　the　lot　if　you　were　to　kill　him　and　let　the

worms　devour　him；　but　neither　of　these　things　is　the　same　as

〃controlling　him　as　other　property。〃　　That　would　be　to　feed　him；　to

pamper　him；　to　ride　him；　to　use　and　abuse　him；　to　make　the　most　money

out　of　him；　〃as　other　property〃；　but；　please　you；　what　do　the　men　who

are　in　favor　of　slavery　want　more　than　this？　　What　do　they　really

want；　other　than　that　slavery；　being　in　the　Territories；　shall　be

controlled　as　other　property？　　If　they　want　anything　else；　I　do　not

comprehend　it。　　I　ask　your　attention　to　this；　first；　for　the　purpose

of　pointing　out　the　change　of　ground　the　judge　has　made；　and；　in　the

second　place；　the　importance　of　the　change；that　that　change　is　not

such　as　to　give　you　gentlemen　who　want　his　popular　sovereignty　the

power　to　exclude　the　institution　or　drive　it　out　at　all。　　I　know　the

judge　sometimes　squints　at　the　argument　that　in　controlling　it　as

other　property　by　unfriendly　legislation　they　may　control　it　to

death；　as　you　might；　in　the　case　of　a　horse；　perhaps；　feed　him　so

lightly　and　ride　him　so　much　that　he　would　die。　　But　when　you　come　to

legislative　control；　there　is　something　more　to　be　attended　to。　I

have　no　doubt；　myself；　that　if　the　Territories　should　undertake　to

control　slave　property　as　other　property　that　is；　control　it　in　such

a　way　that　it　would　be　the　most　valuable　as　property；　and　make　it

bear　its　just　proportion　in　the　way　of　burdens　as　property；　really

deal　with　it　as　property；the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States

will　say；　〃God　speed　you；　and　amen。〃　　But　I　undertake　to　give　the

opinion；　at　least；　that　if　the　Territories　attempt　by　any　direct

legislation　to　drive　the　man　with　his　slave　out　of　the　Territory；　or

to　decide　that　his　slave　is　free　because　of　his　being　taken　in　there；

or　to　tax　him　to　such　an　extent　that　he　cannot　keep　him　there；　the

Supreme　Court　will　unhesitatingly　decide　all　such　legislation

unconstitutional；　as　long　as　that　Supreme　Court　is　constructed　as　the

Dred　Scott　Supreme　Court　is。　　The　first　two　things　they　have　already

decided；　except　that　there　is　a　little　quibble　among　lawyers　between

the　words　〃dicta〃　and　〃decision。〃　　They　have　already　decided　a　negro

cannot　be　made　free　by　Territorial　legislation。



What　is　the　Dred　Scott　decision？　　Judge　Douglas　labors　to　show　that

it　is　one　thing；　while　I　think　it　is　altogether　different。　　It　is　a

long　opinion；　but　it　is　all　embodied　in　this　short　statement：　〃The

Constitution　of　the　United　States　forbids　Congress　to　deprive　a　man

of　his　property；　without　due　process　of　law；　the　right　of　property　in

slaves　is　distinctly　and　expressly　affirmed　in　that　Constitution：

therefore；　if　Congress　shall　undertake　to　say　that　a　man's　slave　is

no　longer　his　slave　when　he　crosses　a　certain　line　into　a　Territory；

that　is　depriving　him　of　his　property　without　due　process　of　law；　and

is　unconstitutional。〃　　There　is　the　whole　Dred　Scott　decision。　　They

add　that　if　Congress　cannot　do　so　itself；　Congress　cannot　confer　any

power　to　do　so；　and　hence　any　effort　by　the　Territorial　Legislature

to　do　either　of　these　things　is　absolutely　decided　against。　　It　is　a

foregone　conclusion　by　that　court。



Now；　as　to　this　indirect　mode　by　〃unfriendly　legislation；〃　all

lawyers　here　will　readily　understand　that　such　a　proposition　cannot

be　tolerated　for　a　moment；　because　a　legislature　cannot　indirectly　do

that　which　it　cannot　accomplish　directly。　　Then　I　say　any　legislation

to　control　this　property；　as　property；　for　its　benefit　as　property；

would　be　hailed　by　this　Dred　Scott　Supreme　Court；　and　fully

sustained；　but　any　legislation　driving　slave　property　out；　or

destroying　it　as　property；　directly　or　indirectly；　will　most

assuredly；　by　that　court；　be　held　unconstitutional。



Judge　Douglas　says　if　the　Constitution　carries　slavery　into　the

Territories；　beyond　the　power　of　the　people　of　the　Territories　to

control　it　as　other　property；　then　it　follows　logically　that　every

one　who　swears　to　support　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　must

give　that　support　to　that　property　which　it　needs。　　And；　if　the

Constitution　carries　slavery　into　the　Territories；　beyond　the　power

of　the　people；　to　control　it　as　other　property；　then　it　also　carries

it　into　the　States；　because　the　Constitution　is　the　supreme　law　of

the　land。　　Now；　gentlemen；　if　it　were　not　for　my　excessive　modesty；　I

would　say　that　I　told　that　very　thing　to　Judge　Douglas　quite　a　year

ago。　　This　argument　is　here　in　print；　and　if　it　were　not　for　my

modesty；　as　I　said；　I　might　call　your　attention　to　it。　　If　you　read

it；　you　will　find　that　I　not　only　made　that　argument；　but　made　it

better　than　he　has　made　it　since。



There　is；　however；　this　difference：　I　say　now；　and　said　then；　there

is　no　sort　of　question　that　the　Supreme　Court　has　decided　that　it　is

the　right　of　the　slave　holder　to　take　his　slave　and　hold　him　in　the

Territory；　and　saying　this；　judge　Douglas　himself　admits　the

conclusion。　　He　says　if　that　is　so；　this　consequence　will　follow；　and

because　this　consequence　would　follow；　his　argument　is；　the　decision

cannot；　therefore；　be　that　way；〃　that　would　spoil　my　popular

sovereignty；　and　it　cannot　be　possible　that　this　great　principle　has

been　squelched　out　in　this　extraordinary　way。　　It　might　be；　if　it

were　not　for　the　extraordinary　consequences　of　spoiling　my　humbug。〃



Another　feature　of　the　judge's　argument　about　the　Dred　Scott　case　is；

an　effort　to　show　that　that　decision　deals　altogether　in　declarations

of　negatives；　that　the　Constitution　does　not　affirm　anything　as

expounded　by　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　but　it　only　declares　a　want　of

power　a　total　absence　of　power；　in　reference　to　the　Territories。　　It

seems　to　be　his　purpose　to　make　the　whole　of　that　decision　to　result

in　a　mere　negative　declaration　of　a　want　of　power　in　Congress　to　do

anything　in　relation　to　this　matter　in　the　Territories。　　I　know　the

opinion　of　the　Judges　states　that　there　is　a　total　absence　of　power；

but　that　is；　unfortunately；　not　all　it　states：　for　the　judges　add

that　the　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　distinctly　and　expressly

affirmed　in　the　Constitution。　　It　does　not　stop　at　saying　that　the

right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　recognized　in　the　Constitution；　is

declared　to　exist　somewhere　in　the　Constitution；　but　says　it　is

affirmed　in　the　Constitution。　　Its　language　is　equivalent　to　saying

that　it　is　embodied　and　so　woven　in　that　instrument　that　it　cannot　be

detached　without　breaking　the　Constitution　itself。　　In　a　word；　it　is

part　of　the　Constitution。



Douglas　is　singularly　unfortunate　in　his　effort　to　make　out　that

decision　to　be　altogether　negative；　when　the　express　language　at　the

vital　part　is　that　this　is　distinctly　affirmed　in　the　Constitution。

I　think　myself；　and　I　repeat　it　here；　that　this　decision　does　not

merely　carry　slavery　into　the　Territories；　but　by　its　logical

conclusion　it　carries　it　into　the　States　in　which　we　live。　　One

provision　of　that　Constitution　is；　that　it　shall　be　the　supreme　law

of　the　land；I　do　not　quote　the　language；any　constitution　or　law

of　any　State　to　the　contrary　notwithstanding。　　This　Dred　Scott

decision　says　that　the　right　of　property　in　a　slave　is　affirmed　in

that　Constitution　which　is　the　supreme　law　of　the　land；　any　State

constitution　or　law　notwithstanding。　　Then　I　say　that　to　destroy　a

thing　which　is　distinctly　affirmed　and　supported　by　the　supreme　law

of　the　land；　even　by　a　State　constitution　or　law；　is　a　violation　of

that　supreme　law；　and　there　is　no　escape　from　it。　　In　my　judgment

there　is　no　avoiding　that　result；　save　that　the　American　people　shall

see　that　constitutions　are　better　construed　than　our　Constitution　is

construed