the writings-5-第14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！



awhile　what　I　shall　advance　in　support　of　that　proposition。



He　says　that　it　is　the　sacred　right　of　the　man　who　goes　into　the

Territories　to　have　slavery　if　he　wants　it。　　Grant　that　for

argument's　sake。　　Is　it　not　the　sacred　right　of　the　man　who　don't　go

there　equally　to　buy　slaves　in　Africa；　if　he　wants　them？　　Can　you

point　out　the　difference？　　The　man　who　goes　into　the　Territories　of

Kansas　and　Nebraska；　or　any　other　new　Territory；　with　the　sacred

right　of　taking　a　slave　there　which　belongs　to　him；　would　certainly

have　no　more　right　to　take　one　there　than　I　would；　who　own　no　slave；

but　who　would　desire　to　buy　one　and　take　him　there。　　You　will　not　say

you；　the　friends　of　Judge　Douglas　but　that　the　man　who　does　not　own　a

slave　has　an　equal　right　to　buy　one　and　take　him　to　the　Territory　as

the　other　does。



A　voice：　I　want　to　ask　a　question。　Don't　foreign　nations　interfere

with　the　slave　trade？



Mr。　LINCOLN：　　Well！　I　understand　it　to　be　a　principle　of　Democracy　to

whip　foreign　nations　whenever；　they　interfere　with　us。



Voice：　I　only　asked　for　information。　　I　am　a　Republican　myself。



Mr。　LINCOLN：　You　and　I　will　be　on　the　best　terms　in　the　world；　but

I　do　not　wish　to　be　diverted　from　the　point　I　was　trying　to　press。



I　say　that　Douglas's　popular　sovereignty；　establishing　his　sacred

right　in　the　people；　if　you　please；　if　carried　to　its　logical

conclusion　gives　equally　the　sacred　right　to　the　people　of　the　States

or　the　Territories　themselves　to　buy　slaves　wherever　they　can　buy

them　cheapest；　and　if　any　man　can　show　a　distinction；　I　should　like

to　hear　him　try　it。　　If　any　man　can　show　how　the　people　of　Kansas

have　a　better　right　to　slaves；　because　they　want　them；　than　the

people　of　Georgia　have　to　buy　them　in　Africa；　I　want　him　to　do　it。

I　think　it　cannot　be　done。　If　it　is　〃popular　sovereignty〃　for　the

people　to　have　slaves　because　they　want　them；　it　is　popular

sovereignty　for　them　to　buy　them　in　Africa　because　they　desire　to　do

so。



I　know　that　Douglas　has　recently　made　a　little　effort；　not　seeming　to

notice　that　he　had　a　different　theory；　has　made　an　effort　to　get　rid

of　that。　　He　has　written　a　letter；　addressed　to　somebody；　I　believe；

who　resides　in　Iowa；　declaring　his　opposition　to　the　repeal　of　the

laws　that　prohibit　the　Africa　slave　trade。　　He　bases　his　opposition

to　such　repeal　upon　the　ground　that　these　laws　are　themselves　one　of

the　compromises　of　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States。　　Now；　it

would　be　very　interesting　to　see　Judge　Douglas　or　any　of　his　friends

turn；　to　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　and　point　out　that

compromise；　to　show　where　there　is　any　compromise　in　the

Constitution；　or　provision　in　the　Constitution；　express　or　implied；

by　which　the　administrators　of　that　Constitution　are　under　any

obligation　to　repeal　the　African　slave　trade。　　I　know；　or　at　least　I

think　I　know；　that　the　framers　of　that　Constitution　did　expect　the

African　slave　trade　would　be　abolished　at　the　end　of　twenty　years；　to

which　time　their　prohibition　against　its　being　abolished　extended。

there　is　abundant　contemporaneous　history　to　show　that　the　framers　of

the　Constitution　expected　it　to　be　abolished。　But　while　they　so

expected；　they　gave　nothing　for　that　expectation；　and　they　put　no

provision　in　the　Constitution　requiring　it　should　be　so　abolished。

The　migration　or　importation　of　such　persons　as　the　States　shall　see

fit　to　admit　shall　not　be　prohibited；　but　a　certain　tax　might　be

levied　upon　such　importation。　　But　what　was　to　be　done　after　that

time？　　The　Constitution　is　as　silent　about　that　as　it　is　silent；

personally；　about　myself。　　There　is　absolutely　nothing　in　it　about

that　subject；　there　is　only　the　expectation　of　the　framers　of　the

Constitution　that　the　slave　trade　would　be　abolished　at　the　end　of

that　time；　and　they　expected　it　would　be　abolished；　owing　to　public

sentiment；　before　that　time；　and　the　put　that　provision　in；　in　order

that　it　should　not　be　abolished　before　that　time；　for　reasons　which　I

suppose　they　thought　to　be　sound　ones；　but　which　I　will　not　now　try

to　enumerate　before　you。



But　while；　they　expected　the　slave　trade　would　be　abolished　at　that

time；　they　expected　that　the　spread　of　slavery　into　the　new

Territories　should　also　be　restricted。　　It　is　as　easy　to　prove　that

the　framers　of　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　expected　that

slavery　should　be　prohibited　from　extending　into　the　new　Territories；

as　it　is　to　prove　that　it　was　expected　that　the　slave　trade　should　be

abolished。　　Both　these　things　were　expected。　　One　was　no　more

expected　than　the　other；　and　one　was　no　more　a　compromise　of　the

Constitution　than　the　other。　　There　was　nothing　said　in　the

Constitution　in　regard　to　the　spread　of　slavery　into　the　Territory。

I　grant　that；　but　there　was　something　very　important　said　about　it　by

the　same　generation　of　men　in　the　adoption　of　the　old　Ordinance　of

'87；　through　the　influence　of　which　you　here　in　Ohio；　our　neighbors

in　Indiana；　we　in　Illinois；　our　neighbors　in　Michigan　and　Wisconsin；

are　happy；　prosperous；　teeming　millions　of　free　men。　　That　generation

of　men；　though　not　to　the　full　extent　members　of　the　convention　that

framed　the　Constitution；　were　to　some　extent　members　of　that

convention；　holding　seats　at　the　same　time　in　one　body　and　the　other；

so　that　if　there　was　any　compromise　on　either　of　these　subjects；　the

strong　evidence　is　that　that　compromise　was　in　favor　of　the

restriction　of　slavery　from　the　new　Territories。



But　Douglas　says　that　he　is　unalterably　opposed　to　the　repeal　of

those　laws　because；　in　his　view；　it　is　a　compromise　of　the

Constitution。　　You　Kentuckians；　no　doubt；　are　somewhat　offended　with

that。　　You　ought　not　to　be！　　You　ought　to　be　patient！　　You　ought　to

know　that　if　he　said　less　than　that；　he　would　lose　the　power　of

〃lugging〃　the　Northern　States　to　your　support。　　Really；　what　you

would　push　him　to　do　would　take　from　him　his　entire　power　to　serve

you。　　And　you　ought　to　remember　how　long；　by　precedent；　Judge　Douglas

holds　himself　obliged　to　stick　by　compromises。　　You　ought　to　remember

that　by　the　time　you　yourselves　think　you　are　ready　to　inaugurate

measures　for　the　revival　of　the　African　slave　trade；　that　sufficient

time　will　have　arrived；　by　precedent；　for　Judge　Douglas　to　break

through；　that　compromise。　　He　says　now　nothing　more　strong　than　he

said　in　1849　when　he　declared　in　favor　of　Missouri　Compromise；and

precisely　four　years　and　a　quarter　after　he　declared　that　Compromise

to　be　a　sacred　thing；　which　〃no　ruthless　hand　would　ever　daze　to

touch；〃　he　himself　brought　forward　the　measure　ruthlessly　to　destroy

it。　　By　a　mere　calculation　of　time　it　will　only　be　four　years　more

until　he　is　ready　to　take　back　his　profession　about　the　sacredness　of

the　Compromise　abolishing　the　slave　trade。　　Precisely　as　soon　as　you

are　ready　to　have　his　services　in　that　direction；　by　fair

calculation；　you　may　be　sure　of　having　them。



But　you　remember　and　set　down　to　Judge　Douglas's　debt；　or　discredit；

that　he；　last　year；　said　the　people　of　Territories　can；　in　spite　of

the　Dred　Scott　decision；　exclude　your　slaves　from　those　Territories；

that　he　declared；　by　〃unfriendly　legislation〃　the　extension　of　your

property　into　the　new　Territories　may　be　cut　off；　in　the　teeth　of　the

decision　of　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States。



He　assumed　that　position　at　Freeport　on　the　27th　of　August；　1858。　　He

said　that　the　people　of　the　Territories　can　exclude　slavery；　in　so

many　words：　You　ought；　however；　to　bear　in　mind　that　he　has　never

said　it　since。　　You　may　hunt　in　every　speech　that　he　has　since　made；

and　he　has　never　used　that　expression　once。　　He　has　never　seemed　to

notice　that　he　is　stating　his　views　differently　from　what　he　did

then；　but　by　some　sort　of　accident；　he　has　always　really　stated　it

differently。　　He　has　always　since　then　declared　that　〃the

Constitution　does　not　carry　slavery　into　the　Territories　of　the

United　States　beyond　the　power　of　the　people　legally　to　control　it；

as　other　property。〃　　Now；　there　is　a　difference　in　the　language　used

upon　that　former　occasion　and　in　this　latter　day。　　There　may　or　may

not　be　a　difference　in　the　meaning；　but　it　is　worth　while　considering

whether　there　is　not　also　a　difference　in　meaning。



What　is　it　to　exclude？　　Why；　it　is　to　drive　it　out。　　It　is　in　some

way　to　put　it　out　of　the　Territory。　　It　is　to　force　it　across　the

line；　or　change　its　character　so　that；　as　property；　it　is　out　of

existence。　　But　what　is　the　controlling　of　it　〃as　other　property〃？

Is　controlling　it　as　other　property　the　same　thing　as　destroying　it；

or　driving　it　away？　　I　should　think　not。　　I　should　think　the

controlling　of　it　as　other　property　would　be　just　about　what　you　in

Kentucky　should　want。　　I　understand　the　controlling　of　property　means

the　controlling　of　it　for　the　benefit　of　the　owner　of　it。　　While　I

have　no　doubt　the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States　would　say　〃God

speed〃　to　any　of　the　Territorial　Legislatures　that　should　thus

control　slave　property；　they　would　sing　quite　a　different　tune　if；　by

the　pretence　of　controlling　it；　they　were　to　undertake　to　pass　laws

which　virtually　excluded　it；and　that　upon　a　very　well　known

principle　to　all　lawyers；　that　what　a　Legislature　cannot　directly　do；

it　cannot　do　by　indirection；　that　as　the　Legislature　has　not　the

power　to　drive　slaves　out；　they　have　no　power；　by　indirection；　by

tax；　or　by　imposing　burdens　in　any　way　on　that　property；　to　effect

the　same　end；　and　that　any　attempt　to　do　so　would　be　held　by　the　Dred

Scott　court　unconstitutional。



Douglas　is　not　willing　to　stand　by　his　first　proposition　that　they

can　exclude　it；　because　we　have　seen　that　that　proposition　amounts　to

nothing　more　nor　less　than　the　naked　absurdity　that　you　may　lawfully

drive　out　that　which　has　a　lawful　right　to　remain。　He　admitted　at

first　that　the　slave　might　be　lawfully　taken　into　the　Territories

under　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States；　and　yet　asserted　that　he

might　be　lawfully　driven　out。　　That　being　the　proposition；　it　is　the

absurdity　I　have　stated。　　He　is　not　willing　to　stand　in　the　face　of

that　direct；　naked；　and　impudent　absurdity；　he　has；　therefore；

modified　his　language　into　that　of　being　〃controlled　as　other

property。〃



The　Kentuckians　don't　like　this　in　Douglas！　I　will　tell　you　where　it

will　go。　He　now　swears　by　the　court。　　He　was　once　a　leading　man　in

Illinois　to　break　down　a　court；　because　it　had　made　a　decision　he　did

not　like。　But　he　now　not　only　swears　by　the　court；　the　courts　having

got　to　working　for　you；　but　he　denounces　all　men　that　do　not　swear　by

the　courts；　as　unpatriotic；　as　bad　citizens。　　When　one　of　these　acts

of　unfriendly　legislation　shall　impose　such　heavy　burdens　as　to；　in

effect；　destroy　property　in　slaves　in　a　Territory；　and　show　plainly

enough　that　there　can　be　no　mistake　in　the　purpose　of　the　Legislature

to　make