the writings-5-第16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！



be　a　free　State？　　It　is　important　to　inquire　by　what　reason　you　found

it　so。　　Let　us　take　an　illustration　between　the　States　of　Ohio　and

Kentucky。　　Kentucky　is　separated　by　this　River　Ohio；　not　a　mile　wide。

A　portion　of　Kentucky；　by　reason　of　the　course　of　the　Ohio；　is

farther　north　than　this　portion　of　Ohio；　in　which　we　now　stand。

Kentucky　is　entirely　covered　with　slavery；　Ohio　is　entirely　free　from

it：　What　made　that　difference？　　Was　it　climate？　　No。　　A　portion　of

Kentucky　was　farther　north　than　this　portion　of　Ohio。　　Was　it　soil？

No。　　There　is　nothing　in　the　soil　of　the　one　more　favorable　to　slave

than　the　other。　It　was　not　climate　or　soil　that　mused　one　side　of　the

line　to　be　entirely　covered　with　slavery；　and　the　other　side　free　of

it。　　What　was　it？　　Study　over　it。　　Tell　us；　if　you　can；　in　all　the

range　of　conjecture；　if　there　be　anything　you　can　conceive　of　that

made　that　difference；　other　than　that　there　was　no　law　of　any　sort

keeping　it　out　of　Kentucky；　while　the　Ordinance　of　'87　kept　it　out　of

Ohio。　　If　there　is　any　other　reason　than　this；　I　confess　that　it　is

wholly　beyond　my　power　to　conceive　of　it。　　This；　then；　I　offer　to

combat　the　idea　that　that　Ordinance　has　never　made　any　State　free。



I　don't　stop　at　this　illustration。　I　come　to　the　State　of　Indiana；

and　what　I　have　said　as　between　Kentucky　and　Ohio；　I　repeat　as

between　Indiana　and　Kentucky：　it　is　equally　applicable。　One

additional　argument　is　applicable　also　to　Indiana。　　In　her

Territorial　condition　she　more　than　once　petitioned　Congress　to

abrogate　the　Ordinance　entirely；　or　at　least　so　far　as　to　suspend　its

operation　for　a；　time；　in　order　that　they　should　exercise　the

〃popular　sovereignty〃　of　having　slaves　if　they　wanted　them。　The　men

then　controlling　the　General　Government；　imitating　the　men　of　the

Revolution；　refused　Indiana　that　privilege。　　And　so　we　have　the

evidence　that　Indiana　supposed　she　could　have　slaves；　if　it　were　not

for　that　Ordinance；　that　she　besought　Congress　to　put　that　barrier

out　of　the　way；　that　Congress　refused　to　do　so；　and　it　all　ended　at

last　in　Indiana　being　a　free　State。　　Tell　me　not　then　that　the

Ordinance　of　'87　had　nothing　to　do　with　making　Indiana　a　free　State；

when　we　find　some　men　chafing　against；　and　only　restrained　by；　that

barrier。



Come　down　again　to　our　State　of　Illinois。　　The　great　Northwest

Territory；　including　Ohio；　Indiana；　Illinois；　Michigan；　and

Wisconsin；　was　acquired　first；　I　believe；　by　the　British　Government；

in　part　at　least；　from　the　French。　　Before　the　establishment　of　our

independence　it　became　a　part　of　Virginia；　enabling　Virginia

afterward　to　transfer　it　to　the　General　Government。　　There　were

French　settlements　in　what　is　now　Illinois；　and　at　the　same　time

there　were　French　settlements　in　what　is　now　Missouri；　in　the　tract

of　country　that　was　not　purchased　till　about　1803。　　In　these　French

settlements　negro　slavery　had　existed　for　many　years；　perhaps　more

than　a　hundred；　if　not　as　much　as　two　hundred　years；at　Kaskaskia；

in　Illinois；　and　at　St。　Genevieve；　or　Cape　Girardeau；　perhaps；　in

Missouri。　　The　number　of　slaves　was　not　very　great；　but　there　was

about　the　same　number　in　each　place。　　They　were　there　when　we

acquired　the　Territory。　　There　was　no　effort　made　to　break　up　the

relation　of　master　and　slave；　and　even　the　Ordinance　of　1787　was　not

so　enforced　as　to　destroy　that　slavery　in　Illinois；　nor　did　the

Ordinance　apply　to　Missouri　at　all。



What　I　want　to　ask　your　attention　to；　at　this　point；　is　that　Illinois

and　Missouri　came　into　the　Union　about　the　same　time；　Illinois　in　the

latter　part　of　1818；　and　Missouri；　after　a　struggle；　I　believe

sometime　in　1820。　　They　had　been　filling　up　with　American　people

about　the　same　period　of　time；　their　progress　enabling　them　to　come

into　the　Union　about　the　same　time。　　At　the　end　of　that　ten　years；　in

which　they　had　been　so　preparing　（for　it　was　about　that　period　of

time）；　the　number　of　slaves　in　Illinois　had　actually　decreased；　while

in　Missouri；　beginning　with　very　few；　at　the　end　of　that　ten　years

there　were　about　ten　thousand。　　This　being　so；　and　it　being

remembered　that　Missouri　and　Illinois　are；　to　a　certain　extent；　in

the　same　parallel　of　latitude；　that　the　northern　half　of　Missouri　and

the　southern　half　of　Illinois　are　in　the　same　parallel　of　latitude；

so　that　climate　would　have　the　same　effect　upon　one　as　upon　the

other；　and　that　in　the　soil　there　is　no　material　difference　so　far　as

bears　upon　the　question　of　slavery　being　settled　upon　one　or　the

other；there　being　none　of　those　natural　causes　to　produce　a

difference　in　filling　them；　and　yet　there　being　a　broad　difference　to

their　filling　up；　we　are　led　again　to　inquire　what　was　the　cause　of

that　difference。



It　is　most　natural　to　say　that　in　Missouri　there　was　no　law　to　keep

that　country　from　filling　up　with　slaves；　while　in　Illinois　there　was

the　Ordinance　of　The　Ordinance　being　there；　slavery　decreased　during

that　ten　years；　the　Ordinance　not　being　in　the　other；　it　increased

from　a　few　to　ten　thousand。　Can　anybody　doubt　the　reason　of　the

difference？



I　think　all　these　facts　most　abundantly　prove　that　my　friend　Judge

Douglas's　proposition；　that　the　Ordinance　of　'87；　or　the　national

restriction　of　slavery；　never　had　a　tendency　to　make　a　free　State；　is

a　fallacy；a　proposition　without　the　shadow　or　substance　of　truth

about　it。



Douglas　sometimes　says　that　all　the　States　（and　it　is　part　of　this

same　proposition　I　have　been　discussing）　that　have　become　free　have

become　so　upon　his　〃great　principle〃；　that　the　State　of　Illinois

itself　came　into　the　Union　as　a　slave　State；　and　that　the　people；

upon　the　〃great　principle〃　of　popular　sovereignty；　have　since　made　it

a　free　State。　　Allow　me　but　a　little　while　to　state　to　you　what　facts

there　are　to　justify　him　in　saying　that　Illinois　came　into　the　Union

as　a　slave　State。



I　have　mentioned　to　you　that　there　were　a　few　old　French　slaves

there。　　They　numbered；　I　think；　one　or　two　hundred。　　Besides　that；

there　had　been　a　Territorial　law　for　indenturing　black　persons。

Under　that　law；　in　violation　of　the　Ordinance　of　'87；　but　without　any

enforcement　of　the　Ordinance　to　overthrow　the　system；　there　had　been

a　small　number　of　slaves　introduced　as　indentured　persons。　　Owing　to

this；　the　clause　for　the　prohibition　of　slavery　was　slightly

modified。　　Instead　of　running　like　yours；　that　neither　slavery　nor

involuntary　servitude；　except　for　crime；　of　which　the　party　shall

have　been　duly　convicted；　should　exist　in　the　State；　they　said　that

neither　slavery　nor　involuntary　servitude　should　thereafter　be

introduced；　and　that　the　children　of　indentured　servants　should　be

born　free；　and　nothing　was　said　about　the　few　old　French　slaves。　　Out

of　this　fact；　that　the　clause　for　prohibiting　slavery　was　modified

because　of　the　actual　presence　of　it；　Douglas　asserts　again　and　again

that　Illinois　came　into　the　Union　as　a　slave　State。　　How　far　the

facts　sustain　the　conclusion　that　he　draws；　it　is　for　intelligent　and

impartial　men　to　decide。　　I　leave　it　with　you；　with　these　remarks；

worthy　of　being　remembered；　that　that　little　thing；　those　few

indentured　servants　being　there；　was　of　itself　sufficient　to　modify　a

constitution　made　by　a　people　ardently　desiring　to　have　a　free

constitution；　showing　the　power　of　the　actual　presence　of　the

institution　of　slavery　to　prevent　any　people；　however　anxious　to　make

a　free　State；　from　making　it　perfectly　so。



I　have　been　detaining　you　longer；　perhaps；　than　I　ought　to　do。



I　am　in　some　doubt　whether　to　introduce　another　topic　upon　which　I

could　talk　a　while。　＇Cries　of　〃Go　on；〃　and　〃Give　us　it。〃＇　It　is　this；

then：　Douglas's　　Popular　sovereignty；　as　a　principle；　is　simply　this：

If　one　man　chooses　to　make　a　slave　of　another　man；　neither　that　man

nor　anybody　else　has　a　right　to　object。　　Apply　it　to　government；　as

he　seeks　to　apply　it；　and　it　is　this：　If；　in　a　new　Territory　into

which　a　few　people　are　beginning　to　enter　for　the　purpose　of　making

their　homes；　they　choose　to　either　exclude　slavery　from　their　limits；

or　to　establish　it　there；　however　one　or　the　other　may　affect　the

persons　to　be　enslaved；　or　the　infinitely　greater　number　of　persons

who　are　afterward　to　inhabit　that　Territory；　or　the　other　members　of

the　family　of　communities　of　which　they　are　but　an　incipient　member；

or　the　general　head　of　the　family　of　States　as　parent　of　all；　however

their　action　may　affect　one　or　the　other　of　these；　there　is　no　power

or　right　to　interfere。　　That　is　Douglas's　popular　sovereignty

applied。　　Now；　I　think　that　there　is　a　real　popular　sovereignty　in

the　world。　　I　think　the　definition　of　popular　sovereignty；　in　the

abstract；　would　be　about　this：　that　each　man　shall　do　precisely　as　he

pleases　with　himself；　and　with　all　those　things　which　exclusively

concern　him。　　Applied　in　government；　this　principle　would　be　that　a

general　government　shall　do　all　those　things　which　pertain　to　it；　and

all　the　local　governments　shall　do　precisely　as　they　please　in

respect　to　those　matters　which　exclusively　concern　them。



Douglas　looks　upon　slavery　as　so　insignificant　that　the　people　must

decide　that　question　for　themselves；　and　yet　they　are　not　fit　to

decide　who　shall　be　their　governor；　judge；　or　secretary；　or　who　shall

be　any　of　their　officers。　　These　are　vast　national　matters　in　his

estimation；　but　the　little　matter　in　his　estimation　is　that　of

planting　slavery　there。　　That　is　purely　of　local　interest；　which

nobody　should　be　allowed　to　say　a　word　about。



Labor　is　the　great　source　from　which　nearly　all；　if　not　all；　human

comforts　and　necessities　are　drawn。　There　is　a　difference　in　opinion

about　the　elements　of　labor　in　society。　　Some　men　assume　that　there

is　necessary　connection　between　capital　and　labor；　and　that

connection　draws　within　it　the　whole　of　the　labor　of　the　community。

They　assume　that　nobody　works　unless　capital　excites　them　to　work。

They　begin　next　to　consider　what　is　the　best　way。　　They　say　there　are

but　two　ways：　one　is　to　hire　men；　and　to　allure　them　to　labor　by

their　consent；　the　other　is　to　buy　the　men；　and　drive　them；　to　it；

and　that　is　slavery。　　Having　assumed　that；　they　proceed　to　discuss

the　question　of　whether　the　laborers　themselves　are　better　off　in　the

condition　of　slaves　or　of　hired　laborers；　and　they　usually　decide

that　they　are　better　off　in　the　condition　of　slaves。



In　the　first　place；　I　say　that　the　whole　thing　is　a　mistake。　　That

there　is　a　certain　relation　between　capital　and　labor；　I　admit。　　That

it　does　exist；　and　rightfully　exists；　I　think　is　true。　　That　men　who

are　industrious；　and　sober；　and　honest　in　the　pursuit　of　their　own

interests　should　after　a　while　accumulate　capital；　and　after　that

should　be　allowed　to　enjoy　it　in　peace；　and　also；　if　they　should

choose；　when　they　have　accumulated　it；　to　use　it　to　save　themselves

from　actual　labor；　and　hi