the writings-5-第21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！



find　that　we　have　ceased　to　be　sectional；　for　we　shall　get　votes　in

your　section　this　very　year。　　You　will　then　begin　to　discover；　as　the

truth　plainly　is；　that　your　proof；　does　not　touch　the　issue。　The　fact

that　we　get　no　votes　in　your　section　is　a　fact　of　your　making；　and

not　of　ours。　　And　if　there　be　fault　in　that　fact；　that　fault　is

primarily　yours；　and　remains　so　until　you　show　that　we　repel　you　by；

some　wrong　principle　or　practice。　　If　we　do　repel　you　by　any　wrong

principle　or　practice；　the　fault　is　ours；　but　this　brings　you　to

where　you　ought　to　have　started　to　a　discussion　of　the　right　or　wrong

of　our　principle。　　If　our　principle；　put　in　practice；　would　wrong

your　section　for　the　benefit　of　ours；　or　for　any　other　object；　then

our　principle；　and　we　with　it；　are　sectional；　and　are　justly　opposed

and　denounced　as　such。　Meet　us；　then；　on　the　question　of　whether　our

principle；　put　in　practice；　would　wrong　your　section；　and　so　meet　us

as　if　it　were　possible　that　something　may　be　said　on　our　side。　　Do

you　accept　the　challenge？　　No！　　Then　you　really　believe　that　the

principle　which　〃our　fathers　who　framed　the　Government　under　which　we

live〃　thought　so　clearly　right　as　to　adopt　it；　and　indorse　it　again

and　again；　upon　their　official　oaths；　is　in　fact　so　clearly　wrong　as

to　demand　your　condemnation　without　a　moment's　consideration。



Some　of　you　delight　to　flaunt　in　our　faces　the　warning　against

sectional　parties　given　by　Washington　in　his　Farewell　Address。　　Less

than　eight　years　before　Washington　gave　that　warning；　he　had；　as

President　of　the　United　States；　approved　and　signed　an　act　of

Congress　enforcing　the　prohibition　of　slavery　in　the　Northwestern

Territory；　which　act　embodied　the　policy　of　the　Government　upon　that

subject　up　to；　and　at；　the　very　moment　he　penned　that　warning；　and

about　one　year　after　he　penned　it；　he　wrote　La　Fayette　that　he

considered　that　prohibition　a　wise　measure；　expressing　in　the　same

connection　his　hope　that　we　should　at　some　time　have　a　confederacy　of

free　States。



Bearing　this　in　mind；　and　seeing　that　sectionalism　has　since　arisen

upon　this　same　subject；　is　that　warning　a　weapon　in　your　hands

against　us；　or　in　our　hands　against　you？　　Could　Washington　himself

speak；　would　he　cast　the　blame　of　that　sectionalism　upon　us；　who

sustain　his　policy；　or　upon　you；　who　repudiate　it？　　We　respect　that

warning　of　Washington；　and　we　commend　it　to　you；　together　with　his

example　pointing　to　the　right　application　of　it。



But　you　say　you　are　conservativeeminently　conservativewhile　we

are　revolutionary；　destructive；　or　something；　of　the　sort。　　What　is

conservatism？　　Is　it　not　adherence　to　the　old　and　tried；　against　a

new　and　untried？　　We　stick　to；　contend　for；　the　identical　old　policy

on　the　point　in　controversy　which　was　adopted　by　〃our　fathers　who

framed　the　Government　under　which　we　live〃；　while　you　with　one　accord

reject；　and　scout；　and　spit　upon　that　old　policy　and　insist　upon

substituting　something　new。　　True；　you　disagree　among　yourselves　as

to　what　that　substitute　shall　be。　　You　are　divided　on　new

propositions　and　plans；　but　you　are　unanimous　in　rejecting　and

denouncing　the　old　policy　of　the　fathers。　　Some　of　you　are　for

reviving　the　foreign　slave　trade；　some　for　a　Congressional　slave　code

for　the　Territories；　some　for　Congress　forbidding　the　Territories　to

prohibit　slavery　within　their　limits；　some　for　maintaining　slavery　in

the　Territories　through　the　judiciary；　some　for　the　〃gur…reat

pur…rinciple〃　that　〃if　one　man　would　enslave　another；　no　third　man

should　object；〃　fantastically　called　〃popular　sovereignty〃；　but　never

a　man　among　you　in　favor　of　Federal　prohibition　of　slavery　in　Federal

Territories；　according　to　the　practice　of　〃our　fathers　who　framed　the

Government　under　which　we　live。〃　　Not　one　of　all　your　various　plans

can　show　a　precedent　or　an　advocate　in　the　century　within　which　our

Government　originated。　　Consider；　then；　whether　your　claim　of

conservatism　for　yourselves；　and　your　charge　of　destructiveness

against　us；　are　based　on　the　most　clear　and　stable　foundations。



Again：　You　say　we　have　made　the　slavery　question　more　prominent　than

it　formerly　was。　　We　deny　it。　　We　admit　that　it　is　more　prominent；

but　we　deny　that　we　made　it　so。　　It　was　not　we；　but　you；　who

discarded　the　old　policy　of　the　fathers。　　We　resisted　and　still

resist　your　innovation；　and　thence　comes　the　greater　prominence　of

the　question。　　Would　you　have　that　question　reduced　to　its　former

proportions？　　Go　back　to　that　old　policy。　　What　has　been　will　be

again；　under　the　same　conditions。　　If　you　would　have　the　peace　of　the

old　times；　readopt　the　precepts　and　policy　of　the　old　times。



You　charge　that　we　stir　up　insurrections　among　your　slaves。　　We　deny

it；　and　what　is　your　proof'？　　Harper's　Ferry！　　John　Brown！！　　John

Brown　was　no　Republican；　and　you　have　failed　to　implicate　a　single

Republican　in　his　Harper's　Ferry　enterprise。　　If　any　member　of　our

party　is　guilty　in　that　matter　you　know　it　or　you　do　not　know　it。　　If

you　do　know　it；　you　are　inexcusable　for　not　designating　the　man　and

proving　the　fact。　　If　you　do　not　know　it；　you　are　inexcusable　for

asserting　it；　and　especially　for　persisting　in　the　assertion　after

you　have　tried　and　failed　to　make　the　proof。　　You　need　not　be　told

that　persisting　in　a　charge　which　one　does　not　know　to　be　true　is

simply　malicious　slander。



Some　of　you　admit　that　no　Republican　designedly　aided　or　encouraged

the　Harper's　Ferry　affair；　but　still　insist　that　our　doctrines　and

declarations　necessarily　lead　to　such　results。　　We　do　not　believe　it。

We　know　we　hold　to　no　doctrine；　and　make　no　declaration；　which　were

not　held　to　and　made　by　our　fathers　who　framed　the　Government　under

which　we　live〃　You　never　dealt　fairly　by　us　in　relation　to　this

affair。　　When　it　occurred；　some　important　State　elections　were　near

at　hand；　and　you　were　in　evident　glee　with　the　belief　that；　by

charging　the　blame　upon　us；　you　could　get　an　advantage　of　us　in　those

elections。　　　The　elections　came；　and　your　expectations　were　not　quite

fulfilled。　　Every　Republican　man　knew　that；　as　to　himself　at　least；

your　charge　was　a　slander；　and　he　was　not　much　inclined　by　it　to　cast

his　vote　in　your　favor。　　Republican　doctrines　and　declarations　are

accompanied　with　a　continued　protest　against　any　interference

whatever　with　your　slaves；　or　with　you　about　your　slaves。　　Surely；

this　does　not　encourage　them　to　revolt。　　True；　we　do；　in　common　with

〃our　fathers；　who　framed　the　Government　under　which　we　live；〃　declare

our　belief　that　slavery　is　wrong；　but　the　slaves　do　not　hear　us

declare　even　this。　　For　any　thing　we　say　or　do；　the　slaves　would

scarcely　know　there　is　a　Republican　party。　　I　believe　they　would　not；

in　fact；　generally　know　it　but　for　your　misrepresentations　of　us　in

their　hearing。　　In　your　political　contests　among　yourselves；　each

faction　charges　the　other　with　sympathy　with　Black　Republicanism；　and

then；　to　give　point　to　the　charge；　defines　Black　Republicanism　to

simply　be　insurrection；　blood；　and　thunder　among　the　slaves。



Slave　insurrections　are　no　more　common　now　than　they　were　before　the

Republican　party　was　organized。　　What　induced　the　Southampton

insurrection；　twenty…eight　years　ago；　in　which；　at　least；　three　times

as　many　lives　were　lost　as　at　Harper's　Ferry？　You　can　scarcely

stretch　your　very　elastic　fancy　to　the　conclusion　that　Southampton

was　〃got　up　by　Black　Republicanism。〃　In　the　present　state　of　things

in　the　United　States；　I　do　not　think　a　general　or　even　a　very

extensive　slave　insurrection　is　possible。　　The　indispensable　concert

of　action　cannot　be　attained。　　The　slaves　have　no　means　of　rapid

communication；　nor　can　incendiary　freemen；　black　or　white；　supply　it。

The　explosive　materials　are　everywhere　in　parcels；　but　there　neither

are；　nor　can　be　supplied　the　indispensable　connecting　trains。



Much　is　said　by　Southern　people　about　the　affection　of　slaves　for

their　masters　and　mistresses；　and　a　part　of　it；　at　least；　is　true。　　A

plot　for　an　uprising　could　scarcely　be　devised　and　communicated　to

twenty　individuals　before　some　one　of　them；　to　save　the　life　of　a

favorite　master　or　mistress；　would　divulge　it。　　This　is　the　rule；　and

the　slave　revolution　in　Hayti　was　not　an　exception　to　it；　but　a　case

occurring　under　peculiar　circumstances。　　The　gunpowder　plot　of

British　history；　though　not　connected　with　slaves；　was　more　in　point。

In　that　case；　only　about　twenty　were　admitted　to　the　secret；　and　yet

one　of　them；　in　his　anxiety　to　save　a　friend；　betrayed　the　plot　to

that　friend；　and；　by　consequence；　averted　the　calamity。　　Occasional

poisonings　from　the　kitchen；　and　open　or　stealthy　assassinations　in

the　field；　and　local　revolts；　extending　to　a　score　or　so；　will

continue　to　occur　as　the　natural　results　of　slavery；　but　no　general

insurrection　of　slaves；　as　I　think；　can　happen　in　this　country　for　a

long　time。　　Whoever　much　fears　or　much　hopes　for　such　an　event　will

be　alike　disappointed。



In　the　language　of　Mr。　Jefferson；　uttered　many　years　ago；　〃It　is

still　in　our　power　to　direct　the　process　of　emancipation　and

deportation　peaceably；　and　in　such　slow　degrees　as　that　the　evil　will

wear　off　insensibly；　and　their　places　be；　pari　passu；　filled　up　by

free　white　laborers。　　If；　on　the　contrary；　it　is　left　to　force　itself

on；　human　nature　must　shudder　at　the　prospect　held　up。〃



Mr。　Jefferson　did　not　mean　to　say；　nor　do　I；　that　the　power　of

emancipation　is　in　the　Federal　Government。　　He　spoke　of　Virginia；

and；　as　to　the　power　of　emancipation；　I　speak　of　the　slave　holding

States　only。　　The　Federal　Government；　however；　as　we　insist；　has　the

power　of　restraining　the　extension　of　the　institutionthe　power　to

insure　that　a　slave　insurrection　shall　never　occur　on　any　American

soil　which　is　now　free　from　slavery。



John　Brown's　effort　was　peculiar。　　It　was　not　a　slave　insurrection。

It　was　an　attempt　by　white　men　to　get　up　a　revolt　among　slaves；　in

which　the　slaves　refused　to　participate。　　In　fact；　it　was　so　absurd

that　the　slaves；　with　all　their　ignorance；　saw　plainly　enough　it

could　not　succeed。　　That　affair；　in　its　philosophy；　corresponds　with

the　many　attempts　related　in　history　at　the　assassination　of　kings

and　emperors。　　An　enthusiast　broods　over　the　oppression　of　a　people

till　he　fancies　himself　commissioned　by　Heaven　to　liberate　them。　　He

ventures　the　attempt；　which　ends　in　little　else　than　his　own

execution。　　Orsini's　attempt　on　Louis　Napoleon　and　John　Brown's

attempt　at　Harper's　Ferry　were；　in　their　philosophy；　precisely　the

same。　　The　eagerness　to　cast　blame　on　old　England　in　the　one　case；

and　on　New　England　in　the　other；　does　not　disprove　the　sameness　of

the　two　things。



And　how　much　would　it　avail　you；　if　you　could；　by　the　use　of　John

Brown；　Helper's　Book；　and　the　like；　break　up　the　Republican

organization？　Human　action　can　be　modified　to　some