the writings-5-第24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！


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　up　in　that

statement。　　〃In　the　struggle　between　the　white　man　and　the　negro〃

assumes　that　there　is　a　struggle；　in　which　either　the　white　man　must

enslave　the　negro　or　the　negro　must　enslave　the　white。　　There　is　no

such　struggle！　It　is　merely　the　ingenious　falsehood　to　degrade　and

brutalize　the　negro。　　Let　each　let　the　other　alone；　and　there　is　no

struggle　about　it。　　If　it　was　like　two　wrecked　seamen　on　a　narrow

plank；　when　each　must　push　the　other　off　or　drown　himself；　I　would

push　the　negro　off　or　a　white　man　either；　but　it　is　not；　the　plank　is

large　enough　for　both。　　This　good　earth　is　plenty　broad　enough　for

white　man　and　negro　both；　and　there　is　no　need　of　either　pushing　the

other　off。



So　that　saying；　〃In　the　struggle　between　the　negro　and　the

crocodile；〃　etc。；　is　made　up　from　the　idea　that　down　where　the

crocodile　inhabits；　a　white　man　can't　labor；　it　must　be　nothing　else

but　crocodile　or　negro；　if　the　negro　does　not　the　crocodile　must

possess　the　earth；　in　that　case　he　declares　for　the　negro。　　The

meaning　of　the　whole　is　just　this：　As　a　white　man　is　to　a　negro；　so

is　a　negro　to　a　crocodile；　and　as　the　negro　may　rightfully　treat　the

crocodile；　so　may　the　white　man　rightfully　treat　the　negro。　　　This

very　dear　phrase　coined　by　its　author；　and　so　dear　that　he

deliberately　repeats　it　in　many　speeches；　has　a　tendency　to　still

further　brutalize　the　negro；　and　to　bring　public　opinion　to　the　point

of　utter　indifference　whether　men　so　brutalized　are　enslaved　or　not。

When　that　time　shall　come；　if　ever；　I　think　that　policy　to　which　I

refer　may　prevail。　　But　I　hope　the　good　freemen　of　this　country　will

never　allow　it　to　come；　and　until　then　the　policy　can　never　be

maintained。



Now　consider　the　effect　of　this　policy。　　We　in　the　States　are　not　to

care　whether　freedom　or　slavery　gets　the　better；　but　the　people　in

the　Territories　may　care。　　They　are　to　decide；　and　they　may　think

what　they　please；　it　is　a　matter　of　dollars　and　cents！　But　are　not

the　people　of　the　Territories　detailed　from　the　States？　If　this

feeling　of　indifference　this　absence　of　moral　sense　about　the

question　prevails　in　the　States；　will　it　not　be　carried　into　the

Territories？　Will　not　every　man　say；　〃I　don't　care；　it　is　nothing　to

me〃？　If　any　one　comes　that　wants　slavery；　must　they　not　say；　〃I　don't

care　whether　freedom　or　slavery　be　voted　up　or　voted　down〃？　It

results　at　last　in　nationalizing　the　institution　of　slavery。　　Even　if

fairly　carried　out；　that　policy　is　just　as　certain　to　nationalize

slavery　as　the　doctrine　of　Jeff　Davis　himself。　　These　are　only　two

roads　to　the　same　goal；　and　〃popular　sovereignty〃　is　just　as　sure　and

almost　as　short　as　the　other。



What　we　want；　and　all　we　want；　is　to　have　with　us　the　men　who　think

slavery　wrong。　　But　those　who　say　they　hate　slavery；　and　are　opposed

to　it；　but　yet　act　with　the　Democratic　partywhere　are　they？　Let　us

apply　a　few　tests。　　You　say　that　you　think　slavery　is　wrong；　but　you

denounce　all　attempts　to　restrain　it。　　Is　there　anything　else　that

you　think　wrong　that　you　are　not　willing　to　deal　with　as　wrong？　Why

are　you　so　careful；　so　tender；　of　this　one　wrong　and　no　other？　You

will　not　let　us　do　a　single　thing　as　if　it　was　wrong；　there　is　no

place　where　you　will　even　allow　it　to　be　called　wrong！　We　must　not

call　it　wrong　in　the　free　States；　because　it　is　not　there；　and　we

must　not　call　it　wrong　in　the　slave　States；　because　it　is　there；　we

must　not　call　it　wrong　in　politics　because　that　is　bringing　morality

into　politics；　and　we　must　not　call　it　wrong　in　the　pulpit　because

that　is　bringing　politics　into　religion；　we　must　not　bring　it　into

the　Tract　Society　or　the　other　societies；　because　those　are　such

unsuitable　placesand　there　is　no　single　place；　according　to　you；

where　this　wrong　thing　can　properly　be　called　wrong！



Perhaps　you　will　plead　that　if　the　people　of　the　slave　States　sho