the writings-4-第7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！



stating　our　position　all　the　way　through　the　questions　before　the

country。　　We　are　now　far　advanced　in　this　canvass。　　Judge　Douglas　and

I　have　made　perhaps　forty　speeches　apiece；　and　we　have　now　for　the

fifth　time　met　face　to　face　in　debate；　and　up　to　this　day　I　have　not

found　either　Judge　Douglas　or　any　friend　of　his　taking　hold　of　the

Republican　platform；　or　laying　his　finger　upon　anything　in　it　that　is

wrong。　　I　ask　you　all　to　recollect　that。　　Judge　Douglas　turns　away

from　the　platform　of　principles　to　the　fact　that　he　can　find　people

somewhere　who　will　not　allow　us　to　announce　those　principles。　　If　he

had　great　confidence　that　our　principles　were　wrong；　he　would　take

hold　of　them　and　demonstrate　them　to　be　wrong。　　But　he　does　not　do

so。　　The　only　evidence　he　has　of　their　being　wrong　is　in　the　fact

that　there　are　people　who　won't　allow　us　to　preach　them。　　I　ask

again；　is　that　the　way　to　test　the　soundness　of　a　doctrine？



I　ask　his　attention　also　to　the　fact　that　by　the　rule　of　nationality

he　is　himself　fast　becoming　sectional。　　I　ask　his　attention　to　the

fact　that　his　speeches　would　not　go　as　current　now　south　of　the　Ohio

River　as　they　have　formerly　gone　there　　I　ask　his　attention　to　the

fact　that　he　felicitates　himself　to…day　that　all　the　Democrats　of　the

free　States　are　agreeing　with　him；　while　he　omits　to　tell　us　that　the

Democrats　of　any　slave　State　agree　with　him。　　If　he　has　not　thought

of　this；　I　commend　to　his　consideration　the　evidence　in　his　own

declaration；　on　this　day；　of　his　becoming　sectional　too。　　I　see　it

rapidly　approaching。　　Whatever　may　be　the　result　of　this　ephemeral

contest　between　Judge　Douglas　and　myself；　I　see　the　day　rapidly

approaching　when　his　pill　of　sectionalism；　which　he　has　been

thrusting　down　the　throats　of　Republicans　for　years　past；　will　be

crowded　down　his　own　throat。



Now；　in　regard　to　what　Judge　Douglas　said　（in　the　beginning　of　his

speech）　about　the　Compromise　of　1850　containing　the　principles　of　the

Nebraska　Bill；　although　I　have　often　presented　my　views　upon　that

subject；　yet　as　I　have　not　done　so　in　this　canvass；　I　will；　if　you

please；　detain　you　a　little　with　them。　　I　have　always　maintained；　so

far　as　I　was　able；　that　there　was　nothing　of　the　principle　of　the

Nebraska　Bill　in　the　Compromise　of　1850　at　all；nothing　whatever。

Where　can　you　find　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska　Bill　in　that

Compromise？　　If　anywhere；　in　the　two　pieces　of　the　Compromise

organizing　the　Territories　of　New　Mexico　and　Utah。　　It　was　expressly

provided　in　these　two　acts　that　when　they　came　to　be　admitted　into

the　Union　they　should　be　admitted　with　or　without　slavery；　as　they

should　choose；　by　their　own　constitutions。　　Nothing　was　said　in

either　of　those　acts　as　to　what　was　to　be　done　in　relation　to　slavery

during　the　Territorial　existence　of　those　Territories；　while　Henry

Clay　constantly　made　the　declaration　（Judge　Douglas　recognizing　him

as　a　leader）　that；　in　his　opinion；　the　old　Mexican　laws　would　control

that　question　during　the　Territorial　existence；　and　that　these　old

Mexican　laws　excluded　slavery。　　How　can　that　be　used　as　a　principle

for　declaring　that　during　the　Territorial　existence　as　well　as　at　the

time　of　framing　the　constitution　the　people；　if　you　please；　might

have　slaves　if　they　wanted　them？　　I　am　not　discussing　the　question

whether　it　is　right　or　wrong；　but　how　are　the　New　Mexican　and　Utah

laws　patterns　for　the　Nebraska　Bill？　　I　maintain　that　the

organization　of　Utah　and　New　Mexico　did　not　establish　a　general

principle　at　all。　　It　had　no　feature　of　establishing　a　general

principle。　　The　acts　to　which　I　have　referred　were　a　part　of　a

general　system　of　Compromises。　　They　did　not　lay　down　what　was

proposed　as　a　regular　policy　for　the　Territories；　only　an　agreement

in　this　particular　case　to　do　in　that　way；　because　other　things　were

done　that　were　to　be　a　compensation　for　it。　　They　were　allowed　to

come　in　in　that　shape；　because　in　another　way　it　was　paid　for；

considering　that　as　a　part　of　that　system　of　measures　called　the

Compromise　of　1850；　which　finally　included　half…a…dozen　acts。　　It

included　the　admission　of　California　as　a　free　State；　which　was　kept

out　of　the　Union　for　half　a　year　because　it　had　formed　a　free

constitution。　　It　included　the　settlement　of　the　boundary　of　Texas；

which　had　been　undefined　before；　which　was　in　itself　a　slavery

question；　for　if　you　pushed　the　line　farther　west；　you　made　Texas

larger；　and　made　more　slave　territory；　while；　if　you　drew　the　line

toward　the　east；　you　narrowed　the　boundary　and　diminished　the　domain

of　slavery；　and　by　so　much　increased　free　territory。　　It　included　the

abolition　of　the　slave　trade　in　the　District　of　Columbia。　　It

included　the　passage　of　a　new　Fugitive　Slave　law。　　All　these　things

were　put　together；　and；　though　passed　in　separate　acts；　were

nevertheless；　in　legislation　（as　the　speeches　at　the　time　will　show）；

made　to　depend　upon　each　other。　　Each　got　votes　with　the

understanding　that　the　other　measures　were　to　pass；　and　by　this

system　of　compromise；　in　that　series　of　measures；　those　two　bills

the　New　Mexico　and　Utah　billswere　passed：　and　I　say　for　that　reason

they　could　not　be　taken　as　models；　framed　upon　their　own　intrinsic

principle；　for　all　future　Territories。　　And　I　have　the　evidence　of

this　in　the　fact　that　Judge　Douglas；　a　year　afterward；　or　more　than　a

year　afterward；　perhaps；　when　he　first　introduced　bills　for　the

purpose　of　framing　new　Territories；　did　not　attempt　to　follow　these

bills　of　New　Mexico　and　Utah；　and　even　when　he　introduced　this

Nebraska　Bill；　I　think　you　will　discover　that　he　did　not　exactly

follow　them。　　But　I　do　not　wish　to　dwell　at　great　length　upon　this

branch　of　the　discussion。　　My　own　opinion　is；　that　a　thorough

investigation　will　show　most　plainly　that　the　New　Mexico　and　Utah

bills　were　part　of　a　system　of　compromise；　and　not　designed　as

patterns　for　future　Territorial　legislation；　and　that　this　Nebraska

Bill　did　not　follow　them　as　a　pattern　at　all。



The　Judge　tells；　in　proceeding；　that　he　is　opposed　to　making　any

odious　distinctions　between　free　and　slave　States。　　I　am　altogether

unaware　that　the　Republicans　are　in　favor　of　making　any　odious

distinctions　between　the　free　and　slave　States。　　But　there　is　still　a

difference；　I　think；　between　Judge　Douglas　and　the　Republicans　in

this。　　I　suppose　that　the　real　difference　between　Judge　Douglas　and

his　friends；　and　the　Republicans　on　the　contrary；　is；　that　the　Judge

is　not　in　favor　of　making　any　difference　between　slavery　and　liberty；

that　he　is　in　favor　of　eradicating；　of　pressing　out　of　view；　the

questions　of　preference　in　this　country　for　free　or　slave

institutions；　and　consequently　every　sentiment　he　utters　discards　the

idea　that　there　is　any　wrong　in　slavery。　　Everything　that　emanates

from　him　or　his　coadjutors　in　their　course　of　policy　carefully

excludes　the　thought　that　there　is　anything　wrong　in　slavery。　　All

their　arguments；　if　you　will　consider　them；　will　be　seen　to　exclude

the　thought　that　there　is　anything　whatever　wrong　in　slavery。　　If　you

will　take　the　Judge's　speeches；　and　select　the　short　and　pointed

sentences　expressed　by　him；as　his　declaration　that　he　〃don't　care

whether　slavery　is　voted　up　or　down；〃you　will　see　at　once　that　this

is　perfectly　logical；　if　you　do　not　admit　that　slavery　is　wrong。　　If

you　do　admit　that　it　is　wrong；　Judge　Douglas　cannot　logically　say　he

don't　care　whether　a　wrong　is　voted　up　or　voted　down。　　Judge　Douglas

declares　that　if　any　community　wants　slavery　they　have　a　right　to

have　it。　　He　can　say　that　logically；　if　he　says　that　there　is　no

wrong　in　slavery；　but　if　you　admit　that　there　is　a　wrong　in　it；　he

cannot　logically　say　that　anybody　has　a　right　to　do　wrong。　　He

insists　that　upon　the　score　of　equality　the　owners　of　slaves　and

owners　of　propertyof　horses　and　every　other　sort　of　property

should　be　alike；　and　hold　them　alike　in　a　new　Territory。　　That　is

perfectly　logical　if　the　two　species　of　property　are　alike　and　are

equally　founded　in　right。　　But　if　you　admit　that　one　of　them　is

wrong；　you　cannot　institute　any　equality　between　right　and　wrong。

And　from　this　difference　of　sentiment；the　belief　on　the　part　of　one

that　the　institution　is　wrong；　and　a　policy　springing　from　that

belief　which　looks　to　the　arrest　of　the　enlargement　of　that　wrong；

and　this　other　sentiment；　that　it　is　no　wrong；　and　a　policy　sprung

from　that　sentiment；　which　will　tolerate　no　idea　of　preventing　the

wrong　from　growing　larger；　and　looks　to　there　never　being　an　end　to

it　through　all　the　existence　of　things；arises　the　real　difference

between　Judge　Douglas　and　his　friends　on　the　one　hand　and　the

Republicans　on　the　other。　　Now；　I　confess　myself　as　belonging　to　that

class　in　the　country　who　contemplate　slavery　as　a　moral；　social；　and

political　evil；　having　due　regard　for　its　actual　existence　amongst　us

and　the　difficulties　of　getting　rid　of　it　in　any　satisfactory　way；

and　to　all　the　constitutional　obligations　which　have　been　thrown

about　it；　but；　nevertheless；　desire　a　policy　that　looks　to　the

prevention　of　it　as　a　wrong；　and　looks　hopefully　to　the　time　when　as

a　wrong　it　may　come　to　an　end。



Judge　Douglas　has　again；　for；　I　believe；　the　fifth　time；　if　not　the

seventh；　in　my　presence；　reiterated　his　charge　of　a　conspiracy　or

combination　between　the　National　Democrats　and　Republicans。　　What

evidence　Judge　Douglas　has　upon　this　subject　I　know　not；　inasmuch　as

he　never　favors　us　with　any。　　I　have　said　upon　a　former　occasion；　and

I　do　not　choose　to　suppress　it　now；　that　I　have　no　objection　to　the

division　in　the　Judge's　party。　　He　got　it　up　himself。　　It　was　all　his

and　their　work。　　He　had；　I　think；　a　great　deal　more　to　do　with　the

steps　that　led　to　the　Lecompton　Constitution　than　Mr。　Buchanan　had；

though　at　last；　when　they　reached　it；　they　quarreled　over　it；　and

their　friends　divided　upon　it。　　I　am　very　free　to　confess　to　Judge

Douglas　that　I　have　no　objection　to　the　division；　but　I　defy　the

Judge　to　show　any　evidence　that　I　have　in　any　way　promoted　that

division；　unless　he　insists　on　being　a　witness　himself　in　merely

saying　so。　　I　can　give　all　fair　friends　of　Judge　Douglas　here　to

understand　exactly　the　view　that　Republicans　take　in　regard　to　that

division。　　Don't　you　remember　how　two　years　ago　the　opponents　of　the

Democratic　party　were　divided　between　Fremont　and　Fillmore？　　I　guess

you　do。　　Any　Democrat　who　remembers　that　division　will　remember　also

that　he　was　at　the　time　very　glad　of　it；　and　then　he　will　be　able　to

see　all　there　is　between　the　National　Democrats　and　the　Republicans。

What　we　now　think　of　the　two　divisions　of　Democrats；　you　then　thought

of　the　Fremont　and　Fillmore　divisions。　　That　is　all　there　is　of　it。



But　if　the　Judge　continues　to　put　forward　the　declaration　that　there

is　an　unholy　and　unnatural　alliance　between　the　Republicans　and　the

National　Democrats；　I　now　want　t