the writings-3-第20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！



from　a　Southern　man。　　He　said　at　the　same　time　that　the　framers

of　our　government　did　not　have　the　knowledge　that　experience　has

taught　us；　that　experience　and　the　invention　of　the　cotton…gin

have　taught　us　that　the　perpetuation　of　slavery　is　a　necessity。

He　insisted；　therefore；　upon　its　being　changed　from　the　basis

upon　which　the　fathers　of　the　government　left　it　to　the　basis　of

its　perpetuation　and　nationalization。



I　insist　that　this　is　the　difference　between　Judge　Douglas　and

myself；that　Judge　Douglas　is　helping　that　change　along。　　I

insist　upon　this　government　being　placed　where　our　fathers

originally　placed　it。



I　remember　Judge　Douglas　once　said　that　he　saw　the　evidences　on

the　statute　books　of　Congress　of　a　policy　in　the　origin　of

government　to　divide　slavery　and　freedom　by　a　geographical　line；

that　he　saw　an　indisposition　to　maintain　that　policy；　and

therefore　he　set　about　studying　up　a　way　to　settle　the

institution　on　the　right　basis；the　basis　which　he　thought　it

ought　to　have　been　placed　upon　at　first；　and　in　that　speech　he

confesses　that　he　seeks　to　place　it；　not　upon　the　basis　that　the

fathers　placed　it　upon；　but　upon　one　gotten　up　on　〃original

principles。〃　　When　he　asks　me　why　we　cannot　get　along　with　it　in

the　attitude　where　our　fathers　placed　it；　he　had　better　clear　up

the　evidences　that　he　has　himself　changed　it　from　that　basis；

that　he　has　himself　been　chiefly　instrumental　in　changing　the

policy　of　the　fathers。　　Any　one　who　will　read　his　speech　of　the

22d　of　last　March　will　see　that　he　there　makes　an　open

confession；　showing　that　he　set　about　fixing　the　institution　upon

an　altogether　different　set　of　principles。　　I　think　I　have　fully

answered　him　when　he　asks　me　why　we　cannot　let　it　alone　upon　the

basis　where　our　fathers　left　it；　by　showing　that　he　has　himself

changed　the　whole　policy　of　the　government　in　that　regard。



Now；　fellow…citizens；　in　regard　to　this　matter　about　a　contract

that　was　made　between　Judge　Trumbull　and　myself；　and　all　that

long　portion　of　Judge　Douglas's　speech　on　this　subject；I　wish

simply　to　say　what　I　have　said　to　him　before；　that　he　cannot　know

whether　it　is　true　or　not；　and　I　do　know　that　there　is　not　a　word

of　truth　in　it。　　And　I　have　told　him　so　before。　　I　don't　want　any

harsh　language　indulged　in；　but　I　do　not　know　how　to　deal　with

this　persistent　insisting　on　a　story　that　I　know　to　be　utterly

without　truth。　　It　used　to　be　a　fashion　amongst　men　that　when　a

charge　was　made；　some　sort　of　proof　was　brought　forward　to

establish　it；　and　if　no　proof　was　found　to　exist；　the　charge　was

dropped。　　I　don't　know　how　to　meet　this　kind　of　an　argument。　　I

don't　want　to　have　a　fight　with　Judge　Douglas；　and　I　have　no　way

of　making　an　argument　up　into　the　consistency　of　a　corn…cob　and

stopping　his　mouth　with　it。　　All　I　can　do　isgood…humoredlyto

say　that；　from　the　beginning　to　the　end　of　all　that　story　about　a

bargain　between　Judge　Trumbull　and　myself；　there　is　not　a　word　of

truth　in　it。　　I　can　only　ask　him　to　show　some　sort　of　evidence　of

the　truth　of　his　story。　　He　brings　forward　here　and　reads　from

what　he　contends　is　a　speech　by　James　H。　　Matheny；　charging　such

a　bargain　between　Trumbull　and　myself。　　My　own　opinion　is　that

Matheny　did　do　some　such　immoral　thing　as　to　tell　a　story　that　he

knew　nothing　about。　　I　believe　he　did。　　I　contradicted　it

instantly；　and　it　has　been　contradicted　by　Judge　Trumbull；　while

nobody　has　produced　any　proof；　because　there　is　none。　　Now；

whether　the　speech　which　the　Judge　brings　forward　here　is　really

the　one　Matheny　made；　I　do　not　know；　and　I　hope　the　Judge　will

pardon　me　for　doubting　the　genuineness　of　this　document；　since

his　production　of　those　Springfield　resolutions　at　Ottawa。　　I　do

not　wish　to　dwell　at　any　great　length　upon　this　matter。　　I　can

say　nothing　when　a　long　story　like　this　is　told；　except　it　is　not

true；　and　demand　that　he　who　insists　upon　it　shall　produce　some

proof。　　That　is　all　any　man　can　do；　and　I　leave　it　in　that　way；

for　I　know　of　no　other　way　of　dealing　with　it。



＇In　an　argument　on　the　lines　of：　〃Yes；　you　did。　　No；　I　did

not。〃　　　It　bears　on　the　former　to　prove　his　point；　not　on　the

negative　to　〃prove〃　that　he　did　noteven　if　he　easily　can　do

so。＇



The　Judge　has　gone　over　a　long　account　of　the　old　Whig　and

Democratic　parties；　and　it　connects　itself　with　this　charge

against　Trumbull　and　myself。　　He　says　that　they　agreed　upon　a

compromise　in　regard　to　the　slavery　question　in　1850；　that　in　a

National　Democratic　Convention　resolutions　were　passed　to　abide

by　that　compromise　as　a　finality　upon　the　slavery　question。　　He

also　says　that　the　Whig　party　in　National　Convention　agreed　to

abide　by　and　regard　as　a　finality　the　Compromise　of　1850。　　I

understand　the　Judge　to　be　altogether　right　about　that；　I

understand　that　part　of　the　history　of　the　country　as　stated　by

him　to　be　correct　I　recollect　that　I；　as　a　member　of　that　party；

acquiesced　in　that　compromise。　　I　recollect　in　the　Presidential

election　which　followed；　when　we　had　General　Scott　up　for　the

presidency；　Judge　Douglas　was　around　berating　us　Whigs　as

Abolitionists；　precisely　as　he　does　to…day；not　a　bit　of

difference。　　I　have　often　heard　him。　　We　could　do　nothing　when

the　old　Whig　party　was　alive　that　was　not　Abolitionism；　but　it

has　got　an　extremely　good　name　since　it　has　passed　away。



＇It　almost　a　natural　law　that；　when　deadno　matter　how　bad　we

werewe　　are　automatically　beatified。＇



When　that　Compromise　was　made　it　did　not　repeal　the　old　Missouri

Compromise。　　It　left　a　region　of　United　States　territory　half　as

large　as　the　present　territory　of　the　United　States；　north　of　the

line　of　36　degrees　30　minutes；　in　which　slavery　was　prohibited　by

Act　of　Congress。　　This　Compromise　did　not　repeal　that　one。　　It

did　not　affect　or　propose　to　repeal　it。　　But　at　last　it　became

Judge　Douglas's　duty；　as　he　thought　（and　I　find　no　fault　with

him）；　as　Chairman　of　the　Committee　on　Territories；　to　bring　in　a

bill　for　the　organization　of　a　territorial　government；first　of

one；　then　of　two　Territories　north　of　that　line。　　When　he　did　so；

it　ended　in　his　inserting　a　provision　substantially　repealing　the

Missouri　Compromise。　　That　was　because　the　Compromise　of　1850　had

not　repealed　it。　　And　now　I　ask　why　he　could　not　have　let　that

Compromise　alone？　　We　were　quiet　from　the　agitation　of　the

slavery　question。　　We　were　making　no　fuss　about　it。　　All　had

acquiesced　in　the　Compromise　measures　of　1850。　　We　never　had　been

seriously　disturbed　by　any　Abolition　agitation　before　that

period。　　When　he　came　to　form　governments　for　the　Territories

north　of　the　line　of　36　degrees　30　minutes；　why　could　he　not　have

let　that　matter　stand　as　it　was　standing？　　Was　it　necessary　to

the　organization　of　a　Territory？　　Not　at　all。　　Iowa　lay　north　of

the　line；　and　had　been　organized　as　a　Territory　and　come　into　the

Union　as　a　State　without　disturbing　that　Compromise。　　There　was

no　sort　of　necessity　for　destroying　it　to　organize　these

Territories。　　But；　gentlemen；　it　would　take　up　all　my　time　to

meet　all　the　little　quibbling　arguments　of　Judge　Douglas　to　show

that　the　Missouri　Compromise　was　repealed　by　the　Compromise　of

1850。　　My　own　opinion　is；　that　a　careful　investigation　of　all　the

arguments　to　sustain　the　position　that　that　Compromise　was

virtually　repealed　by　the　Compromise　of　1850　would　show　that　they

are　the　merest　fallacies。　　I　have　the　report　that　Judge　Douglas

first　brought　into　Congress　at　the　time　of　the　introduction　of

the　Nebraska　Bill；　which　in　its　original　form　did　not　repeal　the

Missouri　Compromise；　and　he　there　expressly　stated　that　he　had

forborne　to　do　so　because　it　had　not　been　done　by　the　Compromise

of　1850。　　I　close　this　part　of　the　discussion　on　my　part　by

asking　him　the　question　again；　〃Why；　when　we　had　peace　under　the

Missouri　Compromise；　could　you　not　have　let　it　alone？〃



In　complaining　of　what　I　said　in　my　speech　at　Springfield；　in

which　he　says　I　accepted　my　nomination　for　the　senatorship

（where；　by　the　way；　he　is　at　fault；　for　if　he　will　examine　it；　he

will　find　no　acceptance　in　it）；　he　again　quotes　that　portion　in

which　I　said　that　〃a　house　divided　against　itself　cannot　stand。〃

Let　me　say　a　word　in　regard　to　that　matter。



He　tries　to　persuade　us　that　there　must　be　a　variety　in　the

different　institutions　of　the　States　of　the　Union；　that　that

variety　necessarily　proceeds　from　the　variety　of　soil；　climate；

of　the　face　of　the　country；　and　the　difference　in　the　natural

features　of　the　States。　　I　agree　to　all　that。　　Have　these　very

matters　ever　produced　any　difficulty　amongst　us？　　Not　at　all。

Have　we　ever　had　any　quarrel　over　the　fact　that　they　have　laws　in

Louisiana　designed　to　regulate　the　commerce　that　springs　from　the

production　of　sugar？　　Or　because　we　have　a　different　class

relative　to　the　production　of　flour　in　this　State？　　Have　they

produced　any　differences？　　Not　at　all。　　They　are　the　very　cements

of　this　Union。　　They　don't　make　the　house　a　house　divided　against

itself。　　They　are　the　props　that　hold　up　the　house　and　sustain

the　Union。



But　has　it　been　so　with　this　element　of　slavery？　　Have　we　not

always　had　quarrels　and　difficulties　over　it？　　And　when　will　we

cease　to　have　quarrels　over　it？　　Like　causes　produce　like

effects。　　It　is　worth　while　to　observe　that　we　have　generally　had

comparative　peace　upon　the　slavery　question；　and　that　there　has

been　no　cause　for　alarm　until　it　was　excited　by　the　effort　to

spread　it　into　new　territory。　　Whenever　it　has　been　limited　to

its　present　bounds；　and　there　has　been　no　effort　to　spread　it；

there　has　been　peace。　　All　the　trouble　and　convulsion　has

proceeded　from　efforts　to　spread　it　over　more　territory。　　It　was

thus　at　the　date　of　the　Missouri　Compromise。　　It　was　so　again

with　the　annexation　of　Texas；　so　with　the　territory　acquired　by

the　Mexican　war；　and　it　is　so　now。　　Whenever　there　has　been　an

effort　to　spread　it；　there　has　been　agitation　and　resistance。

Now；　I　appeal　to　this　audience　（very　few　of　whom　are　my　political

friends）；　as　national　men；　whether　we　have　reason　to　expect　that

the　agitation　in　regard　to　this　subject　will　cease　while　the

causes　that　tend　to　reproduce　agitation　are　actively　at　work？

Will　not　the　same　cause　that　produced　agitation　in　1820；　when　the

Missouri　Compromise　was　formed；　that　which　produced　the　agitation

upon　the　annexation　of　Texas；　and　at　other　times；　work　out　the

same　results　always？　　Do　you　think　that　the　nature　of　man　will　be

changed；　that　the　same　causes　that　produced　agitation　at　one　time

will　not　have　the　same　effect　at　another？



This　has　been　the　result　so　far　as　my　observation　of　the　slavery

question　and　my　reading　in　history　extends。　　What　right　have　we

then　to　hope　that　the　trouble　will　cease；that　the　agitation

will　come　to　an　end；until　it　shall　either　be　placed　back　where

it　originally　stood；　and　where　th