the writings-2-第29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！



State。　　This　was　far　the　best　part　of　all　they　had　struggled　for

by　the　Wilmot　Proviso。　　They　also　got　the　area　of　slavery

somewhat　narrowed　in　the　settlement　of　the　boundary　of　Texas。

Also　they　got　the　slave　trade　abolished　in　the　District　of

Columbia。



For　all　these　desirable　objects　the　North　could　afford　to　yield

something；　and　they　did　yield　to　the　South　the　Utah　and　New

Mexico　provision。　　I　do　not　mean　that　the　whole　North；　or　even　a

majority；　yielded；　when　the　law　passed；　but　enough　yieldedwhen

added　to　the　vote　of　the　South；　to　carry　the　measure。　　Nor　can　it

be　pretended　that　the　principle　of　this　arrangement　requires　us

to　permit　the　same　provision　to　be　applied　to　Nebraska；　without

any　equivalent　at　all。　　Give　us　another　free　State；　press　the

boundary　of　Texas　still　farther　back；　give　us　another　step　toward

the　destruction　of　slavery　in　the　District；　and　you　present　us　a

similar　case。　　But　ask　us　not　to　repeat；　for　nothing；　what　you

paid　for　in　the　first　instance。　　If　you　wish　the　thing　again；　pay

again。　　That　is　the　principle　of　the　compromises　of　'50；　if；

indeed；　they　had　any　principles　beyond　their　specific　termsit

was　the　system　of　equivalents。



Again；　if　Congress；　at　that　time；　intended　that　all　future

Territories　should；　when　admitted　as　States；　come　in　with　or

without　slavery　at　their　own　option；　why　did　it　not　say　so？

With　such　a　universal　provision；　all　know　the　bills　could　not

have　passed。　　Did　they；　thencould　they…establish　a　principle

contrary　to　their　own　intention？　　Still　further；　if　they　intended

to　establish　the　principle　that；　whenever　Congress　had　control；

it　should　be　left　to　the　people　to　do　as　they　thought　fit　with

slavery；　why　did　they　not　authorize　the　people　of　the　District　of

Columbia；　at　their　option；　to　abolish　slavery　within　their

limits？



I　personally　know　that　this　has　not　been　left　undone　because　it

was　unthought　of。　　It　was　frequently　spoken　of　by　members　of

Congress；　and　by　citizens　of　Washington；　six　years　ago；　and　I

heard　no　one　express　a　doubt　that　a　system　of　gradual

emancipation；　with　compensation　to　owners；　would　meet　the

approbation　of　a　large　majority　of　the　white　people　of　the

District。　　But　without　the　action　of　Congress　they　could　say

nothing；　and　Congress　said　〃No。〃　In　the　measures　of　1850；

Congress　had　the　subject　of　slavery　in　the　District　expressly　on

hand。　　If　they　were　then　establishing　the　principle　of　allowing

the　people　to　do　as　they　please　with　slavery；　why　did　they　not

apply　the　principle　to　that　people？



Again　it　is　claimed　that　by　the　resolutions　of　the　Illinois

Legislature；　passed　in　1851；　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri

Compromise　was　demanded。　　This　I　deny　also。　　Whatever　may　be

worked　out　by　a　criticism　of　the　language　of　those　resolutions；

the　people　have　never　understood　them　as　being　any　more　than　an

indorsement　of　the　compromises　of　1850；　and　a　release　of　our

senators　from　voting　for　the　Wilmot　Proviso。　　The　whole　people

are　living　witnesses　that　this　only　was　their　view。　　Finally；　it

is　asked；　〃If　we　did　not　mean　to　apply　the　Utah　and　New　Mexico

provision　to　all　future　territories；　what　did　we　mean　when　we；　in

1852；　indorsed　the　compromises　of　1850？〃



For　myself　I　can　answer　this　question　most　easily。　　I　meant　not

to　ask　a　repeal　or　modification　of　the　Fugitive　Slave　law。　　I

meant　not　to　ask　for　the　abolition　of　slavery　in　the　District　of

Columbia。　　I　meant　not　to　resist　the　admission　of　Utah　and　New

Mexico；　even　should　they　ask　to　come　in　as　slave　States。　　I　meant

nothing　about　additional　Territories；　because；　as　I　understood；

we　then　had　no　Territory　whose　character　as　to　slavery　was　not

already　settled。　　As　to　Nebraska；　I　regarded　its　character　as

being　fixed　by　the　Missouri　Compromise　for　thirty　yearsas

unalterably　fixed　as　that　of　my　own　home　in　Illinois。　　As　to　new

acquisitions；　I　said；　〃Sufficient　unto　the　day　is　the　evil

thereof。〃　When　we　make　new　acquisitions；　we　will；　as　heretofore；

try　to　manage　them　somehow。　　That　is　my　answer；　that　is　what　I

meant　and　said；　and　I　appeal　to　the　people　to　say　each　for

himself　whether　that　is　not　also　the　universal　meaning　of　the

free　States。



And　now；　in　turn；　let　me　ask　a　few　questions。　　If；　by　any　or　all

these　matters；　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri　Compromise　was

commanded；　why　was　not　the　command　sooner　obeyed？　　Why　was　the

repeal　omitted　in　the　Nebraska　Bill　of　1853？　　Why　was　it　omitted

in　the　original　bill　of　1854？　　Why　in　the　accompanying　report　was

such　a　repeal　characterized　as　a　departure　from　the　course

pursued　in　1850　and　its　continued　omission　recommended？



I　am　aware　Judge　Douglas　now　argues　that　the　subsequent　express

repeal　is　no　substantial　alteration　of　the　bill。　　This　argument

seems　wonderful　to　me。　　It　is　as　if　one　should　argue　that　white

and　black　are　not　different。　　He　admits；　however；　that　there　is　a

literal　change　in　the　bill；　and　that　he　made　the　change　in

deference　to　other　senators　who　would　not　support　the　bill

without。　　This　proves　that　those　other　senators　thought　the

change　a　substantial　one；　and　that　the　Judge　thought　their

opinions　worth　deferring　to。　　His　own　opinions；　therefore；　seem

not　to　rest　on　a　very　firm　basis；　even　in　his　own　mind；　and　I

suppose　the　world　believes；　and　will　continue　to　believe；　that

precisely　on　the　substance　of　that　change　this　whole　agitation

has　arisen。



I　conclude；　then；　that　the　public　never　demanded　the　repeal　of

the　Missouri　Compromise



I　now　come　to　consider　whether　the　appeal　with　its　avowed

principles；　is　intrinsically　right。　　I　insist　that　it　is　not。

Take　the　particular　case。　　A　controversy　had　arisen　between　the

advocates　and　opponents　of　slavery；　in　relation　to　its

establishment　within　the　country　we　had　purchased　of　France。　　The

southern；　and　then　best；　part　of　the　purchase　was　already　in　as　a

slave　State。　　The　controversy　was　settled　by　also　letting

Missouri　in　as　a　slave　State；　but　with　the　agreement　that　within

all　the　remaining　part　of　the　purchase；　north　of　a　certain　line；

there　should　never　be　slavery。　　As　to　what　was　to　be　done　with

the　remaining　part；　south　of　the　line；　nothing　was　said；　but

perhaps　the　fair　implication　was；　it　should　come　in　with　slavery

if　it　should　so　choose。　　The　southern　part；　except　a　portion

heretofore　mentioned；　afterward　did　come　in　with　slavery；　as　the

State　of　Arkansas。　　All　these　many　years；　since　1820；　the

northern　part　had　remained　a　wilderness。　　At　length　settlements

began　in　it　also。　　In　due　course　Iowa　came　in　as　a　free　State；

and　Minnesota　was　given　a　territorial　government；　without

removing　the　slavery　restriction。　　Finally；　the　sole　remaining

part　north　of　the　lineKansas　and　Nebraskawas　to　be　organized；

and　it　is　proposed；　and　carried；　to　blot　out　the　old　dividing

line　of　thirty…four　years'　standing；　and　to　open　the　whole　of

that　country　to　the　introduction　of　slavery。　　Now　this；　to　my

mind；　is　manifestly　unjust。　　After　an　angry　and　dangerous

controversy；　the　parties　made　friends　by　dividing　the　bone　of

contention。　　The　one　party　first　appropriates　her　own　share；

beyond　all　power　to　be　disturbed　in　the　possession　of　it；　and

then　seizes　the　share　of　the　other　party。　　It　is　as　if　two

starving　men　had　divided　their　only　loaf；　the　one　had　hastily

swallowed　his　half；　and　then　grabbed　the　other's　half　just　as　he

was　putting　it　to　his　mouth。



Let　me　here　drop　the　main　argument；　to　notice　what　I　consider

rather　an　inferior　matter。　　It　is　argued　that　slavery　will　not　go

to　Kansas　and　Nebraska；　in　any　event。　　This　is　a　palliation；　a

lullaby。　　I　have　some　hope　that　it　will　not；　but　let　us　not　be

too　confident。　　As　to　climate；　a　glance　at　the　map　shows　that

there　are　five　slave　StatesDelaware；　Maryland；　Virginia；

Kentucky；　and　Missouri；　and　also　the　District　of　Columbia；　all

north　of　the　Missouri　Compromise　line。　　The　census　returns　of

1850　show　that　within　these　there　are　eight　hundred　and　sixty…

seven　thousand　two　hundred　and　seventy…six　slaves；　being　more

than　one　fourth　of　all　the　slaves　in　the　nation。



It　is　not　climate；　then；　that　will　keep　slavery　out　of　these

Territories。　　Is　there　anything　in　the　peculiar　nature　of　the

country？　　Missouri　adjoins　these　Territories　by　her　entire

western　boundary；　and　slavery　is　already　within　every　one　of　her

western　counties。　　I　have　even　heard　it　said　that　there　are　more

slaves　in　proportion　to　whites　in　the　northwestern　county　of

Missouri　than　within　any　other　county　in　the　State。　　Slavery

pressed　entirely　up　to　the　old　western　boundary　of　the　State；　and

when　rather　recently　a　part　of　that　boundary　at　the　northwest　was

moved　out　a　little　farther　west；　slavery　followed　on　quite　up　to

the　new　line。　　Now；　when　the　restriction　is　removed；　what　is　to

prevent　it　from　going　still　farther？　　Climate　will　not；　no

peculiarity　of　the　country　will；　nothing　in　nature　will。　　Will

the　disposition　of　the　people　prevent　it？　　Those　nearest　the

scene　are　all　in　favor　of　the　extension。　　The　Yankees　who　are

opposed　to　it　may　be　most　flumerous；　but；　in　military　phrase；　the

battlefield　is　too　far　from　their　base　of　operations。



But　it　is　said　there　now　is　no　law　in　Nebraska　on　the　subject　of

slavery；　and　that；　in　such　case；　taking　a　slave　there　operates

his　freedom。　　That　is　good　book…law；　but　it　is　not　the　rule　of

actual　practice。　　Wherever　slavery　is　it　has　been　first

introduced　without　law。　　The　oldest　laws　we　find　concerning　it

are　not　laws　introducing　it；　but　regulating　it　as　an　already

existing　thing。　　A　white　man　takes　his　slave　to　Nebraska　now。

Who　will　inform　the　negro　that　he　is　free？　　Who　will　take　him

before　court　to　test　the　question　of　his　freedom？　　In　ignorance

of　his　legal　emancipation　he　is　kept　chopping；　splitting；　and

plowing。　　Others　are　brought；　and　move　on　in　the　same　track。　　At

last；　if　ever　the　time　for　voting　comes　on　the　question　of

slavery　the　institution　already；　in　fact；　exists　in　the　country；

and　cannot　well　be　removed。　　The　fact　of　its　presence；　and　the

difficulty　of　its　removal；　will　carry　the　vote　in　its　favor。

Keep　it　out　until　a　vote　is　taken；　and　a　vote　in　favor　of　it

cannot　be　got　in　any　population　of　forty　thousand　on　earth；　who

have　been　drawn　together　by　the　ordinary　motives　of　emigration

and　settlement。　　To　get　slaves　into　the　Territory　simultaneously

with　the　whites　in　the　incipient　stages　of　settlement　is　the

precise　stake　played　for　and　won　in　this　Nebraska　measure。



The　question　is　asked　us：　〃If　slaves　will　go　in　notwithstanding

the　general　principle　of　law　liberates　them；　why　would　they　not

equally　go　in　against　positive　statute　lawgo　in；　even　if　the

Missouri　restriction　were　maintained！〃　I　answer；　because　it　takes

a　much　bolder　man　to　venture　in　with　his　property　in　the　latter

case　than　in　the　former；　because　the　positive　Congressional

enactment　is　known　to　and　respected　by　all；　or　nearly　all；

wherea