the writings-2-第33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！



passing　in　the　General　Government；　five　or　six　of　the　original

slave　States　had　adopted　systems　of　gradual　emancipation；　by

which　the　institution　was　rapidly　becoming　extinct　within　their

limits。　　Thus　we　see　that　the　plain；　unmistakable　spirit　of　that

age　toward　slavery　was　hostility　to　the　principle　and　toleration

only　by　necessity。



But　now　it　is　to　be　transformed　into　a　〃sacred　right。〃　Nebraska

brings　it　forth；　places　it　on　the　highroad　to　extension　and

perpetuity；　and　with　a　pat　on　its　back　says　to　it；　〃Go；　and　God

speed　you。〃　Henceforth　it　is　to　be　the　chief　jewel　of　the　nation

the　very　figure…head　of　the　ship　of　state。　　Little　by　little；　but

steadily　as　man's　march　to　the　grave；　we　have　been　giving　up　the

old　for　the　new　faith。　　Near　eighty　years　ago　we　began　by

declaring　that　all　men　are　created　equal；　but　now　from　that

beginning　we　have　run　down　to　the　other　declaration；　that　for

some　men　to　enslave　others　is　a　〃sacred　right　of　self…

government。〃　These　principles　cannot　stand　together。　　They　are　as

opposite　as　God　and　Mammon；　and　who　ever　holds　to　the　one　must

despise　the　other。　　When　Pettit；　in　connection　with　his　support

of　the　Nebraska　Bill；　called　the　Declaration　of　Independence　〃a

self…evident　lie；〃　he　only　did　what　consistency　and　candor

require　all　other　Nebraska　men　to　do。　　Of　the　forty…odd　Nebraska

senators　who　sat　present　and　heard　him；　no　one　rebuked　him。　　Nor

am　I　apprised　that　any　Nebraska　newspaper；　or　any　Nebraska

orator；　in　the　whole　nation　has　ever　yet　rebuked　him。　　If　this

had　been　said　among　Marion's　men；　Southerners　though　they　were；

what　would　have　become　of　the　man　who　said　it？　　If　this　had　been

said　to　the　men　who　captured　Andre；　the　man　who　said　it　would

probably　have　been　hung　sooner　than　Andre　was。　　If　it　had　been

said　in　old　Independence　Hall　seventy…eight　years　ago；　the　very

doorkeeper　would　have　throttled　the　man　and　thrust　him　into　the

street。　　Let　no　one　be　deceived。　　The　spirit　of　seventy…six　and

the　spirit　of　Nebraska　are　utter　antagonisms；　and　the　former　is

being　rapidly　displaced　by　the　latter。



Fellow…countrymen；　Americans；　South　as　well　as　North；　shall　we

make　no　effort　to　arrest　this？　　Already　the　liberal　party

throughout　the　world　express　the　apprehension　that　〃the　one

retrograde　institution　in　America　is　undermining　the　principles

of　progress；　and　fatally　violating　the　noblest　political　system

the　world　ever　saw。〃　This　is　not　the　taunt　of　enemies；　but　the

warning　of　friends。　　Is　it　quite　safe　to　disregard　itto　despise

it？　　Is　there　no　danger　to　liberty　itself　in　discarding　the

earliest　practice　and　first　precept　of　our　ancient　faith？　　In　our

greedy　chase　to　make　profit　of　the　negro；　let　us　beware　lest　we

〃cancel　and　tear　in　pieces〃　even　the　white　man's　charter　of

freedom。



Our　republican　robe　is　soiled　and　trailed　in　the　dust。　　Let　us

repurify　it。　　Let　us　turn　and　wash　it　white　in　the　spirit；　if　not

the　blood；　of　the　Revolution。　　Let　us　turn　slavery　from　its

claims　of　〃moral　right；；　back　upon　its　existing　legal　rights　and

its　arguments　of　〃necessity。〃　Let　us　return　it　to　the　position

our　fathers　gave　it；　and　there　let　it　rest　in　peace。　　Let　us

readopt　the　Declaration　of　Independence；　and　with　it　the

practices　and　policy　which　harmonize　with　it。　　Let　North　and

South；　let　all　Americanslet　all　lovers　of　liberty　everywhere

join　in　the　great　and　good　work。　　If　we　do　this；　we　shall　not

only　have　saved　the　Union；　but　we　shall　have　so　saved　it　as　to

make　and　to　keep　it　forever　worthy　of　the　saving。　　We　shall　have

so　saved　it　that　the　succeeding　millions　of　free　happy　people　the

world　over　shall　rise　up　and　call　us　blessed　to　the　latest

generations。



At　Springfield；　twelve　days　ago；　where　I　had　spoken　substantially

as　I　have　here；　Judge　Douglas　replied　to　me；　and　as　he　is　to

reply　to　me　here；　I　shall　attempt　to　anticipate　him　by　noticing

some　of　the　points　he　made　there。　　He　commenced　by　stating　I　had

assumed　all　the　way　through　that　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska

Bill　would　have　the　effect　of　extending　slavery。　　He　denied　that

this　was　intended　or　that　this　effect　would　follow。



I　will　not　reopen　the　argument　upon　this　point。　　That　such　was

the　intention　the　world　believed　at　the　start；　and　will　continue

to　believe。　　This　was　the　countenance　of　the　thing；　and　both

friends　and　enemies　instantly　recognized　it　as　such。　　That

countenance　cannot　now　be　changed　by　argument。　　You　can　as　easily

argue　the　color　out　of　the　negro's　skin。　　Like　the　bloody　hand；〃

you　may　wash　it　and　wash　it；　the　red　witness　of　guilt　still

sticks　and　stares　horribly　at　you。



Next　he　says　that　Congressional　intervention　never　prevented

slavery　anywhere；　that　it　did　not　prevent　it　in　the　Northwestern

Territory；　nor　in　Illinois；　that；　in　fact；　Illinois　came　into　the

Union　as　a　slave　State；　that　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska　Bill

expelled　it　from　Illinois；　from　several　old　States；　from

everywhere。



Now　this　is　mere　quibbling　all　the　way　through。　　If　the　Ordinance

of　'87　did　not　keep　slavery　out　of　the　Northwest　Territory；　how

happens　it　that　the　northwest　shore　of　the　Ohio　River　is　entirely

free　from　it；　while　the　southeast　shore；　less　than　a　mile

distant；　along　nearly　the　whole　length　of　the　river；　is　entirely

covered　with　it？



If　that　ordinance　did　not　keep　it　out　of　Illinois；　what　was　it

that　made　the　difference　between　Illinois　and　Missouri？　　They　lie

side　by　side；　the　Mississippi　River　only　dividing　them；　while

their　early　settlements　were　within　the　same　latitude。　　Between

1810　and　1820　the　number　of　slaves　in　Missouri　increased　7211；

while　in　Illinois　in　the　same　ten　years　they　decreased　51。　　This

appears　by　the　census　returns。　　During　nearly　all　of　that　ten

years　both　were　Territories；　not　States。　　During　this　time　the

ordinance　forbade　slavery　to　go　into　Illinois；　and　nothing

forbade　it　to　go　into　Missouri。　　It　did　go　into　Missouri；　and　did

not　go　into　Illinois。　　That　is　the　fact。　　Can　any　one　doubt　as　to

the　reason　of　it？　　But　he　says　Illinois　came　into　the　Union　as　a

slave　State。　　Silence；　perhaps；　would　be　the　best　answer　to　this

flat　contradiction　of　the　known　history　of　the　country。　　What　are

the　facts　upon　which　this　bold　assertion　is　based？　　When　we　first

acquired　the　country；　as　far　back　as　1787；　there　were　some　slaves

within　it　held　by　the　French　inhabitants　of　Kaskaskia。　　The

territorial　legislation　admitted　a　few　negroes　from　the　slave

States　as　indentured　servants。　　One　year　after　the　adoption　of

the　first　State　constitution；　the　whole　number　of　them　waswhat

do　you　think？　　Just　one　hundred　and　seventeen；　while　the

aggregate　free　population　was　55；094；about　four　hundred　and

seventy　to　one。　　Upon　this　state　of　facts　the　people　framed　their

constitution　prohibiting　the　further　introduction　of　slavery；

with　a　sort　of　guaranty　to　the　owners　of　the　few　indentured

servants；　giving　freedom　to　their　children　to　be　born　thereafter；

and　making　no　mention　whatever　of　any　supposed　slave　for　life。

Out　of　this　small　matter　the　Judge　manufactures　his　argument　that

Illinois　came　into　the　Union　as　a　slave　State。　　Let　the　facts　be

the　answer　to　the　argument。



The　principles　of　the　Nebraska　Bill；　he　says；　expelled　slavery

from　Illinois。　　The　principle　of　that　bill　first　planted　it　here…

…that　is；　it　first　came　because　there　was　no　law　to　prevent　it；

first　came　before　we　owned　the　country；　and　finding　it　here；　and

having　the　Ordinance　of　'87　to　prevent　its　increasing；　our　people

struggled　along；　and　finally　got　rid　of　it　as　best　they　could。



But　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska　Bill　abolished　slavery　in

several　of　the　old　States。　　Well；　it　is　true　that　several　of　the

old　States；　in　the　last　quarter　of　the　last　century；　did　adopt

systems　of　gradual　emancipation　by　which　the　institution　has

finally　become　extinct　within　their　limits；　but　it　may　or　may　not

be　true　that　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska　Bill　was　the　cause

that　led　to　the　adoption　of　these　measures。　　It　is　now　more　than

fifty　years　since　the　last　of　these　States　adopted　its　system　of

emancipation。



If　the　Nebraska　Bill　is　the　real　author　of　the　benevolent　works；

it　is　rather　deplorable　that　it　has　for　so　long　a　time　ceased

working　altogether。　　Is　there　not　some　reason　to　suspect　that　it

was　the　principle　of　the　Revolution；　and　not　the　principle　of　the

Nebraska　Bill；　that　led　to　emancipation　in　these　old　States？

Leave　it　to　the　people　of　these　old　emancipating　States；　and　I　am

quite　certain　they　will　decide　that　neither　that　nor　any　other

good　thing　ever　did　or　ever　will　come　of　the　Nebraska　Bill。



In　the　course　of　my　main　argument；　Judge　Douglas　interrupted　me

to　say　that　the　principle　of　the　Nebraska　Bill　was　very　old；　that

it　originated　when　God　made　man；　and　placed　good　and　evil　before

him；　allowing　him　to　choose　for　himself；　being　responsible　for

the　choice　he　should　make。　　At　the　time　I　thought　this　was　merely

playful；　and　I　answered　it　accordingly。　　But　in　his　reply　to　me

he　renewed　it　as　a　serious　argument。　　In　seriousness；　then；　the

facts　of　this　proposition　are　not　true　as　stated。　　God　did　not

place　good　and　evil　before　man；　telling　him　to　make　his　choice。

On　the　contrary；　he　did　tell　him　there　was　one　tree　of　the　fruit

of　which　he　should　not　eat；　upon　pain　of　certain　death。　　I　should

scarcely　wish　so　strong　a　prohibition　against　slavery　in

Nebraska。



But　this　argument　strikes　me　as　not　a　little　remarkable　in

another　particularin　its　strong　resemblance　to　the　old　argument

for　the　divine　right　of　kings。〃　By　the　latter；　the　king　is　to　do

just　as　he　pleases　with　his　white　subjects；　being　responsible　to

God　alone。　　By　the　former；　the　white　man　is　to　do　just　as　he

pleases　with　his　black　slaves；　being　responsible　to　God　alone。

The　two　things　are　precisely　alike；　and　it　is　but　natural　that

they　should　find　similar　arguments　to　sustain　them。



I　had　argued　that　the　application　of　the　principle　of　self…

government；　as　contended　for；　would　require　the　revival　of　the

African　slave　trade；　that　no　argument　could　be　made　in　favor　of　a

man's　right　to　take　slaves　to　Nebraska　which　could　not　be　equally

well　made　in　favor　of　his　right　to　bring　them　from　the　coast　of

Africa。　　The　Judge　replied　that　the　Constitution　requires　the

suppression　of　the　foreign　slave　trade；　but　does　not　require　the

prohibition　of　slavery　in　the　Territories。　　That　is　a　mistake　in

point　of　fact。　　The　Constitution　does　not　require　the　action　of

Congress　in　either　case；　and　it　does　authorize　it　in　both。　　And

so　there　is　still　no　difference　between　the　cases。



In　regard　to　what　I　have　said　of　the　advantage　the　slave　States

have　over　the　free　in　the　matter　of　representation；　the　Judge

replied　that　we　in　the　free　States　count　five　free　negroes　as

five　white　people；　while　in　the　slave　States　they　count　five

slaves　as　three　whites　only；　and　that　the　advantage；　at