the writings-2-第34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！



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

on　the　side　of　the　free　States。



Now；　in　the　slave　States　they　count　free　negroes　just　as　we　do；

and　it　so　happens　that；　besides　their　slaves；　they　have　as　many

free　negroes　as　we　have；　and　thirty　thousand　over。　　Thus；　their

free　negroes　more　than　balance　ours；　and　their　advantage　over　us；

in　consequence　of　their　slaves；　still　remains　as　I　stated　it。



In　reply　to　my　argument　that　the　compromise　measures　of　1850　were

a　system　of　equivalents；　and　that　the　provisions　of　no　one　of

them　could　fairly　be　carried　to　other　subjects　without　its

corresponding　equivalent　being　carried　with　it；　the　Judge　denied

outright　that　these　measures　had　any　connection　with　or

dependence　upon　each　other。　　This　is　mere　desperation。　　If　they

had　no　connection；　why　are　they　always　spoken　of　in　connection？

Why　has　he　so　spoken　of　them　a　thousand　times？　　Why　has　he

constantly　called　them　a　series　of　measures？　　Why　does　everybody

call　them　a　compromise？　　Why　was　California　kept　out　of　the　Union

six　or　seven　months；　if　it　was　not　because　of　its　connection　with

the　other　measures？　　Webster's　leading　definition　of　the　verb　〃to

compromise〃　is　〃to　adjust　and　settle　a　difference；　by　mutual

agreement；　with　concessions　of　claims　by　the　parties。〃　This

conveys　precisely　the　popular　understanding　of　the　word

〃compromise。



We　knew；　before　the　Judge　told　us；　that　these　measures　passed

separately；　and　in　distinct　bills；　and　that　no　two　of　them　were

passed　by　the　votes　of　precisely　the　same　members。　　But　we　also

know；　and　so　does　he　know；　that　no　one　of　them　could　have　passed

both　branches　of　Congress　but　for　the　understanding　that　the

others　were　to　pass　also。　　Upon　this　understanding；　each　got

votes　which　it　could　have　got　in　no　other　way。　　It　is　this　fact

which　gives　to　the　measures　their　true　character；　and　it　is　the

universal　knowledge　of　this　fact　that　has　given　them　the　name　of

〃compromises；〃　so　expressive　of　that　true　character。



I　had　asked：　〃If；　in　carrying　the　Utah　and　New　Mexico　laws　to

Nebraska；　you　could　clear　away　other　objection；　how　could　you

leave　Nebraska　'perfectly　free'　to　introduce　slavery　before　she

forms　a　constitution；　during　her　territorial　government；　while

the　Utah　and　New　Mexico　laws　only　authorize　it　when　they　form

constitutions　and　are　admitted　into　the　Union？〃　　To　this　Judge

Douglas　answered　that　the　Utah　and　New　Mexico　laws　also

authorized　it　before；　and　to　prove　this　he　read　from　one　of　their

laws；　as　follows：　〃That　the　legislative　power　of　said　Territory

shall　extend　to　all　rightful　subjects　of　legislation；　consistent

with　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　and　the　provisions　of

this　act。〃



Now　it　is　perceived　from　the　reading　of　this　that　there　is

nothing　express　upon　the　subject；　but　that　the　authority　is

sought　to　be　implied　merely　for　the　general　provision　of　〃all


rightful　subjects　of　legislation。〃　In　reply　to　this　I　insist；　as

a　legal　rule　of　construction；　as　well　as　the　plain；　popular　view

of　the　matter；　that　the　express　provision　for　Utah　and　New　Mexico

coming　in　with　slavery；　if　they　choose；　when　they　shall　form

constitutions；　is　an　exclusion　of　all　implied　authority　on　the

same　subject；　that　Congress　having　the　subject　distinctly　in

their　minds　when　they　made　the　express　provision；　they　therein

expressed　their　whole　meaning　on　that　subject。



The　Judge　rather　insinuated　that　I　had　found　it　convenient　to

forget　the　Washington　territorial　law　passed　in　1853。　　This　was　a

division　of　Oregon；　organizing　the　northern　part　as　the　Territory

of　Washington。　　He　asserted　that　by　this　act　the　Ordinance　of

'87；　theretofore　existing　in　Oregon；　was　repealed；　that　nearly

all　the　members　of　Congress　voted　for　it；　beginning　in　the　House

of　Representatives　with　Charles　Allen　of　Massachusetts；　and

ending　with　Richard　Yates　of　Illinois；　and　that　he　could　not

understand　how　those　who　now　opposed　the　Nebraska　Bill　so　voted

there；　unless　it　was　because　it　was　then　too　soon　after　both　the

great　political　parties　had　ratified　the　compromises　of　1850；　and

the　ratification　therefore　was　too　fresh　to　be　then　repudiated。



Now　I　had　seen　the　Washington　act　before；　and　I　have　carefully

examined　it　since；　and　I　aver　that　there　is　no　repeal　of　the

Ordinance　of　'87；　or　of　any　prohibition　of　slavery；　in　it。　　In

express　terms；　there　is　absolutely　nothing　in　the　whole　law　upon

the　subjectin　fact；　nothing　to　lead　a　reader　to　think　of　the

subject。　　To　my　judgment　it　is　equally　free　from　everything　from

which　repeal　can　be　legally　implied；　but；　however　this　may　be；

are　men　now　to　be　entrapped　by　a　legal　implication；　extracted

from　covert　language；　introduced　perhaps　for　the　very　purpose　of

entrapping　them？　　I　sincerely　wish　every　man　could　read　this　law

quite　through；　carefully　watching　every　sentence　and　every　line

for　a　repeal　of　the　Ordinance　of　'87；　or　anything　equivalent　to

it。



Another　point　on　the　Washington　act：　If　it　was　intended　to　be

modeled　after　the　Utah　and　New　Mexico　acts；　as　Judge　Douglas

insists；　why　was　it　not　inserted　in　it；　as　in　them；　that

Washington　was　to　come　in　with　or　without　slavery　as　she　may

choose　at　the　adoption　of　her　constitution？　　It　has　no　such

provision　in　it；　and　I　defy　the　ingenuity　of　man　to　give　a　reason

for　the　omission；　other　than　that　it　was　not　intended　to　follow

the　Utah　and　New　Mexico　laws　in　regard　to　the　question　of

slavery。



The　Washington　act　not　only　differs　vitally　from　the　Utah　and　New

Mexico　acts；　but　the　Nebraska　act　differs　vitally　from　both。　　By

the　latter　act　the　people　are　left　〃perfectly　free〃　to　regulate

their　own　domestic　concerns；　etc。；　but　in　all　the　former；　all

their　laws　are　to　be　submitted　to　Congress；　and　if　disapproved

are　to　be　null。　　The　Washington　act　goes　even　further；　it

absolutely　prohibits　the　territorial　Legislature；　by　very　strong

and　guarded　language；　from　establishing　banks　or　borrowing　money

on　the　faith　of　the　Territory。　　Is　this　the　sacred　right　of　self…

government　we　hear　vaunted　so　much？　　No；　sir；　the　Nebraska　Bill

finds　no　model　in　the　acts　of　'50　or　the　Washington　act。　　It

finds　no　model　in　any　law　from　Adam　till　to…day。　　As　Phillips

says　of　Napoleon；　the　Nebraska　act　is　grand；　gloomy　and　peculiar；

wrapped　in　the　solitude　of　its　own　originality；　without　a　model

and　without　a　shadow　upon　the　earth。



In　the　course　of　his　reply　Senator　Douglas　remarked　in　substance

that　he　had　always　considered　this　government　was　made　for　the

white　people　and　not　for　the　negroes。　　Why；　in　point　of　mere

fact；　I　think　so　too。　　But　in　this　remark　of　the　Judge　there　is　a

significance　which　I　think　is　the　key　to　the　great　mistake　（if

there　is　any　such　mistake）　which　he　has　made　in　this　Nebraska

measure。　　It　shows　that　the　Judge　has　no　very　vivid　impression

that　the　negro　is　human；　and　consequently　has　no　idea　that　there

can　be　any　moral　question　in　legislating　about　him。　　In　his　view

the　question　of　whether　a　new　country　shall　be　slave　or　free　is　a

matter　of　as　utter　indifference　as　it　is　whether　his　neighbor

shall　plant　his　farm　with　tobacco　or　stock　it　with　horned　cattle。

Now；　whether　this　view　is　right　or　wrong；　it　is　very　certain　that

the　great　mass　of　mankind　take　a　totally　different　view。　　They

consider　slavery　a　great　moral　wrong；　and　their　feeling　against

it　is　not　evanescent；　but　eternal。　　It　lies　at　the　very

foundation　of　their　sense　of　justice；　and　it　cannot　be　trifled

with。　　It　is　a　great　and　durable　element　of　popular　action；　and　I

think　no　statesman　can　safely　disregard　it。



Our　Senator　also　objects　that　those　who　oppose　him　in　this　matter

do　not　entirely　agree　with　one　another。　　He　reminds　me　that　in　my

firm　adherence　to　the　constitutional　rights　of　the　slave　States　I

differ　widely　from　others　who　are　cooperating　with　me　in　opposing

the　Nebraska　Bill；　and　he　says　it　is　not　quite　fair　to　oppose　him

in　this　variety　of　ways。　　He　should　remember　that　he　took　us　by

surpriseastounded　us　by　this　measure。　　We　were　thunderstruck

and　stunned；　and　we　reeled　and　fell　in　utter　confusion。　　But　we

rose；　each　fighting；　grasping　whatever　he　could　first　reacha

scythe；　a　pitchfork；　a　chopping…ax；　or　a　butcher's　cleaver。　　We

struck　in　the　direction　of　the　sound；　and　we　were　rapidly　closing

in

upon　him。　　He　must　not　think　to　divert　us　from　our　purpose　by

showing　us　that　our　drill；　our　dress；　and　our　weapons　are　not

entirely　perfect　and　uniform。　　When　the　storm　shall　be　past　he

shall　find　us　still　Americans；　no　less　devoted　to　the　continued

union　and　prosperity　of　the　country　than　heretofore。



Finally；　the　Judge　invokes　against　me　the　memory　of　Clay　and

Webster；　They　were　great　men；　and　men　of　great　deeds。　　But　where

have　I　assailed　them？　　For　what　is　it　that　their　lifelong　enemy

shall　now　make　profit　by　assuming　to　defend　them　against　me；

their　lifelong　friend？　　I　go　against　the　repeal　of　the　Missouri

Compromise；　did　they　ever　go　for　it？　　They　went　for　the

Compromise　of　1850；　did　I　ever　go　against　them？　　They　were

greatly　devoted　to　the　Union；　to　the　small　measure　of　my　ability

was　I　ever　less　so？　　Clay　and　Webster　were　dead　before　this

question　arose；　by　what　authority　shall　our　Senator　say　they

would　espouse　his　side　of　it　if　alive？　　Mr。　Clay　was　the　leading

spirit　in　making　the　Missouri　Compromise；　is　it　very　credible

that　if　now　alive　he　would　take　the　lead　in　the　breaking　of　it？

The　truth　is　that　some　support　from　Whigs　is　now　a　necessity　with

the　Judge；　and　for　this　it　is　that　the　names　of　Clay　and　Webster

are　invoked。　　His　old　friends　have　deserted　him　in　such　numbers

as　to　leave　too　few　to　live　by。　　He　came　to　his　own；　and　his　own

received　him　not；　and　lo！　he　turns　unto　the　Gentiles。



A　word　now　as　to　the　Judge's　desperate　assumption　that　the

compromises　of　1850　had　no　connection　with　one　another；　that

Illinois　came　into　the　Union　as　a　slave　State；　and　some　other

similar　ones。　　This　is　no　other　than　a　bold　denial　of　the　history

of　the　country。　　If　we　do　not　know　that　the　compromises　of　1850

were　dependent　on　each　other；　if　we　do　not　know　that　Illinois

came　into　the　Union　as　a　free　State；we　do　not　know　anything。

If　we　do　not　know　these　things；　we　do　not　know　that　we　ever　had　a

Revolutionary　War　or　such　a　chief　as　Washington。　　To　deny　these

things　is　to　deny　our　national　axioms；or　dogmas；　at　least；and

it　puts　an　end　to　all　argument。　　If　a　man　will　stand　up　and

assert；　and　repeat　and　reassert；　that　two　and　two　do　not　make

four；　I　know　nothing　in　the　power　of　argument　that　can　stop　him。

I　think　I　can　answer　the　Judge　so　long　as　he　sticks　to　the

premises；　but　when　he　flies　from　them；　I　cannot　work　any　argument

into　the　consistency　of　a　mental　gag　and　actually　close　his　mouth

with　it。　　In　such　a　case　I　can　only　commend　him　to　the　seventy

thousand　answers　just　in　from　Pennsylvania；　Ohio；　and　Indiana。