the writings-3-第4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！



other　Democrats　that　went　with　him；　he　furnished　three　votes；

while　the　Republicans　furnished　twenty。



That　is　what　he　did　to　defeat　it。　　In　the　House　of

Representatives　he　and　his　friends　furnished　some　twenty　votes；

and　the　Republicans　furnished　ninety　odd。　　Now；　who　was　it　that

did　the　work？



＇A　voice：　Douglas。＇



Why；　yes；　Douglas　did　it！　　To　be　sure　he　did。



Let　us；　however；　put　that　proposition　another　way。　　The

Republicans　could　not　have　done　it　without　Judge　Douglas。　　Could

he　have　done　it　without　them？　　Which　could　have　come　the　nearest

to　doing　it　without　the　other？



＇A　voice：　Who　killed　the　bill？＇



＇Another　voice：　Douglas。＇



Ground　was　taken　against　it　by　the　Republicans　long　before

Douglas　did　it。　　The　proportion　of　opposition　to　that　measure　is

about　five　to　one。



＇A　voice：　Why　don't　they　come　out　on　it？＇



You　don't　know　what　you　are　talking　about；　my　friend。　　I　am　quite

willing　to　answer　any　gentleman　in　the　crowd　who　asks　an

intelligent　question。



Now；　who　in　all　this　country　has　ever　found　any　of　our　friends　of

Judge　Douglas's　way　of　thinking；　and　who　have　acted　upon　this

main　question；　that　has　ever　thought　of　uttering　a　word　in　behalf

of　Judge　Trumbull？



＇A　voice：　We　have。＇



I　defy　you　to　show　a　printed　resolution　passed　in　a　Democratic

meetingI　take　it　upon　myself　to　defy　any　man　to　show　a　printed

resolution　of　a　Democratic　meeting；　large　or　smallin　favor　of

Judge　Trumbull；　or　any　of　the　five　to　one　Republicans　who　beat

that　bill。　　Everything　must　be　for　the　Democrats！　　They　did

everything；　and　the　five　to　the　one　that　really　did　the　thing

they　snub　over；　and　they　do　not　seem　to　remember　that　they　have

an　existence　upon　the　face　of　the　earth。



Gentlemen；　I　fear　that　I　shall　become　tedious。　　I　leave　this

branch　of　the　subject　to　take　hold　of　another。　　I　take　up　that

part　of　Judge　Douglas's　speech　in　which　he　respectfully　attended

to　me。



Judge　Douglas　made　two　points　upon　my　recent　speech　at

Springfield。　　He　says　they　are　to　be　the　issues　of　this　campaign。

The　first　one　of　these　points　he　bases　upon　the　language　in　a

speech　which　I　delivered　at　Springfield；　which　I　believe　I　can

quote　correctly　from　memory。　　I　said　there　that　〃we　are　now　far

into　the　fifth　year　since　a　policy　was　instituted　for　the　avowed

object；　and　with　the　confident　promise；　of　putting　an　end　to

slavery　agitation；　under　the　operation　of　that　policy；　that

agitation　has　not　only　not　ceased；　but　has　constantly　augmented。〃

〃I　believe　it　will　not　cease　until　a　crisis　shall　have　been

reached　and　passed。　　'A　house　divided　against　itself　cannot

stand。'　I　believe　this　government　cannot　endure　permanently　half

slave　and　half　free。〃　〃I　do　not　expect　the　Union　to　be

dissolved；〃I　am　quoting　from　my　speech；　〃I　do　not　expect　the

house　to　fall；　but　I　do　expect　it　will　cease　to　be　divided。　　It

will　become　all　one　thing　or　all　the　other。　　Either　the　opponents

of　slavery　will　arrest　the　spread　of　it　and　place　it　where　the

public　mind　shall　rest　in　the　belief　that　it　is　in　the　course　of

ultimate　extinction；　or　its　advocates　will　push　it　forward　until

it　shall　become　alike　lawful　in　all　the　States；　north　as　well　as

south。〃



What　is　the　paragraph？　　In　this　paragraph；　which　I　have　quoted　in

your　hearing；　and　to　which　I　ask　the　attention　of　all；　Judge

Douglas　thinks　he　discovers　great　political　heresy。　　I　want　your

attention　particularly　to　what　he　has　inferred　from　it。　　He　says

I　am　in　favor　of　making　all　the　States　of　this　Union　uniform　in

all　their　internal　regulations；　that　in　all　their　domestic

concerns　I　am　in　favor　of　making　them　entirely　uniform。　　He　draws

this　inference　from　the　language　I　have　quoted　to　you。　　He　says

that　I　am　in　favor　of　making　war　by　the　North　upon　the　South　for

the　extinction　of　slavery；　that　I　am　also　in　favor　of　inviting

（as　he　expresses　it）　the　South　to　a　war　upon　the　North　for　the

purpose　of　nationalizing　slavery。　　Now；　it　is　singular　enough；　if

you　will　carefully　read　that　passage　over；　that　I　did　not　say

that　I　was　in　favor　of　anything　in　it。　　I　only　said　what　I

expected　would　take　place。　　I　made　a　prediction　only；it　may

have　been　a　foolish　one；　perhaps。　　I　did　not　even　say　that　I

desired　that　slavery　should　be　put　in　course　of　ultimate

extinction。　　I　do　say　so　now；　however；　so　there　need　be　no　longer

any　difficulty　about　that。　　It　may　be　written　down　in　the　great

speech。



Gentlemen；　Judge　Douglas　informed　you　that　this　speech　of　mine

was　probably　carefully　prepared。　　I　admit　that　it　was。　　I　am　not

master　of　language；　I　have　not　a　fine　education；　I　am　not　capable

of　entering　into　a　disquisition　upon　dialectics；　as　I　believe　you

call　it；　but　I　do　not　believe　the　language　I　employed　bears　any

such　construction　as　Judge　Douglas　puts　upon　it。　　But　I　don't

care　about　a　quibble　in　regard　to　words。　　I　know　what　I　meant；

and　I　will　not　leave　this　crowd　in　doubt；　if　I　can　explain　it　to

them；　what　I　really　meant　in　the　use　of　that　paragraph。



I　am　not；　in　the　first　place；　unaware　that　this　government　has

endured　eighty…two　years　half　slave　and　half　free。　　I　know　that。

I　am　tolerably　well　acquainted　with　the　history　of　the　country；

and　I　know　that　it　has　endured　eighty…two　years　half　slave　and

half　free。　　I　believeand　that　is　what　I　meant　to　allude　to

thereI　believe　it　has　endured　because　during　all　that　time；

until　the　introduction　of　the　Nebraska　Bill；　the　public　mind　did

rest　all　the　time　in　the　belief　that　slavery　was　in　course　of

ultimate　extinction。　　That　was　what　gave　us　the　rest　that　we　had

through　that　period　of　eighty…two　years；at　least；　so　I　believe。

I　have　always　hated　slavery；　I　think；　as　much　as　any

Abolitionist；I　have　been　an　Old　Line　Whig；I　have　always　hated

it；　but　I　have　always　been　quiet　about　it　until　this　new　era　of

the　introduction　of　the　Nebraska　Bill　began。　　I　always　believed

that　everybody　was　against　it；　and　that　it　was　in　course　of

ultimate　extinction。　　＇Pointing　to　Mr。　Browning；　who　stood　near

by。＇　Browning　thought　so；　the　great　mass　of　the　nation　have

rested　in　the　belief　that　slavery　was　in　course　of　ultimate

extinction。　　They　had　reason　so　to　believe。



The　adoption　of　the　Constitution　and　its　attendant　history　led

the　people　to　believe　so；　and　that　such　was　the　belief　of　the

framers　of　the　Constitution　itself；　why　did　those　old　men；　about

the　time　of　the　adoption　of　the　Constitution；　decree　that　slavery

should　not　go　into　the　new　Territory；　where　it　had　not　already

gone？　　Why　declare　that　within　twenty　years　the　African　slave

trade；　by　which　slaves　are　supplied；　might　be　cut　off　by

Congress？　　Why　were　all　these　acts？　　I　might　enumerate　more　of

these　acts；　but　enough。　　What　were　they　but　a　clear　indication

that　the　framers　of　the　Constitution　intended　and　expected　the

ultimate　extinction　of　that　institution？　　And　now；　when　I　say；　as

I　said　in　my　speech　that　Judge　Douglas　has　quoted　from；　when　I

say　that　I　think　the　opponents　of　slavery　will　resist　the　farther

spread　of　it；　and　place　it　where　the　public　mind　shall　rest　with

the　belief　that　it　is　in　course　of　ultimate　extinction；　I　only

mean　to　say　that　they　will　place　it　where　the　founders　of　this

government　originally　placed　it。



I　have　said　a　hundred　times；　and　I　have　now　no　inclination　to

take　it　back；　that　I　believe　there　is　no　right；　and　ought　to　be

no　inclination；　in　the　people　of　the　free　States　to　enter　into

the　slave　States　and　interfere　with　the　question　of　slavery　at

all。　　I　have　said　that　always；　Judge　Douglas　has　heard　me　say　it；

if　not　quite　a　hundred　times；　at　least　as　good　as　a　hundred

times；　and　when　it　is　said　that　I　am　in　favor　of　interfering　with

slavery　where　it　exists；　I　know　it　is　unwarranted　by　anything　I

have　ever　intended；　and；　as　I　believe；　by　anything　I　have　ever

said。　　If；　by　any　means；　I　have　ever　used　language　which　could

fairly　be　so　construed　（as；　however；　I　believe　I　never　have）；　I

now　correct　it。



So　much；　then；　for　the　inference　that　Judge　Douglas　draws；　that　I

am　in　favor　of　setting　the　sections　at　war　with　one　another。　　I

know　that　I　never　meant　any　such　thing；　and　I　believe　that　no

fair　mind　can　infer　any　such　thing　from　anything　I　have　ever

said。



Now；　in　relation　to　his　inference　that　I　am　in　favor　of　a　general

consolidation　of　all　the　local　institutions　of　the　various

States。　　I　will　attend　to　that　for　a　little　while；　and　try　to

inquire；　if　I　can；　how　on　earth　it　could　be　that　any　man　could

draw　such　an　inference　from　anything　I　said。　　I　have　said；　very

many　times；　in　Judge　Douglas's　hearing；　that　no　man　believed　more

than　I　in　the　principle　of　self…government；　that　it　lies　at　the

bottom　of　all　my　ideas　of　just　government；　from　beginning　to　end。

I　have　denied　that　his　use　of　that　term　applies　properly。　　But

for　the　thing　itself；　I　deny　that　any　man　has　ever　gone　ahead　of

me　in　his　devotion　to　the　principle；　whatever　he　may　have　done　in

efficiency　in　advocating　it。　　I　think　that　I　have　said　it　in　your

hearing；　that　I　believe　each　individual　is　naturally　entitled　to

do　as　he　pleases　with　himself　and　the　fruit　of　his　labor；　so　far

as　it　in　no　wise　interferes　with　any　other　man's　rights；　that

each　community　as　a　State　has　a　right　to　do　exactly　as　it　pleases

with　all　the　concerns　within　that　State　that　interfere　with　the

right　of　no　other　State；　and　that　the　General　Government；　upon

principle；　has　no　right　to　interfere　with　anything　other　than

that　general　class　of　things　that　does　concern　the　whole。　　I　have

said　that　at　all　times。　　I　have　said；　as　illustrations；　that　I　do

not　believe　in　the　right　of　Illinois　to　interfere　with　the

cranberry　laws　of　Indiana；　the　oyster　laws　of　Virginia；　or　the

liquor　laws　of　Maine。　　I　have　said　these　things　over　and　over

again；　and　I　repeat　them　here　as　my　sentiments。



How　is　it；　then；　that　Judge　Douglas　infers；　because　I　hope　to　see

slavery　put　where　the　public　mind　shall　rest　in　the　belief　that

it　is　in　the　course　of　ultimate　extinction；　that　I　am　in　favor　of

Illinois　going　over　and　interfering　with　the　cranberry　laws　of

Indiana？　　What　can　authorize　him　to　draw　any　such　inference？



I　suppose　there　might　be　one　thing　that　at　least　enabled　him　to

draw　such　an　inference　that　would　not　be　true　with　me　or　many

others：　that　is；　because　he　looks　upon　all　this　matter　of　slavery

as　an　exceedingly　little　thing；this　matter　of　keeping　one　sixth

of　the　population　of　the　whole　nation　in　a　state　of　oppression

and　tyranny　unequaled　in　the　world。　　He　looks　upon　it　as　being　an

exceedingly　little　thing；only　equal　to　the　question　of　the

cranberry　laws　of　Indiana；　as　something　having　no　moral　question

in　it；　as　something　on　a　par　with　the　question　of　whether　a　man

shall　pasture　his　land　with　cattle；　or　plant　it　with　tobacco；　so

little　and　so　small　a　thing　that　he　concludes；　if　I　could　desire

that　anything　should　be　done　to　br