the writings-5-第13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！



nonintervention　by　the　government　in　the　question　of　slavery　in　the

Territories；　while　history　shows　that　they　decided；　in　the　cases

actually　brought　before　them；　in　exactly　the　contrary　way；　and　he

knows　it。　　Not　only　did　they　so　decide　at　that　time；　but　they　stuck

to　it　during　sixty　years；　through　thick　and　thin；　as　long　as　there

was　one　of　the　Revolutionary　heroes　upon　the　stage　of　political

action。　　Through　their　whole　course；　from　first　to　last；　they　clung

to　freedom。　　And　now　he　asks　the　community　to　believe　that　the　men　of

the　Revolution　were　in　favor　of　his　great　principle；　when　we　have　the

naked　history　that　they　themselves　dealt　with　this　very　subject

matter　of　his　principle；　and　utterly　repudiated　his　principle；　acting

upon　a　precisely　contrary　ground。　　It　is　as　impudent　and　absurd　as　if

a　prosecuting　attorney　should　stand　up　before　a　jury　and　ask　them

to　convict　A　as　the　murderer　of　B；　while　B　was　walking　alive　before

them。



I　say；　again；　if　judge　Douglas　asserts　that　the　men　of　the　Revolution

acted　upon　principles　by　which；　to　be　consistent　with　themselves；

they　ought　to　have　adopted　his　popular　sovereignty；　then；　upon　a

consideration　of　his　own　argument；　he　had　a　right　to　make　；you

believe　that　they　understood　the　principles　of　government；　but

misapplied　them；　that　he　has　arisen　to　enlighten　the　world　as　to　the

just　application　of　this　principle。　　He　has　a　right　to　try　to

persuade　you　that　he　understands　their　principles　better　than　they

did；　and；　therefore；　he　will　apply　them　now；　not　as　they　did；　but　as

they　ought　to　have　done。　　He　has　a　right　to　go　before　the　community

and　try　to　convince　them　of　this；　but　he　has　no　right　to　attempt　to

impose　upon　any　one　the　belief　that　these　men　themselves　approved　of

his　great　principle。　　There　are　two　ways　of　establishing　a

proposition。　　One　is　by　trying　to　demonstrate　it　upon　reason；　and　the

other　is；　to　show　that　great　men　in　former　times　have　thought　so　and

so；　and　thus　to　pass　it　by　the　weight　of　pure　authority。　　Now；　if

Judge　Douglas　will　demonstrate　somehow　that　this　is　popular

sovereignty；the　right　of　one　man　to　make　a　slave　of　another；

without　any　right　in　that　other　or　any　one　else　to　object；…

…demonstrate　it　as　Euclid　demonstrated　propositions；there　is　no

objection。　　But　when　he　comes　forward；　seeking　to　carry　a　principle

by　bringing　to　it　the　authority　of　men　who　themselves　utterly

repudiate　that　principle；　I　ask　that　he　shall　not　be　permitted　to　do

it。



I　see；　in　the　judge's　speech　here；　a　short　sentence　in　these　words：

〃Our　fathers；　when　they　formed　this　government　under　which　we　live；

understood　this　question　just　as　well；　and　even　better　than；　we　do

now。〃　　That　is　true；　I　stick　to　that。　　I　will　stand　by　Judge　Douglas

in　that　to　the　bitter　end。　　And　now；　Judge　Douglas；　come　and　stand　by

me；　and　truthfully　show　how　they　acted；　understanding　it　better　than

we　do。　　All　I　ask　of　you；　Judge　Douglas；　is　to　stick　to　the

proposition　that　the　men　of　the　Revolution　understood　this　subject

better　than　we　do　now；　and　with　that　better　understanding　they　acted

better　than　you　are　trying　to　act　now。



I　wish　to　say　something　now　in　regard　to　the　Dred　Scott　decision；　as

dealt　with　by　Judge　Douglas。　　In　that　〃memorable　debate〃　between

Judge　Douglas　and　myself；　last　year；　the　judge　thought　fit　to

commence　a　process　of　catechising　me；　and　at　Freeport　I　answered　his

questions；　and　propounded　some　to　him。　　Among　others　propounded　to

him　was　one　that　I　have　here　now。　　The　substance；　as　I　remember　it；

is；　〃Can　the　people　of　a　United　States　Territory；　under　the　Dred

Scott　decision；　in　any　lawful　way；　against　the　wish　of　any　citizen　of

the　United　States；　exclude　slavery　from　its　limits；　prior　to　the

formation　of　a　State　constitution？〃　　He　answered　that　they　could

lawfully　exclude　slavery　from　the　United　States　Territories；

notwithstanding　the　Dred　Scot　decision。　　There　was　something　about

that　answer　that　has　probably　been　a　trouble　to　the　judge　ever　since。



The　Dred　Scott　decision　expressly　gives　every　citizen　of　the　United

States　a　right　to　carry　his　slaves　into　the　United　States

Territories。　　And　now　there　was　some　inconsistency　in　saying　that　the

decision　was　right；　and　saying；　too；　that　the　people　of　the　Territory

could　lawfully　drive　slavery　out　again。　　When　all　the　trash；　the

words；　the　collateral　matter；　was　cleared　away　from　it；　all　the　chaff

was　fanned　out　of　it；　it　was　a　bare　absurdity；no　less　than　that　a

thing　may　be　lawfully　driven　away　from　where　it　has　a　lawful　right　to

be。　　Clear　it　of　all　the　verbiage；　and　that　is　the　naked　truth　of　his

proposition；that　a　thing　may　be　lawfully　driven　from　the　place

where　it　has　a　lawful　right　to　stay。　　Well；　it　was　because　the　judge

could　n't　help　seeing　this　that　he　has　had　so　much　trouble　with　it；

and　what　I　want　to　ask　your　especial　attention　to；　just　now；　is　to

remind　you；　if　you　have　not　noticed　the　fact；　that　the　judge　does　not

any　longer　say　that　the　people　can　exclude　slavery。　　He　does　not　say

so　in　the　copyright　essay；　he　did　not　say　so　in　the　speech　that　he

made　here；　and；　so　far　as　I　know；　since　his　re…election　to　the　Senate

he　has　never　said；　as　he　did　at　Freeport；　that　the　people　of　the

Territories　can　exclude　slavery。　　He　desires　that　you；　who　wish　the

Territories　to　remain　free；　should　believe　that　he　stands　by　that

position；　but　he　does　not　say　it　himself。　　He　escapes　to　some　extent

the　absurd　position　I　have　stated；　by　changing　his　language　entirely。

What　he　says　now　is　something　different　in　language；　and　we　will

consider　whether　it　is　not　different　in　sense　too。　　It　is　now　that

the　Dred　Scott　decision；　or　rather　the　Constitution　under　that

decision；　does　not　carry　slavery　into　the　Territories　beyond　the

power　of　the　people　of　the　Territories　to　control　it　as　other

property。　　He　does　not　say　the　people　can　drive　it　out；　but　they　can

control　it　as　other　property。　　The　language　is　different；　we　should

consider　whether　the　sense　is　different。　　Driving　a　horse　out　of　this

lot　is　too　plain　a　proposition　to　be　mistaken　about；　it　is　putting

him　on　the　other　side　of　the　fence。　　Or　it　might　be　a　sort　of

exclusion　of　him　from　the　lot　if　you　were　to　kill　him　and　let　the

worms　devour　him；　but　neither　of　these　things　is　the　same　as

〃controlling　him　as　other　property。〃　　That　would　be　to　feed　him；　to

pamper　him；　to　ride　him；　to　use　and　abuse　him；　to　make　the　most　money

out　of　him；　〃as　other　property〃；　but；　please　you；　what　do　the　men　who

are　in　favor　of　slavery　want　more　than　this？　　What　do　they　really

want；　other　than　that　slavery；　being　in　the　Territories；　shall　be

controlled　as　other　property？　　If　they　want　anything　else；　I　do　not

comprehend　it。　　I　ask　your　attention　to　this；　first；　for　the　purpose

of　pointing　out　the　change　of　ground　the　judge　has　made；　and；　in　the

second　place；　the　importance　of　the　change；that　that　change　is　not

such　as　to　give　you　gentlemen　who　want　his　popular　sovereignty　the

power　to　exclude　the　institution　or　drive　it　out　at　all。　　I　know　the

judge　sometimes　squints　at　the　argument　that　in　controlling　it　as

other　property　by　unfriendly　legislation　they　may　control　it　to

death；　as　you　might；　in　the　case　of　a　horse；　perhaps；　feed　him　so

lightly　and　ride　him　so　much　that　he　would　die。　　But　when　you　come　to

legislative　control；　there　is　something　more　to　be　attended　to。　I

have　no　doubt；　myself；　that　if　the　Territories　should　undertake　to

control　slave　property　as　other　property　that　is；　control　it　in　such

a　way　that　it　would　be　the　most　valuable　as　property；　and　make　it

bear　its　just　proportion　in　the　way　of　burdens　as　property；　really

deal　with　it　as　property；the　Supreme　Court　of　the　United　States

will　say；　〃God　speed　you；　and　amen。〃　　But　I　undertake　to　give　the

opinion；　at　least；　that　if　the　Territories　attempt　by　any　direct

legislation　to　drive　the　man　with　his　slave　out　of　the　Territory；　or

to　decide　that　his　slave　is　free　because　of　his　being　tak