the writings-5-第15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！



them；　as　the　people　of　the　Territory　are　to　have　slaves　if　they　want

them。　　I　ask　any　man；　dealing　honestly　with　himself；　to　point　out　a

distinction。



I　have　recently　seen　a　letter　of　Judge　Douglas's　in　which；　without

stating　that　to　be　the　object；　he　doubtless　endeavors　to　make　a

distinction　between　the　two。　　He　says　he　is　unalterably　opposed　to

the　repeal　of　the　laws　against　the　African　slave　trade。　　And　why？　　He

then　seeks　to　give　a　reason　that　would　not　apply　to　his　popular

sovereignty　in　the　Territories。　　What　is　that　reason？　　〃The　abolition

of　the　African　slave　trade　is　a　compromise　of　the　Constitution！〃　　I

deny　it。　　There　is　no　truth　in　the　proposition　that　the　abolition　of

the　African　slave　trade　is　a　compromise　of　the　Constitution。　　No　man

can　put　his　finger　on　anything　in　the　Constitution；　or　on　the　line　of

history；　which　shows　it。　　It　is　a　mere　barren　assertion；　made　simply

for　the　purpose　of　getting　up　a　distinction　between　the　revival　of

the　African　slave　trade　and　his　〃great　principle。〃



At　the　time　the　Constitution　of　the　United　States　was　adopted；　it　was

expected　that　the　slave　trade　would　be　abolished。　I　should　assert　and

insist　upon　that；　if　judge　Douglas　denied　it。　　But　I　know　that　it　was

equally　expected　that　slavery　would　be　excluded　from　the　Territories；

and　I　can　show　by　history　that　in　regard　to　these　two　things　public

opinion　was　exactly　alike；　while　in　regard　to　positive　action；　there

was　more　done　in　the　Ordinance　of　'87　to　resist　the　spread　of　slavery

than　was　ever　done　to　abolish　the　foreign　slave　trade。　　Lest　I　be

misunderstood；　I　say　again　that　at　the　time　of　the　formation　of　the

Constitution；　public　expectation　was　that　the　slave　trade　would　be

abolished；　but　no　more　so　than　the　spread　of　slavery　in　the

Territories　should　be　restrained。　　They　stand　alike；　except　that　in

the　Ordinance　of　'87　there　was　a　mark　left　by　public　opinion；　showing

that　it　was　more　committed　against　the　spread　of　slavery　in　the

Territories　than　against　the　foreign　slave　trade。



Compromise！　　What　word　of　compromise　was　there　about　it？　　Why；　the

public　sense　was　then　in　favor　of　the　abolition　of　the　slave　trade；

but　there　was　at　the　time　a　very　great　commercial　interest　involved

in　it；　and　extensive　capital　in　that　branch　of　trade。　　There　were

doubtless　the　incipient　stages　of　improvement　in　the　South　in　the　way

of　farming；　dependent　on　the　slave　trade；　and　they　made　a　proposition

to　Congress　to　abolish　the　trade　after　allowing　it　twenty　years；a

sufficient　time　for　the　capital　and　commerce　engaged　in　it　to　be

transferred　to　other　channel。　　They　made　no　provision　that　it　should

be　abolished　in　twenty　years；　I　do　not　doubt　that　they　expected　it

would　be；　but　they　made　no　bargain　about　it。　　The　public　sentiment

left　no　doubt　in　the　minds　of　any　that　it　would　be　done　away。　　I

repeat；　there　is　nothing　in　the　history　of　those　times　in　favor　of

that　matter　being　a　compromise　of　the　constitution。　　It　was　the

public　expectation　at　the　time；　manifested　in　a　thousand　ways；　that

the　spread　of　slavery　should　also　be　restricted。



Then　I　say；　if　this　principle　is　established；　that　there　is　no　wrong

in　slavery；　and　whoever　wants　it　has　a　right　to　have　it；　is　a　matter

of　dollars　and　cents；　a　sort　of　question　as　to　how　they　shall　deal

with　brutes；　that　between　us　and　the　negro　here　there　is　no　sort　of

question；　but　that　at　the　South　the　question　is　between　the　negro　and

the　crocodile；　that　is　all；　it　is　a　mere　matter　of　policy；　there　is　a

perfect　right；　according　to　interest；　to　do　just　as　you　please；when

this　is　done；　where　this　doctrine　prevails；　the　miners　and　sappers

will　have　formed　public　opinion　for　the　slave　trade。　　They　will　be

ready　for　Jeff。　Davis　and　Stephens　and　other　leaders　of　that　company

to　sound　the　bugle　for　the　revival　of　the　slave　trade；　for　the　second

Dred　Scott　decision；　for　the　flood　of　slavery　to　be　poured　over　the

free　States；　while　we　shall　be　here　tied　down　and　helpless　and　run

over　like　sheep。



It　is　to　be　a　part　and　parcel　of　this　same　idea　to　say　to　men　who

want　to　adhere　to　the　Democratic　party；　who　have　always　belonged　to

that　party；　and　are　only　looking　about　for　some　excuse　to　stick　to

it；　but　nevertheless　hate　slavery；　that　Douglas's　popular　sovereignty

is　as　good　a　way　as　any　to　oppose　slavery。　　They　allow　themselves　to

be　persuaded　easily；　in　accordance　with　their　previous　dispositions；

into　this　belief；　that　it　is　about　as　good　a　way　of　opposing　slavery

as　any；　and　we　can　do　that　without　straining　our　old　party　ties　or

breaking　up　old　political　associations。　　We　can　do　so　without　being

called　negro…worshipers。　　We　can　do　that　without　being　subjected　to

the　jibes　and　sneers　that　are　so　readily　thrown　out　in　place　of

argument　where　no　arguement　can　be　found。　　So　let　us　stick　to　this

popular　sovereignty；this　insidious　popular　sovereignty。



Now　let　me　call　your　attention　to　one　thing　that　has　really　happened；

which　shows　this　gradual　and　steady　debauching　of　public　opinion；

this　course　of　preparation　for　the　revival　of　the　slave　trade；　for

the　Territorial　slave　code；　and　the　new　Dred　Scott　decision　that　is

to　carry　slavery　into　the　Free　States。　　Did　you　ever；　five　years　ago；

hear　of　anybody　in　the　world　saying　that　the　negro　had　no　share　in

the　Declaration　of　National　Independence；　that　it　does　not　mean

negroes　at　all；　and　when　〃all　men〃　were　spoken　of；　negroes　were　not

included？



I　am　satisfied　that　five　years　ago　that　proposition　was　not　put　upon

paper　by　any　living　being　anywhere。　　I　have　been　unable　at　any　time

to　find　a　man　in　an　audience　who　would　declare　that　he　had　ever　known

of　anybody　saying　so　five　years　ago。　　But　last　year　there　was　not　a

Douglas　popular　sovereign　in　Illinois　who　did　not　say　it。　　Is　there

one　in　Ohio　but　declares　his　firm　belief　that　the　Declaration　of

Independence　did　not　mean　negroes　at　all？　I　do　not　know　how　this　is；

I　have　not　been　here　much；　but　I　presume　you　are　very　much　alike

everywhere。　　Then　I　suppose　that　all　now　express　the　belief　that　the

Declaration　of　Independence　never　did　mean　negroes。　　I　call　upon　one

of　them　to　say　that　he　said　it　five　years　ago。



If　you　think　that　now；　and　did　not　think　it　then；　the　next　thing　that

strikes　me　is　to　remark　that　there　has　been　a　change　wrought　in　you；…

…and　a　very　significant　change　it　is；　being　no　less　than　changing　the

negro；　in　your　estimation；　from　the　rank　of　a　man　to　that　of　a　brute。

They　are　taking　him　down　and　placing　him；　when　spoken　of；　among

reptiles　and　crocodiles；　as　Judge　Douglas　himself　expresses　it。



Is　not　this　change　wrought　in　your　minds　a　very　important　change？

Public　opinion　in　this　country　is　everything。　　In　a　nation　like　ours；

this　popular　sovereignty　and　squatter　sovereignty　have　already

wrought　a　change　in　the　public　mind　to　the　extent　I　have　stated。

There　is　no　man　in　this　crowd　who　can　contradict　it。



Now；　if　you　are　opposed　to　slavery　honestly；　as　much　as　anybody；　I

ask　you　to　note　that　fact；　and　the　like　of　which　is　to　follow；　to　be

plastered　on；　layer　after　layer；　until　very　soon　you　are　prepared　to

deal　with　the　negro　every　where　as　with　the　brute。　　If　public

sentiment　has　not　been　debauched　already　to　this　point；　a　new　turn　of

the　screw　in　that　direction　is　all　that　is　wanting；　and　this　is

constantly　being　done　by　the　teachers　of　this　insidious　popular

sovereignty。　　You　need　but　one　or　two　turns　further；　until　your

minds；　now　ripening　under　these　teachings；　will　be　ready　for　all

these　things；　and　you　will　receive　and　support；　or　submit　to；　the

slave　trade；　revived　with　all　its　horrors；　a　slave　code　enforced　in

our　Territories；　and　a　new　Dred　Scott　decision　to　bring　slavery　up

into　the　very　heart　of　the　free　North。　　This；　I　must　say；　is　but

carrying　out　those　words　prophetically　spoken　by　Mr。　Clay；many；

many　years　ago；I　believe　more　than　thirty　years；　when　he　told　an

audience　that　if　they　would　repress　all　tendencies　to