the writings-5-第27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！



understanding；　any　proper　division　between　local　and　Federal。

authority；　or　anything　in　the　Constitution　they　had　made　themselves；

and　sworn　to　support；　forbade　the　Federal　Government　to　control　as　to

slavery　in　the　Federal　Territories。　　Thus　the　twenty…one　acted；　and；

as　actions　speak　louder　than　words；　so　actions　under　such

responsibilities　speak　still　louder。



Two　of　the　twenty…three　voted　against　Congressional　prohibition　of

slavery　in　the　Federal　Territories；　in　the　instances　in　which　they

acted　upon　the　question。　But　for　what　reasons　they　so　voted　is　not

known。　　They　may　have　done　so　because　they　thought　a　proper　division

of　local　from　Federal　authority；　or　some　provision　or　principle　of

the　Constitution；　stood　in　the　way；　or　they　may；　without　any　such

question；　have　voted　against　the　prohibition　on　what　appeared　to　them

to　be　sufficient　grounds　of　expediency。　　No　one　who　has　sworn　to

support　the　Constitution　can　conscientiously　vote　for　what　he

understands　to　be　an　unconstitutional　measure；　however　expedient　he

may　think　it；　but　one　may　and　ought　to　vote　against　a　measure　which

he　deems　constitutional；　if；　at　the　same　time；　he　deems　it

inexpedient。　　It　therefore　would　be　unsafe　to　set　down　even　the　two

who　voted　against　the　prohibition　as　having　done　so　because；　in　their

understanding；　any　proper　division　of　local　from　Federal　authority；

or　anything　in　the　Constitution；　forbade　the　Federal　Government　to

control　as　to　slavery　in　Federal　territory。



The　remaining　sixteen　of　the　〃thirty…nine；〃　so　far　as　I　have

discovered；　have　left　no　record　of　their　understanding　upon　the

direct　question　of　Federal　control　on　slavery　in　the　Federal

Territories。　But　there　is　much　reason　to　believe　that　their

understanding　upon　that　question　would　not　have　appeared　different

from　that　of　their　twenty…three　compeers；　had　it　been　manifested　at

all。



For　the　purpose　of　adhering　rigidly　to　the　text；　I　have　purposely

omitted　whatever　understanding　may　have　been　manifested　by　any

person；　however　distinguished；　other　than　the　thirty…nine　fathers　who

framed　the　original　Constitution；　and；　for　the　same　reason；　I　have

also　omitted　whatever　understanding　may　have　been　manifested　by　any

of　the　〃thirty　tine〃　even　on　any　other　phase　of　the　general　question

of　slavery。　　If　we　should　look　into　their　acts　and　declarations　on

those　other　phases；　as　the　foreign　slave　trade；　and　the　morality　and

policy　of　slavery　generally；　it　would　appear　to　us　that　on　the　direct

question　of　Federal　control　of　slavery　in　Federal　Territories；　the

sixteen；　if　they　had　acted　at　all；　would　probably　have　acted　just　as

the　twenty…three　did。　Among　that　sixteen　were　several　of　the　most

noted　anti…slavery　men　of　those　timesas　Dr。　Franklin；　Alexander

Hamilton；　and　Gouverneur　Morris　while　there　was　not　one　now　known　to

have　been　otherwise；　unless　it　may　be　John　Rutledge；　of　South

Carolina。



The　sum　of　the　whole　is；　that　of　our　thirty…nine　fathers　who　framed

the　original　Constitution；　twenty…onea　clear　majority　of　the

wholecertainly　understood　that　no　proper　division　of　local　from

Federal　authority；　nor　any　part　of　the　Constitution；　forbade　the

Federal　Government　to　control　slavery　in　the　Federal　Territories；

whilst　all　the　rest　probably　had　the　same　understanding。　　Such；

unquestionably；　was　the　understanding　of　our　fathers　who　framed　the

original　Constitution；　and　the　text　affirms　that　they　understood　the

question　〃better　than　we。〃



But；　so　far；　I　have　been　considering　the　understanding　of　the

question　manifested　by　the　framers　of　the　original　Constitution。　　In

and　by　the　original　instrument；　a　mode　was　provided　for　amending　it；

and；　as　I　have　already　stated；　the　present　frame　of　〃the　Government

under　which　we　live〃　consists　of　that　original；　and　twelve　amendatory

articles　framed　and　adopted　since。　Those　who　now　insist　that　Federal

control　of　slavery　in　Federal　Territories　violates　the　Constitution；

point　us　to　the　provisions　which　they　suppose　it　thus　violates；　and；

as　I　understand；　they　all　fix　upon　provisions　in　these　amendatory

articles；　and　not　in　the　original　instrument。　　The　Supreme　Court；　in

the　Dred　Scott　case；　plant　themselves　upon　the　fifth　amendment；　which

provides　that　no　person　shall　be　deprived　of　〃life；　liberty；　or

property　without　due　process　of　law〃；　while　Senator　Douglas　and　his

peculiar　adherents　plant　themselves　upon　the　tenth　amendment；

providing　that　〃the　powers　not　delegated　to　the　United　States　by　the

Constitution〃　　〃are　reserved　to　the　States　respectively；　or　to　the

people。〃



Now；　it　so　happens　that　these　amendments　were　framed　by　the　first

Congress　which　sat　under　the　Constitutionthe　identical　Congress

which　passed　the　act　already　mentioned；　enforcing　the　prohibition　of

slavery　in　the　Northwestern　Territory。　　Not　only　was　it　the　same

Congress；　but　they　were　the　identical　same　individual　men　who；　at　the

same　session；　and　at　the　same　time　within　the　session；　had　under

consideration；　and　in　progress　toward　maturity；　these　Constitutional

amendments；　and　this　act　prohibiting　slavery　in　all　the　territory　the

nation　then　owned。　　The　Constitutional　amendments　were　introduced

before　and　passed　after　the　act　enforcing　the　Ordinance　of　'87；　so

that；　during　the　whole　pendency　of　the　act　to　enforce　the　Ordinance；

the　Constitutional　amendments　were　also　pending。



The　seventy…six　members　of　that　Congress；　including　sixteen　of　the

framers　of　the　original　Constitution；　as　before　stated；　were

pre…eminently　our　fathers　who　framed　that　part　of　〃the　Government

under　which　we　live；〃　which　is　now　claimed　as　forbidding　the　Federal

Government　to　control　slavery　in　the　Federal　Territories。



Is　it　not　a　little　presumptuous　in　any　one　at　this　day　to　affirm　that

the　two　things　which　that　Congress　deliberately　framed；　and　carried

to　maturity　at　the　same　time；　are　absolutely　inconsistent　with　each

other？　　And　does　not　such　affirmation　become　impudently　absurd　when

coupled　with　the　other　affirmation　from　the　same　mouth；　that　those

who　did　the　two　things　alleged　to　be　inconsistent　understood　whether

they　really　were　inconsistent　better　than　webetter　than　he　who

affirms　that　they　are　inconsistent？



It　is　surely　safe　to　assume　that　the　thirty…nine　framers　of　the

original　Constitution；　and　the　seventy…six　members　of　the　Congress

which　framed　the　amendments　thereto；　taken　together；　do　certainly

include　those　who　may　be　fairly　called　〃our　fathers　who　framed　the

Government　under　which　we　live。〃　　And；　so　assuming；　I　defy　any　man　to

show　that　any　one　of　them　ever；　in　his　whole　life；　declared　that；　in

his　understanding；　any　proper　division　of　local　from　Federal

authority；　or　any　part　of　the　Constitution；　forbade　the　Federal

Government　to　control　as　to　slavery　in　the　Federal　Territories。　　I　go

a　step　further。　　I　defy　any　one　to　show　that　any　living　man　in　the

world　ever　did；　prior　to　the　beginning　of　the　present　century　（and　I

might　almost　say　prior　to　the　beginning　of　the　last　half　of　the

present　century）；　declare　that；　in　his　understanding；　any　proper

division　of　local　from　Federal　authority；　or　any　part　of　the

Constitution；　forbade　the　Federal　Government　to　control　as　to　slavery

in　the　Federal　Territories。　　To　those　who　now　so　declare；　I　give　not

only　〃our　fathers　who　framed　the　Government　under　which　we　live；〃　but

with　them　all　other　living　men　within　the　century　in　which　it　was

framed；　among　whom　to　search；　and　they　shall　not　be　able　to　find　the

evidence　of　a　single　man　agreeing　with　them。



Now　and　here　let　me　guard　a　little　against　being　misunderstood。　I　do

not　mean　to　say　we　are　bound　to　follow　implicitly　in　whatever　our

fathers　did。　　To　do　so　would　be　to　discard　all　the　lights　of　current

experience　to　reject　all　progress；　all　improvement。　　What　I　do　say　is

that；　if　we　would　supplant　the　opinions　and　policy　of　our　fathers　in

any　case；　we　should　do　so　upon　evidence　so　conclusive；　and　argument

so　clear；　that　eve