the writings-5-第32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！





These　repeated　settlements　must　have　some　faults　about　them。　　There

must　be　some　inadequacy　in　their　very　nature　to　the　purpose　to　which

they　were　designed。　　We　can　only　speculate　as　to　where　that　fault；

that　inadequacy；　is；　but　we　may　perhaps　profit　by　past　experiences。



I　think　that　one　of　the　causes　of　these　repeated　failures　is　that　our

best　and　greatest　men　have　greatly　underestimated　the　size　of　this

question。　　They　have　constantly　brought　forward　small　cures　for　great

soresplasters　too　small　to　cover　the　wound。　　That　is　one　reason

that　all　settlements　have　proved　temporaryso　evanescent。



Look　at　the　magnitude　of　this　subject：　One　sixth　of　our　population；

in　round　numbersnot　quite　one　sixth；　and　yet　more　than　a　seventh；

about　one　sixth　of　the　whole　population　of　the　United　States　are

slaves。　　The　owners　of　these　slaves　consider　them　property。　　The

effect　upon　the　minds　of　the　owners　is　that　of　property；　and　nothing

else　it　induces　them　to　insist　upon　all　that　will　favorably　affect

its　value　as　property；　to　demand　laws　and　institutions　and　a　public

policy　that　shall　increase　and　secure　its　value；　and　make　it　durable；

lasting；　and　universal。　　The　effect　on　the　minds　of　the　owners　is　to

persuade　them　that　there　is　no　wrong　in　it。　　The　slaveholder　does　not

like　to　be　considered　a　mean　fellow　for　holding　that　species　of

property；　and　hence；　he　has　to　struggle　within　himself　and　sets　about

arguing　himself　into　the　belief　that　slavery　is　right。　　The　property

influences　his　mind。　　The　dissenting　minister　who　argued　some

theological　point　with　one　of　the　established　church　was　always　met

with　the　reply；　〃I　can't　see　it　so。〃　　He　opened　a　Bible　and　pointed

him　a　passage；　but　the　orthodox　minister　replied；　〃I　can't　see　it

so。〃　　Then　he　showed　him　a　single　word　〃Can　you　see　that？〃　〃Yes；　I

see　it；〃　was　the　reply。　　The　dissenter　laid　a　guinea　over　the　word

and　asked；　〃Do　you　see　it　now？〃　So　here。　　Whether　the　owners　of　this

species　of　property　do　really　see　it　as　it　is；　it　is　not　for　me　to

say；　but　if　they　do；　they　see　it　as　it　is　through　two　thousand

millions　of　dollars；　and　that　is　a　pretty　thick　coating。　　Certain　it

is　that　they　do　not　see　it　as　we　see　it。　　Certain　it　is　that　this　two

thousand　millions　of　dollars；　invested　in　this　species　of　property；

all　so　concentrated　that　the　mind　can　grasp　it　at　oncethis　immense

pecuniary　interesthas　its　influence　upon　their　minds。



But　here　in　Connecticut　and　at　the　North　slavery　does　not　exist；　and

we　see　it　through　no　such　medium。



To　us　it　appears　natural　to　think　that　slaves　are　human　beings；　men；

not　property；　that　some　of　the　things；　at　least；　stated　about　men　in

the　Declaration　of　Independence　apply　to　them　as　well　as　to　us。

I　say　we　think；　most　of　us；　that　this　charter　of　freedom　applies　to

the　slaves　as　well　as　to　ourselves；　that　the　class　of　arguments　put

forward　to　batter　down　that　idea　are　also　calculated　to　break　down

the　very　idea　of　a　free　government；　even　for　white　men；　and　to

undermine　the　very　foundations　of　free　society。　　We　think　slavery　a

great　moral　wrong；　and；　while　we　do　not　claim　the　right　to　touch　it

where　it　exists；　we　wish　to　treat　it　as　a　wrong　in　the　Territories；

where　our　votes　will　reach　it。　　We　think　that　a　respect　for

ourselves；　a　regard　for　future　generations　and　for　the　God　that　made

us；　require　that　we　put　down　this　wrong　where　our　votes　will　properly

reach　it。　　We　think　that　species　of　labor　an　injury　to　free　white　men

in　short；　we　think　slavery　a　great　moral；　social；　and　political

evil；　tolerable　only　because；　and　so　far　as；　its　actual　existence

makes　it　necessary　to　tolerate　it；　and　that　beyond　that　it　ought　to

be　treated　as　a　wrong。



Now　these　two　ideas；　the　property　idea　that　slavery　is　right；　and　the

idea　that　it　is　wrong；　come　into　collision；　and　do　actually　produce

that　irrepressible　conflict　which　Mr。　Seward　has　been　so　roundly

abused　for　mentioning。　　The　two　ideas　conflict；　and　must　conflict。



Again；　in　its　political　aspect；　does　anything　in　any　way　endanger　the

perpetuity　of　this　Union　but　that　single　thing；　slavery？　　Many　of　our

adversaries　are　anxious　to　claim　that　they　are　specially　devoted　to

the　Union；　and　take　pains　to　charge　upon　us　hostility　to　the　Union。

Now　we　claim　that　we　are　the　only　true　Union　men；　and　we　put　to　them

this　one　proposition：　Whatever　endangers　this　Union；　save　and　except

slavery？　　Did　any　other　thing　ever　cause　a　moment's　fear？　　All　men

must　agree　that　this　thing　alone　has　ever　endangered　the　perpetuity

of　the　Union。　　But　if　it　was　threatened　by　any　other　influence；　would

not　all　men　say　that　the　best　thing　that　could　be　done；　if　we　could

not　or　ought　not　to　destroy　it；　would　be　at　least　to　keep　it　from

growing　any　larger？　　Can　any　man　believe；　that　the　way　to　save　the

Union　is　to　extend　and　increase　the　only　thing　that　threatens　the

Union；　and　to　suffer　it　to　grow　bigger　and　bigger？



Whenever　this　question　shall　be　settled；　it　must　be　settled　on　some

philosophical　basis。　No　policy　that　does　not　rest　upon　some

philosophical　opinion　can　be　permanently　maintained。　　And　hence　there

are　but　two　policies　in　regard　to　slavery　that　can　be　at　all

maintained。　　The　first；　based　on　the　property　view　that　slavery　is

right；　conforms　to　that　idea　throughout；　and　demands　that　we　shall　do

everything　for　it　that　we　ought　to　do　if　it　were　right。　　We　must

sweep　away　all　opposition；　for　opposition　to　the　right　is　wrong；　we

must　agree　that　slavery　is　right；　and　we　must　adopt　the　idea　that

property　has　persuaded　the　owner　to　believe　that　slavery　is　morally

right　and　socially　elevating。　　This　gives　a　philosophical　basis　for　a

permanent　policy　of　encouragement。



The　other　policy　is　one　that　squares　with　the　idea　that　slavery　is

wrong；　and　it　consists　in　doing　everything　that　we　ought　to　do　if　it

is　wrong。　　Now；　I　don't　wish　to　be　misunderstood；　nor　to　leave　a　gap

down　to　be　misrepresented；　even。　　I　don't　mean　that　we　ought　to

attack　it　where　it　exists。　　To　me　it　seems　that　if　we　were　to　form　a

government　anew；　in　view　of　the　actual　presence　of　slavery　we　should

find　it　necessary　to　frame　just　such　a　government　as　our　fathers　did…

…giving　to　the　slaveholder　the　entire　control　where　the　system　was

established；　while　we　possessed　the　power　to　restrain　it　from　going

outside　those　limits。　　From　the　necessities　of　the　case　we　should　be

compelled　to　form　just　such　a　government　as　our　blessed　fathers　gave

us；　and；　surely；　if　they　have　so　made　it；　that　adds　another　reason

why　we　should　let　slavery　alone　where　it　exists。



If　I　saw　a　venomous　snake　crawling　in　the　road；　any　man　would　say　I

might　seize　the　nearest　stick　and　kill　it；　but　if　I　found　that　snake

in　bed　with　my　children；　that　would　be　another　question。　　I　might

hurt　the　children　more　than　the　snake；　and　it　might　bite　them。　　Much

more　if　I　found　it　in　bed　with　my　neighbor's　children；　and　I　had

bound　myself　by　a　solemn　compact　not　to　meddle　with　his　children

under　any　circumstances；　it　would　become　me　to　let　that　particular

mode　of　getting　rid　of　the　gentleman　alone。　　But　if　there　was　a　bed

newly　made　up；　to　which　the　children　were　to　be　taken；　and　it　was

proposed　to　take　a　batch　of　young　snakes　and　put　them　there　with

them；　I　take　it　no　man　would　say　there　was　any　question　how　I　ought

to　decide！



That　is　just　the　case。　　The　new　Territories　are　the　newly　made　bed　to

which　our　children　are　to　go；　and　it　lies　with　the　nation　to　say

whether　they　shall　have　snakes　mixed　up　with　them　or　not。　　It　does

not　seem　as　if　there　could　be　much　hesitation　what　our　policy　should

be！



Now　I　have　spoken　of　a　policy　based　on　the　idea　that　slavery　is

wrong；　and　a　policy　based　on　the　idea　that　it　is　right。　　But　an

effort　has　been　made　for　a　policy　that　shall　treat　it　as　neither

right　nor　wrong。　　It　is　based　upon　utter　indifference。　　Its　leading

advocate　＇Douglas＇　has　said；　〃I　don't　care　whether　it　be　voted　up　or

down。〃　〃It　is　me