the writings-5-第34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！





Perhaps　you　will　plead　that　if　the　people　of　the　slave　States　should

themselves　set　on　foot　an　effort　for　emancipation；　you　would　wish

them　success；　and　bid　them　God…speed。　　Let　us　test　that：　In　1858　the

emancipation　party　of　Missouri；　with　Frank　Blair　at　their　head；　tried

to　get　up　a　movement　for　that　purpose；　and　having　started　a　party

contested　the　State。　　Blair　was　beaten；　apparently　if　not　truly；　and

when　the　news　came　to　Connecticut；　you；　who　knew　that　Frank　Blair　was

taking　hold　of　this　thing　by　the　right　end；　and　doing　the　only　thing

that　you　say　can　properly　be　done　to　remove　this　wrongdid　you　bow

your　heads　in　sorrow　because　of　that　defeat？　Do　you；　any　of　you；　know

one　single　Democrat　that　showed　sorrow　over　that　result？　Not　one！　On

the　contrary　every　man　threw　up　his　hat；　and　hallooed　at　the　top　of

his　lungs；　〃Hooray　for　Democracy！〃



Now；　gentlemen；　the　Republicans　desire　to　place　this　great　question

of　slavery　on　the　very　basis　on　which　our　fathers　placed　it；　and　no

other。　　It　is　easy　to　demonstrate　that　〃our　fathers；　who　framed　this

Government　under　which　we　live；〃　looked　on　slavery　as　wrong；　and　so

framed　it　and　everything　about　it　as　to　square　with　the　idea　that　it

was　wrong；　so　far　as　the　necessities　arising　from　its　existence

permitted。　　In　forming　the　Constitution　they　found　the　slave　trade

existing；　capital　invested　in　it；　fields　depending　upon　it　for　labor；

and　the　whole　system　resting　upon　the　importation　of　slave　labor。

They　therefore　did　not　prohibit　the　slave　trade　at　once；　but　they

gave　the　power　to　prohibit　it　after　twenty　years。　　Why　was　this？　What

other　foreign　trade　did　they　treat　in　that　way？　Would　they　have　done

this　if　they　had　not　thought　slavery　wrong？



Another　thing　was　done　by　some　of　the　same　men　who　framed　the

Constitution；　and　afterwards　adopted　as　their　own　the　act　by　the

first　Congress　held　under　that　Constitution；　of　which　many　of　the

framers　were　members；　that　prohibited　the　spread　of　slavery　into

Territories。　　Thus　the　same　men；　the　framers　of　the　Constitution；　cut

off　the　supply　and　prohibited　the　spread　of　slavery；　and　both　acts

show　conclusively　that　they　considered　that　the　thing　was　wrong。



If　additional　proof　is　wanted　it　can　be　found　in　the　phraseology　of

the　Constitution。　　When　men　are　framing　a　supreme　law　and　chart　of

government；　to　secure　blessings　and　prosperity　to　untold　generations

yet　to　come；　they　use　language　as　short　and　direct　and　plain　as　can

be　found；　to　express　their　meaning　　In　all　matters　but　this　of

slavery　the　framers　of　the　Constitution　used　the　very　clearest；

shortest；　and　most　direct　language。　　But　the　Constitution　alludes　to

slavery　three　times　without　mentioning　it　once　　The　language　used

becomes　ambiguous；　roundabout；　and　mystical。　　They　speak　of　the

〃immigration　of　persons；〃　and　mean　the　importation　of　slaves；　but　do

not　say　so。　　In　establishing　a　basis　of　representation　they　say　〃all

other　persons；〃　when　they　mean　to　say　slaveswhy　did　they　not　use

the　shortest　phrase？　In　providing　for　the　return　of　fugitives　they

say　〃persons　held　to　service　or　labor。〃　If　they　had　said　slaves　it

would　have　been　plainer；　and　less　liable　to　misconstruction。　　Why　did

n't　they　do　it？　We　cannot　doubt　that　it　was　done　on　purpose。　　Only

one　reason　is　possible；　and　that　is　supplied　us　by　one　of　the　framers

of　the　Constitutionand　it　is　not　possible　for　man　to　conceive　of

any　otherthey　expected　and　desired　that　the　system　would　come　to　an

end；　and　meant　that　when　it　did；　the　Constitution　should　not　show

that　there　ever　had　been　a　slave　in　this　good　free　country　of　ours。



I　will　dwell　on　that　no　longer。　　I　see　the　signs　of　approaching

triumph　of　the　Republicans　in　the　bearing　of　their　political

adversaries。　　　A　great　deal　of　their　war　with　us　nowadays　is　mere

bushwhacking。　　At　the　battle　of　Waterloo；　when　Napoleon's　cavalry　had

charged　again　and　again　upon　the　unbroken　squares　of　British

infantry；　at　last　they　were　giving　up　the　attempt；　and　going　off　in

disorder；　when　some　of　the　officers　in　mere　vexation　and　complete

despair　fired　their　pistols　at　those　solid　squares。　　The　Democrats

are　in　that　sort　of　extreme　desperation；　it　is　nothing　else。　　I　will

take　up　a　few　of　these　arguments。



There　is　〃the　irrepressible　conflict。〃　　How　they　rail　at　Seward　for

that　saying！　They　repeat　it　constantly；　and；　although　the　proof　has

been　thrust　under　their　noses　again　and　again　that　almost　every　good

man　since　the　formation　of　our　Government　has　uttered　that　same

sentiment；　from　General　Washington；　who　〃trusted　that　we　should　yet

have　a　confederacy　of　free　States；〃　with　Jefferson；　Jay；　Monroe；　down

to　the　latest　days；　yet　they　refuse　to　notice　that　at　all；　and

persist　in　railing　at　Seward　for　saying　it。　　Even　Roger　A。　Pryor；

editor　of　the　Richmond　Enquirer；　uttered　the　same　sentiment　in　almost

the　same　language；　and　yet　so　little　offence　did　it　give　the

Democrats　that　he　was　sent　for　to　Washington　to　edit　the　Statesthe

Douglas　organ　therewhile　Douglas　goes　into　hydrophobia　and　spasms

of　rage　because　Seward　dared　to　repeat　it。　　This　is　what　I　call

bushwhacking；　a　sort　of　argument　that　they　must　know　any　child　can

see　through。



Another　is　John　Brown：　〃You　stir　up　insurrections；　you　invade　the

South；　John　Brown！　Harper's　Ferry！〃　　Why；　John　Brown　was　not　a

Republican！　　You　have　never　implicated　a　single　Republican　in　that

Harper's　Ferry　enterprise。　　We　tell　you　that　if　any　member　of　the

Republican　party　is　guilty　in　that　matter；　you　know　it　or　you　do　not

know　it。　　If　you　do　know　it；　you　are　inexcusable　not　to　designate　the

man　and　prove　the　fact。　　If　you　do　not　know　it；　you　are　inexcusable

to　assert　it；　and　especially　to　persist　in　the　assertion　after　you

have　tried　and　failed　to　make　the　proof。　　You　need　not　be　told　that

persisting　in　a　charge　which　one　does　not　know　to　be　true　is　simply

malicious　slander。　　Some　of　you　admit　that　no　Republican　designedly

aided　or　encouraged　the　Harper's　Ferry　affair；　but　still　insist　that

our　doctrines　and　declarations　necessarily　lead　to　such　results。　　We

do　not　believe　it。　　We　know　we　hold　to　no　doctrines；　and　make　no

declarations；　which　were　not　held　to　and　made　by　our　fathers　who

framed　the　Government　'under　which　we　live；　and　we　cannot　see　how

declarations　that　were　patriotic　when　they　made　them　are　villainous

when　we　make　them。　　You　never　dealt　fairly　by　us　in　relation　to　that

affairand　I　will　say　frankly　that　I　know　of　nothing　in　your

character　that　should　lead　us　to　suppose　that　you　would。　　You　had

just　been　soundly　thrashed　in　elections　in　several　States；　and　others

were　soon　to　come。　　You　rejoiced　at　the　occasion；　and　only　were

troubled　that　there　were　not　three　times　as　many　killed　in　the

affair。　　You　were　in　evident　glee；　there　was　no　sorrow　for　the　killed

nor　for　the　peace　of　Virginia　disturbed；　you　were　rejoicing　that　by

charging　Republicans　with　this　thing　you　might　get　an　advantage　of　us

in　New　York；　and　the　other　States。　　You　pulled　that　string　as　tightly

as　you　could；　but　your　very　generous　and　worthy　expectations　were　not

quite　fulfilled。　　Each　Republican　knew　that　the　charge　was　a　slander

as　to　himself　at　least；　and　was　not　inclined　by　it　to　cast　his　vote

in　your　favor。　　It　was　mere　bushwhacking；　because　you　had　nothing

else　to　do。　　You　are　still　on　that　track；　and　I　say；　go　on！　If　you

think　you　can　slander　a　woman　into　loving　you　or　a　man　into　voting

for　you；　try　it　till　you　are　satisfied！



Another　specimen　of　this　bushwhacking；　that　〃shoe　strike。〃　Now　be　it

understood　that　I　do　not　pretend　to　know　all　about　the　matter。　　I　am

merely　going　to　speculate　a　little　about　some　of　its　phases。　　And　at

the　outset；　I　am　glad　to　see　that　a　system　of　labor　prevails　in　New

England　under　which　laborers　can　strike　when　they　want　to；　where　they

are　not　obliged　to　work　under　all　circumstances；　and　are　not　tied

down　and　obliged　to　labor　whether　you　pay　them　or　not！　I　like　the

system　wh