the writings-3-第28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！



Union　as　a　State　without　disturbing　that　Compromise。　　There　was

no　sort　of　necessity　for　destroying　it　to　organize　these

Territories。　　But；　gentlemen；　it　would　take　up　all　my　time　to

meet　all　the　little　quibbling　arguments　of　Judge　Douglas　to　show

that　the　Missouri　Compromise　was　repealed　by　the　Compromise　of

1850。　　My　own　opinion　is；　that　a　careful　investigation　of　all　the

arguments　to　sustain　the　position　that　that　Compromise　was

virtually　repealed　by　the　Compromise　of　1850　would　show　that　they

are　the　merest　fallacies。　　I　have　the　report　that　Judge　Douglas

first　brought　into　Congress　at　the　time　of　the　introduction　of

the　Nebraska　Bill；　which　in　its　original　form　did　not　repeal　the

Missouri　Compromise；　and　he　there　expressly　stated　that　he　had

forborne　to　do　so　because　it　had　not　been　done　by　the　Compromise

of　1850。　　I　close　this　part　of　the　discussion　on　my　part　by

asking　him　the　question　again；　〃Why；　when　we　had　peace　under　the

Missouri　Compromise；　could　you　not　have　let　it　alone？〃



In　complaining　of　what　I　said　in　my　speech　at　Springfield；　in

which　he　says　I　accepted　my　nomination　for　the　senatorship

（where；　by　the　way；　he　is　at　fault；　for　if　he　will　examine　it；　he

will　find　no　acceptance　in　it）；　he　again　quotes　that　portion　in

which　I　said　that　〃a　house　divided　against　itself　cannot　stand。〃

Let　me　say　a　word　in　regard　to　that　matter。



He　tries　to　persuade　us　that　there　must　be　a　variety　in　the

different　institutions　of　the　States　of　the　Union；　that　that

variety　necessarily　proceeds　from　the　variety　of　soil；　climate；

of　the　face　of　the　country；　and　the　difference　in　the　natural

features　of　the　States。　　I　agree　to　all　that。　　Have　these　very

matters　ever　produced　any　difficulty　amongst　us？　　Not　at　all。

Have　we　ever　had　any　quarrel　over　the　fact　that　they　have　laws　in

Louisiana　designed　to　regulate　the　commerce　that　springs　from　the

production　of　sugar？　　Or　because　we　have　a　different　class

relative　to　the　production　of　flour　in　this　State？　　Have　they

produced　any　differences？　　Not　at　all。　　They　are　the　very　cements

of　this　Union。　　They　don't　make　the　house　a　house　divided　against

itself。　　They　are　the　props　that　hold　up　the　house　and　sustain

the　Union。



But　has　it　been　so　with　this　element　of　slavery？　　Have　we　not

always　had　quarrels　and　difficulties　over　it？　　And　when　will　we

cease　to　have　quarrels　over　it？　　Like　causes　produce　like

effects。　　It　is　worth　while　to　observe　that　we　have　generally　had

comparative　peace　upon　the　slavery　question；　and　that　there　has

been　no　cause　for　alarm　until　it　was　excited　by　the　effort　to

spread　it　into　new　territory。　　Whenever　it　has　been　limited　to

its　present　bounds；　and　there　has　been　no　effort　to　spread　it；

there　has　been　peace。　　All　the　trouble　and　convulsion　has

proceeded　from　efforts　to　spread　it　over　more　territory。　　It　was

thus　at　the　date　of　the　Missouri　Compromise。　　It　was　so　again

with　the　annexation　of　Texas；　so　with　the　territory　acquired　by

the　Mexican　war；　and　it　is　so　now。　　Whenever　there　has　been　an

effort　to　spread　it；　there　has　been　agitation　and　resistance。

Now；　I　appeal　to　this　audience　（very　few　of　whom　are　my　political

friends）；　as　national　men；　whether　we　have　reason　to　expect　that

the　agitation　in　regard　to　this　subject　will　cease　while　the

causes　that　tend　to　reproduce　agitation　are　actively　at　work？

Will　not　the　same　cause　that　produced　agitation　in　1820；　when　the

Missouri　Compromise　was　formed；　that　which　produced　the　agitation

upon　the　annexation　of　Texas；　and　at　other　times；　work　out　the

same　results　always？　　Do　you　think　that　the　nature　of　man　will　be

changed；　that　the　same　causes　that　produced　agitation　at　one　time

will　not　have　the　same　effect　at　another？



This　has　been　the　result　so　far　as　my　observation　of　the　slavery

question　and　my　reading　in　history　extends。　　What　right　have　we

then　to　hope　that　the　trouble　will　cease；that　the　agitation

will　come　to　an　end；until　it　shall　either　be　placed　back　where

it　originally　stood；　and　where　the　fathers　originally　placed　it；

or；　on　the　other　hand；　until　it　shall　entirely　master　all

opposition？　　This　is　the　view　I　entertain；　and　this　is　the　reason

why　I　entertained　it；　as　Judge　Douglas　has　read　from　my

Springfield　speech。



Now；　my　friends；　there　is　one　other　thing　that　I　feel　myself

under　some　sort　of　obligation　to　mention。　　Judge　Douglas　has　here

to…dayin　a　very　rambling　way；　I　was　about　sayingspoken　of　the

platforms　for　which　he　seeks　to　hold　me　responsible。　　He　says；

〃Why　can't　you　come　out　and　make　an　open　avowal　of　principles　in

all　places　alike？〃　and　he　reads　from　an　advertisement　that　he

says　was　used　to　notify　the　people　of　a　speech　to　be　made　by

Judge　Trumbull　at　Waterloo。　　In　commenting　on　it　he　desires　to

know　whether　we　cannot　speak　frankly　and　manfully；　as　he　and　his

friends　do。　　How；　I　ask；　do　his　friends　speak　out　their　own

sentiments？　　A　Convention　of　his　party　in　this　State　met　on　the

21st　of　April　at　Springfield；　and　passed　a　set　of　resolutions

which　they　proclaim　to　the　country　as　their　platform。　　This　does

constitute　their　platform；　and　it　is　because　Judge　Douglas　claims

it　is　his　platformthat　these　are　his　principles　and　purposes

that　he　has　a　right　to　declare　he　speaks　his　sentiments　〃frankly

and　manfully。〃　　On　the　9th　of　June　Colonel　John　Dougherty；

Governor　Reynolds；　and　others；　calling　themselves　National

Democrats；　met　in　Springfield　and　adopted　a　set　of　resolutions

which　are　as　easily　understood；　as　plain　and　as　definite　in

stating　to　the　country　and　to　the　world　what　they　believed　in　and

would　stand　upon；　as　Judge　Douglas's　platform　　Now；　what　is　the

reason　that　Judge　Douglas　is　not　willing　that　Colonel　Dougherty

and　Governor　Reynolds　should　stand　upon　their　own　written　and

printed　platform　as　well　as　he　upon　his？　　Why　must　he　look

farther　than　their　platform　when　he　claims　himself　to　stand　by

his　platform？



Again；　in　reference　to　our　platform：　On　the　16th　of　June　the

Republicans　had　their　Convention　and　published　their　platform；

which　is　as　clear　and　distinct　as　Judge　Douglas's。　　In　it　they

spoke　their　principles　as　plainly　and　as　definitely　to　the　world。

What　is　the　reason　that　Judge　Douglas　is　not　willing　I　should

stand　upon　that　platform？　　Why　must　he　go　around　hunting　for　some

one　who　is　supporting　me　or　has　supported　me　at　some　time　in　his

life；　and　who　has　said　something　at　some　time　contrary　to　that

platform？　　Does　the　Judge　regard　that　rule　as　a　good　one？　　If　it

turn　out　that　the　rule　is　a　good　one　for　methat　I　am

responsible　for　any　and　every　opinion　that　any　man　has　expressed

who　is　my　friend；then　it　is　a　good　rule　for　him。　　I　ask；　is　it

not　as　good　a　rule　for　him　as　it　is　for　me？　　In　my　opinion；　it　is

not　a　good　rule　for　either　of　us。　　Do　you　think　differently；

Judge？



＇Mr。　DOUGLAS：　I　do　not。＇



Judge　Douglas　says　he　does　not　think　differently。　　I　am　glad　of

it。　　Then　can　he　tell　me　why　he　is　looking　up　resolutions　of　five

or　six　years　ago；　and　insisting　that　they　were　my　platform；

notwithstanding　my　protest　that　they　are　not；　and　never　were　my

platform；　and　my　pointing　out　the　platform　of　the　State

Convention　which　he　delights　to　say　nominated　me　for　the　Senate？

I　cannot　see　what　he　means　by　parading　these　resolutions；　if　it

is　not　to　hold　me　responsible　for　them　in　some　way。　　If　he　says

to　me　here　that　he　does　not　hold　the　rule　to　be　good；　one　way　or

the　other；　I　do　not　comprehend　how　he　could　answer　me　more　fully

if　he　answered　me　at　greater　length。　　I　will　therefore　put　in　as

my　answer　to　the　resolutions　that　he　has　hunted　up　against　me；

what　I；　as　a　lawyer；　would　call　a　good　plea　to　a　bad　declaration。

I　understand　that　it　is　an　axiom　of　law　that　a　poor　plea　may　be　a

good　plea　to　a　bad　declaration。　　I　think　that　the　opinions　the

Judge　brings　from　those　who　support　me；　yet　differ　from　me；　is　a

bad　declaration　against　me；　but　if　I　can　bring　the　same　things

against　him；　I　am　pu